Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Playstation 4 to have better hardware than today's top-end PC's?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
June 24, 2011 8:26:01 AM

I heard a rumor about how the playstation 4 is supposed to have faster hardware than even a $5,500 gaming PC with the fastest hardware setups possible.

Also, the next-gen XBOX and Ninento Wii 2 are supposed to have faster-than-PC hardware.

The combined graphical power of 4-way SLI GTX 480 or 4-way Crossfire HD 6970 still isn't even half of what the PS4's GPU is alleged to be capable of.

There are also rumors of a TeraFLOP CPU in the next-gen consoles.
June 24, 2011 9:11:57 AM

ambam said:
I heard a rumor about how the playstation 4 is supposed to have faster hardware than even a $5,500 gaming PC with the fastest hardware setups possible.



I haven't.
June 24, 2011 10:39:34 AM

I believe the PS4 will be powerful, the GPU will not come even close to those specs. Consoles built at the time always use the latest GPU's (360 - 1900 ati / PS3 7800 Nvidia) of the time and maybe just maybe they'll have some sort of SLI/Crossfire setup. It does'nt take long for pc Tech overtake these next gen consoles.

Also, take into consideration, Selling a console with say £4000 of hardware in it and flogging it for £400/500 can you imagine the price of the games would have to be and the amount to make a profit would bankrupt Sony.

Simple fact is no chance!!
Related resources
June 25, 2011 12:21:39 AM

ambam said:
I heard a rumor about how the playstation 4 is supposed to have faster hardware than even a $5,500 gaming PC with the fastest hardware setups possible.

Also, the next-gen XBOX and Ninento Wii 2 are supposed to have faster-than-PC hardware.

The combined graphical power of 4-way SLI GTX 480 or 4-way Crossfire HD 6970 still isn't even half of what the PS4's GPU is alleged to be capable of.

There are also rumors of a TeraFLOP CPU in the next-gen consoles.


The Playstation would simply melt. There is no way a Playstation could safely filter that much heat in a console case. Not to mention, consoles are made to be portable. If the PS4 was to have hardware such as what you've listed, it would way like 30lbs and be quite large.

If or when PS4 is released I'm sure it will be impressive as far as consoles go but PC will always be more advanced.

June 25, 2011 12:29:19 AM

Source? :) 

Honestly though, what everyone here has said is exactly the case.

Console = mainstream = affordable = intrinsically not high spec as high spec costs.

It'd be bold to make the PS4 as powerful as you suggest, but from Sony's point of view (as a business) it would be stupid.

-Nih
June 25, 2011 4:45:20 AM

As far as I'm concerned, it may well be possible that a future console might have hardware comparable to todays high end comps. I doubt it but with how technology constantly trudges along I wouldn't count it out for sure. There's also things like how consoles are dedicated for gaming and such whereas PCs are multi-use so that begins to blur the line between effective "power" of each (eg, emulators that run on PCs with "higher specs" than the console being emulated can struggle to keep up).

Though, the Wii U's hardware last I checked was confirmed as being crap. ITts not up to scratch with a lot of computing power available today and won't be released for x years so by that time the hardware ought to be rather dated. AFAIK the source wasn't 100% confirmed but apparently is from a site with reliable "leaks".
June 25, 2011 5:21:43 AM

ambam said:
I heard a rumor about how the playstation 4 is supposed to have faster hardware than even a $5,500 gaming PC with the fastest hardware setups possible.

Also, the next-gen XBOX and Ninento Wii 2 are supposed to have faster-than-PC hardware.

The combined graphical power of 4-way SLI GTX 480 or 4-way Crossfire HD 6970 still isn't even half of what the PS4's GPU is alleged to be capable of.

There are also rumors of a TeraFLOP CPU in the next-gen consoles.


I heard a rumor that the PS4 will have a 50 core CPU with 10 ghz and still cost only $0.50.
June 27, 2011 2:54:52 AM

FullBurstMode said:
As far as I'm concerned, it may well be possible that a future console might have hardware comparable to todays high end comps. I doubt it but with how technology constantly trudges along I wouldn't count it out for sure. There's also things like how consoles are dedicated for gaming and such whereas PCs are multi-use so that begins to blur the line between effective "power" of each (eg, emulators that run on PCs with "higher specs" than the console being emulated can struggle to keep up).

