Xbox One and PS4 outperformed by 5 year old GPU.

[HawkMan]

Except you're forgetting that the XO has one fully customized APU, you would get that with any other solution. And performance is far more than the raw numbers of the gpu and CPU.

[Guest]

Consoles have to sell an overall package, they aren't modular, so every single nut, bolt, screw and piece of silicon is paid for by the same company.

 

You're saying like that is a reason why they can't perform better? If anything, the SHOULD perform better because every single component is custom-made for GAMING in mind. And not for general use like on the PC-side of things.

 

Also, console (PS) has The Last of Us. Highest rated game for years. Get that on yer PC :p

 

Aaaaand PC has DotA, StarCraft 2, Hearthstone and a billion other, you know, actual GAMES and not interactive movies.

 

Microsoft should've just stayed with the PPC CPU/AMD GPU combo.

 

PPC? :laugh: You can't be serious.

[McKay]

Consoles have to sell an overall package, they aren't modular, so every single nut, bolt, screw and piece of silicon is paid for by the same company. When it comes to PC's there are multiple manufacturers all getting by on their own margins and strengths/weaknesses.

 

To ever expect a console to match a PC is to live with a delusion in your own head, not a delusion that console players think consoles are technically superior to PCs. None of us level headed console owners have ever thought that. When you have a box that cannot be updated, it cannot ever match the ever improving technical world that PCs can by upgrading components.

 

The reason technical debates exist between console owners is to compare what each manufacturer has managed to get out of their box with their budget and price sold to consumer, it's not to start seriously comparing to PCs. Sure Joe Bloggs may add a comment here or there saying his PC is old and as far as he can see his PS4/XB1 looks far better than it on his TV when playing games, but again calm your rage PC elite, he's already admitted his PC is outdated.

 

We have the facts backing up what it costs Sony and MS to create these boxes, so what argument is there to have? They do the best they can with what hardware can be crammed in that DOESN'T bleed money, and more importantly doesn't overheat (RROD anyone?).

 

I never said I expected consoles to rival PCs. The whole reason I made this thread was because of how old the GPU that bested them was. A 5 year old GPU. 

 

I would expect brand new consoles just out to rival a 5 year old GPU. 

[spacer]

As others have already stated, consoles are more than the sum of their parts. They're highly specialized computers that will out-perform their supposed "numbers" because developers can take advantage of the fact that they're a closed, highly integrated system.. The hardware that goes into them needs to meet power, size, price, and performance quotas to keep the console affordable but still powerful. Let's also not forget that design and development of the current consoles started years ago, which means the GPUs in the consoles would have been mid-range cards from around the same time-period as the one in the OP. So, it's no surprise that its raw performance is better.

 

Demonstrating how years-old PC hardware can out perform today's consoles in a highly isolated, specific test ignores the fundamental advantages of console gaming and the scope of the process of bringing a console to market. It serves no other purpose than to boast the obvious pc-master-race BS that we really don't need to hear again and again.

[cacoe]

That was evidence?

 

 

Eh....

 

 

Anyway, how much of that is just poor coding?

 

 

If anything, PCs end up with the poor coding. Many console titles end up having terrible PC ports, that's why we need all this POWER :D

[adrynalyne]

If anything, PCs end up with the poor coding. Many console titles end up having terrible PC ports, that's why we need all this POWER :D

So poorly coded games get ported to console.

 

Got it :p

[McKay]

As others have already stated, consoles are more than the sum of their parts. They're highly specialized computers that will out-perform their supposed "numbers" because developers can take advantage of the fact that they're a closed, highly integrated system.. The hardware that goes into them needs to meet power, size, price, and performance quotas to keep the console affordable but still powerful. Let's also not forget that design and development of the current consoles started years ago, which means the GPUs in the consoles would have been mid-range cards from around the same time-period as the one in the OP. So, it's no surprise that its raw performance is better.

 

Demonstrating how years-old PC hardware can out perform today's consoles in a highly isolated, specific test ignores the fundamental advantages of console gaming and the scope of the process of bringing a console to market. It serves no other purpose than to boast the obvious pc-master-race BS that we really don't need to hear again and again.

