high end PC compare to next gen

[ACTIONpack]

How much more power does the high end PC have over the xbone and ps4. Would it be too expensive to put an i7 and 16gb of ram? If they are going to be in the market for 10 years? Don't see that happening. 5 years the most.

[Blackhearted]

A highend pc remains significantly more powerful than the nextgen consoles. To put into perspective just how far they are behind.. The gpu's have the power of highend gpu's for 3-4 years ago. And the cpu cores are based on amd's jaguar, which is a follow up to bobcat, which means they're basically netbook cpu cores. Despite having 8 cores, even a modern 4 core core i5 would more than likely be able to easily outpower those things(even more so since games can't even use them all on both platforms).

 

As for the i7/16GB quiestion, yes, it probably would be too expensive for them to have done that. Even though a modern intel core i(x) cpu would have helped the system performance of both of them quite significantly.

[notuptome2004]

A highend pc remains significantly more powerful than the nextgen consoles. To put into perspective just how far they are behind.. The gpu's have the power of highend gpu's for 3-4 years ago. And the cpu cores are based on amd's jaguar, which is a follow up to bobcat, which means they're basically netbook cpu cores. Despite having 8 cores, even a modern 4 core core i5 would more than likely be able to easily outpower those things(even more so since games can't even use them all on both platforms).

 

As for the i7/16GB quiestion, yes, it probably would be too expensive for them to have done that. Even though a modern intel core i(x) cpu would have helped the system performance of both of them quite significantly.

 

 

 

the  GPU for example in the PS4  is on par with todays GPUs    as it is Directx 11 + based  and has 1186 cores  shahder cores   on the GPU  add to the fact developers have access   to close to 6gb or more of the ram for  GPU alone 

 

as for the CPU well  it has an 8 core chip   with tones of EDRAM onboard    and while it is based on Babcat cores  which  in turn are based on Pile driver if i am not mistaken they are no Netbook cores since Netbooks no longer exist   

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

Raw hardware power is useless if you can't utilize it effectively 100% on a program level.

 

Having said that, the consoles benefit from their custom designs, components, and software. It's a closed system made for a specific purpose where each and every part has been tailor-made. It's like comparing an Apple computer with a PC. The former is a pre-packaged system, the latter is a universal and backwards-compatible platform (IBM-PC compatible).

[Slammers]

I would consider my computer between mid and high end. i5, 8gb ram and SLI 760's. 

 

I get well over 60fps in most games at 1440p. Some games over 120fps. 

 

PS4 and Xbox1 are seeming to be struggling to keep 60fps at 1080p.

 

It's impossible to say how powerful the consoles are until some games are released on them, but I think it's safe to say a i7, gtx 780/hd 7990 setup will be able to produce better "raw" graphics than the next gen consoles ever will.

 

Keep in mind, that in 3 years, a PC's will be even faster and the gap between them and next gen consoles will be even bigger. But you will need faster hardware to play some new games maxed out (but low/med settings will look as good as the ps4/xbox1)

[G_0]

Another thing that consoles have over a pc is that they are closed architecture. Dev teams know exactly what hardware to target and they don't have to deal with as many variables between setups. They are able to push that hardware to the limits. PC gaming has been held back because of the XB360 and PS3 being the main target platforms. With just 512/256mb of ram and ATI X1800 graphics or equivalent it's amazing what they've been able to do this generation. Even with that hardware look at system requirements for the PC ports. We still need at least 8000 series Nvidia or 4000 Series AMD to run the games on low. They are not optimized for PC because it's such a different platform from either of the consoles.

 

People looking at the system requirements for COD:Ghosts and Watchdogs and getting upset is frustrating to watch. The target development platforms are still the consoles, just now they are on par with modern PCs and running PC architecture. So now on PC we will get a great looking game that runs incredibly good (hopefully) that will include all the PC gaming benefits (mods, ini edits, and others).

 

In a few years like Slammers said, PC will have moved ahead, Devs will still be coding for the consoles first and the pc will have pulled away in power again. This will lead us back to where we are now. The requirements won't be so bad when everyone has 16 core processors 5-6 years down the line. 

 

For right now it would be too expensive to put an i7 with 16GB of ram into one of the consoles. The simple fact is that when they are able to control the system and optimize for everything in their closed environment Devs can use that power much more efficiently than i7 with 16GB of ram. I'm not saying the i7 has less power, I'm just saying that the closed nature of the console allows them to take FULL advantage of the hardware.

