Nope

Doubt it, it's not needed. Half the machine of a PC can still run things just as well as the PC, all of its resources is dedicated to running the game, nothing else.

a $5500 gaming PC now or then? either way it probably won't

Source?

Everything stated sounds absolutely impossible at this stage unless the ps4 were to release in ~4 years.

Its probably true, since they'll probably be compatible with the ultra-hd displays, they will need some really beefy GPU, and it may well be a dual or quad core GPU.

However - each top end GPU released by nvidia for example, is usually twice as fast as the last one. eg gtx 280 vs gtx 480.

So what the rumour is essentially saying is, "the consoles will be twice as fast as a PC with quad gtx480 now". You could say the same about PCs, so it basically means.... nothing...

Its one of those things thats true, but
1) not anything that unexpected or amazing
2) worded in a way to make it sound unexpected and amazing

Thats what I think anyway...

Edit: another thing is, you may find consoles using SLI, its conceivable that you could have a slot on the console where you can just plug in another graphics card (like they have now with the hdds). This way they can increase the potential of the consoles, without having to sell it at a really high premium (or lose a ton of money selling it at a loss or with hardly any profit), they essentially make the console like its almost bare-bones, so it starts at £300 and goes all the way up to £1000 or something silly. So all of a sudden their statement doesn't sound too crazy, when you realise they're not talking about £300 consoles anymore.

lol

If the consoles are faster than PC's when they are released it wont last long. 6 months max till pc's are faster again.

I second this.. 6 months might even be generous.

lmao, dude u do realise that the next xbox will use an amd APU, made of bulldozer modules and vliw4 architecture.... Also think about this:
Top gaming pc today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFLorxs-SMU
That build have had some hardware changes, now it has 10 ocz vertex 3 ssd drives in raid 0...
Keep in mind that consoles will never beat a pc. Only in the early stages pre doom 1 consoles were able to out perform pcs...

In a few months with the new amd gpu's we will have 32nm and by next year we will have 22nm gpu's and cpu's.

that video gave me a hard on.

trubyd44 makes some sick builds :>

I cried

I would buy a PC from the 10% of the price, and spend the rest on a trip to the best tropical place with the most gorgeous girl ever. That would give me a "hard on";)

ps.: And believe me, I would still have an awesome rig to play with:)

haha i loved the part where he was smiling like a little kid cos he could buy that saw and then he says he got permission from his wife to buy it. :)))))))))))))

nonsense..

building a gaming environment requires quite some planning and you can't afford using bleeding edge hardware at the time of release. you have to settle with a configuration then build everything around it and test it extensively (which takes 1-2 years), so yeah..

#26?

what is this i dont even...



at launch day they might have their hands on the latest, best, unreleased hardware from manufacturers and be faster then 99% of the pc's out there.

then 2 months pass and all new pc parts are already faster then ps4...

stupid marketing campaign...

When the PS3 was announced, the specs of it really did (seem to) run circles around the PC standard of that time.

But when the PS3 finally came out, PC's had caught up, and were faster than the PS3.

Expect the same thing to happen again.

lol the gpu they used was and still is a nerfed 7800gs... which was already 2yo at the ps3 release date...

try to emulate ps3 games on pc and ull see whats faster hihihi

Try to emulate pc games on ps3 and you will see whats faster ;pp

that's why all copnsole ports run at 250fps with triple hd resolution on high end pcs :x

and thats also why UE3 engine runs at crap resolution with crap texture on console while running 1080p+max texure on a 2 years old pc at 100 fps

Not gonna happen. It would be too expensive to produce

this is just marketing to get the hype up

The Playstation would simply melt. There is no way a Playstation could safely filter that much heat in a console case. Not to mention, consoles are made to be portable. If the PS4 was to have hardware such as what you've listed, it would way like 30lbs and be quite large.

Well that would be retarded.]

In order to make a profit they need to minimise the loss on a console to about a max of a $100 maybe a bit more, otherwise it's just burning money.

