And... so what? I'll be disappointed if my current rig does 'cut it' - we've been on a standstill because of the consoles for so long already. I still remember the goold old days of having to replace your GPU at least every year (not so good for those without the means to do regular upgrades, probably, but most decent hobbies involve costs).
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PC vs. Next Gen Consoles: Your current rig really won't cut it
- Thread starter Kosma
- Start date
And... so what? I'll be disappointed if my current rig does 'cut it' - we've been on a standstill because of the consoles for so long already. I still remember the goold old days of having to replace your GPU at least every year (not so good for those without the means to do regular upgrades, probably, but most decent hobbies involve costs).
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Benchmarks apparently have the 7800 by itself being closer to 100W, whereas the 680 GTX is ~150W, and a "top of the line solution" involving SLI'd 680's is obviously higher again. If somebody has built a GPU beast this year or next year, as far as GPU goes it should last.
CPU may be another story, if they end up going with some massively parallel 8 core thing which screws over current PC gamers based on architecture alone.
Well if you would have clicked on that youtube link in the OP you would have seen the effect. The 7800 GTX can barely run skyrim 15 fps on medium/low while idling, during fights it drops to sub 10 fps.
Oh, missed that. It's hard to compare though, not like developers are coding to the metal for the PC ports, with the PS3 and the 360 the specs are locked so it's probably much easier to attain good framerates. Though I don't think coding to the metal is a good phrase, both the ps3 and 360 use pretty standard APIs if as far as I know, but the specs are locked so it's probably an easier task to optimize. (Unless it's Skyrim on PS3 lol)
Also iirc my 8800gt had issues with Oblivion
Edit: Unless it was my Radeon 9600, I can't remember.
Chû Totoro
Member
Yeah when I wrote this and I read my post again, I was like :
"self mind-blowned
"But this is it... we're finally reaching the flying cars period don't we?
darkistheway
Member
I'm pretty sure the 8 GB figure is total system ram, which isn't quite the same thing.
plagiarize
Banned
yeah, me too. A PC that can't comfortably outperform what consoles are doing doesn't represent much value to me. waiting a year or two after the new consoles launch is the way to go.
even if the PCs of late this year are a bit better than the new consoles, I'm doubting they'll be 1080p locked 60 fps better, if you get what I mean.
8 cores of what?
If it is 8 jaguar cores then today's gaming PCs will not have a problem.
edit: Come to think of it, no CPU they could fit in a console would give an i5 or i7 a problem.
Future PhaZe
Member
I think people would be kidding themselves if they think a rig brought a day before launch will last them all the way through the end of the gen in terms of 1080p, 30fps on HIGH settings fo virtually all games.
Haunted
Member
I'm fairly certain whatever theory we have about how PC systems built prior or close to the launch of the Orbis/Durango should be powerful enough will come crashing down as soon as the first wave of unoptimised and poorly ported actual games hit us.
I fully expect to be forced to upgrade my system at least twice within one console generation (normal lifecycle, not this drawn-out and overextended one) to stay ahead of consoles, but I also fully expect to come out cheaper overall (again) due to the vast difference in software pricing. Those Steam sales, man! Damn!
I mean, I'm also extrapolating from past generations here - maybe there's a wild card here and consoles surprise me with some radical restructuring of their business model. Maybe the Steambox is a gamechanger and leads to more development focus and better optimised PC ports, meaning we won't have to rely on brute strength to power through like we did for large swathes of this gen... who knows.
It's fun to speculate, though.
I fully expect to be forced to upgrade my system at least twice within one console generation (normal lifecycle, not this drawn-out and overextended one) to stay ahead of consoles, but I also fully expect to come out cheaper overall (again) due to the vast difference in software pricing. Those Steam sales, man! Damn!
I mean, I'm also extrapolating from past generations here - maybe there's a wild card here and consoles surprise me with some radical restructuring of their business model. Maybe the Steambox is a gamechanger and leads to more development focus and better optimised PC ports, meaning we won't have to rely on brute strength to power through like we did for large swathes of this gen... who knows.
It's fun to speculate, though.
Haunted
Member
lol 1080p
I don't think that will be the gold standard you want to be on in so many years. Plenty of PC gamers I know have left that resolution behind already.
Chû Totoro
Member
Yeah but the % of RAM needed for other tasks than running the game you're currently playing are really limited on consoles, on PC you can have a lot of things :/
I wish I could play more on PC but it's clearly not the dedicated gaming device everyone could / should have. You must put efforts so you can have the best of it and not a lot of people are ready for that... even if when you manage to have a good config you're having a completely different gaming experience, that's for sure.
I think that is the area where the consoles will have some major advancement yes, the CPU side of things.