 

Cheers

 

(I should really have coffee before coming on this forum =P)

[psionicinversion]

a high end PC will always be more powerful than these next gen consoles but are 2-3x more expensive. Imagine the PS4 with an i7 and 16GB of GDDR5, those 2 components alone would prolly cost like $300 at oem prices but consoles dont need an i7, you arent going to be 3D modelling or video editing on it etc, its just playing games, watching movies etc. Now theyve got 8 core processors decent amount of ram, dx 11 GPU's, dedicated sound chips allowing for more complex audio the games on PC will be much better now now. like frostbite 3 engine can use upto 8 core processor making good use of the amd chips and hyperthreading on intels, good ram, pushing our graphics limits more. PC version of watchdogs requirements seem a bit extreme but would you want a game that pushes the PC and making upgrades worthwhile or go back to crappy ports from the 360/ps3?

 

Thief... that looks like a killer game and with some of the sound in it is way more complex than whats bin able to achieve so far now that its being pushed ahead :D 

[ryoohki]

Quite a few next gen title will be 720p, remember it still using mobile part cpu style. Personally iam moving to 1440p before years end so. Also right now, theres no title on both that i want witch arent coming to pc so

[ryoohki]

Oh and next gen console os are way heavier now, almost 2 gig ram reserved for them now, almost on part with Windows

[threetonesun]

How much more power does the high end PC have over the xbone and ps4. Would it be too expensive to put an i7 and 16gb of ram? If they are going to be in the market for 10 years? Don't see that happening. 5 years the most.

 

High high end? I mean, a high end PC could be Titans run in SLI capable of outputting 4k resolutions.

 

One of the big differences, though, is that PCs are usually played on high resolution monitors, while consoles are played across the room on a 1080p max TV screen. Consoles will always be cost competitive to PCs. I think their biggest threat five years out is handheld devices having enough processing power to run at 1080p wirelessly.

[neoadorable]

Its all been said before here, but I'll say it again. A three grand PC in terms of power is many multiple times more capable than both consoles combined. But that's theoretical power. Think of it like a Lambo or Saleen Mustang vs. an Accord or Taurus for real life driving. You can't tap full supercar power in real life, you'll be in jail inside of 20 mins. Likewise in games consoles basically offer you most of the experience. Sure, PCs are the way to go if you want the sharpest textures and the most effects, but its not a fundamentally different experience. Then you get the wiles of PC software design, with seemingly non demanding games like The Bureau running 25fps on Titan cards. As was said above, consoles are better optimized, that's not just a myth. Think of how much 360 and PS3 got done with like 300-400MB memory. A 32GB PC doesn't run the same games 70 times better, no way.

Having said that, if one has to choose just one platform, then always PC, for sure.

[NightScreams]

Specs don't mean much, it's how the developer uses it, lets talk reality in gaming. In example AC4, the PC exclusive effects. These are the only effects that differ from the console version, mostly subtle as you can see here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6YUVwGQvzM The TXAA makes the most difference if were to actually stare at distant ship's ropes, it's noticeably smoother but at the end of the day, these things don't matter for crap for most typical under 30 hour games, maybe moreso if you plan to live your life in it with hundreds of hours.

All the pc ports will have subtle features and options for more resolution and AA as always, if you got the hardware to keep it covered which usually means you need to have the higher end video cards for that kind of image quality whereas on console they improve graphics each year but not to the same degree as someone who keeps up on video cards to surpass it in performance. If you really look at the current gen consoles specs and look at the recent games, it's truly amazing what they achieved considering a PC with similar specs would have games that look no better than UT99.

Nothing has really changed, they develop for the lowest common denominator first and foremost and most of the average PC gamers won't have the frame rate capacity to always use the highest settings.

Ultra everything @1080p with 60fps is as niche as it gets.

[Xerino]

Think back the cartridge console days, a Pentium 133mhz with 128MB of RAM, and a 16MB Nvidia Geforce 2 MX was way more powerful than a SNES or Sega Genesis, but because of the components they had (Most were RISC based) the console would always run it better on the console rather than the PC, its even the same case these days in the form of Emulators, if you got a system that had close to or just beyond the specs of a PS2 or Sega Saturn, the PC would run terrible, just because those games where made for that hardware.

[Lord Method Man]

Think back the cartridge console days, a Pentium 133mhz with 128MB of RAM, and a 16MB Nvidia Geforce 2 MX was way more powerful than a SNES or Sega Genesis, but because of the components they had (Most were RISC based) the console would always run it better on the console rather than the PC, its even the same case these days in the form of Emulators, if you got a system that had close to or just beyond the specs of a PS2 or Sega Saturn, the PC would run terrible, just because those games where made for that hardware.

