Will you head back to the consoles, or double down on PC gaming ? Fall 2013 - The Great Decision - Page 5

"So gpu is not actually 'only' 256 or 'up to' 512 but somewhere in between (if implemented)."

More important is that you can directly write to GPU memory space from storage in the console space. In Windows you have to write your textures to system ram, then over to the GPU's ram pool. In effect, anything that you have in GPU memory you also want to keep duplicated in system memory so that if it is flushed from the GPU you don't have to go all the way back to storage for the texture data. This makes direct console-to-Windows comparisons silly. 256+256MB in the console space is roughly equivalent to 512+256MB in PC terms, simply due to the lack of wasted duplication.

Things get much sillier when you look at a unified console memory structure versus a Windows unified memory structure. The 360's flat chunk of 512MB that anything can access means textures write to ram once. In Windows with something like an AMD APU or Intel with integrated graphics, video memory comes out of system memory. Texture duplication is still required though, as you are not allowed to directly write texture data to video ram from storage. So, a 512MB system, with 256M shared video memory ends up with duplicate textures in each half of that split 512MB pool. The result is much greater amounts of wasted space.

On a Windows XP system (these consoles' contemporary), to roughly match the 512MB that the PS3 and 360 shipped with you need: 512MB on your video card. The same 512MB to match for wasted texture storage. Plus 512/256 to match for system storage for 360/PS3. Also 256MB for Windows XP. In other words, you need 1.25GB of system ram with a 512MB video card to match what the 360 does with it's much smaller 512MB unified pool. To match a PS3 you need about 1GB system ram, plus a 512MB video card.

Extrapolate that to 8GB of unified memory for a new console like the PS4. You are now looking at the equivalent of an 8GB video card paired up with about 20GB of ram to account for duplicate textures, full system ram, and the 4GB that modern Windows wants in order to turn on


Responding again to "And 512mb makes it ANY better?"

The 512MB pool on the 360 is in no way restricting whether the 360 hits 1080p. That is much more of a bandwidth issue. It in no way holds back the 360 from 60fps. That is more of a GPU age issue. The worst thing you can point at and say "512MB causes this!" is texture pop-in. Either all textures needed could fit and be lower resolution, or sharper textures can be used but loaded at the last possible moment. That is ram size in play.

The story here in relation to new consoles is not ram size. The story is exactly what I tweeted the day of the PS4 announcement, here now in censored form: "No way. Sony finally got it through their thick frakking heads and are using a unified memory architecture on a console!?! Took long enough."

Finally someone who knows what he's talking about.

I'm fairly certain I had 2GB of ddr2 starting in 2004(maybe 2005). I don't believe I spent even $100 then but I don't really remember. XP ran much better with 2GB of ram. Windows does a fairly good job of using the memory you have. Having to wait 3 seconds when I exit a game for the desktop to load into memory is a minor inconvenience.

Despite the unbelievable technological marvel that the 360 apparently is, it really is annoying when they die and eat your games. The PS3 has been rock solid for me and most. Hopefully the PS4 and xbox next are built to last more than a year.

The second part of your memory calculations are absolute best case scenario. Reality is probably closer to your first guess. The 360 reserves 160MB for the OS right(this has changed over time)?

Good technical article but you let your bias take over your reason again.

Are you going to rag out on every post I make?

The fact of the matter still remains, that if you build a PC for the same cost as a console, the PC WILL be better, and guess what... also functions as a PC, not just a device to sit in your living room. These console makers seem to be trying VERY hard to turn these into low-end, cheap PCs without resorting to calling them PCs.

When a console can do this...





You let me know, and I'll go out and buy it. And yes I know a $500-600 PC can't do that, but that's my point, with a console you don't have the choice. If I WANT to spend $1k+ on PC to do the above, I can, I can't do that with a console, REGARDLESS of it's hardware.


