Ubisoft GDC Presentation of PS4 & X1 GPU & CPU Performance

[ComradeHX]

Numbers on a graph do not translate to amazing things going down in real time.

There is nothing amazing going down on potatoes.

Keep in mind these are $300 machines, not $1000+ gaming rigs.

Thehy still do not hold a candle to $400~ gaming PC.

[Notional]

There is nothing amazing going down on potatoes.

Thehy still do not hold a candle to $400~ gaming PC.

Why would they, when a 400$ pc is 33% more expensive? 

 

Don't forget that a console punches above its weight (actually pc's punch below their weight), because consoles have low level api's where devs can programme directly for the hardware, thus optimizing to a degree, not possible on pc's.

Mantle, and the new API's coming the next couple of years, will make it better, but probably not the same.

[Humbug]

Thehy still do not hold a candle to $400~ gaming PC.

Yes they do.

Can you do a better gaming build for 400 with keyboard / mouse / motherboard / CPU / GPU / RAM / case / PSU / HDD?

 

I don't own a console and don't really want one btw, just stating facts.

[LifesCompanion]

But that was a good thing because that's what a console needs.

It has to be overpowered because it has to run games for around 7 years.

Now we have this garbage gen that is already on its limits already and is getting out performed about 4x by PC's on release.

 

-snip-

 

True but the fact that they used a cell processor in the PS3 for which no one had a single damn clue on how to use efficiently didn't help  

[LifesCompanion]

Fixed.

Incorrect; you are a pretty damn good example of why console people hate us. 

[ComradeHX]

Why would they, when a 400$ pc is 33% more expensive? 

 

Don't forget that a console punches above its weight (actually pc's punch below their weight), because consoles have low level api's where devs can programme directly for the hardware, thus optimizing to a degree, not possible on pc's.

Mantle, and the new API's coming the next couple of years, will make it better, but probably not the same.

Don't know where you are but They are $400 in U.S.

Consoles punch above their weight, that's why PS4 runs BF4 at 900p medium/high settings, right?

 

Yes they do.

Can you do a better gaming build for 400 with keyboard / mouse / motherboard / CPU / GPU / RAM / case / PSU / HDD?

 

I don't own a console and don't really want one btw, just stating facts.

Except your "facts" are not facts.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Pentium G3258 3.2GHz Dual-Core Processor ($69.99 @ Amazon)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H81M-H Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($51.34 @ Amazon)

Memory: G.Skill Value Series 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR3-1333 Memory ($69.99 @ Newegg)

Storage: Seagate Constellation ES 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($50.00 @ Amazon)

Video Card: HIS Radeon R9 280 3GB IceQ OC Video Card ($169.99 @ Newegg)

Case: BitFenix Merc Beta (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case

Power Supply: Corsair Builder 430W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($19.99 @ Newegg)

Keyboard: Cooler Master CM Storm Devastator Gaming Bundle Wired Gaming Keyboard w/Optical Mouse ($27.66 @ NCIX US)

Total: $458.96

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-10-19 05:05 EDT-0400

A tiny bit more than PS4/Xbox one with one year of subscription(required to play online, pure peasantry)($450). It could go lower with R9 270 but then it would not be as cost-effective(but still better than ps4).

Plays BF4 on ultra at 1080p around 60fps.

[Notional]

Don't know where you are but They are $400 in U.S.

Consoles punch above their weight, that's why PS4 runs BF4 at 900p medium/high settings, right?

 

Except your "facts" are not facts.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Pentium G3258 3.2GHz Dual-Core Processor ($69.99 @ Amazon)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H81M-H Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($51.34 @ Amazon)

Memory: G.Skill Value Series 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR3-1333 Memory ($69.99 @ Newegg)

Storage: Seagate Constellation ES 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($50.00 @ Amazon)

Video Card: Sapphire Radeon R7 265 2GB Video Card ($141.48 @ SuperBiiz)

Case: BitFenix Merc Beta (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case

Power Supply: Corsair Builder 430W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($19.99 @ Newegg)

Keyboard: Cooler Master CM Storm Devastator Gaming Bundle Wired Gaming Keyboard w/Optical Mouse ($27.66 @ NCIX US)

Total: $430.45

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-10-19 05:02 EDT-0400

Still cheaper than PS4/Xbox one with one year of subscription(required to play online, pure peasantry).

 

My answer was to two posts, one saying the PS4 was 300$ and one saying a PC at 400$ was better. My answer reflected on that.

 

Your PC is only dual core, which means it cannot run the "next gen" games, that require quad core as minimum.

 

The GPU has the same amount of gflops, however, it only has a measly 2GB vram, which makes it incapable of running high/ultra tekstures as the PS4. Furthermore, due to low level API's, you can utilize more of the power from those 1,8 Tflops on the PS4 than on the PC. So your more expensive PC is weaker and poorer performing in gaming than the PS4, at the same graphics fidelity. That PC simply will not meet the minimum requirements.

 

The PS4 also comes with a built in Bluray/DVD player.

[ComradeHX]

My answer was to two posts, one saying the PS4 was 300$ and one saying a PC at 400$ was better. My answer reflected on that.

 

Your PC is only dual core, which means it cannot run the "next gen" games, that require quad core as minimum.

 

The GPU has the same amount of gflops, however, it only has a measly 2GB vram, which makes it incapable of running high/ultra tekstures as the PS4. Furthermore, due to low level API's, you can utilize more of the power from those 1,8 Tflops on the PS4 than on the PC. So your more expensive PC is weaker and poorer performing in gaming than the PS4, at the same graphics fidelity. That PC simply will not meet the minimum requirements.

 

The PS4 also comes with a built in Bluray/DVD player.

Ps4 isn't $300 anywhere I recall unless you buy used.

"next gen" games such as BF4, which scales well with AMD's octacore cpu, right?

Which it runs at around 60fps just fine with mantle(a low level api) because G3258 overclocks stably to 4.5ghz on stock cooler.

