200 réponses à ce sujet

[themonty72]

I wonder will ps4 do mods probably not.

[sympathy4sarenreturns]

stonbw1 wrote...

^ the used game thing is scary, but here's what I don't get: If you're not playing online, how can you be prohibited from playing a game locally that you borrow from a friend/rent/etc.. Are the new discs going to be somehow writeable to detect if its been played elsewhere?

That brings up the other issue of whether the new consoles will have to be connected to the internet full time to use. If so, I'm likely out of next gen gaming.

Me too. It's too much of a hassle. I'll go Wii U and get back into Zelda.

[bmwcrazy]

I hope this thing gets an SSD.

Upgrading my PS3's HDD to a 256GB Samsung SSD was one of the best decisions I've made.

[Gatt9]

Rubios wrote...

Fortack wrote...

Rubios wrote...

Fortack wrote...

Rubios wrote...

There are exactly 0 gaming PCs in the world with 8GB of GDDR5 RAM, but there is no need to be butthurt because...

If you put 2 of these things in crossfire you have 12GB GDDR5 RAM dedicated video memory ...

No, you have 6GB since each card needs a copy of everything it is using on its own RAM.

Also lol @ X-fire / SLI crap, I herd you liek micro stuttering and ridiculous power draw.

Not sure if you're trolling or ignorant. Those so-called next gen consoles are nothing but a budget gaming PC in a small (and therefore poorly cooled) box. They will be better than the ancient console crap that exists today, but you could build a high-end gaming rig a year ago that laughs at the processing power of the PS4.

And yet the launch games look more impressive than Crysis 3 on ultra (with only ~3,5GB of RAM, final devkits are not out).


.......


Stay mad, meanwhile PC gamers with a brain are glad to see their 680s will be finally put to good use.

Youth4Ever wrote...

^You'd also spend a lot more money on a high end gaming PC. That's why you buy a console.

Console gaming is more expensive in the long run tho.

Just for the record,  since Sony opted to not show hardware,  there's a good chance you were looking at a high-end PC demoing the games.  RPS did an article last year on E3,  pointing out that nearly all of the "Console game demos" were actually running on PC's.

That said,  I'm glad the PS4 and 720 are both PC's,  it was inevitable that PC Gaming would take over and with the two "Consoles" now just PC's it means we'll see significant improvements in games across the board.

Previously,  a game had to be written for one platform,  and then the code recompiled and reworked for the other two.  Now there'll be virtually no extra cost associated with multiplatform releases,  shaving significant costs and potentially giving teams much more time to actually craft the game.

This is a fair part of the reason why you keep seeing conflicting stories about costs either rising or falling,  because there's significant savings from the ease of porting.

Further,  as it's x86 (Or more accurately x64) based hardware,  inline assembly allows for huge performance gains across all three platforms.  For those not familiar with programming,  there's a small speed penalty in performance writing C/C++ code,  inline assembly lets the processor perform operations at full speed.  Since all 3 platforms will have the same instruction set,  Developers can squeeze significant performance benefits through the use of inline assembly across the board. 

I'm also conservatively liking the touchpad on the PS4 controller,  as while clumsy,  it'll allow mouse-based games to be played on consoles like RTS and Point-and-Click type games much more gracefully than a gamepad allows.  I think there's alot of potential for a resurgence in those genres due to this feature,  especially as the PC has easily carried those genres for years and the "consoles" would just be pure icing on the cake.

Overall,  I'm going to say that the PS4 is a good step in the right direction,  and given what I know about the 720,  I expect it will easily outsell it.

That said,  I think it's also in significant danger of being buried by the Steambox.  Some of it's greatest strengths are also it's greatest weaknesses,  as it opens the door for the Steambox to compete directly and strongly with it filling the void I'm anticipating a Kinect-Centric 720 to leave.  The Steambox potentially has a much larger library,  and potentially any multiplatform title would be a Steambox title without Valve even trying.  But that's just a hypothesis until we know more about the Steambox.

So,  my take on it at present:  PS4 and PC do extremely well,  720 ends up fighting the WiiU for a distant 3rd.

(Full Disclosure:  I only own a 360 and a PC,  I didn't like the PS3)

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

bmwcrazy wrote...

I hope this thing gets an SSD.