The problem with a high wattage solution like that is hat the tech itself wont be supported optimized for. Devs will jump on the next batch of cards like always, PC's wont see optimization again as devs will focus on pushing consoles. Like always PC's will get quick ports that will require exponentially more power to run due to poor coding etc.
BMX Bandit
Member
recommened system requirements:
16 core procesores at 2.67 gigahurtz
32 gugs of ram
nvida 990 or equivlant
welcome to 2020
16 core procesores at 2.67 gigahurtz
32 gugs of ram
nvida 990 or equivlant
welcome to 2020
A 2004 rig had 1/2 GB ram, the 360 has 512 mb right?
Yet the 360 runs Skyrim and Skryim has 2GB as minimum requirements on PC and wont run well on that at all as seen in the vid.
I don't think you've read the thread through but here it goes:
Your PC will run games better when next gen launches, but by the end of the gen it won't (even run games at all?).
As I said on the previous page which you could have read, there were 2005 PC's that beat the 360 in Oblivion and COD2 by miles, but those PC's cant even run Skyrim on low/medium normally now while the 360 still runs it.
See youtube link in OP.
Yet the 360 runs Skyrim and Skryim has 2GB as minimum requirements on PC and wont run well on that at all as seen in the vid.
I don't think you've read the thread through but here it goes:
Your PC will run games better when next gen launches, but by the end of the gen it won't (even run games at all?).
As I said on the previous page which you could have read, there were 2005 PC's that beat the 360 in Oblivion and COD2 by miles, but those PC's cant even run Skyrim on low/medium normally now while the 360 still runs it.
See youtube link in OP.
And in my research lab I can run Deus Ex (the one from 2000) at 8K. It looks amazing.
Based on what?
Stephen Colbert
Banned
I'm sitting here literally laughing at the people who are arguing with the OP.
The best console developers code to the metal and pull off amazing feats precisely because they are targeting a closed box system. You can't do that for an open platform like the PC.
This is why games like Halo 4, Uncharted 3, Killzone 3 and GoW 3 look so mindblowingly good, far better than anything you will see on a PC even using cutting edge $2000+ hardware from 2007.
This isnt even factoring in the likelihood that the PS4/720 will have some hardware features by default not found in normal PCs such as a ton of cache, either a ton of ram 16-32gb or a very high memory bandwidth, or an SSD by default that the developers could code specifically towards to pull off feats not possible in PC Games. For example, devs will never release a PC game that can ONLY run off an SSD, but they can certainly make such a game for a next gen console that only supports SSDs and not traditional slow HDDs.
Honestly the point the OP is illustrating (that a closed box can pull off amazing things simply not possible on an open platform because devs can code down to the metal for a closed box) is so self evident and obvious that I didn't think it even needed a thread pointing it out.
I am baffled that people are arguing with the OP.
The best console developers code to the metal and pull off amazing feats precisely because they are targeting a closed box system. You can't do that for an open platform like the PC.
This is why games like Halo 4, Uncharted 3, Killzone 3 and GoW 3 look so mindblowingly good, far better than anything you will see on a PC even using cutting edge $2000+ hardware from 2007.
This isnt even factoring in the likelihood that the PS4/720 will have some hardware features by default not found in normal PCs such as a ton of cache, either a ton of ram 16-32gb or a very high memory bandwidth, or an SSD by default that the developers could code specifically towards to pull off feats not possible in PC Games. For example, devs will never release a PC game that can ONLY run off an SSD, but they can certainly make such a game for a next gen console that only supports SSDs and not traditional slow HDDs.
Honestly the point the OP is illustrating (that a closed box can pull off amazing things simply not possible on an open platform because devs can code down to the metal for a closed box) is so self evident and obvious that I didn't think it even needed a thread pointing it out.
I am baffled that people are arguing with the OP.
Lucky then PC's are modular and can be upgraded as the need arise.
Emerson
May contain jokes =>
Interesting analysis on both sides, I'm too fresh to the PC gaming world to have much to say on it but I enjoy reading it.
What I will say is that for me personally the entire narrative is changing. I've always been an almost exclusive console gamer, but this extra-long cycle I believe may have pushed me over to PC. I've always been attracted by Steam as a superior content provider but with the other benefits of console never saw it worthwhile to make the jump. I finally did, and now I'm finding it hard to imagine myself jumping back.
No doubt I'll buy a next-gen console (though which? is a good question, as although I'm a bit of an Xbox fanboy I could totally see MS going down the multimedia/advertising rabbit hole and Sony knocking it out of the park next gen), but I feel at this point that PC stole my loyalty from console simply due to this long cycle. I wouldn't be shocked if a lot of others had a similar experience.
What I will say is that for me personally the entire narrative is changing. I've always been an almost exclusive console gamer, but this extra-long cycle I believe may have pushed me over to PC. I've always been attracted by Steam as a superior content provider but with the other benefits of console never saw it worthwhile to make the jump. I finally did, and now I'm finding it hard to imagine myself jumping back.