Same amount(actually slightly higher) of gflops? You forgot overclocking.

2GB vram is more than enough for any proper PC game except maybe ultra-modded Skyrim with tons of 4k texture mods.

PS4 does not have all 8gb for GPU...it's shared with everything else...

Don't forget: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/07/report-os-overhead-takes-up-3-5gb-of-ps4s-8gb-of-ram/

So tell me, how much Vram do you need again?

Last time I checked, PS4 does not run BF4 at high preset 1080p 60fps.

Now complain about this one:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Pentium G3258 3.2GHz Dual-Core Processor ($69.99 @ Amazon)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H81M-H Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($51.34 @ Amazon)

Memory: G.Skill Value Series 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR3-1333 Memory ($69.99 @ Newegg)

Storage: Seagate Constellation ES 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($50.00 @ Amazon)

Video Card: MSI Radeon R9 270X 2GB Video Card ($142.00 @ Newegg)

Case: BitFenix Merc Beta (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case

Power Supply: Corsair Builder 430W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($19.99 @ Newegg)

Keyboard: Cooler Master CM Storm Devastator Gaming Bundle Wired Gaming Keyboard w/Optical Mouse ($27.66 @ NCIX US)

Total: $430.97

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-10-19 05:23 EDT-0400

Add $40~ for a bluray player if you really want to watch a movie by disk.

R9 270x: 2,816 gflops. (again, before overclock)

Also, don't forget you get to pick 3 games from AMD never settle.

http://sites.amd.com/us/promo/never-settle/Pages/never-settle.aspx

You can pick Star Citizen + Alien: Isolation + another random game.

PC Master Race is more popular than ever because of the fact that consoles fell way behind even in price/performance ratio.

[LukaP]

My answer was to two posts, one saying the PS4 was 300$ and one saying a PC at 400$ was better. My answer reflected on that.

 

Your PC is only dual core, which means it cannot run the "next gen" games, that require quad core as minimum.

 they say they require a quad core. this dual core pentium can be OCd to 4.x GHz and outperform (in gaming) even the 8 cores amd has since even the new games that claim to be multithreaded still work just as well when executing those 4 threads on only 2 cores.

 

The GPU has the same amount of gflops, however, it only has a measly 2GB vram, which makes it incapable of running high/ultra tekstures as the PS4. Furthermore, due to low level API's, you can utilize more of the power from those 1,8 Tflops on the PS4 than on the PC. So your more expensive PC is weaker and poorer performing in gaming than the PS4, at the same graphics fidelity. That PC simply will not meet the minimum requirements.

 umm... at 1080p (higher res than most console titles) this card is a beast and you wont need anything better for atleast 3 years.

 

you have no idea how low level APIs work. they are there to reduce the gpu waiting time when cpu is processing stuff, not magically make the gpu faster.

 

it will exceed the requirements by quite a margin

 

The PS4 also comes with a built in Bluray/DVD player.

seriously, who still watches blurays/DVDs when you have a HDD or a USB drive

[nokturrduk84]

Stipid Ubisoft can't stop focusing on shit consoles... Fuckin peasants!

[LePawel]

The PS3, when it launched was stupidly over powered and developers had no idea how to take advantage of the custom cell processors that the PS3 was running  <_<

Technically what you said is wrong. Cell was separate architecture no one knew how to use and it took years to develop optimized games on it, so the effective power of the console increased over the years.

Sadly not the case with current gen.

[Humbug]

Don't know where you are but They are $400 in U.S.

Consoles punch above their weight, that's why PS4 runs BF4 at 900p medium/high settings, right?

 

Except your "facts" are not facts.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Pentium G3258 3.2GHz Dual-Core Processor ($69.99 @ Amazon)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H81M-H Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($51.34 @ Amazon)

Memory: G.Skill Value Series 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR3-1333 Memory ($69.99 @ Newegg)

Storage: Seagate Constellation ES 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($50.00 @ Amazon)

Video Card: HIS Radeon R9 280 3GB IceQ OC Video Card ($169.99 @ Newegg)

Case: BitFenix Merc Beta (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case

Power Supply: Corsair Builder 430W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($19.99 @ Newegg)

Keyboard: Cooler Master CM Storm Devastator Gaming Bundle Wired Gaming Keyboard w/Optical Mouse ($27.66 @ NCIX US)

Total: $458.96

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-10-19 05:05 EDT-0400

A tiny bit more than PS4/Xbox one with one year of subscription(required to play online, pure peasantry)($450). It could go lower with R9 270 but then it would not be as cost-effective(but still better than ps4).

Plays BF4 on ultra at 1080p around 60fps.

Great build, i'll give you that.

You forgot the cost of windows.

[LifesCompanion]

Technically what you said is wrong. Cell was separate architecture no one knew how to use and it took years to develop optimized games on it, so the effective power of the console increased over the years.

Sadly not the case with current gen.

Nooo... it was insanely powerful back then.

It was cheaper to get a rack full of PS3's and hack them into a giant compute server than a dedicated solution - that's how damn op it was. 

[ComradeHX]

Great build though, i'll give you that.

You forgot the cost of windows.

You don't need windows.

Nooo... it was insanely powerful back then.

It was cheaper to get a rack full of PS3's and hack them into a giant compute server than a dedicated solution - that's how damn op it was.

That was mostly because Sony was losing a lot of money per unit.

[Humbug]

You don't need windows.

So what you are proposing is a Linux gaming rig?

[Notional]

Ps4 isn't $300 anywhere I recall unless you buy used.

"next gen" games such as BF4, which scales well with AMD's octacore cpu, right?

Which it runs at around 60fps just fine with mantle(a low level api) because G3258 overclocks stably to 4.5ghz on stock cooler.

Same amount(actually slightly higher) of gflops? You forgot overclocking.

2GB vram is more than enough for any proper PC game except maybe ultra-modded Skyrim with tons of 4k texture mods.

