Nvidia Claims PS4 Is Only as Good as a "Low-End" PC

Krenum said:
The handheld is meant to work with your PC.
Click to expand...

So they are basically copying the Wii U concept? (Stream games from the "console" to the gamepad)

Nice,

Wonders how many Nvidia fan boys will promote this while at the same time dissing the Wii U lol....
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
So they are basically copying the Wii U concept? (Stream games from the "console" to the gamepad)

Nice,

Wonders how many Nvidia fan boys will promote this while at the same time dissing the Wii U lol....
Click to expand...

I don't think it really works like that. Nvidia fanboyism if it exists anymore at all would simply be directed against AMD videocards. I don't think anyone would have any reason to hate on the Wii U. Infact Nintendo products are probably the only ones that get any respect from PC gamers because they at least acknowledge the hardware inferiority and try to make up for it by being more imaginative.

Plague_Injected said:
I'm not sure what Nvidia's motivation is for trashing an upcoming product, regardless of its accuracy. Sour grapes?
Click to expand...

I think its just a response to Sony claiming that the PS4 will be more powerful that most PC setups.
 
octoberasian said:
You're also right there.

I'm buying a PS3 (once the damn tax refund comes) just because of the JRPGs I can't play anywhere else but on a console.
Click to expand...

Yep. I would love for PC to get some bad ass JRPG's. It's something that is sorely missed.
 
jonneymendoza said:
the ps3 had a 7800 equivalent GPU which was only a year old on pc. this will have a gpu thats half the power of a year old 680.

catch my drift?

ps3 had great tech inside, a high end GPU. this doesnt. not sour grapes
Click to expand...

I don't think you know what the phrase "sour grapes" means.

catch my drift?
 
piscian18 said:
I don't think it really works like that. Nvidia fanboyism if it exists anymore at all would simply be directed against AMD videocards. I don't think anyone would have any reason to hate on the Wii U. Infact Nintendo products are probably the only ones that get any respect from PC gamers because they at least acknowledge the hardware inferiority and try to make up for it by being more imaginative.
Click to expand...

Please visit the Wii U is done thread lol....
 
I think a 7850 is more like a mid-range system. At least when the PS4 first comes out.
 
7850 is 169 bucks on Newegg. That's not alot ot spend on a graphics card RIGHT NOW. By the time the PS4 comes out they will be around $100-150 bucks. Ad Hominen is not a real argument you guys realize.

The NVIDIA rep is right. And for you who think its all sour grapes - be aware the licensing deal for these chips isn't really that lucrative. The big companies don't want to be held hostage by NVIDIA or AMD so they just buy a design and then go fab it somewhere likely TMSC.

I live right next to AMD now so I actually WISH it was this awesome huge win for them. Its not though. AMD is still in deep trouble. Sony and Microsoft just need someone with graphics expertise to help them design their chip. It could have gone to NVIDIA as well - but they went with the best offer from a cost perspective.
 
GuyClinch said:
7850 is 169 bucks on Newegg. That's not alot ot spend on a graphics card RIGHT NOW. By the time the PS4 comes out they will be around $100-150 bucks. Ad Hominen is not a real argument you guys realize.

The NVIDIA rep is right. And for you who think its all sour grapes - be aware the licensing deal for these chips isn't really that lucrative. The big companies don't want to be held hostage by NVIDIA or AMD so they just buy a design and then go fab it somewhere likely TMSC.

I live right next to AMD now so I actually WISH it was this awesome huge win for them. Its not though. AMD is still in deep trouble. Sony and Microsoft just need someone with graphics expertise to help them design their chip. It could have gone to NVIDIA as well - but they went with the best offer from a cost perspective.
Click to expand...

1. Not likely that Nintendo or MS were going to go with Nvidia
a. Nintendo has a nice solid history with Artx/ATi/AMD and going with another GPU = harder to get Wii games to work on Wii U.
b. NVidia thougt they could get one over on Microsoft and Microsoft dropped them. I was not expecting Microsoft to come back to them for their next console.

2. Sony not picking up NVidia for PS4 was kind of a surprise...when [H] mentioned it a while ago...
 
Say what you want, but nvidia is in a hell of a lot better shape than amd, who despite getting the contracts for all the next gen consoles has been bleeding money for years. The ps4 is just a low end PC by [H] standards, so I don't know what you people are scoffing at.
 
So, does anyone really think that Project Shield will be anything but a giant flop when talking about global sales vs any actual console?
 