 

Not a good comparison. In the SNES/Genesis days there was very little overlap in games between the two consoles and PC, and emulators run on a software layer which is why they require such higher system requirements than the original hardware.

[+Majesticmerc MVC]

How much more power does the high end PC have over the xbone and ps4. Would it be too expensive to put an i7 and 16gb of ram? If they are going to be in the market for 10 years? Don't see that happening. 5 years the most.

TL;DR: It depends what you want. Consoles are cheaper investments, but PC's are more powerful and versatile.

There's a few things to consider when weighing up a choice like this:

HARDWARE

PC's are already more powerful than the next gen consoles, quite significantly so. For the sake of the following section, I'll be talking about the Xbox One, but this equally applies to the PS4 which is mostly the same in terms of hardware.

Based on the information that we know about the Xbox One hardware, the following is a similarly spec'd PC:

CPU: AMD FX-8120 3.1GHz 8-Core Processor

Memory: A-Data XPG Gaming Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory

Storage: Seagate Barracuda 500GB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive

Video Card: Sapphire Radeon HD 7850 1GB Video Card

Wireless Network Adapter: TP-Link TL-WN722N 802.11b/g/n USB 2.0 Wi-Fi Adapter

Optical Drive: Lite-On iHOS104-06 Blu-Ray/DVD/CD Drive

(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-10-28 22:19 GMT+0000)

In terms of raw computing power, the spec above is way down the list in terms of PC hardware. The CPU is low end, the hard disk is small, and the graphics card is outdated.

HOWEVER, the hardware isn't the beginning and end of the debate when it comes to performance. The consoles are very highly optimized for very few tasks, which means that they can much more efficiently use the hardware available. Some examples being:

• The operating system can be much more closely tied to the hardware, allowing for significant optimizations that are difficult with PC hardware.
• Much of the cruft of the operating system (Windows or BSD depending on whether you're talking about the Xbox or the PS4) can be stripped out. No desktops, no configuration, no fuss.

As a result, console hardware punches above it's weight compared to the equivalent PC hardware because it's much easier to optimize for a console than for a PC. It's also difficult to factor in things like hardware customizations that the manufacturers (MS/Sony) have asked for, such as super fast ESRAM which simply don't have an equivalent in the PC world.

COST

With a PC however you can take advantage of the "money = power" mantra. As you say, you can throw an i7, 16GB of RAM and a Titan into a PC chassis and destroy the consoles in terms of raw power, but it'll also cost you a lot more. You can easily spend a few thousand dollars/pounds/euros/etc on top end PC hardware, whereas you can get a standard gaming experience with a console for a few hundred dollars/pounds/euros/etc.

If all you can afford is a few hundred, then a console is probably your better bet. You get a decent machine that'll last you at least a few years, and don't have to worry about upgrades and such. Interestingly a full PC built with the hardware listed above will run you around ?500GBP, which is suprisingly much cheaper than I thought. The consoles however do include more peripherals (Kinect, controllers, headsets, etc) which makes them better value for money at this price point. As your budget goes up however, you can start looking at better PC hardware and better performance.

As you approach the $750-1000 mark, Intel i5 processors become a viable option alongside the latest Nvidia and AMD graphics cards, most of which a much more powerful than the "next gen" console hardware. Suddenly you're looking at the possibility of 1080p gaming this year vs 900p and 720p that will be standard when the consoles launch. Go even higher between $1000 and $2000 and you're looking at quad core Intel i7's with dual GPUs that can rock 1440p gaming and even 4K gaming, which is probably not possible even with the new consoles.

While the initial outlay for a PC gaming machine is usually more, there is more to consider...

ONGOING COSTS

The initial cost of a PC is undoubtedly higher than that of a console, but as you start looking at the ongoing costs, the gap can start to shrink. Generally, PC games can be $20USD cheaper than their console counterparts, and they also depreciate quicker. All you've got to do is check out the famous Steam sales to see some of the bargains that can be had. The standard free multiplayer is also a $60 a year saving. So in the space of a year, you could hypothetically save $100 with a PC with the purchase of 2 games and free online multiplayer.

UPGRADES

Perhaps the greatest advantage of PC gaming vs console gaming, the ability to upgrade! PC gaming doesn't slow down because the hardware is getting long in the tooth. While the current generation of consoles are stuck on 720p gaming, PC gamers are enjoying lush 1440p gaming thanks to the newer hardware. However while the concept of upgrades can be a blessing, it's also equally a curse. The pace of PC hardware advancement is so fast that you can easily find yourself upgrading parts of your PC every couple of years, and a new CPU/Motherboard combo can set you back the price of another console! And while most games on PC today are easily playable on 4-5 year old hardware, you find yourself crying at the thought of hitting that "LOW GRAPHICS" setting in the settings menu.

