Epic: PS4 is like a really perfect gaming PC.

There's selling your products and there's slandering the competition. Nvidia makes it sound as though the PS4 will be inadequate, whereas the PS3 proved you can achieve incredible graphics with frankly meager system specs. Nvidia realizes that the gap between PC and consoles has almost been filled in the last 7 years and that investing in expensive hardware is no longer required in order to play the latest and greatest games. They sound scared to me.Black_Knight_00

This is the first time that new consoles won't be more powerful or comparable to high-end PC's at launch. In fact, they're going to be comparable to mid-range PC's at best. So in that sense, Nvidia is totally right on certain points. Of course they're going to boast that. Even the mobile GPU jab isn't way off when you look at the hard specs.

As for Nvidia being scared, everything I've read lately points in the direction of increased sales for Nvidia (including the high-end GPU market) which got them to a record-breaking $1 billion in revenue during Q1 2013. Meanwhile, AMD sales are down and they're posting losses.

According to the numbers, Nvidia has absolutely no reason to be scared.

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]Nvidia: "Ps4 sux. Buy our vidoe cards instaed!1"UpInFlames

Actually, Nvidia passed on console hardware for the next generation as they deemed it wasn't worth it for them. Nvidia is in a much better and healthier position as they are operating with a profit whereas AMD is rather troubled right now as they posted a huge loss.

Serious Sam and ROTCW looked just as good as Halo. I played them both on launch.Black_Knight_00

Serious Sam definitely was one notch under Halo. But discussing details is pointless since we can't post accurate screenshots. For SS, for example, Gamespot has the full range, from this:

to this:

But at least you don't act like you don't understand what I'm saying anymore. Console launches used to be significant hardware advances in gaming in general. But this time around, the PS4 won't perform better than a good gaming PC at its launch.

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]Nvidia: "Ps4 sux. Buy our vidoe cards instaed!1"Teufelhuhn

Actually, Nvidia passed on console hardware for the next generation as they deemed it wasn't worth it for them. Nvidia is in a much better and healthier position as they are operating with a profit whereas AMD is rather troubled right now as they posted a huge loss.

How do you know what exactly went on between Sony, Microsoft, AMD and Nvidia?

AMD is cheaper than Nvidia, most likely why MS & Sony went with AMD. Its nothing more than that, and nothing wrong with it as they are trying to make theses consoles affordable at launch. Nvidia overprices their GPU, but since AMD has fallen a bit behind they can keep jacking up the prices on their hardware. 

AMD is cheaper than Nvidia, most likely why MS & Sony went with AMD. Its nothing more than that, and nothing wrong with it as they are trying to make theses consoles affordable at launch. Nvidia overprices their GPU, but since AMD has fallen a bit behind they can keep jacking up the prices on their hardware. 

D3s7rUc71oN

I think the most obvious answer is simply because AMD designs both CPU's and GPU's so it's probably far easier to design a console with a single company that can do everything for you. If AMD didn't own ATI, it would probably be a completely different situation. And I agree with you, they probably did it for less money than what Nvidia wanted. If Nvidia really wanted in on this, they probably could have been more aggressive regarding the cost.

[QUOTE="D3s7rUc71oN"]

AMD is cheaper than Nvidia, most likely why MS & Sony went with AMD. Its nothing more than that, and nothing wrong with it as they are trying to make theses consoles affordable at launch. Nvidia overprices their GPU, but since AMD has fallen a bit behind they can keep jacking up the prices on their hardware. 

UpInFlames

I think the most obvious answer is simply because AMD designs both CPU's and GPU's so it's probably far easier to design a console with a single company that can do everything for you. If AMD didn't own ATI, it would probably be a completely different situation. And I agree with you, they probably did it for less money than what Nvidia wanted. If Nvidia really wanted in on this, they probably could have been more aggressive regarding the cost.

Those new Tegra cpu's are from Nvidia? or am I confusing it with something else, if so are they only for phones, tablets or can they compete with AMD PC CPU's? I haven't follow much this cpu. Yes I forgot about AMD able to design both CPU and GPU had a lot to do with it. Like Nvidia, Intel is far ahead of AMD CPU's and a steeper price as well. 

Those new Tegra cpu's are from Nvidia? or am I confusing it with something else, if so are they only for phones, tablets or can they compete with AMD PC CPU's? I haven't follow much this cpu. Yes I forgot about AMD able to design both CPU and GPU had a lot to do with it. Like Nvidia, Intel is far ahead of AMD CPU's and a steeper price as well. 

D3s7rUc71oN

Tegra is only for mobile devices, it's an ARM architecture chip that integrates both the CPU and GPU.

AMD is cheaper than Nvidia, most likely why MS & Sony went with AMD. Its nothing more than that, and nothing wrong with it as they are trying to make theses consoles affordable at launch. Nvidia overprices their GPU, but since AMD has fallen a bit behind they can keep jacking up the prices on their hardware. 

D3s7rUc71oN

Next gen when all the games are built around AMD's GCN architecture for consoles, AMD's lower priced card will either outperform Nvidia's pricey GPUs or will have an easier time running console ports. I predict that we'll start to see more and more PC gamers switch to Radeon cards. Nvidia knows it too which is why they've been on a PR tour bashing next gen consoles lately. 

