Forum - View topicNEWS: PlayStation 4 Reaches 6 Million Units Sold Worldwide
|
Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
acetatsujin
Posts: 208 |
|
|||||
|
Proud to be an owner of PS4 on first day of release. I was standing in line to get it.
Awesome console, nice starter games. I want more games now. I could careless about the other crap because I can do all of that on my computer. Consoles are FOR GAMES! Oh, and it is extremely powerful since a lot of its games are 1080p. I think all of the games run at 1080p? 
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Echo_City
Posts: 1236 |
|
|||||
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/johan-andersson-battlefield-4-interview,3688-5.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/johan-andersson-battlefield-4-interview,3688-6.html Better than the PS3 though, that's for sure. The same interview I've quoted has DICE saying that the PS3 was the bottleneck for the previous generation. Keeping us stuck at the crappy levels of the 360 & PS3 for so long was brutal. Can't believe that there wasn't an outcry of "hey, these consoles look like crap on my 1080 TV" but then, I guess people who didn't game on PC wouldn't know that there was better out there. |
||||||
|
||||||
Rahxephon91
 Posts: 1859 Location: Park Forest IL. |
|
|||||
|
Yeah. Battlefield 4. A launch title, one that was clearly rushed in development, had to still be developed for several systems all by Dice themselves, and is a buggy game even today.
Yeah that's the game to go by when talking about these system's power. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
configspace
Posts: 3717 |
|
|||||
I'm both a PC and console gamer but the PS4 is still very powerful and beats all mid-end systems today, let alone "yesteryear's" PCs. There is no way you can buy a PC equivalent to PS4 for $400. Its GPU is equivalent to a slightly lower clocked R9 270 (or AMD 7870) with more much memory and True Audio DSP. BF4 runs at 900p on PS4 and 720p on XB1. However, most higher ends PCs today would have trouble playing BF4 at 1080p AND turning up all the quality options AND maintaining a minimum of 60fps--the last two being requirements they were targeting. The video card alone required would cost at least as much as the entire console or more. |
||||||
|
||||||
mdo7
 Posts: 6374 Location: Katy, Texas, USA |
|
|||||
|
Congrats Sony for this achievement!!!
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Echo_City
Posts: 1236 |
|
|||||
To the bolded statement (emphasis added): That's not a very precise statement. The actual 7870/R9 270 slaughters the quasi-APUs in the PS4; 1080 gaming at higher levels of detail than what I've seen from the current consoles at <1080 was nothing for that card. The consoles have 8 cores-which I applaud as it will spur game developers on to greater multithreading-but they are not very powerful cores. The PS4 launch title Knack not only looks subpar but it brought the PS4 to its knees with its physics simulation. An inauspicious start. One does not need to really buy a whole PC for 400 dollars that can rival the PS4, just a <=$400 GPU that gives their pc from "yesteryear" the boost it needs. A GPU in that MSRP range combined with most any quad-core CPU could give the consoles a thrashing. If those funds were budgeted between a GPU and a SSD then it'd gain an even greater advantage over the XBone. These are the consoles with which we will be stuck for the next several years and they are so weak. While "900p" is better than the infamous 1024*720 of yesteryear it is still a LONG way from 1080, which itself pales to today's QHD and tomorrow's 4K. Full HD might not have been ubiquitous circa 2005 when the 360/PS3 released but it is today and gaming at that res should have been guaranteed. Unfortunately M$ and Sony screwed gamers. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
configspace
Posts: 3717 |
|
|||||
Actually I need to revise a bit. I just remembered it has 2 CUs (compute units) less. Nonetheless it is still using the nearly same hardware and is still more powerful than a 7850. This isn't speculation but the facts straight from its specs: http://anandtech.com/show/7528/the-xbox-one-mini-review-hardware-analysis/2 And you can use the above to compare the PS4 GPU to the very latest current crop of mid-end up to R9 270 video cards (note actual prices are higher than listed here): http://anandtech.com/show/7836/amds-radeon-r7-265-now-available It also has an audio DSP chip that is not available in the R9 270, but are in other AMD parts based on their newer architecture: http://anandtech.com/show/7513/ps4-spec-update-audio-dsp-is-based-on-amds-trueaudio You are confusing marketed PC APUs with the chip in the PS4 or XB1. They use 8 but relatively weaker "Jaguar" cores, which like you said will force developers to be more multi-threaded, but that alone makes it different from all the retail APUs today. More significantly, unlike any retail APU, the PS4 GPU was lifted from the 7870/R9 270 but minus 2 CUs, for a total of 18 CUs x 64 cores = 1,152 cores. These cores, aka shaders, determine the theoretical computational power. However, the other parts are still critical such as the ROP count, which determines rendering throughput, likewise with memory interface. Again, it is the same here as the R9 270 (32 ROPs, 256-bit memory). As far as Knack goes, well I can't really say since I don't know much about it other than store demos and I would suspect bad programming first and foremost. Think about all the bugs and performance issues that constantly plague PC games. You just spent a ton of money on a high-end card, only to find the latest game stutters or slows down uncharacteristically in some situations. Do you say "Man, this $400 card is crappy weak-sauce hardware that can't even run this game right", or do you wait for a patch/update? But I've seen other games and demos on PS4 highlighting the realtime capabilities and they've all been fantastic. |
||||||
|
||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group