Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

PS4 and Xbox 720 Graphics Specs Toe-to-Toe, Says Insider

Last response: in News comments
Share
April 6, 2012 4:43:22 PM

WoW! So the graphics will only be four years behind PCs on the 2014 release date... Now this is progress...
Score
44
April 6, 2012 4:45:45 PM

If the Playstation 3 has the edge on Microsoft's new console then there's something very wrong somewhere.
Score
26
April 6, 2012 4:47:14 PM

:(  makes me sad.
Score
19
April 6, 2012 4:49:30 PM

What about all the stuff that I bought on PSN? Will it compatible with PS4? Or Sony will make us buy it all over again?
Score
27
April 6, 2012 4:49:36 PM

pacioliWoW! So the graphics will only be four years behind PCs on the 2014 release date... Now this is progress...


And then will be only more than a decade behind PCs when their successors arrive at around mid 2020s.
Score
19
April 6, 2012 4:52:51 PM

Are they learning from the Wii with outdated graphics? Luckily there's no system that will outperform it in comparison (excluding PCs)
Score
-9
April 6, 2012 4:55:00 PM

a $700-$800 pc would kill both of them!
Score
30
April 6, 2012 4:56:53 PM

I tried to tell everyone that the next consoles would use mid-tier components currently in production to lower costs. So I told you so.
Score
4
April 6, 2012 5:00:08 PM

Sad indeed. My ASUS G73JH will still beat the "NEXT GEN" consoles.
Score
0
April 6, 2012 5:08:42 PM

Rumours! Ah well, we'll see when they are released. If it's true, it'd be a sad thing indeed considering most PC gamers already own better hardware than that, but due to console development we'll still have to spend a lot of money to be able to run badly-optimized console ports.

It'd be a good thing if both became more PC-like, though, because especially the quality of PS3 ports should go up if it's easier to develop for. Also, it just might make the PC first and then adapt for consoles approach more viable - which would make everyone happy. But that's just wishful thinking.
Score
21
April 6, 2012 5:11:01 PM

Quote:
The PlayStation 3 will reportedly have the edge over Microsoft's new console thanks to the APU's built-in graphics core.


Such a badly written article, furthermore, the rumor is that it's the next box the one which will have two GPUs, not the PS4.
Score
6
April 6, 2012 5:14:25 PM

So... You need a PC anyways, because consoles still will not run Office and many other necessary functionality programs, so instead of buying a seperate $500 console why not just add $3-500 to your PC budget?
You can emulate all of your old games as far back as the original NES/ATARI, and play all of the modern games with higher settings, with higher frame rates, better textures, better filtering, and still have the option of a USB controller if that strikes your fancy.
I'm really unclear as to how these consoles sell so well...
Score
18
April 6, 2012 5:17:09 PM

Not sure that I care, until I see official specs and see what can they actually do.

For example, I play on PS3, and at least of the game that matters the most to me,
they still have not even try to use the power of that console.

For example, this game is still produce at 720P.... after all this years.
PS3 is perfectly capable of 1080P and a lot more, but THQ chooses NOT to.

We all know why they are in trouble waters...
Score
-20
April 6, 2012 5:21:01 PM

To build a new console for under $400, it is going to have to use older hardware, not to mention it takes a long time to develop a console. You can't just put in the newest GPU at the last second.

Think about this, would you be able to run a game like Gears of War 3 on a PC with a Celeron Dual-Core, 512mb ram, and an Nvidia 7600 512mb? No, but on a console you can, that's pretty much what a 360 is.
Score
16
April 6, 2012 5:23:05 PM

junnyeenAre they learning from the Wii with outdated graphics? Luckily there's no system that will outperform it in comparison (excluding PCs)

Wii seemed to do just fine with outdated graphics. it's not everything.
Score
13
April 6, 2012 5:24:24 PM

This doesn´t make any sense at all... Why Tomshardware even bother to write this article?
Score
-17
April 6, 2012 5:26:44 PM

Interesting... I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but its great to see that AMD is going to be providing the graphics and even CPU chips. Obviously, this means that PCs will still be more powerful than their console counterparts. However, because AMD is providing the chips, does that mean we'll have more AMD-optimized games in the future, especially when it comes to console ports?
Score
27
Anonymous
April 6, 2012 5:30:57 PM

If they sell them at a loss like in the past they would be about $200 each or $150 if they give you an option to download all games and eliminate the disk drive.
Score
1
April 6, 2012 5:32:26 PM

caedenvSo... You need a PC anyways, because consoles still will not run Office and many other necessary functionality programs, so instead of buying a seperate $500 console why not just add $3-500 to your PC budget?You can emulate all of your old games as far back as the original NES/ATARI, and play all of the modern games with higher settings, with higher frame rates, better textures, better filtering, and still have the option of a USB controller if that strikes your fancy.I'm really unclear as to how these consoles sell so well...