Tamasi is the senior vice president of content and developer at Nvidia, and he is not at all impressed with the revealed specifications for the PS4, claiming that it is outperformed by years-old PC graphics cards. "If the PS4 ships in December as Sony indicated, it will only offer about half the performance of a GTX680 GPU (based on GFLOPS and texture), which launched in March 2012, more than a year and a half ago."
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that consoles are the best graphically, but they do have the huge added benefit of not really having OS overhead, etc. Games on a console run a ton faster than on a PC with the same specs.

Tamasi is also unimpressed with the very closed nature of consoles, and claims that releasing the PS4 with such low specifications is going to harm it in the long run. "What you get today in terms of performance is what you're stuck with five - 10 years down the road. PCs don't have these problems," he says, telling us that he much prefers working with PCs, as "they are open and can be upgraded at any time to harness the power of newer GPUs for more performance and to take advantage of newer, modern graphics technologies."
Click to expand...

Let me translate that for you. My company makes graphics cards and we want to sell you 4 of them over 8 years instead of 1 of them over 8 years.

The latest console generation has made the performance gap between PC and console much more apparent, and Tamasi thinks that the next generation will only widen that gap. "If history predicts the future, then these next-generation consoles, while being more powerful than the current ones, will very quickly end up more than an order of magnitude behind the PC."

While its very easy to brush these comments off as just an industry rival trying to promote PC gaming, it should be noted that Nvidia currently provides the graphics chip technology for the PS3. The PS4 will instead use a custom Radeon GPU, with Tamasi revealing that, "I'm sure there was a negotiation that went on, and we came to the conclusion that we didn't want to do the business [with Sony for the PS4] at the price those guys were willing to pay."
Click to expand...

They weighed out projected profit and found it wouldn't be beneficial. That's called running a business.

Tamasi says cutting ties with Sony will allow Nvidia to focus on its other industries, such as delivering high-end graphics card for PCs, supplying the graphics chips for Apple computers, and working on its own dedicated gaming device: Project SHIELD.
Click to expand...
Wasn't aware nVidia stopped focusing on high-end PC graphics.
 
canna said:
I'm not saying that consoles are the best graphically, but they do have the huge added benefit of not really having OS overhead, etc. Games on a console run a ton faster than on a PC with the same specs.
Click to expand...

This isn't true anymore. As long as you have sufficient memory it isn't going to have an affect.
 
I'm not saying that consoles are the best graphically, but they do have the huge added benefit of not really having OS overhead, etc. Games on a console run a ton faster than on a PC with the same specs.
Click to expand...

*citation needed.

Seriously dude this just didn't happen last generation. The console makers had 'dedicated hardware' and a 'dedicated OS.' and they still ran really slow. Skyrim was practically unplayable on a PS3.

We are going to see just how much of an advantage dedicated hardware is next generation because the manufacturers won't be able to hide behind the excuse that the program wasn't 'optomized' and that better performance is 'coming.'

Just how much does a dedicated OS and one hardware configuration buy the developer? From what I have seen its a heck of alot less the then 2x Carmack throws about. The cell in the PS3 processor in theory was really fast..Of course you need GOD as your coder because its near impossible to fully utilize the 7 SPEs.
 
KazeoHin said:
The "high latency" comments about GDDR5 are misunderstood... Just like DDR3 vs DDR2, the latencies are measured in clock-cycles, not real-time. So DDR2 800 CL5 has the same real-time latency as DDR3 1600 CL10. This means the memory frequency is double, but the latency is the SAME, not higher. Same thing goes with GDDR5, the frequencies are so high with it that the real-time latency is similar to DDR3, but measured in clock cycles it seems much higher.
Click to expand...

That makes a lot of sense, never thought about it that way. Im just interested to see what an APU running with GDDR5 can do.
 
Revdarian said:
So, does anyone really think that Project Shield will be anything but a giant flop when talking about global sales vs any actual console?
Click to expand...
No. But it's a hobby project for NVIDIA, much like the AppleTV is a hobby project for Apple. They're interesting products with good potential and will provide for good learning experiences, but not blockbuster products aimed to move tens of millions of units.
 
...I'm sorry, but when did Direct X disappear?
Click to expand...

On Sony the programmers use an API a version of openGL. Personally I'd put the development expertise of microsoft well above that of a company that's lost money the last 8 quarters in a row. They have lost money 4 years in a row.

The big development houses will write to the metal and create their own custom stuff and not just use the sony library. BUT that hasn't proved a whole lot better then DIrect X. Again we have history to look at here..