PS4 does not have all 8gb for GPU...it's shared with everything else...

Don't forget: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/07/report-os-overhead-takes-up-3-5gb-of-ps4s-8gb-of-ram/

So tell me, how much Vram do you need again?

Last time I checked, PS4 does not run BF4 at high preset 1080p 60fps.

(...)

Add $40~ for a bluray player if you really want to watch a movie by disk.

R9 270x: 2,816 gflops. (again, before overclock)

Also, don't forget you get to pick 3 games from AMD never settle.

http://sites.amd.com/us/promo/never-settle/Pages/never-settle.aspx

You can pick Star Citizen + Alien: Isolation + another random game.

PC Master Race is more popular than ever because of the fact that consoles fell way behind even in price/performance ratio.

 

Scales? Battlefield 4 is GPU bound, not CPU bound. By your logic, a devil's canyon CPU is no better performing than a Pentium g3258, which we both know is not true, nor representative. Yes I know this is a logical fallacy, but you brought up a manipulative example. http://www.techspot.com/review/793-thief-battlefield-4-mantle-performance/page2.html

 

The second part is not true. Several new games utilize more than 2GB Vram. Many games require min. 3GB for ultra textures, some using almost 4GB. Now that we have new gen consoles, with 10x the amount of combined ram/vram, we will see devs developing games with higher resolution textures; and even more important, a higher amount of unique textures on the screen at the same time, instead of just the same texture repeated over and over.

 

Watch dogs can easily use up to 3,8 GB vram on pc, since it's an open world game, with high res textures, and multiple texture on the screen at the same time. We will see more games utilizing high amounts of vram from now on. Just look at The Division. Such a game cannot look like that with 2GB of VRAM.

 

PS4 has up 5GB of shared ram for the game. If the game system takes up 1GB (since it does not have to load a bunch of system API's, middleware, etc) you can have up to 4GB VRAM usage. Even 3GB is a lot, considering you will only run 1080p.

 

You will need as much vram as the game is designed to. People constantly says Watch Dogs is poorly optimized, not understanding that new very nice looking games, will require a lot more power:

http://www.pcgamer.com/the-features-pc-gamers-wantan-open-letter-to-developers-and-gamers/?page=1#page-3

 

It’s also where I believe that some PC gamers really need to change their thinking.

The problem is that, due primarily to the length of the previous console generation, many new PC gamers are now operating under the assumption that they should be able to “max out” all settings in every game and still achieve good performance—otherwise a lack of optimization is to blame.

If Watch Dogs truly has an optimization problem, it would be due to Nvidia's proprietary Gameworks effects. 

 

As for OC, sure you can do that. But most console players are casual, and do not care about hardware, nor OC. Many PC gamers do not care about OC either.

 

 

 they say they require a quad core. this dual core pentium can be OCd to 4.x GHz and outperform (in gaming) even the 8 cores amd has since even the new games that claim to be multithreaded still work just as well when executing those 4 threads on only 2 cores.

 

 umm... at 1080p (higher res than most console titles) this card is a beast and you wont need anything better for atleast 3 years.

 

you have no idea how low level APIs work. they are there to reduce the gpu waiting time when cpu is processing stuff, not magically make the gpu faster.

 

it will exceed the requirements by quite a margin

 

seriously, who still watches blurays/DVDs when you have a HDD or a USB drive

 

 

Remember that PS4/XBONE is jaguar based, so there are 8 individual cores, not 4x pair of CPU cores. If you look at CPU intensive games, that can utilize multithreading above 2 cores, you will see that CPU crash and burn, even when OC'd.

 

At 2GB Vram, it still won't have enough to reach minimum requirements for textures; neither for consoles nor PC. Saying that you won't need anything better for at least 3 years? Come on. Even 780ti's are already Vram limited, and this will only become a bigger problem, with these "next gen" games, designed to use a lot of Vram for improved graphics quality.

 

And what happens when that CPU waiting time is lowered? Either you get the same performance with less, or more performance with the same:

http://www.techspot.com/review/793-thief-battlefield-4-mantle-performance/page2.html Look at the second graph with gains.

Remember that the consoles are APU's with HSA, so the GPU can grab data from memory without passing through the CPU, which is not possible on non APU PC's with descrete GPU's.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7818/low-level-graphics-api-developments-gdc-2014

Approaching Zero Driver Overhead in OpenGL

On desktop systems, driver overhead can decrease frame rate (...)

 

People who wants the best picture quality still uses Blu ray. At least if they want to uphold the IP laws and not pirate.

[LAwLz]

-snip-

Oh God not this shit again.

In before you gets proven wrong and resorts to "well most people don't know how to build it!".

No matter how many times you get proven wrong or how many benefits they throw at PC gaming there will always be one or two things the console people scream over. It's the same as the Mac vs PC argument. No matter how good you make the PC, even if the PC has 10 benefits, if it lacks 1 feature the Mac has then the Mac people will see it as a victory.

 

You can grasp at straws all day if you want, but the fact is that a PC for only slightly higher price (actually lower if you start factoring in things such as free multiplayer and cheaper games) will perform the same or maybe even better.

This is just a straight up fact. You can check out videos made by Linus, Logan, PCper and many others if you don't believe it.

 

I wouldn't even be surprised if the Pentium CPU someone linked earlier in the thread will beat the God awful 8 core CPU the new consoles got, even when programs can use all 8 cores. Remember, the CPUs in the consoles are garbage. It won't be much time before our phones are more powerful than they are.

 

Anyway at least we can all agree that even from Ubisoft's own graphs, the PS 4 should not have to run at the same settings as the Xbone.

[ComradeHX]

Scales? Battlefield 4 is GPU bound, not CPU bound. By your logic, a devil's canyon CPU is no better performing than a Pentium g3258, which we both know is not true, nor representative. Yes I know this is a logical fallacy, but you brought up a manipulative example. http://www.techspot.com/review/793-thief-battlefield-4-mantle-performance/page2.html

I don't believe you know what you are talking about.