The average console user most likely just wants something that works. They don't want to troubleshoot any misc problems that may arise with Windows. To put it bluntly, console *only* users are dumb or inexperienced to put it nicely.

That said. It looks like the PC games will be held back due to consoles, once again. FFS Microsoft and Sony.
Score
1
April 6, 2012 5:32:58 PM

So according to the rumors the GPU in the Wii U will be basically on par, if not faster than the GPU's in the PS4 and next XBox? Except the Wii U will be coming out at least a year ahead of the other two consoles.

The HD6670 leak for the next XBox has been floating around for a while now without revision, so I'm assuming there's probably some truth to it. Last I checked the HD4870 outperforms the HD6670 in practically every benchmark out there. I guess we'll have to wait for final specs, but at least in comparison to their desktop counterparts, the Wii U seems to be at least on par in terms of discrete graphics performance.
Score
2
April 6, 2012 5:38:59 PM

Inferno1217Sad indeed. My ASUS G73JH will still beat the "NEXT GEN" consoles.


Bet you wont have to repaste the video card though. But i do agree with you.
Score
-1
April 6, 2012 5:41:39 PM

supallInteresting... I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but its great to see that AMD is going to be providing the graphics and even CPU chips. Obviously, this means that PCs will still be more powerful than their console counterparts. However, because AMD is providing the chips, does that mean we'll have more AMD-optimized games in the future, especially when it comes to console ports?

You make a really good point there. As long as AMD plays their cards right and gets both of these consoles, it's going to be around a lot longer than we are being led to believe.
I remember that the xbox 360 had a graphics chip in it that was about 2 tiers less than the highest desktop card out at the time. These are going to be 5-6 less... It's sad, but I'm sure everything's going to work out just fine. I dare you all to say Microsoft and sony don't know what they're doing.
Score
9
April 6, 2012 5:43:34 PM

AsTheDeathRumours! Ah well, we'll see when they are released. If it's true, it'd be a sad thing indeed considering most PC gamers already own better hardware than that, but due to console development we'll still have to spend a lot of money to be able to run badly-optimized console ports.It'd be a good thing if both became more PC-like, though, because especially the quality of PS3 ports should go up if it's easier to develop for. Also, it just might make the PC first and then adapt for consoles approach more viable - which would make everyone happy. But that's just wishful thinking.


+1, it also means less headache for the developer, less development cost, etc... write once, everyone happy because pc and console will get the same experience, while still scalable to high end.
Score
0
April 6, 2012 5:47:03 PM

Microsoft and Sony obviously tested the specs on their consoles and came out with a configuration that allowed them to play games at 1080, at a certain fps, at a certain cost point. It makes perfect sense that both companies are toe to toe when it comes to their graphics.

I predict that there wont be another change to a console until a time comes when TV's have a new resolution.
Score
12
April 6, 2012 5:47:42 PM

Microsoft and Sony should read Tom's System Builder low end articles. They could learn a lot.
Score
8
April 6, 2012 5:49:36 PM

For everyone out there that wants to bitch and complain about consoles holding back the PC market, what exactly do you want from consoles? There is NO possible way that you can stuff the latest and greatest technology into a console to keep it up to par with a PC and still sell it for under $400. That's the selling factor of a console, it doesn't cost a fortune to buy and there's virtually zero maintenance hassle like there is for PCs... you simply pop in a game and you can start playing. With a PC, there's all sorts of potential hurdles to jump when installing a game such as video card issues, lack of RAM, processor issues, driver issues, space on the hard drive, etc.

The people complaining are us techies who know computers inside and out. You're not going to find the average kid who has the experience of managing a computer system so that his games run smoothly, nor the average parents who will be able to solve computer issues when they arise.

TLDR version - Consoles are easier for the end user which is why they will always sell better.
Score
23
April 6, 2012 5:50:18 PM

hellfire24a $700-$800 pc would kill both of them!