Though, the Wii U's hardware last I checked was confirmed as being crap. ITts not up to scratch with a lot of computing power available today and won't be released for x years so by that time the hardware ought to be rather dated. AFAIK the source wasn't 100% confirmed but apparently is from a site with reliable "leaks".


The CPU in the PS4 is going to a 22nm multi-core powerhouse. A powerful multi-core GPU is also likely. The GPU could rival the combined performance of 4-way SLI GTX 480's. Or 4-way CFX HD 6970's.

PC's may not catch up to the performance of these consoles for several years. Although I don't see how you could put such monstrous hardware in a console and charge only about $500 for it.
June 27, 2011 5:19:13 PM

ambam said:
The CPU in the PS4 is going to a 22nm multi-core powerhouse. A powerful multi-core GPU is also likely. The GPU could rival the combined performance of 4-way SLI GTX 480's. Or 4-way CFX HD 6970's.

PC's may not catch up to the performance of these consoles for several years. Although I don't see how you could put such monstrous hardware in a console and charge only about $500 for it.


[lol] Where do you get your information from? Wiki? [rofl]

Look at the 360 and PS3. When they were released they were still less powerful than PC. Console is built for quick bucks. Not everybody wants or can dish out the money needed for a PC with greater hardware. That's why consoles exist. They're a cheaper alternative to the gaming PC.

Can you amuse the forums by giving us your age? We may then totally understand the reasoning of your posts.
June 27, 2011 7:19:59 PM

the next gen xbox or ps3 will probably have hardware equaling around 500 bux in cost so there is NO WAY IN HELL the ps4 or xbox will ever sport the highest spec anything to be cost effective to consumers. cmon, what 11 yr old's parents are going to buy them a console that costs 5.500.00
June 28, 2011 5:56:09 PM

FlintIronStagg said:
the next gen xbox or ps3 will probably have hardware equaling around 500 bux in cost so there is NO WAY IN HELL the ps4 or xbox will ever sport the highest spec anything to be cost effective to consumers. cmon, what 11 yr old's parents are going to buy them a console that costs 5.500.00


I'm waiting for the HD 7xxx and GTX 6xx from ATI/NVidia. Those things are going to eat the new consoles for breakfast.
June 28, 2011 6:46:51 PM

I love how long this thread is considering the main argument is "rumor".
June 28, 2011 7:48:25 PM

ambam said:
I'm waiting for the HD 7xxx and GTX 6xx from ATI/NVidia. Those things are going to eat the new consoles for breakfast.

The 5xx and 6xxx series already does
June 28, 2011 8:20:00 PM

FlintIronStagg said:
The 5xx and 6xxx series already does


What about the HD 5xxx and GTX 4xx series?
June 28, 2011 11:24:56 PM

hell, the 8800GT and the 3870 did
June 29, 2011 2:24:20 AM

when the ps3 was released it was already outdated compared to PC hardware, so i expect the same from the ps4. The pricing on the ps3 when it launched was pretty rediculous and for the same money you could have build a better pc. And at least you can do a lot more with a PC.
June 29, 2011 12:54:34 PM

1: Consoles, because they are typically programmed at a very low level, don't NEED top-tier hardware. Likewise, the OS is lightweight, and only one application is running at a time, which frees a LOT of CPU time to focus on the primary task at hand.

2: Because of cost, console makers cant afford to use top-tier hardware [you want to pay $800 for a console?]

Hence why, for instance, the Wii U uses a 4000 series era GPU [and that does NOT automatically mean a 4870], because its cheap, and more then powerful enough for a console.

Consoles will ALWAYS use weaker hardware then PC's.
June 29, 2011 2:17:45 PM

gamerk316 said:
1: Consoles, because they are typically programmed at a very low level, don't NEED top-tier hardware. Likewise, the OS is lightweight, and only one application is running at a time, which frees a LOT of CPU time to focus on the primary task at hand.

2: Because of cost, console makers cant afford to use top-tier hardware [you want to pay $800 for a console?]

Hence why, for instance, the Wii U uses a 4000 series era GPU [and that does NOT automatically mean a 4870], because its cheap, and more then powerful enough for a console.