I posted that BF4 scales with 8 cores properly: http://pclab.pl/art55318-3.html

As in it makes a significant difference in having more (identical) cores.

A Pentium G3258 at 4.5ghz and R9 280 works without bottlenecking for BF4 at ultra preset, 1080p 60fps.

The second part is not true. Several new games utilize more than 2GB Vram. Many games require min. 3GB for ultra textures, some using almost 4GB. Now that we have new gen consoles, with 10x the amount of combined ram/vram, we will see devs developing games with higher resolution textures; and even more important, a higher amount of unique textures on the screen at the same time, instead of just the same texture repeated over and over.

 

Watch dogs can easily use up to 3,8 GB vram on pc, since it's an open world game, with high res textures, and multiple texture on the screen at the same time. We will see more games utilizing high amounts of vram from now on. Just look at The Division. Such a game cannot look like that with 2GB of VRAM.

I mentioned PROPER PC games. Not shitty console ports with uncompressed texture...etc.

Division is not even out; you don't know anything about it. (also, it's already confirmed that it's getting downgraded)

 

PS4 has up 5GB of shared ram for the game. If the game system takes up 1GB (since it does not have to load a bunch of system API's, middleware, etc) you can have up to 4GB VRAM usage. Even 3GB is a lot, considering you will only run 1080p.

You need to show proof of the number of ram PS4 has available for GPU.

Again, for proper PC game; 2gb is plenty for now.

 

You will need as much vram as the game is designed to. People constantly says Watch Dogs is poorly optimized, not understanding that new very nice looking games, will require a lot more power:

http://www.pcgamer.com/the-features-pc-gamers-wantan-open-letter-to-developers-and-gamers/?page=1#page-3

 

If Watch Dogs truly has an optimization problem, it would be due to Nvidia's proprietary Gameworks effects.

It would be due to Ubisoft "designing" watch_doges for console potatoes.

You just shot yourself in the foot there.

I installed a ton of 4k textures on Skyrim but vram usage never actually got to 3gb.

New games use more vram? It's just because of poor optimization. No excuses.

 

As for OC, sure you can do that. But most console players are casual, and do not care about hardware, nor OC. Many PC gamers do not care about OC either.

They only do not care about hardware when their hardware is inferior.

Usually it goes like this:

Xbox fanboys: "Xbox has Cloud"

PS fanboys: "PS4 has much better GPU"

PC: "We have best of everything"

Xbox and PS fanboys: "No one cares about hardware, f**k off PC elitist"

If you don't care about hardware; then you would not be complaining about the amount of VRAM the GPU had. You shot yourself in the foot...again.

Remember that PS4/XBONE is jaguar based, so there are 8 individual cores, not 4x pair of CPU cores. If you look at CPU intensive games, that can utilize multithreading above 2 cores, you will see that CPU crash and burn, even when OC'd.

Remember that Jaguar is a mobile cpu with low ipc AND low clocks. You shot yourself in the foot yet again.

IIRC 2 cores are dedicated to OS so you are getting 6 cores of something crappy even by AMD cpu's standards.

At 2GB Vram, it still won't have enough to reach minimum requirements for textures; neither for consoles nor PC. Saying that you won't need anything better for at least 3 years? Come on. Even 780ti's are already Vram limited, and this will only become a bigger problem, with these "next gen" games, designed to use a lot of Vram for improved graphics quality.

"Certain"?

For example? Does it include proper PC games?

Fact is that you can have 32gb of vram and your game would still run like crap if your cpu and gpu are both underpowered...which is the case with console potatoes now.

And what happens when that CPU waiting time is lowered? Either you get the same performance with less, or more performance with the same:

http://www.techspot.com/review/793-thief-battlefield-4-mantle-performance/page2.html Look at the second graph with gains.

Remember that the consoles are APU's with HSA, so the GPU can grab data from memory without passing through the CPU, which is not possible on non APU PC's with descrete GPU's.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7818/low-level-graphics-api-developments-gdc-2014

First of all, that's a page about mantle...on PC.

HSA isn't magic. It's currently(because AMD never made anything close to enthusiast-grade APU) just a crutch for underpowered hardware to try to make up for some gap in performance(and it's not working well, considering very few visually demanding games on consoles actually made it to 60fps 1080p standards).

Even if GPU is allowed to access system memory and can do non-graphic calculations...it's pointless if it's already at full load from working on graphics.

To my understanding, this is where they try to make up for shitty CPU power(with an underclocked 7870 with 2 less CU and more ACEs)...and it's a crutch.

People who wants the best picture quality still uses Blu ray. At least if they want to uphold the IP laws and not pirate.

This is a gaming pc, not a bluray player.

If you want to watch bluray, as I mentioned, it's only about $40-50 for an internal drive(and a little more for a burner).

Still well within acceptable price range especially compared to underpowered consoles.

 

So what you are proposing is a Linux gaming rig?

Temporarily, yes.

Plenty of games can run natively on some form of Linux, at least.

[Notional]

Oh God not this shit again.

In before you gets proven wrong and resorts to "well most people don't know how to build it!".

No matter how many times you get proven wrong or how many benefits they throw at PC gaming there will always be one or two things the console people scream over. It's the same as the Mac vs PC argument. No matter how good you make the PC, even if the PC has 10 benefits, if it lacks 1 feature the Mac has then the Mac people will see it as a victory.

 

You can grasp at straws all day if you want, but the fact is that a PC for only slightly higher price (actually lower if you start factoring in things such as free multiplayer and cheaper games) will perform the same or maybe even better.

This is just a straight up fact. You can check out videos made by Linus, Logan, PCper and many others if you don't believe it.