But this will need to be in a complete package with manufacturing costs around $300 or so to allow them some profit margin.
Score
5
April 6, 2012 5:50:54 PM

the sad thing is... the next gen game can play on those so called entry level gpu compare to us that need to have at least a mid tier to run game......
Score
2
April 6, 2012 5:52:11 PM

So the dual-GPUs on these consoles have the combined processing power of what, a Radeon 5750? That's a lot better than they have now, but it's certainly not cutting edge. Hopefully they do start using direct x and incorporate keyboard+mouse support. Then developers can make one game for all three platforms with PCs getting better textures, effects, and framerates. That would be a big leap forward from PC gaming now where developers make games separately for ps3 and xbox360 and then terribly port them to PC. They should scale better to better hardware and we'd get proper keyboard+mouse support (customizable keybindings and clickable GUIs).
Score
2
April 6, 2012 5:55:59 PM

kawininjazxTo build a new console for under $400, it is going to have to use older hardware, not to mention it takes a long time to develop a console. You can't just put in the newest GPU at the last second.Think about this, would you be able to run a game like Gears of War 3 on a PC with a Celeron Dual-Core, 512mb ram, and an Nvidia 7600 512mb? No, but on a console you can, that's pretty much what a 360 is.

Not sure how you came to the Celeron analogy, but the GPU in the 360 is probably most similar to a gimped X1900 XT, not a Geforce 7600. At the time of the 360's release, the Xenos was pretty high-end, even by desktop GPU standards.
Score
4
April 6, 2012 6:12:05 PM

hellfire24a $700-$800 pc would kill both of them!


A 700-800 dollar PC would also cost twice as much. Quite an astute observation on the fact nicer things cost more.

Marco925Wii seemed to do just fine with outdated graphics. it's not everything.


You're preaching the reality of the industry to the wrong crowd. These people don't seem to understand that gameplay shouldn't take a backseat to graphics. Nintendo put out a product that was fun for a lot of people to play, even for a short time. They got their sales. Did it cater to hardcore gamers? No, of course not. Too bad hardcore gamers like that make up so little of the actual sales figures. Start buying your games and maybe they'll start caring about what you think. They're running a business, they look for profits.

A lot of the commenters can't even seem to notice to start with these are rumors, not the actual specs on the system. They mean practically nothing. These are NOT necessarily the actual parts being used. They have to compare it to the current hardware out. EQUAL TO a 3850, NOT a 3850. The 3850 wouldn't even work along with the 7670 directly without some changes made.

You know, I kind of doubt these rumors to begin with. AMD can barely even meet their PC yields, how would they supply chips for two next gen systems as well? Assuming it's true, a 7670 working with a 3850 still gives enough graphics power ina PC to run at 1080p fine. That's all they need. The CPU power of a PC like that would be lacking, but consoles don't have nearly the same kind of CPU overhead PCs need to deal with. The system would be fine for now. It would be outdated in 6 years regardless of what they used.
Score
8
April 6, 2012 6:14:54 PM

The PlayStation 3 will reportedly have the edge over Microsoft's new console thanks to the APU's built-in graphics core.

TYPO :-X

PS4? :) 
Score
0
April 6, 2012 6:15:10 PM

Where is my $0.02 of an opinion:

All these people bitching about next gen consoles being under powered . is just lame.
So what do you expect? A ps4 running a AMD 7970 with 3GB ram? How much would that retail for , anyway? I will answer that , way too goodamm much !!!

This consoles have to retail for around $399 for the mass market , they have to comprise things somewhere to meet that figure and make a profit.
The funny thing is , only a half a dozen games push a 7970 to its max , plus only 2/10 people have the money to build a rig with a 7970.
So my question is , what is the point after all ? Fork loads of cash for a couple of bad optimized titles + Hardware?
I love PCs , but cant blame Sony , Nintendo and Microsoft for being more conservative with their Specs.
Score
10
April 6, 2012 6:31:59 PM

hapkido Hopefully they do start using direct x and incorporate keyboard+mouse support. GUIs).


Direct X was used back in the Dreamcast , original Xbox and still in use for the XBOX360 (also used OpenGL).
Nothing new here.
The PS3 and Wii are limited to OpenGL. Most of the time Devs make the game for PS3 and then port it for the other platforms. Make sense since the PS3 is the hardest to program for , so why not get the hard work done 1st and then relax with the ports?

I doubt they will use Keyboards , if you want to play with a keyboard buy a PC , consoles are meant for gamepads.