Plus on console you need hardware significantly less powerful than a PC to get the same end product so there's no point trying to outdo high end computers of the time, they only really need to aim for mid-high end PC equivalent at launch time.

lol@console , who is stupid enough to buy a console ?

sadly i did & now cant sell my fat 20gb ps3 for £250 because others are selling the slim version with games for £45-65 :((

Where the hell can you get a slim ps3 for that price?

local 2nd hand website. not much use unless youre willing to drive to the west mids.

thats rare though and was "must go tonight" so 90% stolen. You're seeing quite a few much lower than I'd like to sell for though e.g. 250gb slim with 7 games for £170...I advertised my 20gb fat with 8 games for £250 =/

Just the console for £250?

console + 8 games + 1 bluray (hang over) for £250
vs slim 160gb + 7 games for £160
or slim 250gb + 3 games for £180

http://uk.webuy.com/product.php?sortOn=sellpr...;catid=810

what about it...they buy for £80~ doesnt really help with my desire to sell for £200-250~

Yeah that's what that link was about

the sale prices are also shit compared to what ive already seen

Traditionally arcade machines (even the top of the line ones) have had very slow hardware compared to their pc counterparts.

However, the software is perfectly tailored to it and you'd be astonished what a difference this can make.

Consoles are the same way, but even more so.

take note vedic....

consoles are always faster for a few months after release


Edit: Wii-u is already slower then last year's systems, but Nintendo is not after performance, never was

What a joke. Consoles aren't even half of what a top end gaming PC can be. And they will never be.

Consoles = the dumbed down pc for the mentally challenged. Same thing goes for the console games.

The xbox360 was released November 20, 2005.
With the prices and technology of that time, you would need to spend an insane amount of money on a PC to get the same performance.

ps.: I'm a PC fan also, but this doesn't mean that consoles are not powerfull when they come out.

times have changed, it's much harder for a console to outshine a PC on it's release date nowadays. And even so, they are fastly obsolete and release a version once every x years.

heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy, i still love my snes you know :/

the really weird thing is we wouldn't have much of this PC vs console debate if consoles would provide active support for mouse and keyboard in games (not even for all of them)..

i can't for the life of me understand this artificial barrier imposed on consoles. yes, it's unfair to gamepad users, but you can segregate the multiplayer aspect based on control scheme.. or straight up port games that can ONLY be played with mouse+kb (StarCraft, WoW etc.). you don't want to play with mouse and kb? fine, then don't buy these games.

the consumer would then have a choice in what he plays.. best of both worlds.

this would greatly expand the console market. also console makers could win extra from licensing 3rd party peripherals like keyboards and mice.

consoles would be really great if this would happen.. they're also easy to deploy in tournaments due to lighter format and standardized hardware (you'd eliminate a lot of hardware issues as well).

I think this might actually happen sometime in the future. Sort of a all-in-one that would serve both as a PC and a console.

i hope so. i wouldn't expect Nintendo (gimmicks) or Sony (incompetence) to do this though. their Japanese gaming culture is totally incompatible with PC gaming.

i guess it's up to Microsoft to find a way to do this.

nintendo focus on gameplay, sony and microsoft focus on graphics

Dreamcast had kb and mouse (with q3), it was good so that's why it had to die out:(

The Dreamcast was actually really good. The games were aesthetically pleasing as well. Wonder why it died out..

because it didn't have hats:(

:(

because the ps2 was way more popular :c

dreamcast bestest ever tho

shenmue<3

its not hard, PCI`e cards failed, and its why you need SLi and crossfire

AGP 4.0 will be all that with the 1 card like the old days

1 PCI`e card is half the speed of a AGP 3.0 8x card

my x850xt PE agp is still owning

I think you miss something
Each PCI-E line is 250MB/s so 16x connection gives 4000Mb/s (or 8000Mb/s for v2.0 cards) - which is about 2x(4x) times better than agp3.0 (2133Mb/s)

not forgetting, these scores are kind of even

7800gs Vs x850xt pe

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-78...213-5.html

most sites benchmarks usually have pci`e as the looser when its 1v1

AGP Vs PCIe is like intel Vs AMD and all about latency nodoubt, instead of clockcycles

>most sites benchmarks usually have pci`e as the looser when its 1v1

same card and just pci-e vs agp comparison? really want to look on that :)

pcie specs are double agp, the cpu`s on pcie boards are better

1x PCIe card Vs 1 AGP 8x card, the benchmark is either PCIe half the speed of AGP, or around even scores

1x PCIe card will never be double the speed of AGP in benchmarks, PCIe cards failed, so nvidia and ati had to come up with SLi and crossfire, its impossible for the 1 PCIe to be twice as fast as AGP

Do you have any actual evidence or facts to support your claim? The link you provided compares AGP video cards on the same motherboard and you're trying to argue PCIe vs AGP. I'm not sure why you posted it at all.