Upgrading my PS3's HDD to a 256GB Samsung SSD was one of the best decisions I've made.

SSDs are 3-7x faster than HDDs in different performance fields but they're too expensive (20 times more expensive) 

[Fortack]

Rubios wrote...

And yet the launch games look more impressive than Crysis 3 on ultra (with only ~3,5GB of RAM, final devkits are not out).

Stay mad, meanwhile PC gamers with a brain are glad to see their 680s will be finally put to good use.

:lol::lol:

You do have no idea what you're talking about. The PS4 can't do nothing that wasn't possible on highend PCs two years ago. People have run tests based on the leaked devkit specs and the PS4 hardware couldn't even handle Battlefield 3 properly, and DiRT: Showdown & Shogun Total War are unplayable @ 1080p Ultra.

Having said that. Of course it's a good thing that consoles get better hardware, it will improve audio/visual options, but it isn't the great leap forward you think it is. Consoles don't suffer much from overhead and devs can optimize things for one set of hardware so the games listed above should undoubtely run relatively smootly on the PS4. Better graphics will be possible when devs get familiar with the new consoles, but that will take time.

The most interesting thing is: The AMD connection that defines both Durango and Orbis confirms that both consoles are much closer in design to gaming PCs than their predecessors, which may result in stronger ports to the computer format. AMD's CPU architecture is designed with power efficiency in mind, and in pure performance terms, even an eight-core set-up should be comfortably out-performed by a fast, modern desktop Intel quad-core processor. In developing and optimising next-gen titles for the lower power console CPUs, it would be richly ironic if PC owners reaped the benefits... So it ain't all bad

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Rubios wrote...

The PS4 is basically a PC, and they gave its specs.

The whole "they didn't show the plastic box with a logo where the electronic stuff goes" thing is just silly.

Assumption:
PS4 comes in different sizes and shapes!

[Fortack]

Rubios wrote...

Just because you bought a GPU and a Windows license doesn't mean you have some idea of how they work, please stahp.

Apparently I do know a lot more about the hardware involved and their limitations (I at least inform myself by reading what experts have to say about these matters). Hell, even Sony has confirmed that their focus isn't on the audio & visuals but on the social level - go figure.

When they release their new console its hardware is not even close to a mid-range PC, and when devs finally manage to get the most out of the PS4's hardware there are tablets and smart phones in circulation that outperform it.

[Jozape]

Legatus Arianus wrote...

Rubios wrote...

The PS4 is basically a PC, and they gave its specs.

The whole "they didn't show the plastic box with a logo where the electronic stuff goes" thing is just silly.

Assumption:
PS4 comes in different sizes and shapes!

Your assumption is reasonable. Every previous Playstation has been offered in different sizes and shapes.

[themonty72]

LOL I LOVE IT I LOVE IT

Modifié par themonty72, 23 février 2013 - 08:28 .

[Gatt9]

Rubios wrote...

Fortack wrote...

Rubios wrote...

Just because you bought a GPU and a Windows license doesn't mean you have some idea of how they work, please stahp.

Apparently I do know a lot more about the hardware involved and their limitations (I at least inform myself by reading what experts have to say about these matters). Hell, even Sony has confirmed that their focus isn't on the audio & visuals but on the social level - go figure.

When they release their new console its hardware is not even close to a mid-range PC, and when devs finally manage to get the most out of the PS4's hardware there are tablets and smart phones in circulation that outperform it.

Stop looking at the hardware, it doesn't matter when you have a ****ty OS (for games anyway) and 3485679345 layers of bullcrap crippling it.

Crysis 3 ultra@1080p is the only comparable thing right now and plays at 30fps on a freaking GTX680, it should play at 120fps in your dream world where a desktop PC has an efficient design for running games and Windows doesn't imply a massive overhead.

PS4 devs will be working with direct access from the CPU/GPU to 8GB of GDRR5, while on PC:

• There are 0 gaming GPUs with 8GB of VRAM.
  
  
• You have to deal with the northbridge between the GPU and the RAM.

There is just not enough affordable hardware to throw at it like we do with PS3/AdBox360, current high end cards will struggle with next-gen console ports even though they have a lot more raw power and there is nothing you can do about it.

I'm afraid the other guy is actually right,  you really do not know very much about computers.

