PS5, is building a PC viable anymore?

[Ayush007]

26 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

You know there are like 100 GOTYs right? Doesn’t even have to be any good. There are much better games than God of War in the same genre. It’s actually kinda boring. 

Which one u like ??

[Ertman]

On 4/8/2020 at 5:11 AM, juandeag2k said:

Looking at the specs of the PS5, is this gonna be a generation where building a PC for the same price as a console for comparable performance is impossible?

Wasn't there a ton of videos AT LAUNCH where they had difficulties meeting the performance at the same price for current gen without going the used route? 

 

It didn't take long for the PCs to equal then surpass consoles, and it won't be any different this next gen.

[Lord Vile]

5 hours ago, Ertman said:

Wasn't there a ton of videos AT LAUNCH where they had difficulties meeting the performance at the same price for current gen without going the used route? 

 

It didn't take long for the PCs to equal then surpass consoles, and it won't be any different this next gen.

Be longer this gen. last gen consoles were anaemic especially in the CPU department. I mean I still don’t think you can match an Xbox One X for the same price without going used. What a 2200g is £80 board for £60 GPU for £120 ram for £60 1TB HDD £40, PSU is £60, case for £50 that’s £450~. Xbox X is £300~ atm plus you get a £150 4K blu ray player in it. 

[Ertman]

4 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

Be longer this gen. last gen consoles were anaemic especially in the CPU department. I mean I still don’t think you can match an Xbox One X for the same price without going used. What a 2200g is £80 board for £60 GPU for £120 ram for £60 1TB HDD £40, PSU is £60, case for £50 that’s £450~. Xbox X is £300~ atm plus you get a £150 4K blu ray player in it. 

The X's price is competitive mainly due to console makers dropping price over time. There is a point where a system build can't get cheaper, the cost of buying the component separately is just too expensive. The consoles don't have the same limitation, or atleast the price point where it bottoms out is much lower because of economies of scale and that the cost of some components continues to go down over time, where normally with PCs those components are no longer manufactured.. 

 

I don't know if it will truly be longer this gen, it should be, but it will all depend on the launch and sustained price, this is a valuation after all. The CPU last gen was the main culprit, although multithreaded coding was still improving at the time taking better advantage of the many lower speed cores to latest provide competitive gaming experience for the price. 

[Lord Vile]

2 minutes ago, Ertman said:

The X's price is competitive mainly due to console makers dropping price over time. There is a point where a system build can't get cheaper, the cost of buying the component separately is just too expensive. The consoles don't have the same limitation, or atleast the price point where it bottoms out is much lower because of economies of scale and that the cost of some components continues to go down over time, where normally with PCs those components are no longer manufactured.. 

 

I don't know if it will truly be longer this gen, it should be, but it will all depend on the launch and sustained price, this is a valuation after all. The CPU last gen was the main culprit, although multithreaded coding was still improving at the time taking better advantage of the many lower speed cores to latest provide competitive gaming experience for the price. 

Even at launch it was 400 and you couldn't match it. Pc components get cheaper over time too, especially with the used market and with performance tiers dropping . For example when the 1060 launched at under 300 it was around the same as the just under 600 card the GTX 980 which was only 2 years old. 

 

I'm just hoping for better multicore support now the consoles have 16 threads to work with which will be even more bad news to intel lol.

[centurion_08]

Well, this topic hits home with me on every level. Just today, i've asked in gpu forum section, what, if anything, should i upgrade in my pc.

Really low end pc, which stuggles with new triple A games. I enjoy playing games but i can't afford to go all out on high end stuff. History shows that on every console launch, pc's are behind for quite a bit. Then they catch up and overtake. And THEN, in a long game consoles get optimized games and pc users need to make it up with stronger and more expensive hardware. It all comes down to price at launch but i bet your ass, you won't be able to build a rig which will compete performance wise.

[Ertman]

On 4/11/2020 at 8:21 AM, Lord Vile said:

Even at launch it was 400 and you couldn't match it. Pc components get cheaper over time too, especially with the used market and with performance tiers dropping . For example when the 1060 launched at under 300 it was around the same as the just under 600 card the GTX 980 which was only 2 years old. 

