John Carmack:You need a 3.68 Teraflop GPU to match PS4's GPU

[QUOTE="SambaLele"]

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"]

That was a joke. And he never stated they were 2005 hardware, not sure where Ron is wrong.

faizan_faizan

Wasn't a joke at all.

Damn, I missed it! :(

Guess I got to lighten up a bit.

i have to agree with those that say this is partly true for exlusives. My old PC running a mid range duo core cpu and an 8800gtx plays almost all current multiplat games better than consoles at 720p, 30fps. that card is ancient in pc terms yet is no way 2x as powerful as a ps3.

i have to agree with those that say this is partly true for exlusives. My old PC running a mid range duo core cpu and an 8800gtx plays almost all current multiplat games better than consoles at 720p, 30fps. that card is ancient in pc terms yet is no way 2x as powerful as a ps3.

Frozzik

[QUOTE="Frozzik"]

i have to agree with those that say this is partly true for exlusives. My old PC running a mid range duo core cpu and an 8800gtx plays almost all current multiplat games better than consoles at 720p, 30fps. that card is ancient in pc terms yet is no way 2x as powerful as a ps3.

blue_hazy_basic

indeed, which is better for the PC if you ask me. I mean im no expert but Ram costs next to nothing for PC and current high end cpu's are, from what i read, beyond what is in next gen consoles. Personally i never buy a new PC at the start of a console Gen. I find my old one usualy does fine until a year or 2 into the generation and then pc hardware really starts to open a gap. I cant see this gen being any different.

i have to agree with those that say this is partly true for exlusives. My old PC running a mid range duo core cpu and an 8800gtx plays almost all current multiplat games better than consoles at 720p, 30fps. that card is ancient in pc terms yet is no way 2x as powerful as a ps3.

Frozzik

Actually the 8800GTX is about 3x the power of the PS3/360.

And my old 8800GT, which was slightly weaker than an 8800GTX, was able to play the same games as consoles at around twice the pixel count with almost twice the frame rate.

So it performed around 3 times better than consoles.

The API overhead is barely felt on a GPU and is more a problem for the CPU.

A PC GPU similar in power to a console GPU will perform similar.

The question is....Who do you trust? John Carmack or a bunch of Hermits on SW who love to claim consoles are for poor people? Think I am gonna roll with Carmack on this one.

timbers_WSU

How about you take a class in critical thinking and find out what quote mining means so you can see that OP is an idiot.

Also learn about the fallacy called appeal to authority.

are people stupid here? this crap was posted about Last gen consoles ( current ones).        It has nothing to do with next gen consoles and i always said, Show me the evidence..      Console optimization has largely been a myth ..   the 8800 series cards from nvidia always performed much better than ps3 and xbox 360

[QUOTE="Frozzik"]

i have to agree with those that say this is partly true for exlusives. My old PC running a mid range duo core cpu and an 8800gtx plays almost all current multiplat games better than consoles at 720p, 30fps. that card is ancient in pc terms yet is no way 2x as powerful as a ps3.

RyviusARC

Actually the 8800GTX is about 3x the power of the PS3/360.

And my old 8800GT, which was slightly weaker than an 8800GTX, was able to play the same games as consoles at around twice the pixel count with almost twice the frame rate.

So it performed around 3 times better than consoles.

The API overhead is barely felt on a GPU and is more a problem for the CPU.

A PC GPU similar in power to a console GPU will perform similar.

Well that card, and the e6750 ( i think) plus 2 gig of Ram, did outperform the 360/ps3 by quite a lot. not 2-3x though lol. Its no secret you need better PC hardware than you do in a console but PC hardware will continue to improve. Like i said before, i usually wait until 1-2 years into a console Gen until i buy a new PC

[QUOTE="Frozzik"]

i have to agree with those that say this is partly true for exlusives. My old PC running a mid range duo core cpu and an 8800gtx plays almost all current multiplat games better than consoles at 720p, 30fps. that card is ancient in pc terms yet is no way 2x as powerful as a ps3.

RyviusARC

Actually the 8800GTX is about 3x the power of the PS3/360.

And my old 8800GT, which was slightly weaker than an 8800GTX, was able to play the same games as consoles at around twice the pixel count with almost twice the frame rate.

So it performed around 3 times better than consoles.

The API overhead is barely felt on a GPU and is more a problem for the CPU.

A PC GPU similar in power to a console GPU will perform similar.

[QUOTE="Frozzik"]

i have to agree with those that say this is partly true for exlusives. My old PC running a mid range duo core cpu and an 8800gtx plays almost all current multiplat games better than consoles at 720p, 30fps. that card is ancient in pc terms yet is no way 2x as powerful as a ps3.

RyviusARC

[QUOTE="timbers_WSU"]

The question is....Who do you trust? John Carmack or a bunch of Hermits on SW who love to claim consoles are for poor people? Think I am gonna roll with Carmack on this one.

RyviusARC

How about you take a class in critical thinking and find out what quote mining means so you can see that OP is an idiot.