 

I wouldn't even be surprised if the Pentium CPU someone linked earlier in the thread will beat the God awful 8 core CPU the new consoles got, even when programs can use all 8 cores. Remember, the CPUs in the consoles are garbage. It won't be much time before our phones are more powerful than they are.

 

Anyway at least we can all agree that even from Ubisoft's own graphs, the PS 4 should not have to run at the same settings as the Xbone.

 

Not entirely sure what you want me to say to that. Consoles are made for gaming and some movie watching, I guess. What a pc can do is not really relevant (neither is the movie watching really). We are looking at gaming, nothing else.

It might seem like the CPU is the bottleneck in these new consoles. I am not defending it, I'm just critiquing the Pentium dual core. You can watch it getting beat to shit by quad core Intel CPU's in multithreaded games, where GPU is not the limiting factor.

 

1. I don't believe you know what you are talking about.

I posted that BF4 scales with 8 cores properly: http://pclab.pl/art55318-3.html

As in it makes a significant difference in having more (identical) cores.

 

2. I mentioned PROPER PC games. Not shitty console ports with uncompressed texture...etc.

Division is not even out; you don't know anything about it. (also, it's already confirmed that it's getting downgraded)

 

3. You need to show proof of the number of ram PS4 has available for GPU.

Again, for proper PC game; 2gb is plenty for now.

 

4. It would be due to Ubisoft "designing" watch_doges for console potatoes.

You just shot yourself in the foot there.

5. I installed a ton of 4k textures on Skyrim but vram usage never actually got to 3gb.

New games use more vram? It's just because of poor optimization. No excuses.

 

6. They only do not care about hardware when their hardware is inferior.

Usually it goes like this:

Xbox fanboys: "Xbox has Cloud"

PS fanboys: "PS4 has much better GPU"

PC: "We have best of everything"

Xbox and PS fanboys: "No one cares about hardware, f**k off PC elitist"

7. If you don't care about hardware; then you would not be complaining about the amount of VRAM the GPU had. You shot yourself in the foot...again.

Remember that Jaguar is a mobile cpu with low ipc AND low clocks. You shot yourself in the foot yet again.

IIRC 2 cores are dedicated to OS so you are getting 6 cores of something crappy even by AMD cpu's standards.

"Certain"?

For example? Does it include proper PC games?

Fact is that you can have 32gb of vram and your game would still run like crap if your cpu and gpu are both underpowered...which is the case with console potatoes now.

 

8. First of all, that's a page about mantle...on PC.

HSA isn't magic. It's currently(because AMD never made anything close to enthusiast-grade APU) just a crutch for underpowered hardware to try to make up for some gap in performance(and it's not working well, considering very few visually demanding games on consoles actually made it to 60fps 1080p standards).

 

9. This is a gaming pc, not a bluray player.

If you want to watch bluray, as I mentioned, it's only about $40-50 for an internal drive(and a little more for a burner).

Still well within acceptable price range especially compared to underpowered consoles.

 

 

1: Then prove it. Saying such dumb things, won't get us anywhere. Seriously your OWN LINK, proves that dual core pentiums and i3's gets their asses kicked by quad core Intel CPU's.

I'm not sure what your link is supposed to prove of your arguments, but it pretty much proves all of mine. Heck some of the AMD's even beat the older quad core i5's. Battlefield 4 even looks like it benefits a tiny bit from hyperthreading, meaning it can handle more than 4 threads at a time.

"As in it makes a significant difference in having more (identical) cores." - proving that a dual core Pentium is already a bad choice now? N'est-ce pas? Talking about shooting your own foot.

 

2: Lol Watch Dogs is not a proper game? Come on. Do you have any proof that textures are uncompressed? Do you think the textures are BMP or something? Watch dogs has high res texures, but what uses a lot of VRAM, is the fact that there are a lot of unique textures being shown at the same time, not just the same few textures repeated over and over. Also driving fast through town, means that the game has to allocate a lot of textures, so it won't run out, and grind the fps to a halt.

The Division has a high number of unique textures on the picture at the same time. You honestly think more textures != more vram usage? Of course it does.

 

3: http://www.dualshockers.com/2014/03/11/naughty-dog-explains-ps4s-cpu-memory-and-more-in-detail-and-how-they-can-make-them-run-really-fast/

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-ps3-system-software-memory

4,5GB ram available + 512mb on request.

Plenty of games can use more than 2GB, more even requiring it for ultra textures. Not just Watch Dogs. Do you honestly think we won't see a huge increase in vram usage, when the consoles has 10x more ram/vram available. The ps3 had just 256mb vram, but the ps4  might get to use over 3GB for vram alone. You really think the devs won't take advantage of that?

 

4: WD was designed on pc, for pc. Unfortulately, pc's only had 4 cores, and even worse, the GPU's had not evolved enough over the 5 years. Disagree all you want, but mordor ultra requires a lot of vram for ultra textures. I guess that is also just a bad console port? I find it ironic, that you are simply proving my link: http://www.pcgamer.com/the-features-pc-gamers-wantan-open-letter-to-developers-and-gamers/?page=1#page-3

It’s also where I believe that some PC gamers really need to change their thinking.

The problem is that, due primarily to the length of the previous console generation, many new PC gamers are now operating under the assumption that they should be able to “max out” all settings in every game and still achieve good performance—otherwise a lack of optimization is to blame.

 

5: Again riasing the resolution of excisting textures, does not make a huge difference, if you are still using a low number of unique textures at a time. WD e.g. uses a lot of unique textures at a time. That raises the vram usage a lot. Shadow quality and AA also uses more vram, as well as allocating textures for high speed driving, for buffering.

If you truly believe it's poor optimization, then at least try and prove it, instead of just using it as a broken argument.

 

6: I don't really care about consoles, but I do know that most console gamers, cannot be bothered, assembling a pc, nor OC anything. They usually just buy the damn thing, hook it up and play. You can argue that OC capability is a feature, but it is one most (and a lot of pc gamers too) do not care about fidling with.