 

For the last time I didn't post this to brag about PC. I also own PS4 and XB1, I'm a concerned gamer. Pretty much every generation prior to this one consoles have rivalled decent PCs even in terms of raw power. The equivalent PC GPU for the 360 at launch cost more than the entire console. This is the first gen where they fall so shockingly short, with the rumours that these consoles are supposed to last even longer than last gen. 

[Astra.Xtreme]

Comparing this little chip to a large discreet GPU is stupid for pretty obvious reasons...

 

[+Eternal Tempest MVC]

When it comes to hardware, PC is better.

 

That being said, a console has highly optimized games (or will in X1/PS4 case, it's too new) and there designed to put in disc, and play.

No configuration, no driver's to worry about, etc.

 

They both have there place in a home, and neither is going away soon. 

 

I see a shift (once internet infrastructure is in place, which is not in the US) to make game console a streaming device to push to the system vs running from the device. Similar to a cable box. 

I personally don't like this model (I don't mind as long as I can buy an offline physical copy).

[+Warwagon MVC]

Comparing this little chip to a large discreet GPU is stupid for pretty obvious reasons...

 

 

You know that big GPU is also just a little chip with MASSIVE cooling on top

 

Like here is the GTX Titan ... oh look, just a chip

 

[Astra.Xtreme]

You know that big GPU is also just a little chip with MASSIVE cooling on top

 

Like here is the GTX Titan ... oh look, just a chip

 

That overlooks all the rest of the circuitry on that board that are all dedicated to the GPU.  The X1/PS4 SOC include a LOT of circuitry in that tiny package.

 

Is it fair to compare a laptop GPU to a desktop GPU?  Nope.  It's pretty obvious why.

[+Warwagon MVC]

That overlooks all the rest of the circuitry on that board.

 

Is it fair to compare a laptop GPU to a desktop GPU?  Nope.  It's pretty obvious why.

 

Correct, but he was referencing the chip as if to say there was no chip under that big GPU.

[Astra.Xtreme]

Correct, but he was referencing the chip as if to say there was no chip under that big GPU.

Well yeah, but the point was that a large circuit board with the single task of high performance graphics isn't fair to compare to a small dedicated chip that has to sacrifice performance for package size.

[+Warwagon MVC]

Well yeah, but the point was that a large circuit board with the single task of high performance graphics isn't fair to compare to a small dedicated chip that has to sacrifice performance for package size.

 

I always have a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that the Xbox One had to sacrifice anything for size ... that things a beast.

[trooper11]

For the last time I didn't post this to brag about PC. I also own PS4 and XB1, I'm a concerned gamer. Pretty much every generation prior to this one consoles have rivalled decent PCs even in terms of raw power. The equivalent PC GPU for the 360 at launch cost more than the entire console. This is the first gen where they fall so shockingly short, with the rumours that these consoles are supposed to last even longer than last gen.

But remember, the ps4 and xb1 are packing about the best hardware you could squeeze into a box due to things like price, temp, etc. The reason the gap is bigger between them and a pc now vs last gen is pretty simple. PC hardware improvements are coming at a much faster clip then they were 8-9 years ago. So a static system like a console has no chance of keeping up with the current pace of pc hardware improvement.

It really shouldn't worry you at all unless your just obsessed with pc hardware, in which case maybe you shouldn't own a console in the first place. The consoles will still get good looking and fun games, along with all of the other stuff they offer. Their is an experience factor that many gamers/users prefer from consoles that a pc cannot match easily.

 

 

I always have a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that the Xbox One had to sacrifice anything for size ... that things a beast.

Well it came down to being able to move heat away from the console as quickly, but also as quietly, as possible. They went with a larger case to make that happen. I notice it everyday between my ps4 and xb1. The smaller case of the ps4 resulted in something that feels warmer under heavy load and putting out a louder sound at the same time.

[JustGeorge]

You're saying like that is a reason why they can't perform better? If anything, the SHOULD perform better because every single component is custom-made for GAMING in mind. And not for general use like on the PC-side of things.

 

 

Aaaaand PC has DotA, StarCraft 2, Hearthstone and a billion other, you know, actual GAMES and not interactive movies.

 

 

PPC? :laugh: You can't be serious.