EDIT: And before anyone screams 'fanboy' I'll be getting the next Xbox, w/e they decide to call it, because I love Forza and I love Halo. PS4 on the other hand, NOTHING interests me enough to buy one. Same thing happened with the PS3, almost bought one just for Gran Turismo 5, and then I played GT5 on my roommate's PS3... such a disappointment.

I don't understand this logic. This is like saying that you don't get the choice to microwave stuff when you buy a toaster.

A console is just a piece of hardware with a custom OS. It costs some amount of money. Anyway who wants one can go to the store or surf online and see exactly what they are getting. It's not really a secret.

if you want to go spend $1000 on a PC you can go buy a PC. You wouldn't buy a console in that situation because a console is something different. If you want a console, then you go buy a console and spend the money to get what they are selling.

The logic behind it is simple. PC offers better hardware, better visuals, higher native resolutions, better/higher framerates, upgradeability, and mods. Console makers are trying to tout their boxes as the most amazing things every time they get ready to release them, when in reality, they aren't. A price equivalent built PC (read: not bought in a store) will still look and play better than the PS4 will. You build a PC now, and in 5 years you don't HAVE to buy a new one like you do with consoles, you spend about half as much and get upgrades that make it better than the next generation.

Your comparison is incorrect. The proper comparison would be like saying you can't change or modify your PC in anyway because you bought a pre-built. Or something like, why would you pay $500 for something that's insanely locked down and you can't do anything you want with it, where you can build a PC for $500 and get better....everything? That's all a console is, a $500 pre-built PC that doesn't give you the ease of use or flexibility of a PC. If the makers are trying to make them more and more like PCs (looking at you Sony and your documentation that make generous use of the term 'PC',) then why don't you do just that and let us have some form of upgradeability? (apart from swapping harddrives... wooooow, fancy stuff right there). They don't because they can't, it would destroy the market on consoles and they know it. They need to STOP trying to act like their consoles are better than PCs.

Sidenote: DLJ... why aren't you yelling at them for ONLY putting in 8gb of RAM? You're always telling people to step it up to 16gb at least :P lol (btw I would agree with you if you did say that, RAM is dirt cheap, no reason to not shove more in)
Edited by Marafice Eye - 2/23/13 at 8:42am

Yea, that's called marketing. Every company does it. I'm not sure why you are surprised that companies praise the products they are getting ready to release.


No, my comparison is correct because they are two different things. You buy a PC when you want a PC, you buy a console when you buy a console. A console is cheaper, nobody who wants a $300 console is going to go out and build a $1000 PC. Likewise, nobody who wants a $1000 PC for gaming is going to be happy with a $300 console. The point is that a customer makes the choice. Every company puts their offering out there and customers make the call. What console XYZ can and can't do is no secret.

You seem to be upset because companies are selling their consoles as cool things to buy and own, like what do you expect them to say?

But the fact of this matter is, nearly everyone who buys a console already has a PC, the money would be better spent upgrading it. And no, once again your comparison was not correct. Sony makes generous use of the word PC to describe the PS4, therefore they ARE the same things, not different. A PS4 is just a PC wrapped in a different box with no upgradeability. They are not two different things, A book is still a book even if it has a different cover.

Sidenote: Millions upon millions of people buy the yearly CoD rehash every year, doesn't suddenly make it a good game because a bunch of people bought it.
Edited by Marafice Eye - 2/23/13 at 8:59am

Maybe 5 or 10 years ago, but not now. The average PC sold these days is a $400 laptop, not a box that sits next to a monitor. When I decided I wanted a gaming PC, I needed to get one from scratch and as a complement to my laptop.

You are placing too much importance on the hardware specs.

A piece of hardware - any hardware - is just a slab that draws power from a plug. What matters is what you are going to do with it. A PS4 has a defined set of use cases that Sony lays out. It's not the same set of use cases as a PC. So no, it's not the same thing. Nobody, ever, has gone to the store looking to get a PC and got a PS3 thinking it was the same thing, or vice versa.