No doubt I'll buy a next-gen console (though which? is a good question, as although I'm a bit of an Xbox fanboy I could totally see MS going down the multimedia/advertising rabbit hole and Sony knocking it out of the park next gen), but I feel at this point that PC stole my loyalty from console simply due to this long cycle. I wouldn't be shocked if a lot of others had a similar experience.
Seems pretty obvious that PCs of today wont be running games looking as good as the next-gen consoles can do in a couple years. That is guarenteed. And bang for your buck purely from a gaming perspective? Fuhgeddaboudit.
If you want to be unarguably ahead of the console curve from the start of the generation to the end, it will cost a pretty penny. You'll need to start with an expensive rig and update it at least a couple times.
If you want to be unarguably ahead of the console curve from the start of the generation to the end, it will cost a pretty penny. You'll need to start with an expensive rig and update it at least a couple times.
I think we should also note that you are comparing to the 360 launch which basically everyone agree's was very rushed and put out high end first of it's kind tech. If you moved your comparison to when the PS3 launched, then high end PC GPU's of the time smashed the consoles in performance then and now.
Risk Breaker
Member
But I saw someone on here yesterday saying that they could build a $500 computer equal to or better than NG consoles!!
Actually I tried to show a dude in another forum that a 600 PC at the time of their release WON'T get you through the generation at all.
He insisted that he played Crysis on High on a 2005-6 rig that costed him 600. Turned out he had a Q6600 to begin with, and an Ati 38xx lol.
Thanks for the reminder OP.
Actually I tried to show a dude in another forum that a 600 PC at the time of their release WON'T get you through the generation at all.
He insisted that he played Crysis on High on a 2005-6 rig that costed him 600. Turned out he had a Q6600 to begin with, and an Ati 38xx lol.
Thanks for the reminder OP.
In some extended You are right about current gen, but You completely dismiss tech behind current gen consoles and compare GPUs only.
Xenon is 3 core/6 thread CPU, CELL is 8 core/9 thread cpu which is tons better than anything was in 2005/2006 and for the most of 2007. You also dismiss the bandwidth advantage in those years for consoles because of XDR/GDDR3 in PS3 and EDRAM/DDR3 in X0.
You also omit that GPU released in Oct 2007, that cost 200$ on launch, 9800GT that can run games like Crysis 2 or Mass Effect 3 in 1080p in 30fps+.
--
Now think, there wont anything like i5 2600k or 680GTX/7970 in next-gen consoles, also bandwidth wont be a problem as already has GDDR5 192bit that are comparable with EDRAM.
So Your entire topic is useless, sorry.
eso76
Member
That has nothing to do with what the op is saying.
angular graphics
Banned
What are you talking about? A 2006 graphics card, the GeForce 8800 GTX, runs Crysis 2 with better quality/framerate than all those four titles you mentioned.
(The 9800GT is similar to the 8800GTX)
Yes of course, as I will do. I'm just trying to show to some people that are new to PC's that they shouldn't be so vocal maybe about their rigs now, as they probably won't cut it in their current form.
blindrocket
Member
Chû Totoro;46110721 said:
PC gaming is often called a niche enthusiast market. Enthusiasts will have upgraded their PC within those seven years.
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
Decent OP but modern rigs with even Sandy Bridge CPU's can keep up with GPU upgrades needed to make up for the potential unoptimized ports. This is not the same scenario or even the same HW we had back in 2004-2005.
Whenever the conversation about how next gen games will run on PC I always say that something like a 680 will be more than enough to hold you over to mid settings for next gen ports. CPU's and GPU's are much more advanced and so much faster than the uninformed realize.
At this point, I see most next gen consoles using many techniques we've already been seeing on PC and while I do see consoles catching up a little, they will not match your top end performance of moderate gaming machines like an i5 with a 680 or even lesser GPU.
If we entertain the notion that consoles game may look or exceed PC games in terms of graphics, I can't see them meeting the criteria to really be worthy of that praise and that means 1080p resolution at stable 30 or 60fps.
Whenever the conversation about how next gen games will run on PC I always say that something like a 680 will be more than enough to hold you over to mid settings for next gen ports. CPU's and GPU's are much more advanced and so much faster than the uninformed realize.
At this point, I see most next gen consoles using many techniques we've already been seeing on PC and while I do see consoles catching up a little, they will not match your top end performance of moderate gaming machines like an i5 with a 680 or even lesser GPU.
If we entertain the notion that consoles game may look or exceed PC games in terms of graphics, I can't see them meeting the criteria to really be worthy of that praise and that means 1080p resolution at stable 30 or 60fps.
The next consoles will not have 16 + GB of RAM or a fast SSD!