On correctly configured systems, I've never seen a PCIe card lose to an AGP card period, much less by half. Bandwidth was a non factor on PCIe launch. AGP 8x was barely any faster, if at all, than AGP 4x in real world benchmarks. Of course the additional bandwidth PCIe provided wasn't going to sway results.

These days CPUs can have integrated PCIe and memory controllers. So latency shouldn't be a factor either.

Also, as for the AMD vs Intel comment. It's about instructions per cycle, not latency. Doing the same calculations in less cycles and being able to achieve more cycles per second than the competition is why Intel's CPU architecture is superior.

benchmarks are too old, tomshardware is the only site left on google with AGP VS PCIe tests

PCIe specs are roughly double of AGP
CPU`s are better on PCIe board that have no AGP slot
PCIe GPU are twice as fast as the last of the AGP GPU`s along with ram clock speed etc

using a single PCIe card Vs a AGP 8x card, the benchmark scores for PCIe cards should be on average a little under double of the AGP score

at best the scores are usually even

pcie cards have a much much higher bandwith than AGP. Theres NO way a AGP card could compete with an PCIe card that takes full use of the bandwith

these are facts but you try to argue that AGP was better by comparing 2 random gpus? funny...

i said PCIe cards failed, and why SLI and crossfire exist, they are a cheap gimmick to either quickly boost PCIe cards performance until nvidia or ati make single PCIe cards perform at their prime, or until AGP 4.0 is released because PCIe cards failed

you wouldnt want to be overtaken on the motorway driving your BMW m5 by someone in a BMW 3 series

PCi-E did fail in the sense that it was intended to attempt to eliminate the need for a Southbridge altogether (at least in my view)

Most of that is common technical knowledge.

>> using a single PCIe card Vs a AGP 8x card, the benchmark scores for PCIe cards should be on average a little under double of the AGP score

Based off of what? Increased interface bandwidth doesn't increase a device's performance unless it can actually use it or the link is over saturated. Basically, your CPU or (single) GPU will bottleneck long before PCIe x16 does.

It's for that reason that you can run SLI/crossfire in x8/x8 over one PCIe x16 link and not lose performance (vs x16/x16) short of running a 4k+ resolution or Eyefinity. SLI is a benefit because a single GPU is the source of the bottleneck, not the interface it's connected to.

Back to my original question. You stated that AGP > PCIe. Assuming everything else is equal, what advantage does AGP have over PCIe?

Basically, is your statement based on something you "remember" reading several years ago or actual science?

troll

Nah no way

xbox will be around for another couple of years at least, ps4 will be released sometime in the next decade - of course they'll be comparable to current hardware

regardless of hardware i won't buy shit from Sony ever again:
- PSN is a piece of shit, i suffered enough through that (lag and downtimes)

- they can't even update the fucking browser in their console so it could be usable with the current web standards. they could just straight up port Firefox or their own fork of a decent open source browser

- well, what to expect from a company that keeps user info in plain text and gets hacked?

- they removed advertised features from the console for stupid reasons that didn't stop anyone in the end from doing what they were afraid of

- legal harassment of people trying to restore functionality or add homebrew

i only keep this POS3 for a few upcoming games (Street Fighter x Tekken, Street Fighter 3 Third Strike - Online Edition.. yes Capcom has me by the balls :D)

its sonys first network, they think the world works like japan way of life, they learn and fix exploits with PS4

xbox is MS toy and they know the network is going to be hack and planned for it to be hacked, and still it hasnt been hacked

As far as I'm aware microsoft have a three console market plan.

The first one is to enter the market and gain recognition.

The second is to break further into the market and gain significant market share.

The third is to 'crush' or 'dominate' the market; so if any next gen console is to be special I would be looking out for the next xbox :)

However, the >33% failure rate of 360's has made me really reluctant to touch a microsoft product/console other than a wmo or ie 3.0.

and its just a pc in a box, if you have a pc there is no point in wasting money on a crap out of date bit of hardware that runs on directx 8

PS3 is a console and should just run on openGL like the next nintendo

"...>33% failure rate of 360's..."

Nobody remembers, just like nobody remembers the rate how former Windows versions were crashed all the time, and how many hours of work and data have been lost because of that.

Only money counts on this rock, and MS got plenty of it;)

fucking idiot.