First,  you really need to go study OS design.  Windows doesn't have "Massive overhead",  this is what happens when you believe the linux-kiddies trying to impress people who actually understand Linux and operating systems in the comments sections of articles.  The overhead associated with windows is fairly neglible,  a few processes running in the background occasionally taking a turn to update is not a significant performance penalty,  and it's essentially no impact on a multicore system.  A couple of minutes with CoreTemp running will demonstrate exactly how little the difference is,  as it can run in the sidebar and let you watch resource usage.

Second,  a video card is not a magic piece of hardware that makes everything run faster.  It's still at the mercy of the CPU's executing the code,  hence the term "CPU Bound" (You may want to read up on that,  it's going to be a really relevent term with the PS4).  It doesn't matter how fast your video card is,  if your CPU is dog-slow and cannot read instructions quickly enough,  your GPU is going to sit there idling.  Which as I noted,  is an extremely relevant fact considering that the PS4 is using an 8 core Jaguar processor that is significantly slower than a modern Intel.

So what I'm saying is,  that shiny graphics card you're banking so much on?  It's going to be CPU bound.

Third,  having 8 GB's on memory doesn't magically give you direct access to anything.  Direct access is achieved through the use of Assembly code,  and I hate to have to tell you this but the assembly that works on the PS4 gives direct access on the PC as well.

Further,  while you're attempting to indicate you understand computer architecture,  you're demonstrating that you don't.  Memory access is handled via the memory controller that was moved on die with the CPU many years ago.  The Northbridge that you're attempting to use as some kind of direct evidence?  It's on die with the CPU since the Sandy Bridge.  It's also the exact same architecutre that the PS4 will be using.

. For Intel Sandy Bridge and AMD Accelerated Processing Unit processors introduced in 2011, all of the functions of the northbridge reside on the CPU.[1] When a separate northbridge is employed in older Intel systems, it is named memory controller hub (MCH) or integrated memory controller hub (IMCH) if equipped with an integrated VGA.

Source: http://en.wikipedia....idge_(computing)

Finally,  memory bandwidth also isn't some magical feature that makes everything better.  In fact,  memory bandwidth generally only gives a couple of percentage points in performance at best.  This has been well known,  and well established for many years.  You should probably also do some reading on the subject,  Anandtech has some very fine analysis.  Once again,  the reason is simple,  you're still slave to the execution speed of the processor,  at some point the speed at which the processor can execute instructions makes added bandwidth redundant. 

Since with CPU architectures like the Jaguar and Intels have already been definitively demonstrated to see very,  very,  little benefit from additional memory bandwidth,  your insistence that it's somehow going to make the PS4 some incredible performing machine demonstrates that you need to spend time studying.  Sure,  there'll be some minimal benefit from the reduced latency of GDDR,  but given that we're still talking a CPU with relatively unimpressive performance,  it's not going to be terribly significant.

In short,  you *really* need to drop the attitude.  You don't know anywhere near as much as you think you do.

Modifié par Gatt9, 23 février 2013 - 08:50 .

[LTD]

Playstation is vastly superior to any PC because it uses cool magic fairy technology rather than boring and nerdy PC technology!

Thanks to Cell processor, above argument must have been at least a little bit easier  to present during the hype preluding release of PS3. Ofc, the Cell technology turned out such convinient and efficient working environment it probably turned huge pile of  game devs suicidal but that is another story.


On a more serious/constructive note, it is awesome Sony switched to x86 processors. Makes multiplatform releases so much easier to manage I'm sure.

Modifié par LTD, 24 février 2013 - 11:36 .

[Das Tentakel]

 @Gatt9:

Crude as this comparison may be, would the original Xbox compared to 2000-2002 era midrange gaming PC's be a useful analogy? The Xbox was PC tech, but like the to-be-released PS4 (assuming the rumour of a 1.6 8-core AMD are true) used a relatively low-powered CPU (733 Mhz Pentium III) combined with a relatively sophisticated GPU.

I do remember that my midgaming rig of the time (Q1 2001 purchase, 2000 PC tech) easily beat my Xbox when it came to multiplatform releases (Morrowind, KotOR), but that was a decade ago. Different times, different machines.

For the rest, a lot of PC-centric sites and commentators seem to agree that a PC-like PS4 is good news for PC gamers. Not so impressed with the graphics shown, but hey, it's early in the PS4 console's life cycle.

