Epic VP: PS4 is Like a Perfect Gaming PC

[hakesterman]

And no, Gamoniac, the high end gaming PCs will outperform the PS4 and XBOX Next from launch day, just like they did with the PS3 and XBOX 360. Yes, the next gen consoles will be respectable machines, but in no way will they outperform the mid-high end gaming PC segment.

Um No they Won't. There will be no PC on the market when the PS4 is released that will out perform it, Chances are it will be about a year or maybe two before GDDR% Ram and 8 Core processors dedicated to certain tasks that are implemented in a way that function as efficient as the PS4.

 

[johnnyq1233]

All righty then!
Why don't they do the unthinkable!
Release the PS4 and 6 months later release the PS4 gaming OS that can be dual bootable for PCs?
This way you can have your cake and eat it too!
I know I don't want the new hardware but, I would seriously consider dropping say 50 to 100 dollars for the software to turn my PC at will into a PS4 machine for specific games.
Just a thought...

 

[rohitbaran]

[citation][nom]themissingpiece[/nom]"PCs are running a 32-bit version of Windows"Wait, what? I guess it makes sense, but I'm 99% sure that most gaming PCs aren't running 32-bit Windows. Hardware-wise, it's pretty impressive, but no, it's nowhere near the "best" gaming PCs even today.[/citation]
Yep. Basically how I wanted to say it. If Epic really believes what they say, then I laugh at them. My PC is still superior to PS4.

 

[roadrunner343]

Aggroboy - No need to be agrressive (Ironic username, then, eh?) I wasn't sure what you were asking, so I asked for clarification. I went on to elaborate on every point I made to the best of my ability to answer your question. So unless you ignored the other 2 paragraphs in my response, I tried to answer your question.

Like I said, current high end systems, with faster processors and immensely better video cards, showed very little benefit in video game benchmarks from high bandwidth memory. So it would be safe to assume that this would be true with the swap to GDDR5. There's a reason GDDR5 is typically used in video cards only (The latency, which wouldn't make a huge difference in parallel applications such as video cards).

I also went on to say that it will be interesting to see how the GDDR5 will perform. I don't know for a fact if it will or won't be faster than the current DD3/GDDR5 combination we use for system/video memory. Even if it is faster, the processor/video will bottleneck it long before a modern mid-high end PC is bottlenecked. Hopefully that better explains why I think I do. Obviously know one knows 100% for certain the exact performance, but it still will not be as much as a mid-high end gaming PC.

Hakesterman: There are PC's that are available now that easily outperform it. I suggest you look at high end machines that are available. There are far more powerful CPU and GPUs available. I'm not saying cost effectively, but especially considering the PS4 is based on AMD's x86 architechture, there is no chance it will out perform the current flagships, let alone what will be released between now and then (Haswell, Radeon 8000 series, nVidia 700 series, etc...)

 

[dark_knight33]

The issue isn't the saturation of 64 bit proc and O/S. It's the utter lack of 64bit games (save crysis). Developers aren't making 64bit executable, because guess what, consoles are 32 bit. This 'shrub' is acting like PCs have been holding games back for the last 5 years.... gimme a effing break here. What is this guy smoking...? Even with 8GB GDDR5, and that's combined system & vid, current gen cards are already packing that.Sony also hasn't talked about the bus width, which will be the primary determinater of memory speed. With Maxwell coming in 2014, Nvidia cards will have a unified virtual memory structure, that will allow x86 CPUs access to that super high bandwidth memory on your vid card. That will equalize any possible advantage the PS4 might have in that area. It's not a 'perfect gaming pc', it's just a standard gaming PC that you'll find in 2015+.

 

[jean 1990]

Tom's comment section are filled with a bunch of kids who doesn't know what overhead is, hardware optimization, and uniformity that eliminates the need to achieve large hardware compatibility which drag performance down.

 

[billgatez]

"This really opens up beyond what most PCs can do, because most PCs are running a 32-bit version of Windows," he said. "We can do crazy, ridiculous stuff with that. It's like giving you the world's best PC."
Lies. Any modern PC is running a 64 bit CPU and has a 64 bit OS.

"Rein indicated that the console offers a generous amount of memory, 8 GB of GDDR5 RAM in fact, which is far more that the limited 2 GB of addressable memory space on Windows-based machines."
Again lies. PC's now come with 4 or more GB of RAM and it all can be used. But you make games for consoles and are limited by them using x86. so when you port them to the PC you are stuck wit only being able to use 2 GB. Not the fault of the PC but rather the console.

"He goes on to call the PlayStation 4 a "perfect gaming PC" again, as the console will perform updates in the background and even lets users play games while still downloading them, making it super convenient for the end-user."
Steam, Windows and even Nvidia can update in the background.

This guy was payed off. They pulled this same crap with the 360 and PS3. But wen the console came out my Pentium-D and 8800 GTS ran circles around them.