You have to remember most releases are 3 or even 4 platforms.
 
GuyClinch said:
Personally I'd put the development expertise of microsoft well above that of a company that's lost money the last 8 quarters in a row. They have lost money 4 years in a row.
Click to expand...

If history is anything to go by all we know is that history is crap for predicting what will happen with the market share of businesses in the gaming industry. Nintendo flip flops all over the place. Sony as you stated went downhill, which wouldn't have been predicted at the end of the previous generation of consoles. Things change.

Microsoft also has much less to gain in developing efficient api's as they clearly don't have as much competition as sony has to deal with competing with xbox(also microsoft, yeah lulz)
Sony make playstations to solely run games.
Microsoft make operating systems to run computers.

Sure they will make them run games, however it is not at their forefront when developing windows.

I don't trust sony to give the best gaming experience however I do trust them to get more out of the hardware at hand. Even more so with the hardware set for the ps4

GuyClinch said:
The big development houses will write to the metal and create their own custom stuff and not just use the sony library. BUT that hasn't proved a whole lot better then DIrect X. Again we have history to look at here..
Click to expand...

Uncharted, GOW, Killzone GT5 etc (and even many multiplats: mass effect, skyrim)
I really can't imagine on mid-high end 2005 pc hardware at 25-30fps

...After that rant I still probably won't buy one. :D
 
Uncharted, GOW, Killzone GT5 etc (and even many multiplats: mass effect, skyrim)
I really can't imagine on mid-high end 2005 pc hardware at 25-30fp
Click to expand...

First of all PS3 was available Nov. 11 2006.

Core 2 architecture was out then. Its pretty capable - and would handle those games at 720p without much trouble. This is why of course Sony is switching to a PC based arch. In the real world it was optomized better then the theoretically fast cell.

And FWIW skyrim runs like a dog on the PS3. The thing consoles have going for them is not the hardware. Its the software availability. Some of those games just aren't available on a PC. The actual hardware in both performance and level of optomization has been pretty bad.

Maybe you like console gaming - but you are arguing the wrong angle here. I own all the major consoles just because I like to play the exclusive games. But the performance is bleh compared to even PCs of the time.

I will grant that a equivalent to PS3 PC (not counting blu-ray) cost more then a grand back then. But lets face it your PC does a whole lot more. Consoles are nothing more then cheap 'lock in' devices for the hardware/software establishment.

Don't believe the hype about them being far superior gaming machines for the price. You will dsiappointed. They spun the exact same stuff before in the prior generation and it never materialized. By the time the 'great' games came out PCs were killing the game consoles in performance even at not crazy prices.
 
Tgrove said:
Sour grapes?

Sony was the one that came out and said ps4 will outperform pcs for years to come. Nvidia is just correcting that BS
Click to expand...

Get your facts straight. That was a comment from Jonathon Blow, not Sony. And he said it will outpower most PCs for years to come. And it's not that farfetched to believe. Look at the Steam hw surveys. Most PCs used for gaming do not have top shelf hw. High end GPUs are a minority among all PC gaming systems. The lowest common denominator of PC spec won't exceed PS4's abilities for a while.
 
Stereophile said:
Get your facts straight. That was a comment from Jonathon Blow, not Sony. And he said it will outpower most PCs for years to come. And it's not that farfetched to believe. Look at the Steam hw surveys. Most PCs used for gaming do not have top shelf hw. High end GPUs are a minority among all PC gaming systems. The lowest common denominator of PC spec won't exceed PS4's abilities for a while.
Click to expand...

Yes it is as it won't be able to keep up with 2 year old MID RANGED hardware let along any high end gaming hardware...
 
GuyClinch said:
*citation needed.
Seriously dude this just didn't happen last generation. The console makers had 'dedicated hardware' and a 'dedicated OS.' and they still ran really slow. Skyrim was practically unplayable on a PS3.
Click to expand...

The Xbox 360's GPU is roughly equal to a Radeon x1800.

Toss a x1800 in your PC and load up the new Tomb Raider. Put it on medium settings and
let me know if you get 30 FPS at 720p.

Yes, anecdotal and all but...
 
Stereophile said:
They will be primarily developed with AMD hw in mind with Nvidia support as an afterthought.
Click to expand...
You're going to have to explain to me how I, as a developer, am able to actually do that.

I can tune for specific pieces of hardware, but not in any vendor-specific way. Not without abandoning Direct3D and making use of vendor-specific OpenGL extensions, anyway.
 
canna said:
The Xbox 360's GPU is roughly equal to a Radeon x1800.