Assuming Sony isn't bankrupt by then and there's a number of worthwhile exclusives, I will probably get one, say, holiday season 2016. 

Modifié par Das Tentakel, 24 février 2013 - 01:24 .

[Das Tentakel]

Double post 

Ah, well, might as well post some comical relief...



Edit: I ran into several comments regarding the used games on PS4 issue, made after the statement by Yoshida. The commentators still felt there was something fishy going on, based on Yoshida's wording. 
Penny Arcade's Sophie Prell has a bit more to say on this: www.penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/think-the-ps4-wil-be-best-friends-with-used-games-not-so-fast

I don't think any of us (Sony fans, consoleros, multiplatform gamers like me) should take this too lightly. To paraphrase Jim Sterling, 'a corporation is not your friend'. 

Modifié par Das Tentakel, 24 février 2013 - 04:23 .

[Gatt9]

Das Tentakel wrote...

 @Gatt9:

Crude as this comparison may be, would the original Xbox compared to 2000-2002 era midrange gaming PC's be a useful analogy? The Xbox was PC tech, but like the to-be-released PS4 (assuming the rumour of a 1.6 8-core AMD are true) used a relatively low-powered CPU (733 Mhz Pentium III) combined with a relatively sophisticated GPU.

I do remember that my midgaming rig of the time (Q1 2001 purchase, 2000 PC tech) easily beat my Xbox when it came to multiplatform releases (Morrowind, KotOR), but that was a decade ago. Different times, different machines.

For the rest, a lot of PC-centric sites and commentators seem to agree that a PC-like PS4 is good news for PC gamers. Not so impressed with the graphics shown, but hey, it's early in the PS4 console's life cycle.

Assuming Sony isn't bankrupt by then and there's a number of worthwhile exclusives, I will probably get one, say, holiday season 2016. 

Strictly speaking,  the gap should be closer this time around.

At the time the original Xbox released,  the speed of the processor was king,  and the GPU just performed hardware related effects that the CPU offloaded,  so there would be a wide delta between a 733mhz processor and a 1.2ghz one.

Today things are different,  speed isn't nearly as important as efficiency is.  We've already seen scenarios where a much lower clocked CPU blew the doors off a much higher clocked one (Core versus P4, Core versus Cell).  Today's GPU's can handle code execution as well,  and do extremely well with physics code. 

Additionally,  threaded performance can make an otherwise slow processor turn into a beast.  If you have 8 cores,  and you can keep them all working,  you're going to perform much better than a 2 core processor,  even if that processor is twice as fast.  It's not difficult to thread out main game code,  input,  sound,  graphics pre-processing,  and several AI threads.  Although,  to be honest,  it's best to keep sound/graphics processing in the same thread to avoid synchronization issues,  but just threading out AI is a huge boon.

On the GPU front,  it's a much different world as well.  At the time of the X-box,  there were significant differences in feature set,  texture size,  and processing abilities between the X-box and a PC GPU.  Anti-Aliasing is a great example,  at that time it was a big performance penalty and the console couldn't do it well while the PC did.

Today,  there's really not much happening on the feature set side,  a faster GPU just generally means more FPS,  not any significant quality jump.  Sure,  you could do modern CGI quality graphics,  but the cost is exponential for incremental gains,  and honestly,  it was never going to happen for video games.  It's too much money to achieve something that yields little benefit and increases risk enourmously. 

So overall,  the PS4 (And 720) are going to perform about as well as a mid-range PC or a good laptop.  Their deficiencies in CPU will be compensated by multiple cores.  A high-end PC will get you faster performance,  but it's not going to be much higher quality.  Any game that's CPU bound on a console will be CPU bound on a PC. 

It's not going to change significantly over the next 5 years either,  the delta between the PS4/720 and new PC's will remain relatively low.  We've hit the point of diminishing returns,  and all we're doing is making situational improvements.  We're spitting out faster graphics,  but not better graphics. 

Overall,  the Console-PC's will be able to hold up as equivalent to mid-range PC's for a long time this time around.

The last thing you're going to see,  and it's going to be forced by Steam,  is the platforms opened up.  MS and Sony won't be able to compete with the Steambox under their current business model,  Steam is strictly better for developers and users,  it pays much higher royalties,  and is much cheaper.  As soon as Steam shows traction,  MS and Sony will announce they're changing their business models to a Steam-like model with an open platform to leverage Indies and Kickstarter.