Consoles will ALWAYS use weaker hardware then PC's.


but what about the rumor? :p 
June 29, 2011 2:40:57 PM

easymark26 said:
but what about the rumor? :p 


Exactly! If it's on the interwebz, it must be true, surely.
July 2, 2011 5:20:12 PM

gamerk316 said:
1: Consoles, because they are typically programmed at a very low level, don't NEED top-tier hardware. Likewise, the OS is lightweight, and only one application is running at a time, which frees a LOT of CPU time to focus on the primary task at hand.

2: Because of cost, console makers cant afford to use top-tier hardware [you want to pay $800 for a console?]

Hence why, for instance, the Wii U uses a 4000 series era GPU [and that does NOT automatically mean a 4870], because its cheap, and more then powerful enough for a console.

Consoles will ALWAYS use weaker hardware then PC's.


The playstation 3's "cell" processor has 9 physical cores and almost 1 TERAFLOP of computational power. MUCH faster than any PC processor, even today.
July 2, 2011 8:43:07 PM

The cell processor, just like bluray was a marketing gimmick from sony. one of the reasons developers complained about the process with the ps3 being more tedious than the 360 seeing as how a 9 core cell processor is supposed to compute what normally can be processed with 2-3. for multitasking and multiple programs... yeah, more cores is fine, but for games most utilize only 2-3, so thats pretty much 6 wasted cores from sony.
July 2, 2011 10:38:22 PM

FlintIronStagg said:
The cell processor, just like bluray was a marketing gimmick from sony. one of the reasons developers complained about the process with the ps3 being more tedious than the 360 seeing as how a 9 core cell processor is supposed to compute what normally can be processed with 2-3. for multitasking and multiple programs... yeah, more cores is fine, but for games most utilize only 2-3, so thats pretty much 6 wasted cores from sony.


Today, there isn't a single PC game which uses more than four physical cores. Making a 6-8 core CPU impractical for gaming. The only applications which benefit from that many cores are things like HD video encoding and whatnot.
July 3, 2011 7:11:49 AM

ambam said:
The playstation 3's "cell" processor has 9 physical cores and almost 1 TERAFLOP of computational power. MUCH faster than any PC processor, even today.


First of all, it has only one true core and the rest are all pseudo cores.

Secondly, it has only 230 GB of single-precision FLOPs. the radeon 6970, by comparison has 2.7 teraflops. that is more than 10 times the processing power.

(http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/graphics/amd-rad...)

Thirdly, even the greatest processor in the world wont do much if its held back by an obsolete GPu and only 512 MB of memory.

July 3, 2011 5:08:08 PM

You guys got it wrong, PS3 is BOSS and PWNS all PCs. (did i get the pseudo console enthusiast lingo down?hehe)
July 3, 2011 9:18:58 PM

ambam said:
Today, there isn't a single PC game which uses more than four physical cores. Making a 6-8 core CPU impractical for gaming. The only applications which benefit from that many cores are things like HD video encoding and whatnot.


That's not true. While most games don't profit from extra cores, or even hyperthreading (i7's), some actually do.

I did some testing myself, when I was overclocking my i7 920 and was surprised by the results, due to seeing so many people tell me it never helps in gaming.

An interview with the chief tech on Metro 2033: http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,706182/Exclusive-tec...
Quote:
PCGH: Does your engine profit from SMT/Hyperthreading or do you recommend turning it off for maximum performance?

Oles Shishkovstov: Definitely, every properly written engine code will benefit from SMT/Hyperthreading. For example on Xbox 360 we get almost 50% speedup from it. So, if your CPU does have this feature - don't turn it off!


This was one I tested myself. Which lead me to test other games. I had turned off HT to achieve a higher stable overclock, and after getting to 4.2Ghz, I ran my Metro 2033 benchmark, and lost 2-3 FPS. I ran it again with the same results. So I set my CPU's clock back at 4.0Ghz and ran 3 times with and without HT enabled and I had a 3 FPS advantage with HT enabled, which coincides with what was written above.

I also did a search on hyperthreading, and saw a few mentions of Resident Evil 5. I found this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSfduuG0tIA

In both cases, the games gained 10% more FPS with hyperthreading. 10% is pretty impressive from hyperthreading. I wonder how much of a difference a 6 core processor would have.
!