PS4 trash talkers

K

KLZ

New Member
hi sorry for posting in a pc forum but you probably have experience. people are saying stuff about PS4 that seem really stupid. im not an experienced in pc but i think they are wrong.

1. PS4 is a underpowered 500$ laptop
2. PS4 could not run crysis 1 because its overheating
3. PS4 could not run detailed games in 60fps
4. PS4 ram can be outclassed by 16GB ddr3

ps: sorry for my englinsh.
 
Boy oh boy, where to begin!

For one, joining a forum and starting a shit fight about console vs pc or one console vs another is a bad idea!!

Two, the next generation of consoles will be more like the PC architecture, so hopefully we will get more cross-platform optimisation (and better PC versions if it's not a native PC game)

Three, the PS3 has a version of Crysis 1, as does the Xbox 360. However they are heavily gimped in the graphical aspect. I still doubt that any console except for a future generation (after PS4/next xbox) could run it as well as a PC. But even then, Crysis is only optimised for dual cores and still makes a decent PC struggle.

As for RAM, PC video cards have a special, extremely low latency type of RAM. But PC ram will always outclass a console, as PC's are upgradeable and we already have 64GB kits. I have 16GB of 2.4GHz memory. It's high performance stuff. Console stuff is high quality, but performance has to suffer due to mass production, and price restrictions. You can't have a $400 console with $120 worth of RAM.

Until the new consoles hit, we cannot say what could or could not run. At the end it's all down to optimisation, but consoles are also designed for viewing at couch-distance. With a PC you are much closer and playing at higher resolutions, and any lack in detail (especially on PC ports) becomes exponential. This is a bad thing if the game also runs like crap.

TL;DR: Consoles catch flak because the architecture is different to PC. Next generation consoles will hopefully minimise this and give us better games in general. It's still up to the developer to make a good game and make it work well on all platforms. Some games designed for console just don't work well with a mouse and keyboard, or they lack control customisation, have silly things like forced motion blur and forced mouse smoothing/acceleration.
 
linkin said:
Boy oh boy, where to begin!

For one, joining a forum and starting a shit fight about console vs pc or one console vs another is a bad idea!!

Two, the next generation of consoles will be more like the PC architecture, so hopefully we will get more cross-platform optimisation (and better PC versions if it's not a native PC game)

Three, the PS3 has a version of Crysis 1, as does the Xbox 360. However they are heavily gimped in the graphical aspect. I still doubt that any console except for a future generation (after PS4/next xbox) could run it as well as a PC. But even then, Crysis is only optimised for dual cores and still makes a decent PC struggle.

As for RAM, PC video cards have a special, extremely low latency type of RAM. But PC ram will always outclass a console, as PC's are upgradeable and we already have 64GB kits. I have 16GB of 2.4GHz memory. It's high performance stuff. Console stuff is high quality, but performance has to suffer due to mass production, and price restrictions. You can't have a $400 console with $120 worth of RAM.

Until the new consoles hit, we cannot say what could or could not run. At the end it's all down to optimisation, but consoles are also designed for viewing at couch-distance. With a PC you are much closer and playing at higher resolutions, and any lack in detail (especially on PC ports) becomes exponential. This is a bad thing if the game also runs like crap.

TL;DR: Consoles catch flak because the architecture is different to PC. Next generation consoles will hopefully minimise this and give us better games in general. It's still up to the developer to make a good game and make it work well on all platforms. Some games designed for console just don't work well with a mouse and keyboard, or they lack control customisation, have silly things like forced motion blur and forced mouse smoothing/acceleration.
Click to expand...

isnt gddr5 faster then gddr3 though?
 
KLZ said:
hi sorry for posting in a pc forum but you probably have experience. people are saying stuff about PS4 that seem really stupid. im not an experienced in pc but i think they are wrong.

1. PS4 is a underpowered 500$ laptop
Click to expand...
no. Not at all. The only way that is even half true is in the fact that it is running bobcat cores from AMD's laptop APUs.

Graphically it is about 1/2 way between the 7850 and 7870 desktop cards. To get that power in a laptop you need a 7970m, and that is going to be $500+ on its own, let alone with the rest of the laptop.

Also you are not likely going to get, or need 16GB of RAM in a laptop of that price range. At least not new.

2. PS4 could not run crysis 1 because its overheating
Click to expand...
Facepalm_facepalm.png


No. That is so wrong on so many levels. First, the PS3 can play it, so you can be darn sure that the PS4 will. Above that, the game does not dictate the heat, the hardware usage does. Crysis will not run any hotter than MW3 or BF4, all 100% usage, same hardware, same heat buildup.

3. PS4 could not run detailed games in 60fps
Click to expand...
They do not need to period. they are programmed to run at a constant vsyncd 30FPS, and they do it well. Could it run at 60FPS, yes. Would it matter, no. You will not see the difference at all with most televisions.

4. PS4 ram can be outclassed by 16GB ddr3
Click to expand...
Technically not. At the same speed, say 800MHz, the DDR5 of the PS4 will be double as fast as DDR3. DDR3 is double pumped. What this means is that it can send and receive 1 stream of data at the same time, making 2 times as fast (as opposed to a single send OR receive, it is send AND receive). DDR5 is quad pumped, meaning 4 streams, 2 send AND 2 receive. the 800MHz example is 1600MHz DDR3 and 2400MHz DDR5.