At that point,  we're all PC gamers,  and the only question is:  "What do you want your box and UI to look like and do you want Gamepad or Mouse/Keyboard?".

So honestly,  the PS4 is a good buy.  It's good for the industry,  it'll be good for the Gamer,  and good for the Developers.  In a decade,  we'll be talking about how this was a major event in Gaming History.

Modifié par Gatt9, 24 février 2013 - 04:50 .

[sympathy4sarenreturns]

Only high end PCs will be able to outperform PS4 next cycle for several years. Gatt pretty much hammered it. Those with the mid-range and good laptops are going to be behind the 8-ball for a few years, especially if the graphical power is optimized for PS4 and GDDR3 doesn't hold it back.

Modifié par sympathy4sarenreturns, 24 février 2013 - 05:28 .

[bEVEsthda]

First off my mind, having read all the speculations in this thread:
DDR5 is NOT faster than DDR3! It's slower. Which is why PC-CPUs use DDR3 (for now) and why prices on DDR5 modules aren't dropping. But DDR5 has higher transfer speeds. Which is why GPUs use it. Since they don't really process much conditional code, they have no need for fast access, but all those parallel units need to push a lot of data around, hence the bandwidth. (For PC-CPUs to make good use of DDR5 we need even bigger caches).

Secondly, since that Jaguar CPU's cores are likely to be based on existing PC-CPU designs, and not an entirely new, super-lean, crippled design, it's going to be brutally powerful, compared to current console processors in the XB320 and PS3. Speculated clock of 1.6GHz means nothing. All three 3.6 GHz cores in a XB320, are together less powerful than a single 1.6GHz old Pentium III or Athlon K7. On conditional code. That is the hard, snarly code which the PS3's cell processor has such digestive problems with (and actually the XB360 too). The small, simple, in-order CPUs of current gen consoles, are decent with shuffling around data and non-conditional tasks, which is why the consoles works. But better allround crunch would mean we could get a magnitude more interesting games. If the Jaguar is anything like a PC-CPU, you're looking at a revolution in AI, path finding and simulation.

Thirdly, there's a second reason for this, and that is the load of RAM. 8GB is such good news! It's DDR5 mainly for the sake of the GPU, but probably also because it's unified.

Fourth, when did you last get a generation of consoles that was backwards compatible? And how many times in history has that happened?

Fifth, assembly language offers no performance gains. It was many years ago it was demonstrated that it was mostly slower than a good compiler. There are exceptions of course, in particular on rare, simple but contorted CPUs like current gen consoles'. But with a real and mainstream CPU that will not be an issue.

Sixth, there's no overhead from Windows. Windows is today a great OS, well maintained, extremely capable, reliable and efficient. Its only drawback is that it's huge, but then a such capable OS would be. Not needed for starting up and servicing games.

Seventh, the cheapest way to build the most powerful gaming console, has always been to make it a "PC", from PC parts and PC technology. Finally, Sony have done it. Rejoice. It's also the most likely way a successor will ever be backwards compatible. I just hope the choice of DDR5 doesn't bite back on them.

Basically: - Rejoice!

[Das Tentakel]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Fourth, when did you last get a generation of consoles that was backwards compatible? And how many times in history has that happened?

Well, erm, current one actually. The PS3, at least the first generation of machines, was backwards compatible. Same with the Wii and the Gamecube, and the Xbox 360 was and is more or less compatible with most (not all) original Xbox games by way of emulation (which mostly works, if not always perfectly. Played quite a few of my Xbox games that way).

Before that, successive machines were not always compatible, but it wasn't rare either. And I think that, given broad backwards compatibility of iOS, Android and PC games its lack is not exactly a good selling point, to be honest.
Though in the case of the PS4, it was probably inevitable. 

bEVEsthda wrote...

Basically: - Rejoice!

Modifié par Das Tentakel, 24 février 2013 - 09:54 .

[FedericoV]

Gatt9 wrote...