Score
1
April 6, 2012 6:34:21 PM

i am hoping that this is misdirection-advertising on sony's part. i say that because i am still hoping sony doesn't abandon their cell processor. they could just put two or three of those cell processors together in a cluster inside the ps4 and tack on an nvidia 680m gpu equivalent and the ps4 should be good to go for another 10 yrs or more. also give 1 gb of xdram and 1 gb of vram and blu ray media and.... yeah....

i don't like the idea of off-the-shelf computer parts in gaming consoles.... am i the only one who feels this way?
Score
-2
April 6, 2012 6:39:07 PM

I paid $600 for PS3 back when it was released. I also own the 360 and a nice gaming PC. I use to use my xbox a lot. Now I mainly use the PC and PS3 for watching movies. I would not pay more than $400 for a "next-gen" console if I were to get one. Yeah, the components are low-end, that is why I built a nice gaming PC :D 
Score
-2
April 6, 2012 6:39:08 PM

update on my post above: ibm apparently has a successor of the cell processor that is used in the ps3. it's too powerful for a console and probably too expensive. but why not make a console version of this version of the cell processor and use xdram and an nvidia gpu from the 6xxm series or something? i apparently know what i want in the ps4 but sony is the one who is in doubt of their own technology that they co-produced.
Score
-2
April 6, 2012 6:40:44 PM

gray_fox_98Direct X was used back in the Dreamcast , original Xbox and still in use for the XBOX360 (also used OpenGL).Nothing new here.The PS3 and Wii are limited to OpenGL. Most of the time Devs make the game for PS3 and then port it for the other platforms. Make sense since the PS3 is the hardest to program for , so why not get the hard work done 1st and then relax with the ports?I doubt they will use Keyboards , if you want to play with a keyboard buy a PC , consoles are meant for gamepads.


I understand you coment dude , but ultimately its all about money.
1) Sony and Microsoft are not taking big risks with the hardware anymore , since the wii raped then both in sales , using a "overclocked" gamecube with a silly controller.
2) The money is in Console games sales , devs simply dont care that much about pcs. Hence the good games simply being ports from consoles to PC.
3) Being a massive PC fan , it hurts me seeing all this GPU potential being wasted to half assed Direct 9 Ports.( Direct X11 potential been out for ages , very few games make use of it)
4) Games like Crysis 2 are the only reason why i keep believing in Pcs.

Its sad , to say the least , but what can we do? In a World of Wii's and Kinects , . game publishers know they can more money out of the casual gamer.
Hardcore and Enthusiasts are left for dead.



Score
1
April 6, 2012 6:40:45 PM

What you guys keep forgetting is that when you optimize the games for only ONE particular chipset you can squeeze out TREMENDOUS performance. sure its a chip that is behind, but its a chip that will be optimized and the games will look alot better then they already look.
Score
6
April 6, 2012 6:42:48 PM

bigmack70Every previous console generation launch has used modern PC hardware. High end equivalent if not top of the line. The Wii is the only exception I can think of. So, everyone is complaining about crap specs because1) They're not that much better than what's already in the PS3/X3602) Based on the past, we would expect much better hardware in the new consoles.Do you know why only half a dozen games push a 7970 to its max? Because games are made primarily for consoles, and consoles have hardware from 2005 in them. Know how to get more games that will push a 7970 to its max? Put better hardware in consoles. Putting a 6670/whatever crap GPU into the "next gen" consoles is only going to further retard the development of graphics technology in games.


I understand you coment dude , but ultimately its all about money.
1) Sony and Microsoft are not taking big risks with the hardware anymore , since the wii raped then both in sales , using a "overclocked" gamecube with a silly controller.
2) The money is in Console games sales , devs simply dont care that much about pcs. Hence the good games simply being ports from consoles to PC.
3) Being a massive PC fan , it hurts me seeing all this GPU potential being wasted to half assed Direct 9 Ports.( Direct X11 potential been out for ages , very few games make use of it)
4) Games like Crysis 2 are the only reason why i keep believing in Pcs.

Its sad , to say the least , but what can we do? In a World of Wii's and Kinects , . game publishers know they can more money out of the casual gamer.
Hardcore and Enthusiasts are left for dead.
Score
1
April 6, 2012 6:42:53 PM

i also don't get why sony would abandon the cell and their api's that they struggled with developers to make games for ps3 for five or so yrs and now, the ps3 looks terrific and better than ever and now this news that sony is abandoning it for amd?

sad.
Score
-2
April 6, 2012 6:45:22 PM

talk about backwards. the ps4 won't be backwards compatible and is technologically going backwards if they abandon the cell and go with amd cpu-gpu tandem. just my 2 cents....

because... i like the cell processor and nvidia 680m-equivalent in the ps4 with 1 gb of xdram and 1 gb of vram, wifi, blu-ray.... please sony.
Score
-3
April 6, 2012 6:55:16 PM

bigmack70PS3 is nowhere near capable of 1080p on modern games (Crysis 2, BF3, Witcher 2, Arkham City, etc)... it has like a 7800GTX equivalent GPU or maybe slightly better.Go try playing any of those games, max settings, on even an 8800GTX... it ain't gonna be pretty... and an 8800GTX is way more powerful than what is in the PS3.