You put too much faith in mankind my friend. I've seen it happen, especially after the pS3 and 360 added their browsers and media streaming. With everything the makers are trying to do with the consoles, they're closer to a PC than ever before. Media Streaming, Livestream viewing, Web Browsing, digital downloads, instant messaging.... Not comparable to a PC? Really?

My whole point was that you can't criticize a console for not doing what a $1000 PC can do because it's not designed to do that. Likewise, it's not fair to criticize a PC for not being able to pop in every game without having to mess with settings - a PC is not designed to do that. It's silly to criticize a PC platform because you have to upgrade drivers once in a while - it comes with the territory.

To go back to your original post - no, a console doesn't give you the choice to upgrade components, so if you want to upgrade components, you buy a PC.

Regarding what consoles can do, I just see that as the hardware makers delivering more value to their customers and there's nothing wrong with that. Let's flip this around - let's say I wanted a box that I could use to stream Netflix to my TV and play the occasional game, why would I buy a $1000 PC when a $300 console can do those things just fine? Because the PC can run games at higher resolutions and framerates? So what? Not everyone cares about that.

Don't know if I would say the 360 was more PC like. It still had a PowerPC CPU.

Console exclusives will probably continue just as they have. The only shocker to me in the past generation was that ffxiii wasn't an exclusive to Sony.

That's the thing, I'm not arguing that console SHOULDN'T exist. As I stated in a post earlier, I still love Halo and Forza and will buy the next Xbox because of that. My whole point is that, exclusives aside, PC is hands down the better platform. The simple fact that I CAN upgrade makes it better than a console. and that's what Number was failing to see in my point. I wasn't comparing a $500 console to a $1k PC, I was saying that a comparably priced, built PC is better than a console, and if I so choose, I can spend more and get even better out of it. With consoles, you DON'T have that choice, period, end of story.

If you want an idiot proof turnkey PC and don't mind its limitations, get a console. Simple as that.

On a side note I always get a kick from the bitter tears of console gamers who's modded consoles get punk busted. It's more entertaining than a lot of games out there.

Not idiot proof, people always figure out how to screw it up. Also RROD and YLOD would like to have a word with you :P

Yeah, I cooked a couple in my poopsock days. Then I discovered sunshine and .......AVS.

This thread got stupid pretty quick. E-peen is all that's on the menu.

The thread was flame bait/e-peen war bait from the minute it was made. We're in the "HTPC" section and someone makes a thread about consoles and you expect otherwise? Really?

^^^

Stupid as in not being dicks to other people.

^^^Ohh...

The highlighted point within your comment is an intriguing one on several levels. If Sony and MS did indeen release their exclusive titles for PC through PSN and XBL for Windows 8...12 months later...they could completely disrupt the used game market by staging & controlling their price point reductions without incurring massive retail inventory markdown costs. Meaning...hold price points on consoles for 12 months...reduce them by 25% when they release on PC's. Match the reduction on any new console inventory. And let market tides/gravity take them where they want to sink afterwards.

DLJ...No need to repeat that entire quote. But it was very informative for me. I have a few questions. Is the real issue with PC gaming versus console gaming the Windows OS? Meaning you can't lock out all of the app bloat and do a clean, yet cumbersome bootup like you could in the old DOS days. If Windows had a bypass "Game Mode" that allowed a game to be downloaded, disk loaded and played to a clean boot configuration that used 80% of the system resources for gaming and online interaction with it...would that not wipe out the need for all of the duplication you mentioned? And wouldn't it make PC gaming the only real way to go for the purist...to get the best out of new tech? And wouldn't that make it easier for developers to program for all platforms?
Edited by barrelbelly - 2/25/13 at 1:50pm

The PC is the better choice for you, which is fine.

You're not everybody though.