 

I'm just hoping for better multicore support now the consoles have 16 threads to work with which will be even more bad news to intel lol.

We can already thank consoles for pushing developers towards more multi-threaded games. While developers have been slowly adopting the use of more threads in their games, it was far more dominant that games were stagnating at just a couple threads. It was likely due to the low power 8 core cpus in consoles that has forced the creation of some games we see today that can use 8+threads. 

 

The newer consoles are just going to continue the existing trend.

[Lord Vile]

9 minutes ago, Ertman said:

We can already thank consoles for pushing developers towards more multi-threaded games. While developers have been slowly adopting the use of more threads in their games, it was far more dominant that games were stagnating at just a couple threads. It was likely due to the low power 8 core cpus in consoles that has forced the creation of some games we see today that can use 8+threads. 

 

The newer consoles are just going to continue the existing trend.

Well don’t the consoles really only have 4 cores cos they’re built of the same foundation as the FX chips?

[kokakolia]

20 hours ago, centurion_08 said:

Well, this topic hits home with me on every level. Just today, i've asked in gpu forum section, what, if anything, should i upgrade in my pc.

Really low end pc, which stuggles with new triple A games. I enjoy playing games but i can't afford to go all out on high end stuff. History shows that on every console launch, pc's are behind for quite a bit. Then they catch up and overtake. And THEN, in a long game consoles get optimized games and pc users need to make it up with stronger and more expensive hardware. It all comes down to price at launch but i bet your ass, you won't be able to build a rig which will compete performance wise.

If you think it's bad today, PCs were the biggest letdown in the 2000s. Just installing a game and playing it required a lot of troubleshooting and patches (Direct X, codecs, drivers etc...). I still have nightmares about Gothic 3. I spent a huge chunk of my savings as a little kid to play this game. Then I spent a week figuring out how to install and it ran like a slideshow. And in the end the game was utterly boring and forgettable. And worse, your PC would unexpectedly slow down and run hot with just a few years.  Computer viruses were way more frequent and annoying to deal with as well. We've come a long way with PCs, thanks to better security, performance and game clients like Steam. Looking back at all of this unnecessary frustration, the PS2 was quite the formidable proposition. It played DVDs and there were thousands of games, hundreds of which were a lot of fun. And best of all, no viruses and no install BS. You could rent, trade and sell games with ease. Those were the good days. 

 

Even today, PCs still kind of suck. I mean, the price of a decent motherboard, case and PSU almost matches the price of a console. And before you know it, you spend $1000 on something that will become "slow and obsolete" in 5 years time. And when you build your very first PC you have to account for the peripherals and monitor as well. That stuff adds up to hundreds of dollars, the price of a console literally. With a console, all you need is a TV. I am starting to believe that the most enjoyable thing about PC gaming is literally the hardware. Shopping for good deals on parts, matching components and putting everything together. I know several people with awesome gaming PCs which are collecting dust as we speak. The owners were thrilled about building their very own personal computer but completely neglected the next part: actually playing games. 

 

Looking at the Nintendo Switch and its catalogue of fun games with yesteryear graphics, I couldn't give two poops about performance. Just release games with unique and interesting world and character designs and I'm sold. If your game looks like brown vomit in HD (i.e. Call of Duty, Skyrim and Fallout especially), then better graphics won't make a difference. 

 

[centurion_08]

3 hours ago, kokakolia said:

If you think it's bad today, PCs were the biggest letdown in the 2000s. Just installing a game and playing it required a lot of troubleshooting and patches (Direct X, codecs, drivers etc...). I still have nightmares about Gothic 3. I spent a huge chunk of my savings as a little kid to play this game. Then I spent a week figuring out how to install and it ran like a slideshow. And in the end the game was utterly boring and forgettable. And worse, your PC would unexpectedly slow down and run hot with just a few years.  Computer viruses were way more frequent and annoying to deal with as well. We've come a long way with PCs, thanks to better security, performance and game clients like Steam. Looking back at all of this unnecessary frustration, the PS2 was quite the formidable proposition. It played DVDs and there were thousands of games, hundreds of which were a lot of fun. And best of all, no viruses and no install BS. You could rent, trade and sell games with ease. Those were the good days. 