16 GB of slowish RAM on even a 128Bit bus would cost way too much for a console (don't even think of GDDR5 and/ or a large bus).
1st Course
Member
Forget about the GPU talk. how about the ram? you guys think that a 8GB DRR3 of memory will cut it off until 2020?
How much of an improvement could a DRR4 give in performance(in games) over a DRR3?
How much of an improvement could a DRR4 give in performance(in games) over a DRR3?
I think few people with disagree that PC's bought in 2013 ( let's "the year next-gen starts" ) will have a tough time playing games at the potential end of said gen say 2020.
Haunted
Member
It's important to at least footnote the cultural differences here, as I suspect you're talking about the US.
Completely different situation here in Germany, for example. Console gaming has made huge strides here, but it's not overtaken PC gaming just yet. If you tell someone [in my age bracket] you're gaming, the followup question is not "PS3 or 360?", it's "what's the specs of your rig?"
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
More than what you anticipate. Even high 2600 DDR3 is fantastic and cheaper than ever. I don't see 8GB of RAM being a deterrent even in 2020 but who can guess what's going to happen by then. If anything, I think the OS overhead is about at it's peak so unless you're trying to throw something like a highly intensive game or app, I see no reason why 8GB would not be enough. Besides, on PC, we can at least upgrade the RAM. I have 2 slots using 8GB right now. On a whim, I can update to 16GB for 40USD.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
If that's true, then people who think they don't need a next gen console are probably correct. The idea that they won't need to upgrade by the end might not be true, but if it's going to get by for 3-4 years without an upgrade (something that was achieved LAST generation, as in 2009/10 you could still feasibly be rocking the systems outlined in OP, albeit with somewhat compromised quality), they're thus going to be able to build a modest $400-500 rig in 2017 that thrashes the shit out of the consoles then, rather than being stuck with more blurry, jaggy messes as the console drags into it's 5th year.
Haunted
Member
I honestly think if manufacturers can get SSDs to be more reliable and more affordable (and thus more widespread/standard), that's one of the big gamechangers we might see.
The snappiness, the load times differences compared to optical media or a traditional HDD... man, it can't be understated. Everyone notices it immediately, gamer or not.
The snappiness, the load times differences compared to optical media or a traditional HDD... man, it can't be understated. Everyone notices it immediately, gamer or not.
1. Next gen consoles will have between 4 to 8GB of RAM. The 16GB figure comes courtesy of the dev kit which generally possesses 2x the amount of a retail console.
2. There have been no concrete evidence that SSD would be made a default choice in either console although a chance remains given the steady price drop (in retail market which means a contract for bulk supply between companies would be even cheaper).
That is not even close to true, a C2D will smash a xenon even with fair lower clock and an 3.2Ghz Pentium D is also faster.
Emerson
May contain jokes =>
These consoles were definitely limited by RAM, but I wouldn't say "hamstrung." They've done pretty damn well.
Also, I don't think the WiiU is teaching us anything about power. The WiiU's ports are weak because nobody really cares about it. Those versions of multiplatform games could certainly look better if the developers thought it was worthwhile.
Well, yeah. I'm sure anyone who's been in the game for a while has gotten to used doing one or two video card upgrades per gen.
Personally, I would never go for the top of the line. I usually opt for the "performance" level video cards ($300-$400 range) -- good enough to max out at 1080p for around two years.
Imho, part of the draw of PC is that hardware upgrades are somewhat "subsidized" by low software prices.
darkistheway
Member
Chû Totoro;46110856 said:
My point was that whatever ram the next gen Xbox has, comparing the video ram embedded on your current GPU is not a good idea. The 8 GB of system ram should be compared to the ram your pc has. The video ram is completely separate. It is unlikely that the next gen Xbox will be dedicating half of its system ram to the GPU.
No, they wont. Thats the reason i had to change my PC based on C2D E5200 for Battlefield 3, because it used 3+ cores efficiently. GTA IV is good example too.
I have no clue who is right or wrong in this thread, but I find it odd to look back to 2005 and assume the same thing will happen again. In 2005 when consoles came out they had an edge over PCs if I remember right, is that even possible now? Doubt it. So saying history will repeat itself is pretty bold.
I think the biggest mistake a lot of posters in this thread make is assuming that games running on a PC with the same specs as a console will run exactly the same on both platforms. Unfortunately, console games are almost always far better optimised (for obvious reasons) relative to their PC versions, especially if consoles are the lead development platform.
When you need to write the entirety of your post in bold, you know there is something weak with your argument.
Yup. I'm expecting most games released within the next couple years to run like shit on PC's. Won't be the fault of PC hardware, just developer priorities.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
I don't think anybody is making that mistake, rather the assumption is that the next gen box will have worse paper specs than something you could buy today (except maybe in one or two categories), based on a projected 2013 launch date and the unfortunate reality of thermodynamics.