I think it's easy to forget a major consideration with PC's though...

PCS ARE MULTI-PURPOSE DEVICES

So the standard console fanboy rhetoric usually points to the fact that consoles are MUCH cheaper than PC's, but the counter-point is that PC's are also much more capable machines. I've always been a PC gamer because I rarely have access to a TV, and I do a lot of programming which warrants a more powerful computer. So even if I buy a console, I'd still NEED a PC as well to do my work on, so for me it works out better to just buy a ?700 PC and slap a ?300 graphics card in it so I can game too, vs buying a $700 PC and a ?400 console. That's a saving of ?100 straight away!

If you need a PC with an i7 and 16GB of RAM, then it's probably cheaper for you to just put a graphics card in there too and forget about a console, but if all you do is surf the web, then a console + tablet combination might be a better bet.

[the evn show]

Removed

[+Majesticmerc MVC]

The problem with this line of reasoning is that in supposes a monstrous performance penalty for running Windows. Just counting up raw-compute power on a modern 'higher-end' gaming pc (multiple gpus and an i7 with say >500gb of SSD): that machine is going to be 5-10x more capable than a next-gen console.

Optimization can get you a long way, but when people say that optimization can overcome the performance gap that superior hardware has bought gaming PCs, what they're really saying is "Windows--because nobody games on Linux or Mac OS X--cuts the gaming performance of your hardware in half". That's a pretty bold claim to make without some compelling evidence.

With console launch titles at around 900p, that's 30% fewer pixels than 1080p. Mid-range gaming PCs can run 1080p at 60+ FPS in any modern game. Just to achieve feature parity with todays sub-$1000-systems the xbox one developers need to find 1/3 more performance. PS4 developers seem to be having a little more luck, but even their launch titles aren't all confrimed to be 1080p60. We know in 2 years my 'high end' $5000 PC is going to be comparable to a $1500 budget-box computer. in 4 years todays best kit will be dated and laughable (A 6970 scores around 2000 in firestrike extreme, todays r290x/780 scores ~5000: that's a 2.5x increase in 3 years). Are you expecting console developers to find 50% more performance over the next year and then >100% each year after that? I suppose it's possible, but I'm not counting on it. If those sorts of gains were easy the thought that a launch title wouldn't hit 1080p60 would be laughable. Gains of any sort are going to be hard-fought by skilled programmers after the second round of console games come out. Then there are the hard restrictions: with HDMI 1.4, consoles will never drive 4k @ 60 FPS: not such a big deal today with $3500 4k screens, but in 5 years when those things are selling for ~$600 it'll start to sting a little.

Oh no doubt, I agree entirely (I'm a full fledged member of the PC gaming master race), but the games for consoles can be better optimized than their comparable PC counterparts (e.g. the hardware I listed before). Since the hardware will (for the mostpart) be the same for the lifetime of the console, certain assumptions can be made about the hardware that cannot be made for a PC release. All possible CPU instructions are known in advance, for example, whereas a PC game needs to cater for most CPU's made in the last 5-10 years.

There's no doubt that current gaming-level PC's are more capable than the consoles. While the the Xbox and the PS4 crows are arguing over 900p vs 720p, the PC gamers are rising above it with their 1080p vs 1440p arguments.

One point you missed about consoles: first party and console-exclusive titles are awesome. While the PC occasionally has a killer indie game that makes console-people envious (and a handful of exclusive titles like World of Warcraft with millions of players), the big money is in console gaming. The new/improved PS4/Xbox stores combined with "familiar" architectures are going to attract even more indie-developer attention. On the other hand: PC Gamers aren't going to be getting Wonderful 101, Little Big Planet, or Halo any time soon. If you just want to play video games then access to first-party titles from the console vendors should weigh into your decision.

This is true, but I omitted it because personally I think there are plenty of PC exclusives that are just as great, particularly FPS's (S.T.A.L.K.E.R, Metro 2033, ArmA, and so on). You do make a good point about exclusives though, if you're a Halo fan, the Xbox is the only way to go, and ditto for Killzone and Playstation.

There's also the mod subculture as well. Mods for consoles are basically non-existant, but on the PC it's a huge part of the culture. There's even examples of the mods being bigger than the games they're based off (DayZ->ArmA being the current example, and Counter-strike->Half-life being another.