 

7: "If you don't care about hardware; then you would not be complaining about the amount of VRAM the GPU had. You shot yourself in the foot...again." What? that doesn't even make any sense? If a game needs more than 2GB of vram to run ultra textures, then obviously you care about NOT buying a 2GB gfx. The point is that the 265 or 270 cannot be compared to the ps4, because they are vram limited. The only ones shooting themselves in the foot, are people who buy vram limited cards, where the gpu has enough performance to use ultra textures, but not enough vram to do so. Just look at the 770 series.

 

Many sources claim that the new consoles are CPU limited. That would not be a surprise, and would be quite stupid. But you still have to factor in, that it can at least do 6 parallel threads, and that HSA in PS4 (and XBONE i believe), makes the GPU capable of loading data from Ram/VRAM without having it go through the CPU first. That is not possible for any non HSA APU based PC (or one with a descrete GFX).

 

8: Yes I know, I found the link and posted it. What is your point? My point was that low level API, means either same performance for less, or more performance for the same. My link proves that. Idk what you are trying to say.

 

9: Most consoles are used for entertainment centers, which includes them doubling as DVD/Blu ray players. That factors in as well. 40-50$ makes your pc even more expensive. You still need Windows, as most games cannot run on Linux yet. Also remember you need blu ray player software with that drive, if it's not included.

[Misanthrope]

3 Pages in and most of you are still being easily trolled. You can be here 8 more pages arguing in circles and getting bitter about it, just add Notional to your ignore lists.

[Notional]

3 Pages in and most of you are still being easily trolled. You can be here 8 more pages arguing in circles and getting bitter about it, just add Notional to your ignore lists.

Yes, let's not learn or understand anything. Let's just call people trolls, we disagree with (without being able to prove our own views). If you believe me to be wrong, then disprove me. If you cannot do that, how do you know that I am wrong? 

[HippY]

 

 

4: WD was designed on pc, for pc. Unfortulately, pc's only had 4 cores, and even worse, the GPU's had not evolved enough over the 5 years. Disagree all you want, but mordor ultra requires a lot of vram for ultra textures. I guess that is also just a bad console port? I find it ironic, that you are simply proving my link: http://www.pcgamer.com/the-features-pc-gamers-wantan-open-letter-to-developers-and-gamers/?page=1#page-3

 

 

 

Dude

 

The more GPU Power (SLI) you give this game, the slower it gets

WD IS a bad console port. look at E3 settings

[Techhog]

This is really interesting it shows that the Ps4 CPU is slower than the XboxOne CPU which makes sense due to GDRR5 latency.

But what's really impressive is the Cell processor it's faster than the Ps4 CPU even though it's 8 years old

They should throw a 980 in the comparison just for the LOLs console gamers would cry if they see the 5Tflops

 

You're misreading it. The last-gen numbers are for the whole console (CPU+GPU)

[ComradeHX]

Not entirely sure what you want me to say to that. Consoles are made for gaming and some movie watching, I guess. What a pc can do is not really relevant (neither is the movie watching really). We are looking at gaming, nothing else.

So why were you complaining about BD？

It might seem like the CPU is the bottleneck in these new consoles. I am not defending it, I'm just critiquing the Pentium dual core. You can watch it getting beat to shit by quad core Intel CPU's in multithreaded games, where GPU is not the limiting factor.

 

 You can't critique anything if you don't even realize that a game being multithreaded does not mean GPU is not the limiting factor...

It does not work as simply as you think.

1: Then prove it. Saying such dumb things, won't get us anywhere. Seriously your OWN LINK, proves that dual core pentiums and i3's gets their asses kicked by quad core Intel CPU's.

I'm not sure what your link is supposed to prove of your arguments, but it pretty much proves all of mine. Heck some of the AMD's even beat the older quad core i5's. Battlefield 4 even looks like it benefits a tiny bit from hyperthreading, meaning it can handle more than 4 threads at a time.

"As in it makes a significant difference in having more (identical) cores." - proving that a dual core Pentium is already a bad choice now? N'est-ce pas? Talking about shooting your own foot.

 Dual core pentium overclocked isn't as g ood as quad core i5...etc.

But console cpu is worse than all of them.

You just went full retard.

2: Lol Watch Dogs is not a proper game? Come on. Do you have any proof that textures are uncompressed? Do you think the textures are BMP or something? Watch dogs has high res texures, but what uses a lot of VRAM, is the fact that there are a lot of unique textures being shown at the same time, not just the same few textures repeated over and over. Also driving fast through town, means that the game has to allocate a lot of textures, so it won't run out, and grind the fps to a halt.

LOL watch_doges is not a proper PC game.  That's why it's poorly optimized...(and all the shitstorm about it being downgraded in graphics)

The Division has a high number of unique textures on the picture at the same time. You honestly think more textures != more vram usage? Of course it does.

 Nice strawman.  Even if it were not a fallacy, it would still not help your "argument."

Burden of proof is still on you, yet you still can't prove anything.

3: http://www.dualshockers.com/2014/03/11/naughty-dog-explains-ps4s-cpu-memory-and-more-in-detail-and-how-they-can-make-them-run-really-fast/

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-ps3-system-software-memory

4,5GB ram available + 512mb on request.

Plenty of games can use more than 2GB, more even requiring it for ultra textures. Not just Watch Dogs. Do you honestly think we won't see a huge increase in vram usage, when the consoles has 10x more ram/vram available. The ps3 had just 256mb vram, but the ps4  might get to use over 3GB for vram alone. You really think the devs won't take advantage of that?

You shot yourself in the foot again.  Developers could use 256mb of vram for games; yet they can't use 2gb?

Future is not going to have a blind increase in VRAM useage like you insisted; it's going to have a more efficient usage of VRAM and bandwidth. 

