Ah not again

[qepsilonp]

I seem to be making a habit of this but on the WAN Show again Linus and Luke were mistaken about something again, they said that this generation of consoles are weak, and the unsaid implication was that the last generation were powerful, not ture...

 

When the PS3 lunched back in Nov 2006 you could for $653 buy a PC with
7900GT for $200 "With $40 mail-in rebait"

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ $184

1GB RAM $100

250GB HDD $70

MB MSI K9VGM-V Socket AM2 $38

430W PSU $34

Case $30
 

"Prices used were Sourced from Waybackmachine.org and Newegg.con from 14th November 2006."

 

Which a 7900GT was almost twice as powerful as the GPU in the PS3, as the PS3's GPU was a G70 chip with half its ROPs disabled clocked at 500Mhz. The 7900GT was a fully unlocked G70 chip with a clock speed of 450Mhz so not twice as powerful but 90% more powerful, and you could drive a 7900GT with all that other hardware so yeah. On top of that 1 year later the 8800GT came out which was far more powerful than the 7900GT, and the difference between the PS3's GPU and the 8800GT is about the same difference between the 970 and the PS4.

And if your going to put a computer together with a 970 your talking about $600 - $800 vs the PS4's $340 yes it will stomp the PS4 but thats the point by November 2007 you could stomp the PS3 by a similar margin while spending only a little more than you would on a PS3.

In other words consoles haven't been competitive since the original Xbox and the PS4 and Xbone are far more competitive than the PS3 and X360 as the PS3 was outstripped by 90% on the GPU the PS4 with a similarly price PC can only be outstripped by 40%.

[hug0mac]

Thanks for the info.

[don_svetlio]

The PS4's 7850 GPU core is okay. Nothing groundbreaking but still a decent chip. The 7790 in the Xbone is too low however.

[Paralectic]

Ofcourse Linus and Luke aren't always right.

You should never take people's facts as your facts without research.

Bias towards anyone is bad, acquire information and form your own opinion always.

[Swndlr]

Ofcourse Linus and Luke aren't always right.

You should never take people's facts as your facts without research.

Bias towards anyone is bad, acquire information and form your own opinion always.

FACTS M8

[mider]

Yeah I don't have enough patients to research any of this.  Cool findings though

[Shepanator]

No console since 1990 has been more powerful than any pc hardware you could buy at the time for a similar price.

Consoles have always been 'underpowered'.

 

Its the optimisations that help them go a long way and stay competitive. The ps3 had 256mb of system RAM and 256mb of graphics memory, yet it could render games like uncharted 3. I'm not trying to say that uncharted 3 is particularly impressive looking, but a pc with the same raw specs could never even dream of running a game like that. (even at 720p 30fps)

 

Besides any of that better graphics don't make a game more fun, I have a pretty beast rig but my favourite game of the last few years is LittleBigPlanet 2, a ps3 game.

All of the pc master race chest beating just makes linus and co. look childish.

[Coaxialgamer]

I seem to be making a habit of this but on the WAN Show again Linus and Luke were mistaken about something again, they said that this generation of consoles are weak, and the unsaid implication was that the last generation were powerful, not ture...

When the PS3 lunched back in Nov 2006 you could for $653 buy a PC with

7900GT for $200 "With $40 mail-in rebait"

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ $184

1GB RAM $100

250GB HDD $70

MB MSI K9VGM-V Socket AM2 $38

430W PSU $34

Case $30

"Prices used were Sourced from Waybackmachine.org and Newegg.con from 14th November 2006."

Which a 7900GT was almost twice as powerful as the GPU in the PS3, as the PS3's GPU was a G70 chip with half its ROPs disabled clocked at 500Mhz. The 7900GT was a fully unlocked G70 chip with a clock speed of 450Mhz so not twice as powerful but 90% more powerful, and you could drive a 7900GT with all that other hardware so yeah. On top of that 1 year later the 8800GT came out which was far more powerful than the 7900GT, and the difference between the PS3's GPU and the 8800GT is about the same difference between the 970 and the PS4.

And if your going to put a computer together with a 970 your talking about $600 - $800 vs the PS4's $340 yes it will stomp the PS4 but thats the point by November 2007 you could stomp the PS3 by a similar margin while spending only a little more than you would on a PS3.

In other words consoles haven't been competitive since the original Xbox and the PS4 and Xbone are far more competitive than the PS3 and X360 as the PS3 was outstripped by 90% on the GPU the PS4 with a similarly price PC can only be outstripped by 40%.

The thing is, yes they are still less powerdul than then current pc hardware, but at the time the ps3 was a little over half the performance of a the 7900gt, today, you can buy a gpu like the 380 which is much more powerful than the ps4s gpu, not 40% more powerful.

[LokiFire]

PS3 is highly specialized elsewhere, games that run on PS3 would not be looking as good on a 7900GT.

Cell shared GPU calculations increasing it's capabilities significantly.

[Praesi]

Consoles were never on the same level as PC.

[AshleyAshes]

Part of the problem here is that the OP is comparing raw power as a determination of what a console and PC is capable of.  This is not the way to go.  PCs are inefficient at gaming on account of all the abstraction layers and such that's used to communicate between software and hardware.  This inefficiency is necessary to ensure compatibility between about one bajillion different possible hardware combinations but it's cost is most certainly there.  Running a single OS, with only one task in mind, with every game console model being identical in specs to every other game console manufactured allows those machines to be significantly more efficient in comparison.  Of course, this also means there will never be a 'PlayStation 4.5 with 50% more cores!' or anything like that.  But to be clear, comparing raw specs of hardware between consoles and hardware does not communicate which machine is more capable.

 

The real comparison would be how much hardware is necessary to get roughly the same resolution, frame rate, and visual fidelity that a console offers.  This is somewhat a subjective measure however.

 

...Oh the other hand, one could ALSO build a dedicated PC, port a game to it, with a purpose built OS, that will only ever have ONE hardware configuration and it'll crush any other PC of similar specs running Windows and standard APIs.  Of course, no one would do that, because the game would only run on ONE sit of hardware and that'd never sell any units.