 

Even today, PCs still kind of suck. I mean, the price of a decent motherboard, case and PSU almost matches the price of a console. And before you know it, you spend $1000 on something that will become "slow and obsolete" in 5 years time. And when you build your very first PC you have to account for the peripherals and monitor as well. That stuff adds up to hundreds of dollars, the price of a console literally. With a console, all you need is a TV. I am starting to believe that the most enjoyable thing about PC gaming is literally the hardware. Shopping for good deals on parts, matching components and putting everything together. I know several people with awesome gaming PCs which are collecting dust as we speak. The owners were thrilled about building their very own personal computer but completely neglected the next part: actually playing games. 

 

Looking at the Nintendo Switch and its catalogue of fun games with yesteryear graphics, I couldn't give two poops about performance. Just release games with unique and interesting world and character designs and I'm sold. If your game looks like brown vomit in HD (i.e. Call of Duty, Skyrim and Fallout especially), then better graphics won't make a difference. 

 

Sweet baby Jesus, finally i found someone who thinks alike. (No homo) I'm literally in the exact position. Just about 2 years ago i had to sell my main PC. (4790k, gtx 1060 6gb, 16gb ddr3) I had it for couple of years, paid out of my ass.At one point i realised, i'm barely playing games anymore. Constant benchmarks, building videos, tuning, or just wasting time on bullshit. Not to mention problem i had with games i legitimately bought. Crashes, missing files, driver error. Holy smokes, i just want to play the fucking thing. So many distractions. In 7 years of having full pc hard-on, i finished about 13 games. Then, 2 years ago i bought ps4 and up untill today i finished about 21 games, full platinum.

Now i bought for me and my son a low end pc to play Crpgs, rts's etc and stuff is repeating again.

[Ertman]

23 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

Well don’t the consoles really only have 4 cores cos they’re built of the same foundation as the FX chips?

No, AFAIK they are built on a different architecture. They have Jaguar cores, built on the bobcat design.

 

Not sure how the "FX" architecture thing is still floating around after 7 years.

 

Fun Fact: Jaguar cores were used on the AM1 platform, but the highest number of cores available for the AM1 socket were 4.

[Lord Vile]

25 minutes ago, Ertman said:

No, AFAIK they are built on a different architecture. They have Jaguar cores, built on the bobcat design.

 

Not sure how the "FX" architecture thing is still floating around after 7 years.

 

Fun Fact: Jaguar cores were used on the AM1 platform, but the highest number of cores available for the AM1 socket were 4.

Looking at diagrams they look very similar just sharing L2 and L3 cache between 4 cores not 8.

[Ertman]

14 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

Looking at diagrams they look very similar just sharing L2 and L3 cache between 4 cores not 8.

They are different architectures. You might want to look at the module core design of the FX series and compare that to the  Jaguars.  Basically more shared components. A non insignificant difference is the FPU. 

[Warin]

Horizon Zero Dawn is the best exclusive title of this console generation.  I own a Playstation for this one game, though I do have a soft spot in my heart for Dragonquest Builders 2.

[kaiju_wars]

I'm keeping my PC.  Don't see a need to replace it just because Sony's and Microsoft's next gen consoles finally have decent specs.

 

I'm still probably going to get a PS5.  Sony has the second best exclusives behind Nintendo.  I've definitely enjoyed the Sony exclusives I've played so far.

But I was tardy to the party with the PS4.  I bought a used one from GameStop just last year.  Something similar will probably happen with the PS5 for me.  I'll probably end up buying a used one or after it gets it's first major price cut.  I enjoy Sony's exclusives yes.  But I'm not in a rush to get them like I am Nintendo's stuff, and I can still play multiplat games on PC.