The last thing you're going to see,  and it's going to be forced by Steam,  is the platforms opened up.  MS and Sony won't be able to compete with the Steambox under their current business model,  Steam is strictly better for developers and users,  it pays much higher royalties,  and is much cheaper.  As soon as Steam shows traction,  MS and Sony will announce they're changing their business models to a Steam-like model with an open platform to leverage Indies and Kickstarter.

At that point,  we're all PC gamers,  and the only question is:  "What do you want your box and UI to look like and do you want Gamepad or Mouse/Keyboard?".

I really hope you're right about that. 

[ghammers12]

Just saw the video of official announcement of playstation 4. The specs are amazing. This console is the most powerful console ever made(by a human;)). The main attraction of ps 4 is its "DUALSHOCK CONTROLLER". Nice improvement on the controller by sony. It contain touchpad too!. Waiting for this console from a long time.!

[xSTONEYx187x]

bEVEsthda wrote...

First off my mind, having read all the speculations in this thread:
DDR5 is NOT faster than DDR3! It's slower. Which is why PC-CPUs use DDR3 (for now) and why prices on DDR5 modules aren't dropping. But DDR5 has higher transfer speeds. Which is why GPUs use it. Since they don't really process much conditional code, they have no need for fast access, but all those parallel units need to push a lot of data around, hence the bandwidth. (For PC-CPUs to make good use of DDR5 we need even bigger caches).

Secondly, since that Jaguar CPU's cores are likely to be based on existing PC-CPU designs, and not an entirely new, super-lean, crippled design, it's going to be brutally powerful, compared to current console processors in the XB320 and PS3. Speculated clock of 1.6GHz means nothing. All three 3.6 GHz cores in a XB320, are together less powerful than a single 1.6GHz old Pentium III or Athlon K7. On conditional code. That is the hard, snarly code which the PS3's cell processor has such digestive problems with (and actually the XB360 too). The small, simple, in-order CPUs of current gen consoles, are decent with shuffling around data and non-conditional tasks, which is why the consoles works. But better allround crunch would mean we could get a magnitude more interesting games. If the Jaguar is anything like a PC-CPU, you're looking at a revolution in AI, path finding and simulation.

Thirdly, there's a second reason for this, and that is the load of RAM. 8GB is such good news! It's DDR5 mainly for the sake of the GPU, but probably also because it's unified.

Fourth, when did you last get a generation of consoles that was backwards compatible? And how many times in history has that happened?

Fifth, assembly language offers no performance gains. It was many years ago it was demonstrated that it was mostly slower than a good compiler. There are exceptions of course, in particular on rare, simple but contorted CPUs like current gen consoles'. But with a real and mainstream CPU that will not be an issue.

Sixth, there's no overhead from Windows. Windows is today a great OS, well maintained, extremely capable, reliable and efficient. Its only drawback is that it's huge, but then a such capable OS would be. Not needed for starting up and servicing games.

Seventh, the cheapest way to build the most powerful gaming console, has always been to make it a "PC", from PC parts and PC technology. Finally, Sony have done it. Rejoice. It's also the most likely way a successor will ever be backwards compatible. I just hope the choice of DDR5 doesn't bite back on them.

Basically: - Rejoice!

GDDR5 will NOT comeback to "bite them", especially 8GB of unified memory.  If they used GDDR3 then I'd be worried. 

They basically future proofed their console as the one thing that devs always comment on late into a consoles cycle is RAM. 

On another note, eveytime I read comments about consoles, whether it's YouTube comments or dedicated forums, you'll always find people saying "but mah PC". People really need stop comparing an open platform to a closed one. It's embarassing and reeks of financially insecurity, "I've already invested hundreds of euros into my PC, no chance I'm paying €400-€450 for a PS4, therefore I will bash it and boast about my "rig"(lol). 

[sympathy4sarenreturns]

http://www.nowgamer....rified_yet.html

Modifié par sympathy4sarenreturns, 26 février 2013 - 04:40 .

[Bushido Effect]

Woo! Can't wait. Back to Sony for me. During this I've been stuck with my crapbox for years. In fact, the SOLE reason I bought a 360 was because of none other than Mass Effect 1. Which I assumed will always be exclusive since it had MS name on it. It's nice that EA finally got the trilogy box to the PS3.

Before that, I was a PS2-1 gamer. Always loved Sony and their better exclusive.
Any word on final price range? There are 2 SKUs right? All I know is it won't launch at $600 like PS3. That was a disaster.