Nvidia also f*cked over Sony last gen promising 450 Gflops of power, but delivering a GPU that was easily outperformed by the 360 GPU which was around 250 Gflops according to AMD. Why would Sony or MS go with them again?

The PC brigade is going to love this thread. I predict a lot of 'Epic doesn't understand hardware like I do' posts.CarnageHeart

I miss the old days when it was just bits. Ha my system is 64-bits, yours is 32! So much easier to understand. 

Hardware power discussions now are like an alien language to me. :(

dvader654

It's still numbers. Tflops is basically a measurement of how powerful the graphics card is. The higher the number the better the hardware.

• PC GTX 680 - 3.1 Teraflops 
• PS4 - 1.84 teraflops
• Wii U - 0.45 teraflops
• Rumored 720 GPU - 1.2 teraflops 
• Xbox 360 - 0.25 teraflops

If you like Gigaflops over Teraflops then:

• PC GTX 680 - 3,100 Gflops
• PS4 - 1,840 Gflops
• Wii U - 450 Gflops
• Rumored 720 GPU - 1,230 Gflops
• Xbox 360 - 250 Gflops

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]Serious Sam and ROTCW looked just as good as Halo. I played them both on launch.ReddestSkies

Serious Sam definitely was one notch under Halo. But discussing details is pointless since we can't post accurate screenshots. For SS, for example, Gamespot has the full range, from this:

But at least you don't act like you don't understand what I'm saying anymore. Console launches used to be significant hardware advances in gaming in general. But this time around, the PS4 won't perform better than a good gaming PC at its launch.

Which is just as good as Halo, especially considering Serious Sam moved 100 enemies at a time in huge destructible environments

Uhm... What are you doing? The first picture you posted if from the Game Boy Advance port of Serious Sam. Serious Sam in 2001 looked like this:

 

Which is just as good as Halo, especially considering Serious Sam moved 100 enemies at a time in huge destructible environments

Black_Knight_00

Both pics are in the Gamespot "screenshots" for the PC version and illustrate how you can't just post a screenshot and say "it looked like THIS on a good 2001 PC", which is precisely why such a discussion is pointless. And let's not forget that those 100 enemies at a time had no AI besides "move towards player and attack".

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"] Uhm... What are you doing? The first picture you posted if from the Game Boy Advance port of Serious Sam. Serious Sam in 2001 looked like this:

 

Which is just as good as Halo, especially considering Serious Sam moved 100 enemies at a time in huge destructible environments

ReddestSkies

Both pics are in the Gamespot "screenshots" for the PC version and illustrate how you can't just post a screenshot and say "it looked like THIS on a good 2001 PC", which is precisely why such a discussion is pointless. And let's not forget that those 100 enemies at a time had no AI besides "move towards player and attack".

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"] Uhm... What are you doing? The first picture you posted if from the Game Boy Advance port of Serious Sam. Serious Sam in 2001 looked like this:

 

Which is just as good as Halo, especially considering Serious Sam moved 100 enemies at a time in huge destructible environments

Black_Knight_00

Both pics are in the Gamespot "screenshots" for the PC version and illustrate how you can't just post a screenshot and say "it looked like THIS on a good 2001 PC", which is precisely why such a discussion is pointless. And let's not forget that those 100 enemies at a time had no AI besides "move towards player and attack".

There's still a huge difference between your screenshot and my better looking screenshot.

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

Both pics are in the Gamespot "screenshots" for the PC version and illustrate how you can't just post a screenshot and say "it looked like THIS on a good 2001 PC", which is precisely why such a discussion is pointless. And let's not forget that those 100 enemies at a time had no AI besides "move towards player and attack".

ReddestSkies

There's still a huge difference between your screenshot and my better looking screenshot.

god, hardware geekery, and business model comparisons. Gamespot, don't ever change.

Next gen when all the games are built around AMD's GCN architecture for consoles, AMD's lower priced card will either outperform Nvidia's pricey GPUs or will have an easier time running console ports. I predict that we'll start to see more and more PC gamers switch to Radeon cards. Nvidia knows it too which is why they've been on a PR tour bashing next gen consoles lately. 

S0lidSnake

I don't think this really has much basis in reality. The vast majority of multiplatform games used the 360 as the lead platform which didn't translate to any advantages for ATI PC GPU's over Nvidia's. The only platform that had problems was the PS3 mostly due to its Cell architecture.

I firmly believe that a familiar PC-like architecture in next-gen consoles will translate to better console game optimization on PC whether it's an ATI or Nvidia card. If anything, I'd actually give the advantage to Nvidia, I found their drivers and utility software packages far superior.

While we're on this, I stumbled upon a recent Steam hardware survey which indicates that 52% of Steam users use Nvidia GPU's as opposed to only 33% users who have ATI cards.

Also, to address Epic's 32-bit Windows and RAM issue, 55% of Steam users are running Windows 7 64-bit and 90% of users have 4GB of RAM or more.