Toss a x1800 in your PC and load up the new Tomb Raider. Put it on medium settings and
let me know if you get 30 FPS at 720p.

Yes, anecdotal and all but...
Click to expand...

Ok?

Actual gameplay on the consoles, they're under 30 quite often.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1fO3zuWwN3M#!

It on an integrated HD 4000, which: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html ranks as roughly equivilent to an x800xt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAqPq0mtYfc

Granted there's a powerful CPU behind it, but nobody optimizes for onboard GPU's.
 
outpower most PCs for years to come
Click to expand...

So what? A PS3 outpowers "most" PCs. Consider how many PCs are used as point of sale terminals and the like throughout the world. The problem for the consoles is that kids who have say $500 dollars to spend will be able to buy a desktop PC OR a console game machine. If in three years time the PC is games as well AND does everything else a PC can why should he choose a console? The only reason you pick the console (at least in the prior generation) is that it gives you more gaming choice with regards to AAA games. The console wasn't a more powerful gaming machine and it doesn't have more utility.

Consoles aren't really needed anymore - and this is a big part why Sony has been losing money hand over fist for 4 years now..and they have lost money 8 quarters in a row.. Maybe they are hoping for a Japanese bailout. But they sure are not looking pretty right now. The argument from the 'console' fans is that a game console gives you dramatically more gaming power per the dollar. I'd say the gap has shrunk every succeeding generation now..

8 bit Nintendo vs. IBM PC (1983)
Playstation vs. 486 (1994)
PS3 vs. Core 2 Duo (2006)
PS4 vs. Haswell (2014)

Each succeeding generation - the cost of the PC is going down - and the gap in gaming growing smaller. The reverse is that cost of console has been rising.. An IBM PC cost a crapton of money back in the day (adjusted for inflation).

So the trend has been the exact opposite of what you are saying. Its getting WORSE for the consoles not better. Sure an IBM PC could play some cool "PC" style games a 8 bit nintendo couldn't. But for the most part the nintendo despite its awful processor + with its dedicated hardware OWNED THE CRAP out of a PC especially when you consider the cost. The gap now is way way down. To where with the introduction of the PS3 you could go out and BUILD an ENTIRE PC for around that money or a bit more if you want comparable specs. Back in the IBM PC days were are talking about 10x the cost if not more.

Think of the nintendo 8bit. It cost 200 bucks at introduction - not cheap back then. But an IBM PC would cost you three grand.

Just recently I built a VERY NICE PC for 800 bucks (granted I had some leftover parts) but point is I have a 670 and a 6570k for 800 dollars.. The new PS4 is still going to cost someone 450 bucks or so (after tax).

The value is just not like it was before. Back in the day it was absolutely no question - landslide win for the console. Now its pretty suspect.. It's not 10x cheaper with way more games. its 1.5 - 2x cheaper and sometimes the games won't look as good or play as well.. Consoles have gone from being the way to game for the 'everyman" to an ADDITIONAL DEVICE a true gaming maniac is going to buy. As a guy who likes to game - I am going to get one guaranteed. But its certainly not rosy for the console makers. I expect to lose another hardware maker this generation - and Sony might be the one with their continual losses.
 
GuyClinch said:
So what? A PS3 outpowers "most" PCs. Consider how many PCs are used as point of sale terminals and the like throughout the world. The problem for the consoles is that kids who have say $500 dollars to spend will be able to buy a desktop PC OR a console game machine. If in three years time the PC is games as well AND does everything else a PC can why should he choose a console? The only reason you pick the console (at least in the prior generation) is that it gives you more gaming choice with regards to AAA games. The console wasn't a more powerful gaming machine and it doesn't have more utility.

Consoles aren't really needed anymore - and this is a big part why Sony has been losing money hand over fist for 4 years now..and they have lost money 8 quarters in a row.. Maybe they are hoping for a Japanese bailout. But they sure are not looking pretty right now. The argument from the 'console' fans is that a game console gives you dramatically more gaming power per the dollar. I'd say the gap has shrunk every succeeding generation now..

8 bit Nintendo vs. IBM PC (1983)
Playstation vs. 486 (1994)
PS3 vs. Core 2 Duo (2006)
PS4 vs. Haswell (2014)

Each succeeding generation - the cost of the PC is going down - and the gap in gaming growing smaller. The reverse is that cost of console has been rising.. An IBM PC cost a crapton of money back in the day (adjusted for inflation).