A lot of people have thought about something like this but it's just not going to happen because that's not how the platform works. It's an open platform where anyone who wants to run something can. A lot of people play games with, for example, chat programs so they can VOIP with their friends while they play. A lot of people run mods on games that take up memory. A lot of people run cheat programs, for better or worse. If you're going to restrict that stuff for the purpose of convenience and/or standardization... just get a console. That's the point.
Edited by number1laing - 2/25/13 at 6:08pm

What DLJ was talking about is more a hardware design limitation and less a software issue.

It will be interesting to see whether this holds true when MS launches Durango. Because a lot of their programmed leaks have focused on the integration of XBL with Windows 8. Especially via their Surface tablet. I'll be interested to see how they do this within the framework of that "open looped" Windows OS.

Coding language is different from just hardware, and yes even from systems that are considered easy to develop and similar to PC like the Xbox, there hasn't been any good emulators for the original Xbox because the CPU is actually very difficult to emulate to begin with. There are still good reason to have both consoles and PC, assuming you want games and don't want to limit your choices, because every new hardware has it's exclusives, and that encourages competition.

"What DLJ was talking about is more a hardware design limitation and less a software issue."

Do not pretend to know what I was talking about. Again, you are simply incorrect at a basic, factual level. What a surprise. What I was talking about is entirely a software choice.

You'd think with your track record around here you'd have given up by now.


"Is the real issue with PC gaming versus console gaming the Windows OS?"

Everything that Windows does in putting steps between the dev and the hardware is for two reasons. Simplicity and stability. We used to be able to write directly to GPU memory spaces (before they were called GPUs). The problem is that it's pretty easy for a dev to screw that process up and bring the entire system down. Windows enforcing memory write rules as they currently are means that a misbehaving program crashes on it's own, but Windows remains stable. Notice how Windows 7 will stay up for months on end, while your Windows 98 machine needed a reboot every 3 days, and your DOS 6.22 machine wouldn't make it through a single day? If there was a rigorous certification process for Windows as there is on the consoles, then we could maybe allow devs direct access to GPU memory. There isn't, so in the interest of your machine having an up-time greater than 12 hours, we force memory writes through APIs.

On the simplicity side, devs shouldn't have to deal with memory management on the PC and they don't. This lowers the bar for entry to the platform, allowing a greater range of devs to make Windows games.

Both simplicity and stability are worthy goals. The trade-off is a platform that requires a lot more horsepower to get the same amount of work done though. As Carmack regularly says, today's PC hardware is something like 40x faster than the 2006 console hardware, but only spits out visuals that are 2-4x as good looking. The next round of consoles will be no different than what it has always been. A lot more can be done with less power on a closed platform that allows you to write directly to the hardware. There is a severe case in this thread of comparing numbers between PC and console hardware and saying "PC pwnzers lol!!1", apparently oblivious to simple architecture differences that drastically improve efficiency on the console side.

From what we've seen of the PS4 demos so far, physics is the name of the game this time around. Every one of you claiming PC superiority in this thread is going to be right back here in about a year wondering why your fancy PCs choke on the number of physics objects being bandied around by the new consoles. And no, PhysX objects that have no weight and instantly fade away don't count. Again, this is no different from 2006 when depth-of-field showed up in Tomb Raider Legend, ran great on the 360 and choked every one of our video cards. Or when Oblivion came out, ran just fine on the 360 but ran like crap on technically "superior" PC hardware without some serious ini tweaking.

\

Ran just fine at MUCH lower resolutions and looking crappier. That's ALWAYS been my point. When you do a DIRECT comparison to how a game looks and runs (at the same settings, and in quite a lot of cases, better settings) the PC will always come out on top. You show me a console game that out performs it's PC version at the same settings and I'll give you that, but when nearly all console games run at a bastardized version of 720p, or in a lot of cases, even lower and are then upscaled to 720p, how they run there compared to a PC running it in real 720p or usually higher resolutions, and almost always at higher settings, means absolutely nothing. I'll take the PC version because I can control how it looks and feels, and plays.

Oblivion on the 360? Ran at 1024x576 btw...