That is not to mention the latency difference.

TO be simple about it, the PS4 wins that one.

ps: sorry for my englinsh.
Click to expand...
Constructive comment: It only has one N. English.




And All of the above is aside from the fact that you will always get better setting and better visual quality on PC, but at the price of lots of $$$
 
KLZ said:
so more gddr3 can beat gddr5?
Click to expand...

No. GDDR5 is literally twice as fast as GDDR3 at the same clock speed. More than that, GDDR3 is based upon DDR2 which is double pumped, GDDR4/GDDR5 are based on DDR3 which is quad-pumped.

So you'd need GDDR3 at 2GHz to equal GDDR5 at 1GHz.

Since GDDR5 can hit 3000MHz and beyond, it's impossible for GDDR3 to be faster.
 
wolfeking said:
no. Not at all. The only way that is even half true is in the fact that it is running bobcat cores from AMD's laptop APUs.

Graphically it is about 1/2 way between the 7850 and 7870 desktop cards. To get that power in a laptop you need a 7970m, and that is going to be $500+ on its own, let alone with the rest of the laptop.

Also you are not likely going to get, or need 16GB of RAM in a laptop of that price range. At least not new.


Facepalm_facepalm.png


No. That is so wrong on so many levels. First, the PS3 can play it, so you can be darn sure that the PS4 will. Above that, the game does not dictate the heat, the hardware usage does. Crysis will not run any hotter than MW3 or BF4, all 100% usage, same hardware, same heat buildup.


They do not need to period. they are programmed to run at a constant vsyncd 30FPS, and they do it well. Could it run at 60FPS, yes. Would it matter, no. You will not see the difference at all with most televisions.


Technically not. At the same speed, say 800MHz, the DDR5 of the PS4 will be double as fast as DDR3. DDR3 is double pumped. What this means is that it can send and receive 1 stream of data at the same time, making 2 times as fast (as opposed to a single send OR receive, it is send AND receive). DDR5 is quad pumped, meaning 4 streams, 2 send AND 2 receive. the 800MHz example is 1600MHz DDR3 and 2400MHz DDR5.

That is not to mention the latency difference.

TO be simple about it, the PS4 wins that one.


Constructive comment: It only has one N. English.




And All of the above is aside from the fact that you will always get better setting and better visual quality on PC, but at the price of lots of $$$
Click to expand...

1. what are they discussing then
2. would performance be still as good though?
 
I think the PS4 has beaten the Xbox 720 or Durango or whatever already with the always online rumours floating around. We'll soon find out at E3!
 
Turbo10 said:
I think the PS4 has beaten the Xbox 720 or Durango or whatever already with the always online rumours floating around. We'll soon find out at E3!
Click to expand...

Based on...


The entire thread can be summed up in a single sentence:

The console is not out yet so it is impossible to say anything for certain without speculating.


Long story short, like every console, the pc is capable of being more powerful and having infinitely more uses. If your main point is gaming though, you will not get more gaming power for your money
 
one thing more i forgot to say

PS4 gpu is wattage constrainted so it is not as powerful as pc gpu?
 
wattage does not equal power in terms of performance. If you go by that, then a 680 is weaker than the 7950, which it is not. Wattage only measures what cooling device you need, not performance.

You can only truely compare performance with tflop performance.
 
wolfeking said:
wattage does not equal power in terms of performance. If you go by that, then a 680 is weaker than the 7950, which it is not. Wattage only measures what cooling device you need, not performance.

You can only truely compare performance with tflop performance.
Click to expand...

this is what some was saying

"Its not performance that is determined by it, but overall useage of power during full load. My GTX 670 uses 334 watts ( checked a while ago) at full load. the console has to use at the most 200 watts ( laws regarding power) with that max power for all its hardware, each piece has to use less than 95w at full load. This means in english the card and cpu can never push full PC level specs."
 
That's like trying to say a car is faster because it uses more gas.

Logic isn't there at all. Just because something is power hungry doesn't mean it's more powerful. Look at power consumption 5 years ago of CPU chips and compare them to today. They may have used the same or even more power 5 years ago but their performance can't hold a candle to modern processing.

Edited, said the wrong word earlier.
 
Last edited:
Denther said:
That's like trying to say a car is faster because it uses more gas.

Logic isn't there at all. Just because something is power hungry doesn't mean it's weak. Look at power consumption 5 years ago of CPU chips and compare them to today. They may have used the same or even more power 5 years ago but their performance can't hold a candle to modern processing.
Click to expand...

so more wattage can not higher performance at all?
 
also not true. Power consumption is not comparable at all. It is just what it says, how much power it uses to do the job. It is not a measure of performance.

To get performance you have to look at numbers like FPS, FLOP performance, or the like.
 
Yeah exactly. Another example is my CPU (Phenom II 955) vs a 3570K. The 3570K is much more powerful and efficient than mine. However the 955 has a TDP of 125 watts while the 3570K is a mere 77. That's not a valid number to look at for performance.

As wolfe said you need to look at numbers directly correlating to performance. Most gamers will look at FPS as that's a visible change they can see while still being a quantitative piece of data.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top