So the trend has been the exact opposite of what you are saying. Its getting WORSE for the consoles not better. Sure an IBM PC could play some cool "PC" style games a 8 bit nintendo couldn't. But for the most part the nintendo despite its awful processor + with its dedicated hardware OWNED THE CRAP out of a PC especially when you consider the cost. The gap now is way way down. To where with the introduction of the PS3 you could go out and BUILD an ENTIRE PC for around that money or a bit more if you want comparable specs. Back in the IBM PC days were are talking about 10x the cost if not more.

Think of the nintendo 8bit. It cost 200 bucks at introduction - not cheap back then. But an IBM PC would cost you three grand.

Just recently I built a VERY NICE PC for 800 bucks (granted I had some leftover parts) but point is I have a 670 and a 6570k for 800 dollars.. The new PS4 is still going to cost someone 450 bucks or so (after tax).

The value is just not like it was before. Back in the day it was absolutely no question - landslide win for the console. Now its pretty suspect.. It's not 10x cheaper with way more games. its 1.5 - 2x cheaper and sometimes the games won't look as good or play as well.. Consoles have gone from being the way to game for the 'everyman" to an ADDITIONAL DEVICE a true gaming maniac is going to buy. As a guy who likes to game - I am going to get one guaranteed. But its certainly not rosy for the console makers. I expect to lose another hardware maker this generation - and Sony might be the one with their continual losses.
Click to expand...

You make a huge point: well said.
 
wonderfield said:
You're going to have to explain to me how I, as a developer, am able to actually do that.

I can tune for specific pieces of hardware, but not in any vendor-specific way. Not without abandoning Direct3D and making use of vendor-specific OpenGL extensions,anyway.
Click to expand...

Explain Nvidia's The way it's meant to be played campaign.

As I understand it, they bribed devs to make their games especially optimized for their hw at the expense of performance on the competition's GPUs.
 
GuyClinch said:
So what? A PS3 outpowers "most" PCs. Consider how many PCs are used as point of sale terminals and the like throughout the world.
Click to expand...

It outpowers most gaming PCs, not just computers in grocery stores. Look at the Steam surveys. The point is some were misconstruing Blow's comment. Derp my new videocard has more flops than PS4 therefore Sony are liars !1!


The only reason you pick the console (at least in the prior generation) is that it gives you more gaming choice with regards to AAA games.
Click to expand...


That's not changing next generation.


Consoles aren't really needed anymore - and this is a big part why Sony has been losing money hand over fist for 4 years now..and they have lost money 8 quarters in a row..
Click to expand...


Sony has been losing money because Korea is taking over the TV industry. And a strong yen since the global economy crashed hurts exports from Japan. Panasonic has been losing money too and they're not even in the console business. Sony's videogame division is actually one of their healthier markets. It's why they invested in PS4. And FYI, Sony is predicting a billion plus profit this year.


The argument from the 'console' fans is that a game console gives you dramatically more gaming power per the dollar. I'd say the gap has shrunk every succeeding generation now..
Click to expand...

That's a strawman argument. I've been gaming since the 2600 and Apple IIe. I built my first PC in 1996. I am well aware of how much cheaper computers have become. The argument I have been making is that for a given specification, consoles give better results due to the efficiency of programming dedicated, fixed hw. Carmack along with countless other developers agree.

Each succeeding generation - the cost of the PC is going down - and the gap in gaming growing smaller. The reverse is that cost of console has been rising.. An IBM PC cost a crapton of money back in the day (adjusted for inflation).

So the trend has been the exact opposite of what you are saying.
Click to expand...

Once again, that is not what I've been saying. :rolleyes: And consoles only seem to be getting more expensive because of inflation. Adjust for that and they have stayed in approximately the same place. A 2600 cost the equivalent of 6-700 dollars when it came out in the late 70's.



I expect to lose another hardware maker this generation - and Sony might be the one with their continual losses.
Click to expand...


In your dreams. The videogames division is one of their bright spots. You have a superficial understanding of things. You come off as a MS fanboy.
 
Sony has been losing money because Korea is taking over the TV industry. And a strong yen since the global economy crashed hurts exports from Japan. Panasonic has been losing money too and they're not even in the console business. Sony's videogame division is actually one of their healthier markets. It's why they invested in PS4. And FYI, Sony is predicting a billion plus profit this year.
Click to expand...

Sony has lost an estimated 4 Billion on the PS3. They have lost more then they every made on the PS2 according to some. And they were losing a huge amount of money per machine for the first couple of years..