 

[gamoniac]

[citation][nom]roadrunner343[/nom]much better processor*And no, Gamoniac, the high end gaming PCs will outperform the PS4 and XBOX Next from launch day, just like they did with the PS3 and XBOX 360. Yes, the next gen consoles will be respectable machines, but in no way will they outperform the mid-high end gaming PC segment.[/citation]

I never said PS4 will outperform any current high-end PC. I have a mid-range PC (6-core, OC to 3.8Ghz) with HD7850 (OC) running on SSD. Spec-wise, my PC is already ahead of PS4. But dedicated consoles are optimized for gaming, unlike the operating systems of a PC which is for general purpose. I game on both PC and Xbox. My point is, it is still a welcoming news that the next gen of consoles will be here soon. It is good for everyone.

 

[roadrunner343]

Then why did you say it would take 3-4 years for most gaming PC's to catch up? Most PCs built for gaming are already ahead of it. Budget machines should be very close. Still, I can agree with you that hardware with a dedicated purpose tend to perform much better, so it will be interesting to see how everything pans out. My main issue is with nokiddingboss's posts, not yours.

 

[aggroboy]

[citation][nom]roadrunner343[/nom]Like I said, current high end systems, with faster processors and immensely better video cards, showed very little benefit in video game benchmarks from high bandwidth memory. So it would be safe to assume that this would be true with the swap to GDDR5. There's a reason GDDR5 is typically used in video cards only (The latency, which wouldn't make a huge difference in parallel applications such as video cards).I also went on to say that it will be interesting to see how the GDDR5 will perform. I don't know for a fact if it will or won't be faster than the current DD3/GDDR5 combination we use for system/video memory. Even if it is faster, the processor/video will bottleneck it long before a modern mid-high end PC is bottlenecked.[/citation]
The big beef is this: you're using memory benchmarks for existing PCs. PC's discrete GPU evolution path has been designed around the limitation of the PCI/AGP bus, GPUs became standalone processors designed for receiving command buffer instructions and keeping all computations local. So you took memory benchmarks of existing PC architecture (two powerful but not tightly integrated subsystems) and come to the conclusion that developers won't take advantage of a new heterogeneous architecture based on single memory address space and shared controller.

How does your bottleneck scenario come into play when the CPU and GPU are sharing the same address space, all tasks can be offloaded to either and processing can be spread to cores based on dispatch workload?

 

[pocketdrummer]

[citation][nom]ChilledLJ[/nom]THe 2GB he was referring to was the common 2 GB GDDR5 found in graphics cards, the PS4 was 8GB graphics mem. People already been talking that next gen console ports gonna need graphics cards with huge amounts of memory[/citation]

What, exactly, do you currently need 8GB of graphics memory for? High resolution gaming... on a 1080P TV? Don't even try to tell me it's for 4K, because that's going to be stupid expensive for the entire lifetime of the PS4. I'm fairly confident that 8gb of RAM will mean little against a PC with 6GB of DDR3 RAM w/ a 2GB graphics card.

 

[hentaiboi_]

Mr. Rein must be drunk when he said that... I have 32GB RAM... PS4 has only 8?! he has no right to call like a perfect gaming pc... 32bit is like running windows 3.1... say hello to 64 bit architecture... Consoles? Who needs 'em?!

 

[Herr_Koos]

[citation][nom]dkcomputer[/nom]"which is far more that the limited 2 GB of addressable memory space on Windows-based machines."umm?[/citation]

Yeah, my thoughts exactly.

*Cough* "BS!" *Cough*

 

[roadrunner343]

[citation][nom]aggroboy[/nom]The big beef is this: you're using memory benchmarks for existing PCs. PC's discrete GPU evolution path has been designed around the limitation of the PCI/AGP bus, GPUs became standalone processors designed for receiving command buffer instructions and keeping all computations local. So you took memory benchmarks of existing PC architecture (two powerful but not tightly integrated subsystems) and come to the conclusion that developers won't take advantage of a new heterogeneous architecture based on single memory address space and shared controller.How does your bottleneck scenario come into play when the CPU and GPU are sharing the same address space, all tasks can be offloaded to either and processing can be spread to cores based on dispatch workload?[/citation]

Sharing the same address space doesn't mean the CPU and GPU are unable to bottleneck a system. My point with using previous video game benchmarks, was that memory bandwidth did not tend to be what held up a system. It was the processing speed and GPU, so increasing the memory bandwidth further wouldn't help that scenario much.

Sure, developers will find ways to take advantage of it, they always do, and they do great things on consoles. I really am looking forward to it. But there's no way it will be remotely close to the amount of processing power (Both CPU and GPU) that is already available

I'm mainly curious to see how the GDDR5 works as system memory due to the increased latency. Again, I'm assuming there is a reason no PC currently rely on graphics memory for system memory, and instead they use it solely for graphics. My guess is the latency, and it will be interesting to see just how much better (if any) the GDDR5 performs as system memory.