When we're talking AMD, you're dang right I am!

[Guest]

Well yeah, but the point was that a large circuit board with the single task of high performance graphics isn't fair to compare to a small dedicated chip that has to sacrifice performance for package size.

 

What sacrifice of performance for package size? My damn laptop is more powerful than the two consoles, yet it is smaller than them.

[Astra.Xtreme]

What sacrifice of performance for package size? My damn laptop is more powerful than the two consoles, yet it is smaller than them.

So your laptop has at least an 8 core CPU and GPU equivalent to a desktop (keyword is "desktop") AMD 7850?

And that's just a specs comparison.  Since a console is dedicated to gaming and is optimized for such, it will perform much much better than a PC equivalent.

[LaP]

Not surprising. My computer is fairly old.

 

It is a core i5 750. It was released in fall 2009 and this is when i bought it. So it will be 5 years old this fall. I have 8GB of ddr3 1600 ram at cl8 also bought 5 years ago.

 

The cpu is slightly overclocked at xmp profile for the ram to work at 1600 but it is not much honestly.

 

Only the gpu is more recent (at first i used the gpu in my old pc when i built it). It is a gb 670 winforce. A fairly good recent gpu but it is still close to 2 years old. Still worth lot of money but you can find one for around 180$ used.

 

I've seen in action most of the Xbox One games so far and it doesn't look as good as my PC. The difference is not big but the aliasing or blurriness (in case cheap aa is used) is a common problem found in most XBox One games. I also experienced some terri terri terribad tearing in Titanfall. The titans are not falling the tearing is in this game.

 

I'm not impressed so far by both the ps4 and xbox one.

[HawkMan]

What sacrifice of performance for package size? My damn laptop is more powerful than the two consoles, yet it is smaller than them.

 

And your laptop can play games at the same rest, refresh and pq as the consoles continuously for 24 hours 7 days a week?

[MindTrickz]

I like to preface this by saying that I don't own a next-gen console, and I have a GTX 780 with a i7-4770K. But all this PCmasterRace nonsense is getting out of hand. This test is extremely disengenious.

 

A GTX 480 is a highend card that cost $580 dollars at launch. Today it costs about $150. That is ~ 1/3 of PS4's price. What people are not taking into consideration is the $150 is for the GPU ALONE. You still need to buy a CPU, ram, motherboard, case, power supply, OS etc which would at the end excede the price of the PS4.

 

A GPU on it's own is useless. A console is not. You can not compare a costly single component that that requires others components to function to a all-in-one system.

[Athernar]

That overlooks all the rest of the circuitry on that board that are all dedicated to the GPU.  The X1/PS4 SOC include a LOT of circuitry in that tiny package.

 

Is it fair to compare a laptop GPU to a desktop GPU?  Nope.  It's pretty obvious why.

 

The majority of the circuitry on the board there is power supply/regulation, with the remainder being memory and the PCI-E interface routing.

[Guest]

And your laptop can play games at the same rest, refresh and pq as the consoles continuously for 24 hours 7 days a week?

 

Haven't heard it complain with 12/h day gaming. And unless you don't eat nor sleep, you don't use your console 24/7. Besides, it will run 24/7 if left so without any worries, same as any other decent system. Why do you even bring this into question?

[Guest]

I like to preface this by saying that I don't own a next-gen console, and I have a GTX 780 with a i7-4770K. But all this PCmasterRace nonsense is getting out of hand. This test is extremely disengenious.

 

A GTX 480 is a highend card that cost $580 dollars at launch. Today it costs about $150. That is ~ 1/3 of PS4's price. What people are not taking into consideration is the $150 is for the GPU ALONE. You still need to buy a CPU, ram, motherboard, case, power supply, OS etc which would at the end excede the price of the PS4.

 

A GPU on it's own is useless. A console is not. You can not compare a costly single component that that requires others components to function to a all-in-one system.

 

You kind of disregard the fact that these companies buy parts in large amounts, and most are custom-built in order to suit their needs (one of those needs being removing the cost of everything that is not used by the console). If the same component costs $100 for the average user, it certainly doesn't cost MS $100.

[HawkMan]

and it plays games looking the same as the xbox one...