I don't know where you get your numbers. And I will tell you first hand I don't particularly like it.. But Sony thought it would use the 'razor blade" model and make up any losses with lots of game sales.

The problem is people don't buy enough games for this to work out..and they took a huge hit. What's going on is the hardcore gamer is drifting to the PC and the casual gamer is going mobile.

Personally I can't stand mobile games - so I don't like this trend. But its what is happening..

“Consoles like Xboxes, PlayStations & the Wii U are sold at a loss”, said Cousins. “It costs more to manufacture and distribute the device than it is sold for. Console manufacturers do this because they hope to make back the money from the license fee they charge for every game sold on the system.

“In order to offset the huge cost of hardware production, distribution, R&D and marketing, a hardware platform holder must sell vast quantities of hardware, and even bigger quantities of software. So much needs to be sold, in fact, that the data points to PS3 and Xbox 360 having made huge losses, despite having sold 70+ million units of hardware each.

“Of those 70 million Xbox 360s sold, a large proportion (approx. 40%) were bought after the most recent price cut of August 2009. Of the 70 million PS3s sold, a large proportion (approx. 42%) were bought since the introduction of the PS3 Slim.”

With such a large proportion of consoles being sold post-price cut, it seems as if the loss-leading strategy is failing to bear fruit for both companies. The issue isn’t being helped by some 50% of home console owners also owning a smartphone, tablet or both, devices which are seeing a rapidly advancing capacity for supporting triple-a game content.
Click to expand...

As for the fact that the gap between console and PC shrinking being a 'strawman' argument.. I think you need to brush up on your logic.

Microsoft has spent some $2.996bn on Xbox 360 since it launched in 2005, while Sony has fared worse, spending $4.951 billion on PS3. Both figures are a loss, and you can see an overview of both company’s losses in Cousins’s financial table here.
Click to expand...

Microsoft by virture of its hugely profitable software division can sit on losses all day. Sony cannot. There is nothing holding up the company. These are LOSSES not just a fall in REVENUE.

You get what that means right? Its not that Sony isn't selling alot of TVs - its that they are spending more then they make. If they just 'lost" the TV market their revenue would fall..They wouldn't necessarily make a loss.
 
What's going on is the hardcore gamer is drifting to the PC and the casual gamer is going mobile.
Click to expand...

Only on [H] is something this ridiculous believed. This is NOT the case.

If you get out and meet lots of different people the MAJORITY who play games will have a console of some sort. These people are starting to come from all walks of life.

Add in that parents are going to purchase their kids a console to play games and the movement to laptops & tablets it blows holes in this ridiculous argument.

The "hardcore gamer" (WTF that is) is an extreme minority in the market place.

People do not want to sit at a desk and play PC games with a clunky mouse and keyboard. They don't want to go throught the hassel of rigging up some concotion to play from the couch with a keyboard and mouse, and they aren't even going to rig up a HTPC to play controller type games.

The only games that do very well on PC are the D3, Dota, SCII, WoW, and Sim City (aka clusterfuck) type of games. These games run on a wide range of hardware making them accessable from most 2-3 year old laptops.

The life of [H] you want to believe is reality is nothing more than a fantasy land. People have jobs, school, and families that take a lot of time. When they want to play a game they look for the most comfortable & hassel free way to accomplish that task.
 
XvMMvX said:
The life of [H] you want to believe is reality is nothing more than a fantasy land. People have jobs, school, and families that take a lot of time. When they want to play a game they look for the most comfortable & hassel free way to accomplish that task.
Click to expand...

Yes, their iPad.
 
Stereophile said:
Has nothing to do with Sony being cheap. 4+TF GPUs are too hot and power hungry for consoles.


Nvidia sounds butt hurt. They got locked out of all three 8th gen console designs. I think everyone decided AMD's APUs are more ideal design for a console. And MS and Sony using AMD will probably negatively impact the Nvidia support of future PC releases of multiplatform games. They will be primarily developed with AMD hw in mind with Nvidia support as an afterthought. Nobody will bother with any of their proprietary schemes like their physics.
Click to expand...

Mmm no, he states in the article that Sony wasn't willing to pay the cost for Nvidia chips. Wasn't any real room for interpretation there.
 
socK said:
Because Killzone and Watch Dogs look unlike anything the world has ever witnessed so far, and the fact that it can finally run E3 demos that were shown on PC a year ago is blowing me right the fuck away.

And they're both x86 chips.
Click to expand...

FYI, every WatchDogs demo shown has been done on PC, even the one at the Sony PS4 reveal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top