4: WD was designed on pc, for pc. Unfortulately, pc's only had 4 cores, and even worse, the GPU's had not evolved enough over the 5 years. Disagree all you want, but mordor ultra requires a lot of vram for ultra textures. I guess that is also just a bad console port? I find it ironic, that you are simply proving my link: http://www.pcgamer.com/the-features-pc-gamers-wantan-open-letter-to-developers-and-gamers/?page=1#page-3

 No shit, they are all designed on PC...

And it's definitely not FOR PC; it ran terribly on even high end systems.

Unfortunately, PC can have as many cores as it needs.  Clearly you never saw Nvidia's new GPU.

I disagree all I want because you are wrong.

Shadow of Mordor runs decently on PC; but the extra texture pack is poorly-done(if you didn't notice, it's not even included as part of the game), not proper for PC game.

5: Again riasing the resolution of excisting textures, does not make a huge difference, if you are still using a low number of unique textures at a time. WD e.g. uses a lot of unique textures at a time. That raises the vram usage a lot. Shadow quality and AA also uses more vram, as well as allocating textures for high speed driving, for buffering.

If you truly believe it's poor optimization, then at least try and prove it, instead of just using it as a broken argument.

 It makes a huge difference if the resolution is 4-8times the original

6: I don't really care about consoles, but I do know that most console gamers, cannot be bothered, assembling a pc, nor OC anything. They usually just buy the damn thing, hook it up and play. You can argue that OC capability is a feature, but it is one most (and a lot of pc gamers too) do not care about fidling with.

 You don't care about consoles; but you are arguing about it.

I don't argue that OC is a feature; it IS a feature.

And it's a feature that's about as easy as tweaking game settings.

7: "If you don't care about hardware; then you would not be complaining about the amount of VRAM the GPU had. You shot yourself in the foot...again." What? that doesn't even make any sense? If a game needs more than 2GB of vram to run ultra textures, then obviously you care about NOT buying a 2GB gfx. The point is that the 265 or 270 cannot be compared to the ps4, because they are vram limited. The only ones shooting themselves in the foot, are people who buy vram limited cards, where the gpu has enough performance to use ultra textures, but not enough vram to do so. Just look at the 770 series.

 

Many sources claim that the new consoles are CPU limited. That would not be a surprise, and would be quite stupid. But you still have to factor in, that it can at least do 6 parallel threads, and that HSA in PS4 (and XBONE i believe), makes the GPU capable of loading data from Ram/VRAM without having it go through the CPU first. That is not possible for any non HSA APU based PC (or one with a descrete GFX).

 Again, currently no proper PC game needs too much vram unless you are playing at much higher resolutions(which consoles CANNOT DO).

It does not matter in the end; because consoles do not get to use Ultra quality textures anyway.

You argue for all this but failed to realize that a budget PC build only need to beat console potatoes; which they already do, easily.

Six parallel threads just means programmers have to work harder to split the load evenly between them...

8: Yes I know, I found the link and posted it. What is your point? My point was that low level API, means either same performance for less, or more performance for the same. My link proves that. Idk what you are trying to say.

 And that's why you keep shooting yourself in the foot.

Because low level API isn't exclusive to consoles...

9: Most consoles are used for entertainment centers, which includes them doubling as DVD/Blu ray players. That factors in as well. 40-50$ makes your pc even more expensive. You still need Windows, as most games cannot run on Linux yet. Also remember you need blu ray player software with that drive, if it's not included.

 

For windows...G2A -> <$20, and many games DO run on linux(such as CSGO...etc.)

Btw, you can play Bluray with VLC...

Let me quote you, for reply for yourself...

 

 

We are looking at gaming, nothing else.

Add everything together and it's still well within the price range of consoles; especially with the 3 games.

[Notional]

Dude

 

The more GPU Power (SLI) you give this game, the slower it gets

WD IS a bad console port. look at E3 settings

 

For me, the only thing that is shitty in WD, are the horrible mouse controls. They are indeed ported from controllers, in a very bad way.

SLI/Xfire is not the same as single card performance. A game being optimized for a few threads are not a shit port, because it cannot utilize a dual CPU setup (yes CPU). Out of the entire WD market, very very few will have more than 1 GPU (considering that the majority market for the game are consoles). Often SLI/Xfire is done by Intel/AMD on the driver side.

 

What E3 settings? The ones that made the dynamic weather patterns and day night cycle, into a static chosen weather situation at a specific time of day? Look at the "proof" picture we all know. It's all weather settings. Even Linus has pointed out this issue on the WAN show about Shadow Of Morder: Here it was difficult to benchmark it, becuase of dynamic weather. They found a place where the dynamic weather was static.

If you are making a demo of a game, it is not odd to dictate the weather and time of day. That is what the "E3 proof" is.

 

1. So why were you complaining about BD？

2. You can't critique anything if you don't even realize that a game being multithreaded does not mean GPU is not the limiting factor...

It does not work as simply as you think.

3. Dual core pentium overclocked isn't as g ood as quad core i5...etc.

But console cpu is worse than all of them.

You just went full retard.

4. LOL watch_doges is not a proper PC game.  That's why it's poorly optimized...(and all the shitstorm about it being downgraded in graphics)

5. Nice strawman.  Even if it were not a fallacy, it would still not help your "argument."

Burden of proof is still on you, yet you still can't prove anything.

6. You shot yourself in the foot again.  Developers could use 256mb of vram for games; yet they can't use 2gb? !?!?!?!?!? Indeed

Future is not going to have a blind increase in VRAM useage like you insisted; it's going to have a more efficient usage of VRAM and bandwidth. 

 

7. No shit, they are all designed on PC...

And it's definitely not FOR PC; it ran terribly on even high end systems.

Unfortunately, PC can have as many cores as it needs.  Clearly you never saw Nvidia's new GPU.

I disagree all I want because you are wrong.

Shadow of Mordor runs decently on PC; but the extra texture pack is poorly-done(if you didn't notice, it's not even included as part of the game), not proper for PC game.