[kaiju_wars]

7 hours ago, Nitro TNT said:

Priced at $499 USD / £449 UK / €449 EU / ¥54,999 JP. Prices were released in January, though these may well change by the time the planned October launch comes.

 

I don't think prices were ever released, do you have the source for this?  

[Sauron]

7 hours ago, Nitro TNT said:

Priced at $499 USD / £449 UK / €449 EU / ¥54,999 JP. Prices were released in January, though these may well change by the time the planned October launch comes.

That was (and as far as I know still is) pure speculation.

7 hours ago, Nitro TNT said:

GPU: 10.28 TFLOPs, 36 CUs at 2.23GHz (variable frequency)

This doesn't actually tell us anything useful because we don't know how they calculated "TFLOPS". If there are no shenanigans and that's straight up FP32 performance then it should perform similarly to a 2070, which is pretty good but not exactly groundbreaking.

7 hours ago, Nitro TNT said:

One thing that Sony is holding close is the rummer the PS5 is BC will ALL previous generation of PlayStations, but from leaked source this could well be true.

Why not, after all the ps4 was just a bad pc and the ps3 is old enough that a well coded emulator could play its games at decent performance levels. Of course that's not much to brag about compared to the level of backwards compatibility and emulation of other consoles you can expect from a PC.

[iBoofKratom]

On 4/8/2020 at 4:16 AM, Sauron said:

We don't even know the official price... and we don't know what will be available in the PC space when it will launch.

 

The specs are also not confirmed afaik.

All we know is it’s running the same AMD chip the Xbox is but clocked lower. According to the Austin Evans YT channel 

[SteveGrabowski0]

10 hours ago, Sauron said:

That was (and as far as I know still is) pure speculation.

This doesn't actually tell us anything useful because we don't know how they calculated "TFLOPS". If there are no shenanigans and that's straight up FP32 performance then it should perform similarly to a 2070, which is pretty good but not exactly groundbreaking.

Considering a 2070 is a $400 gpu I'd call that pretty groundbreaking to get that level of performance at a console pricepoint likely to be around $500. Though I'm leaning much more to XBox since its gpu looks to be more around 2080 to 2080 Super level while Microsoft can't afford to price it too much higher than PS5 considering how much market share they have lost this gen.

[SteveGrabowski0]

18 hours ago, Nitro TNT said:

One thing that Sony is holding close is the rummer the PS5 is BC will ALL previous generation of PlayStations, but from leaked source this could well be true.

Highly highly unlikely since putting a PS3 emulator on the system would put a gaping security hole in it and probably lead to custom firmware on it. Maybe they do like XBox One did with 360 games and recompile a few big sellers for PS3 that were not on PS4 to run on PS5, but full PS3 BC is a pipe dream.

[Sauron]

1 hour ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Considering a 2070 is a $400 gpu I'd call that pretty groundbreaking to get that level of performance at a console pricepoint likely to be around $500.

We'll see what prices look like when it actually launches. Besides as I said FLOPS without context don't actually mean all that much so the estimate could be off. The actual cost also climbs higher pretty quickly when you factor in increased game costs and the internet fee.

1 hour ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

its gpu looks to be more around 2080 to 2080 Super level

Unlikely considering AMD doesn't even have a direct desktop contender for the 2080 Super.

1 hour ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Microsoft can't afford to price it too much higher than PS5 considering how much market share they have lost this gen.

Why does this generation matter for the sales of a new console? Everyone still needs to buy a new system if they want an upgrade...

1 hour ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Highly highly unlikely since putting a PS3 emulator on the system would put a gaping security hole in it and probably lead to custom firmware on it.

...how so? Also so far they haven't managed to prevent custom firmware from working eventually so I don't see why they would care if that were the case.

[SteveGrabowski0]

4 hours ago, Sauron said:

We'll see what prices look like when it actually launches. Besides as I said FLOPS without context don't actually mean all that much so the estimate could be off. The actual cost also climbs higher pretty quickly when you factor in increased game costs and the internet fee.