 

[godnodog]

[citation][nom]nokiddingboss[/nom]The Glorious PC Gaming Master Race are a relentless bunch I'd give you that. Still though, all of your whining wont make a bit of difference once the next-gen consoles are out armed with exclusive console games that your $1000 PC's can never every truly touch. You can make the counter argument of PC only games such as RTS and such, but they bought a console knowing that they wont be able to play those games. While you, the elitist, expects to plow through any/every game on the market just because your PC can take the heat. But you can't play everything my hypocrite, self indulgent and arrogant PC brethren because --- boom! Console Exclusives... and boom! 4+ year guaranteed longevity spitting your $700 PC that can barely play games on medium by that time. While console gamers are enjoying games optimized to run in their unit. Its true bro. Can a PC from 2006 run the AAA games of today? Right... What's a perfect gaming PC? One that you can buy today and last for half a decade without being obsolete and cost only $400[/citation]

My pc does BOOOOOOMMMM
and Pc windows or linux exclusivesd BOOOOOMMMM
Console emulators for PC BOOOOMMMM (sure they won´t run properly so BOOM there for pc)

 

[Bloob]

[citation][nom]RedPanda98[/nom]8GB GDDR5 ram is shared between the whole system and the GPU. So its most likely 1GB for GPU and 7GB for the system. Nowadays gaming GPUs has about 2GB or more and system have 8GB as minimum but most people choose to have 16GB. Lastly most of the people who game use 64 bit Windows for the OS as of the Steam survey.[/citation]
No, it's 8GB shared, however the developer likes. Having shared memory reduces overhead in loading stuff to / from GPU memory, also reduces the amount of total memory used when you don't need 2 instances of the same resource.

 

[godnodog]

[citation][nom]godnodog[/nom]My pc does BOOOOOOMMMMand Pc windows or linux exclusivesd BOOOOOMMMMConsole emulators for PC BOOOOMMMM (sure they won´t run properly so BOOM there for pc)[/citation]
Sorry forgot to mention my system specs.
A very old AMD Athlon X2 2.4Ghz with 3GB RAM + 24" Asus Screen + BluRay-Recorder + (and this is where I "cheated") a AMD Radeon HD 7850 2GB (I know it´s bottlenecked, needed a GPU) in a 64bits Windows 7 and the system ran everything i throwed at it so far.

Hoping to do an upgrade soon.

 

[demonhorde665]

"which is far more that the limited 2 GB of addressable memory space on Windows-based machines."

"This really opens up beyond what most PCs can do, because most PCs are running a 32-bit version of Windows," he said. "We can do crazy, ridiculous stuff with that. It's like giving you the world's best PC."

what world are you adn this idiot living in kevin ???? since when was adressable memory cut down to 2 gigs , even on 32 bit you can access 3- 3.5 gigs , and most GAMING PC's are NOT on 32 bit code just developers keep making their games coded in 32 bit like morons. these two lines are the biggest pieces of crap I ever heard come out of any ones mouth regarding gaming and PC's.

 

[wanderer11]

[citation][nom]spentshells[/nom]Oh your pc has 8 GB of gddr5?[/citation]
Look up a few benchmarks on memory speed and tell me how much it really helps in gaming...It doesn't.

 

[princeofdreams]

I think most people here are missing the point, When he states that PC's can only utilize 2 GB of RAM he is in a way correct, they have to program the game to the lowest common denominator, the don't make individual PC specs per game, and so they make the code run on the lowest possible spec of machine, i.e. Win XP 32 bit for the vast majority of games, even those that demand Win 7 still limit the machine to 32 bit.

They have to do this to ensure the maximum market potential, they cannot remove 50% of the market place, couple this with the fact that nearly all PC games are developed cross platform with the PS3 and the Xbox 360 which are 32 bit, it means that the full scope of a 54 bit CPU/system is never utilized.

Now though they have 64 bit processors in the PS4, all games will be developed in 64 bit (well the majority) this should see major boosts in games, the AI for example should be a lot more sophisticated, Physics etc. The graphical boost will depend on the GPU selected for the machine, it will be a large jump from the PS3/Xbox 360 though.

The jump from PS1 to PS2 was huge, as was the jump from PS2 to PS3, I expect the same will happen here also. Sadly though development for 64 bit is more complex, and so I expect development time on games to grow and subsequently the cost of the games which are already exorbitant but when these machines are released I do expect to see the games on the PS4 and Xbox 720 to be of a higher quality than the current stock of PC games, the PC will of course catch up and overtake the consoles due to the nature of PC's and their continued development, initially though these consoles will be great, especially at the 1080P display they are being aimed at.

What will hurt both consoles the most is not being able to play your existing collection of games, imagine a PC coming out and it was not compatible with your steam collection, no gamer would buy it, I have about 80 games on Steam no way would I just bin those for a new bit of hardware, I also have about 40 games on the PSN Plus network, not going to lose those either and I don't want two consoles in my front room. Hence I won't buy the PS4