 

8. It makes a huge difference if the resolution is 4-8times the original

 

9. You don't care about consoles; but you are arguing about it.

I don't argue that OC is a feature; it IS a feature.

And it's a feature that's about as easy as tweaking game settings.

 

10. Again, currently no proper PC game needs too much vram unless you are playing at much higher resolutions(which consoles CANNOT DO).

It does not matter in the end; because consoles do not get to use Ultra quality textures anyway.

You argue for all this but failed to realize that a budget PC build only need to beat console potatoes; which they already do, easily.

Six parallel threads just means programmers have to work harder to split the load evenly between them...

 

11.  And that's why you keep shooting yourself in the foot.

Because low level API isn't exclusive to consoles...

 

12. For windows...G2A -> <$20, and many games DO run on linux(such as CSGO...etc.)

Let me quote you, for reply for yourself...

And you can play Bluray with VLC...

 

1. Because we are talking about a comparison between a console and an alternative. Like I said to Luka, it is less relevant in a gaming sense, but in a proper comparison you might have to factor that in as well. Either way, it is a minor issue, with little relevance to the discussion.

 

2. Neither have I ever claimed such a thing? My comments was about BF4 and ONLY  BF4, being more GPU limited than CPU limited. Please understand the context, in which my argumentation is written.

 

3. So the point that multithreading will leave a Pentium behind, is accepted then? Glad you finally understood my point.

Please leave the ad hominem and name calling away from me. It is frivolous, and does not support your case.

A PS4 is not a PC. It does not have to run the same amount of processes, API's, middleware, drivers, software, tools and so on. Neither does the CPU have to process all the data the GPU needs form the RAM/VRAM because of HSA. If you do not understand this, then I'm not the problem here.

 

4. That is your opinion. Like I said, I would still like proof that WD is poorly optimized, as well as downgraded. The E3 settings are nothing but wether settings, making the weather static in the E3 Demos. No downscaling of graphics seems to have occured from those demos. The nightclub has been changed, and the human trafficing moved to a different location. The rest is cinematography, not graphics quality (low hanging sun, long shadows, high contrast with many lightsources, etc. The game still has all that.

 

5. Indeed it is my burden of proof. That is why I'm very curious about GTA5 and The Division, when they come out. Unless GTA5 has as many unique textures on the screen at the same time, I don't think it will need quite as much vram, but we will see. Either way, more textures at the same time = higher vram usage. I don't assume you would disagree with that statement?

 

6. What are you even talking about? I never said anything like that? Do you actually understand what I wrote, and did you even read it?

If devs have more than 10x amount of vram available, obviously it will be possible for them to use it. GTA5 was very limited by the vram available. Now they can go "all in" in the new consoles. That will benefit PC as well, since these games will be designed to use more and better textures, than before.

 

7. Designed for PC. Remember that the new Gen of consoles hadn't even been announced when WD started development. In fact WD had been in development for 3 years, before the PS4 unfinished dev kit was released in 2012 for devs. The real PS4 with finalized specs was not announced until february 2014. WD had been in development since 2009.

Like my link said, when you make new games, that actually push hardware, it again gets accused of being poorly optimized. Just like Crysis 1 did, when it pushed the market. Oh the jokes and accusations. Today we know it was well optimized, but pushed the generel pc more than it could handle back then.

 

The amount of cores are less relevant. It is the amount of threads that count and how parallelized they need to run, that matters. What is your point with Nvidias new cards? The fact that they increased 780ti's Vram with 33% on even the 970, should prove that even Nvidia is starting to see the need for more vram.

 

Ultra texture packs are becoming a comon thing now. How exactly are ultra textures "poorly done"?

 

8. Yes it does, which is why it uses more Vram than the normal res textures that comes with the game, right? But if you increase the number of textures, drawn on the screen at the same time, that would in itself increase the amount of vram used. Do you agree? If not where do you think all the extra textures are stored?

 

9. It IS a thread about consoles. I don't own one, and I prefer to game on PC. But these consoles are relevant, as most AAA games will be developed for consoles, as they have a bigger marketshare than PC. So when these new consoles 10x the amount of vram, then it gets exiting, what will happen to the games for PC and how they will push the pc's now.

OC is a feature on PC only. And like I said, for console players, and most pc players, OC is not interesting to them. It does not matter how easy it is, if they can't or won't do it.

 

10. Several games can use more than 2GB. Several games require more for ultra textures. As most games are still held back by last gen, it will take some time for the new games to come out, to utilize the extra vram. Keep in mind that open world games, will always use more Vram, than corridor games, or racing games. So that factors in too.

Not sure if consoles use ultra textures or not, but in the aspect of PC gaming, it does push the texture quality and amount of texture on the screen. PC gamers getting higher quality textures, is just a good thing for us, as it can take advantage of the more expensive and powerful hardware we have.

Yes, but as games become more advanced, they will not only use more threads, but also use more parallel threads, that depends on each others calculations. There is a reason we have multicore CPU's now. They simply could not get much better on a single core, because they could only increase the length of the pipeline, making it slower at processing a thread. PC's can still brute force through the added threads on this gen of console games, but 2 cores is simply too little.

 

11. You know, just because you don't understand what I wrote, or you disagree, does not mean  shoot myself in the foot. Much Derp!

Not only have I not claimed that PC's do not have low level API's, I even linked to mantle myself to prove that low level API result in higher performance. I'm not entirely sure how low level mantle is compared to the consoles API's, but it does not get lower level than the consoles, as you only have 1 hardware setup you can fully optimize for. Hopefully low(er) level API's for pc's can give us more performance, but right now, we have seen very little of what's to come.

 

12. Cool you can scrap the cost of BD player software then.

There are still very few games, that works on linux. Especially AAA games. Kodus to Valve for developing a tool, to help devs port games from DX to Opengl and generally Linux, but right now, Linux is not a proper alternative to Windows for consumers.