I think it was Forbes that was publishing the PS5 cost $450 to produce, so $500 seems right in line. We already know how Navi 1 FLOPS compare to Turing FLOPS in gaming, so we can get a decent lower bound to performance from the Navi 2 gpus in the consoles from their officially published TFLOPS numbers. Also PC games aren't any cheaper than Playstation games. As someone who had never owned a Playstation before late 2016 I was really surprised how good the sales are on PS4 games. I rarely pay more than $30 for a game unless I have to have it on launch date. Switch has more expensive games than PC does but Playstation doesn't. And I don't play online games anyways so I could care less about the online fee. I don't have a problem with it though since the console manufacturers subsidize their hardware. Steam has never put a cent towards any PC upgrade I have ever done.

 

5 hours ago, Sauron said:

Unlikely considering AMD doesn't even have a direct desktop contender for the 2080 Super.

In Navi 1.

 

5 hours ago, Sauron said:

Why does this generation matter for the sales of a new console? Everyone still needs to buy a new system if they want an upgrade...

Because XBox market share is terrible right now and they have to give people a reason to choose them over Playstation and the flood of top quality exclusives they will have coming eventually.

 

5 hours ago, Sauron said:

...how so? Also so far they haven't managed to prevent custom firmware from working eventually so I don't see why they would care if that were the case.

JIT compilation puts a huge security hole. And Sony has been very successful stopping CFW on the PS4. You have to have not updated firmware since like Feb 2018 to get CFW on a PS4 right now.

[Sauron]

6 hours ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

the PS5 cost $450 to produce, so $500 seems right in line.

Except it doesn't because the costs for shipping, stocking, marketing, customer support and R&D are generally a significant component of the price. Plus they want to turn a profit, not just cover expenses. If they launch at $500 they'll be taking a loss on every console sold for a while. That's not unheard of but it means they'll need to make that money back on game sales and subscription services.

6 hours ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

We already know how Navi 1 FLOPS compare to Turing FLOPS in gaming, so we can get a decent lower bound to performance from the Navi 2 gpus in the consoles from their officially published TFLOPS numbers.

Again we don't know how they were measured, it's possible (even somewhat likely) that they summed up FLOPS at different precision levels or of different parts of the card that are never actually used together. I remember the PS4 was speculated to be much faster than it actually was based on the spec sheet.

 

And also if AMD can put that kind of power in an APU with this little cooling and power draw I'm pretty sure we'll see some very interesting cards from them around the time the new consoles launch, which would put the pricing into a different perspective.

6 hours ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Also PC games aren't any cheaper than Playstation games.

Uhm yes they are, $10 cheaper across the board at launch with AAA titles.

6 hours ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

I was really surprised how good the sales are on PS4 games.

PC games go on sale too.

6 hours ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

I rarely pay more than $30 for a game unless I have to have it on launch date.

I rarely pay more than $10.

6 hours ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

And I don't play online games anyways so I could care less about the online fee.

Good for you...? Do you also buy physical copies of all your games? What about patches? I'm pretty sure a lot of the game sales and free games on current consoles depend on paying that fee too. I wouldn't be surprised if they bundled even more baseline features in the subscription as time goes on.

6 hours ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Because XBox market share is terrible right now and they have to give people a reason to choose them over Playstation and the flood of top quality exclusives they will have coming eventually.

Again I don't see how the marketshare of the current system has any bearing on sales for the new one. It hasn't mattered one bit in the past.

6 hours ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

JIT compilation puts a huge security hole.

Except it doesn't unless the compiler is poorly written. Regardless, running in an emulator also means you don't have direct access to the real firmware of the system (unless it's a really bad emulator).

 

I'm not even knocking consoles here, these are just basic observations.

[kaiju_wars]

4 hours ago, Sauron said:

Uhm yes they are, $10 cheaper across the board at launch with AAA titles.

Walmart sells new games, yes, AAA games, for $50 instead of $60.  That's what I usually use.  If I can get Doom Eternal for $40 please let me know where, lol.

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, kaiju_wars said:

If I can get Doom Eternal for $40 please let me know where, lol.

I saw it listed for $35 on launch day