Since I do not play any of those games nor I care for them, i can't possibly know or give a ****.

But the game or games that I DO care, it says on the game box... 720P and I know that the console is perfectly capable of 1080P.

Score
-2
Anonymous
April 6, 2012 6:56:31 PM

This news, if accurate, should make any gamer (PC or console) very, very sad panda. PC gamers should be sad because this crappy hardware will hold their games back. Console gamers should be sad because they're going to be asked to spend their money on old hardware running yesteryear graphics.
Score
0
April 6, 2012 6:57:07 PM

Sounds to me like its the discreet GPU for the television output, and the integrated to render their own take on tablet controllers like the Wii U. That would mean no hit on main graphics for multiple controllers, unlike the Wii U.
Score
0
April 6, 2012 7:04:54 PM

andboomerThis news, if accurate, should make any gamer (PC or console) very, very sad panda. PC gamers should be sad because this crappy hardware will hold their games back. Console gamers should be sad because they're going to be asked to spend their money on old hardware running yesteryear graphics.


true. i think that when the ps3 and xbox360 wer ebeing developed that they were being developed with technology that were emerging.

gaming consoles should be developed for emerging tech. not yesterday's tech.

the cell and the graphics synthesizer in the ps3 were all emerging tech at the time.

fast forward to now, and sure, intel and amd cpu's have caught up with their cpu architectures that can do what sony wanted to do with the cell and probably more.

but... these intel and amd chips will cost sony and console makers a lot of dough that will reflect on the price of the ps4.

what sony should do is leverage their cell technology... and use that extra money to put an nvidia 680m gpu with 1 gb of vram and 1 gb of main xdram and the price of the console should be minimal....

i lost track of what i wanted to say.

oh yeah, 7 years of game dev behind ps3 should also be put to good use for ps4. there will be no more ps4 is hard to program for since it will be the same method to develop ps3 games for the ps4 and the ps4 will be backwards compatible... (cash register sounds)
Score
-3
April 6, 2012 7:11:16 PM

bigmack70PS3 is nowhere near capable of 1080p on modern games (Crysis 2, BF3, Witcher 2, Arkham City, etc)... it has like a 7800GTX equivalent GPU or maybe slightly better.Go try playing any of those games, max settings, on even an 8800GTX... it ain't gonna be pretty... and an 8800GTX is way more powerful than what is in the PS3.




the PS3 does run a 7800GTX it is an off the shelf GTX that was thrown in near last minute so yea it is Dated and as you stated is not capable of true 1080p Resolution unless the game has really crappy graphics that are ona Low quality setting then Maby
Score
-1
April 6, 2012 7:14:26 PM

dragonsqrrlNot sure how you came to the Celeron analogy, but the GPU in the 360 is probably most similar to a gimped X1900 XT, not a Geforce 7600. At the time of the 360's release, the Xenos was pretty high-end, even by desktop GPU standards.




the GPU in the 360 is an R500 based custom chip and is the first of its kind a unified shader architecture @ the time of the 360s release every GPU on the market was based on a Fixed shader/vertex shader architecture so ther was a fixed number of each while the unifead system we have now each shader can be eaither or and can do both function so the 360 GPU was far more advanced at the time it was not 2 Tiers down as you siad
Score
1
April 6, 2012 7:16:37 PM

also, this mindset is the same mindset behind nintendo. if this is true, then the ps4 and xbox720 (or whatever it will be called) will be "out-of-date" when it comes out.

but maybe this is all for null. the cell processor was cutting edge at the time and i think sony had reasons developing it since they knew it would have to be good for 5-7 yrs down the road.

now, there are cpu's like the cell that is more powerful and with amd and intel and even arm showing their development roadmaps, sony might have been enticed to go amd this time around.

i still don't like the idea. it stagnates the industry which is why i like the "idea" of sony not abandoning their cell technology property for the ps4 because that would mean a different but still capable cpu in the market.
Score
-2
    • 1 / 6
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!