Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Next generation of consoles to have faster hardware than today's PC's?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
August 5, 2010 4:50:56 AM

I heard that the Playstation 4 and XBOX 3 will have much faster hardware than even today's fastest desktop gaming computers possible.

Their hardware will rival the performance of a Core i7 980X @4.4 GHz with 12 GB of RAM and 3-way SLI GTX 480 or 2-way CrossfireX HD 5970.

Playstation 3's "reality synthesizer" GPU is less powerful than an Nvidia 7xxx series. XBOX 360's hardware is even slower. Which is why Crysis did not work on the consoles.
August 5, 2010 4:54:42 AM

Who ever you heard this from must be a used car salesman, because they are full of ***.

And if it was that powerful it would fail because of the price it would have to be.
Score
0
August 5, 2010 5:18:30 AM

I doubt that a £300 console will include £4000 worth of hardware. It's unlikely.
Score
0
Related resources
August 5, 2010 8:28:59 AM

ambam said:
I heard that the Playstation 4 and XBOX 3 will have much faster hardware than even today's fastest desktop gaming computers possible.

Their hardware will rival the performance of a Core i7 980X @4.4 GHz with 12 GB of RAM and 3-way SLI GTX 480 or 2-way CrossfireX HD 5970.

Playstation 3's "reality synthesizer" GPU is less powerful than an Nvidia 7xxx series. XBOX 360's hardware is even slower. Which is why Crysis did not work on the consoles.


Heard from where?
Score
0
August 5, 2010 8:38:48 AM

Herr_Koos said:
Heard from where?


Some console fanboy on a gaming forum.

I doubt that the next-gen consoles will have faster hardware than even that of PC's. I was just exaggerating and being a bit sarcastic.

I prefer gaming on PC's.

Do you think the next generation of consoles will at least be fast enough to run Crysis?
Score
0
August 5, 2010 10:35:54 AM

I think that the next generation of consoles will get delayed for a while, for starters. 2012 but prob 2013 (if the Mayans were wrong, that is, and the sun doesn't explode or something in 2012).

Secondly consoles have architecture which is designed to maximise gaming performance, and they can get more FPS from less hardware power because of this.
By the time we see the next gen consoles they will likely be using fairy powerful processors, and probably have like 2Gb or shared RAM, or maybe 4Gb, whereas PC's will be using like 16Gb. But the PC's will likely be on par with the consoles frame per second when they first come out.

Think about the AAA titles from the last 12 months which recommend atleast 2Gb or RAM (Metro 2033 recommended 8Gb!!!). Yet the consoles (PS3 AND XBox360) each have only 512Mb of RAM combined for graphics and RAM. How is this possible - well it's like I said - consoles have specially designed architecture for doing only one thing - playing games!

PC's and PC operating systems are designed to multitask, and do loads of things which a console can't do, but we pay the price of performance.
Score
0
August 5, 2010 7:59:55 PM

ambam said:
Some console fanboy on a gaming forum.

I doubt that the next-gen consoles will have faster hardware than even that of PC's. I was just exaggerating and being a bit sarcastic.

I prefer gaming on PC's.

Do you think the next generation of consoles will at least be fast enough to run Crysis?



Current consoles could easily run crysis. Its hardly a big benchmark these days, and to be honest never should have been. Claiming anything about crysis is little more than retarded. The game doesn't even look that good by todays standards, even on its "ultra settings." Put a big enough engine in a bus and it will do 200Mph but that does not make it a racing car.
Console architecture changes massively with each generation so its hard to predict what kind of hardware tommorow's consoles will have. Today's consoles are just modified PowerPC's with mid range nvidia graphics chips (tl;dr version). Tommrow's consoles could be x86 or even ARM based, they could continue down the same road and use PowerPC architecture again, which is quite likely if Sony further development of the Cell.
While there have been talk of successors to both the Playstation 3 and the Nintendo Wii, Talk about a successor to the xbox 360 is almost non existent. Unless this fanboy has some inside information, which I highly doubt, I would imagine you are being wound up by a troll who thinks he can make stuff up to lend legitimacy to his bullshit views.
Score
0
August 6, 2010 12:02:09 PM

I remember back in the day we used to talk about how many bit a console was. super nes - 16 bit, playstation 32 bit, n64 64 bit, ps2 128 bit. It was much simpler back then...
Score
0
August 6, 2010 1:42:28 PM

Well of course all console are going to be faster than some generation of PC hardware. The current gen consoles are faster than PC hardware - from 10 years ago - and some day there will be a console faster than today's PC hardware. But whats relevant is how they compare to contemporary hardware. Saying a console in 2015 will be faster than a PC in 2010 is completely irrelevant. When are these next-gen consoles even supposed to come out anyways? Will there even be a next-gen? Probably but it most likely be the last.
Score
0
August 18, 2010 6:59:27 AM

Well i think they will be, consoles historically speaking when initially launched, really are "always" better than most "current high end pc's" in terms of graphics, like when xbox 360 came out, it featured unfied architecture which was only launched with direct x 10 and we were still in the age of direct x 9 and hell it featured tesselation , which only became standard with direct x 11 cards,(although no developer used it) damn even the orignal xbox was way ahead of its time and featured hardware capablities more than "ge force 3" (at that time ge force 2 was uber high end ) and even games that were "next gen"(for tat time) like doom 3 was orginally announced at the launch of ge-force 3 and was said wud be comming to original xbox.(nd it did get released).Even the early current genration titiles like "king kong and oblivion""(the xbox 360 version featuring same visuals) wen released demanded insane pc hardware(for its time) to run smoothly(oblivion even put 7800 sli to shame and that was a killer rig for its time) , and gears of war was the best u can get in terms of graphics for all platforms (pc version only got realsed after 2 years) for almost 2 years after which crysis came out, so pc wud eventually beat console in grapahics but thats "after few years", so at the launch of next generation even a 4 way 480 gtx sli or qaudfire 5970 with i7 980 gtx with 24gb ram or other razz maaa tazz of current generation cant match the power and graphics capabiltity of xbox 720(watever they may call it) or even ps 4.
Score
0
September 7, 2010 10:33:01 AM

MS and Sony could make very powerful consoles if they wanted to. The problem is they have to sell those consoles for $400 or less, which limits the amount of hardware they can use. Remember when the PS3 first came out, and Sony charged $500 to $600 for them? Very few people bought the PS3 until Sony made a cheaper 40GB one.

It will be interesting to see what's in the new consoles. We should find out in 2012, perhaps 2013.
Score
0
September 7, 2010 12:49:41 PM

*sigh*, again, there is no reason to build a console to PC spec. Consoles need significantly fewer resources then a PC, due to being built and designed as a single purpose machine.

If anything, consoles will become gaming-oriented PC's when its all said and done. I figure the next step is native mouse/keyboard support for all console games...
Score
0
September 10, 2010 1:43:39 PM

the only advantage consoles have over PC is RAM. PC's use a lot of it for rubbish. Processing/3d tasks, like gaming, are not scaled like that between pc's/consoles. while running a game a PC allocates 99% of its processor/video resources to the game, as does a console. So dont give me this "consoles use less resources" crap, when its only RAM they use less of. The PROGRAMMING, however can be done more specific to the console's hardware, thus making it more efficient.
Score
0
September 13, 2010 12:57:58 PM

^^ Agreed. We landed on the moon with 152KB of RAM for gods sake...single purpose machines do NOT need a lot of RAM to function.
Score
0
July 16, 2011 2:05:12 AM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
Score
0
!