Also learn about the fallacy called appeal to authority.

Appeal to authority is not always a fallacy.

What you said is, because of unconditional generalization.

[QUOTE="timbers_WSU"]

The question is....Who do you trust? John Carmack or a bunch of Hermits on SW who love to claim consoles are for poor people? Think I am gonna roll with Carmack on this one.

RyviusARC

How about you take a class in critical thinking and find out what quote mining means so you can see that OP is an idiot.

Also learn about the fallacy called appeal to authority.

All hail John Carmack. Everything he says is absolutely 100% true and undisputable. Nothing he has ever said has been less than absolute truth.

[QUOTE="RyviusARC"]

[QUOTE="timbers_WSU"]

The question is....Who do you trust? John Carmack or a bunch of Hermits on SW who love to claim consoles are for poor people? Think I am gonna roll with Carmack on this one.

SambaLele

How about you take a class in critical thinking and find out what quote mining means so you can see that OP is an idiot.

Also learn about the fallacy called appeal to authority.

Appeal to authority is not always a fallacy.

What you said is, because of unconditional generalization.

The way it is used in this thread it is a fallacy.

Also the OP is quote mining which anyone should be able to see.

[QUOTE="RyviusARC"]

[QUOTE="Frozzik"]

i have to agree with those that say this is partly true for exlusives. My old PC running a mid range duo core cpu and an 8800gtx plays almost all current multiplat games better than consoles at 720p, 30fps. that card is ancient in pc terms yet is no way 2x as powerful as a ps3.

GioVela2010

It is revelant to how people misinterpreted Carmack's quote.

It proves that a PC GPU similar in power to a console will perform similar.

This topic may be old but I want to reiterate on wasdie's beautiful post that PC's have a lot of bullshit overhead to deal with so they gimp their games to the lowest specs. From the legend Carmack himself. Hermits lining up for a Titan as we speak.

Now this "My PC is better" bullshit can rest, unless you own a Titan.

DrTrafalgarLaw

If that's the case, then why do high-end (or even mid-grade) gaming PCs ALWAYS have better graphics and better performance than consoles??

Consoles cannot match the gaming power of gaming PCs. Period. It's no contest.

All hail John Carmack. Everything he says is absolutely 100% true and undisputable. Nothing he has ever said has been less than absolute truth.

-Unreal-

Actually the problem is that the TC is quote mining. What Carmack wrote was almost spot on back then.

[QUOTE="DrTrafalgarLaw"]

This topic may be old but I want to reiterate on wasdie's beautiful post that PC's have a lot of bullshit overhead to deal with so they gimp their games to the lowest specs. From the legend Carmack himself. Hermits lining up for a Titan as we speak.

Now this "My PC is better" bullshit can rest, unless you own a Titan.

Baurus_1

If that's the case, then why do high-end (or even mid-grade) gaming PCs ALWAYS have better graphics and better performance than consoles??

Consoles cannot match the gaming power of gaming PCs. Period. It's no contest.

[QUOTE="Baurus_1"]

[QUOTE="DrTrafalgarLaw"]

This topic may be old but I want to reiterate on wasdie's beautiful post that PC's have a lot of bullshit overhead to deal with so they gimp their games to the lowest specs. From the legend Carmack himself. Hermits lining up for a Titan as we speak.

Now this "My PC is better" bullshit can rest, unless you own a Titan.

ShadowriverUB

If that's the case, then why do high-end (or even mid-grade) gaming PCs ALWAYS have better graphics and better performance than consoles??

Consoles cannot match the gaming power of gaming PCs. Period. It's no contest.

WRONG!!! Games look better and run better on PC!!!!

What i find amusing is how all of a sudden graphics matter to console only gamers. I mean, current high end gaming pc's are so far infront of current gen consoles its laughable. Even mine, a mid range gaming PC makes games look amazing vs console. Yet most console gamers claim the difference is tiny, not enough to mention. Yet here they are making post after post.

[QUOTE="RyviusARC"]

[QUOTE="Frozzik"]

i have to agree with those that say this is partly true for exlusives. My old PC running a mid range duo core cpu and an 8800gtx plays almost all current multiplat games better than consoles at 720p, 30fps. that card is ancient in pc terms yet is no way 2x as powerful as a ps3.

Magescrew

Actually the 8800GTX is about 3x the power of the PS3/360.

And my old 8800GT, which was slightly weaker than an 8800GTX, was able to play the same games as consoles at around twice the pixel count with almost twice the frame rate.

So it performed around 3 times better than consoles.

The API overhead is barely felt on a GPU and is more a problem for the CPU.

A PC GPU similar in power to a console GPU will perform similar.

Nah the 8800 GTX is about 3 times as powerful.

You can play games at around twice the pixel count and almost twice the frame rate.

The 8800GT is a bit weaker than the 8800GTX and here is a benchmark of it in Crysis 2.

This is with the gamer settings which are the settings used in the console version.

I will take the best performing version on consoles which is the 360 version.

The 360 version displays at 1152×720.

1152×720 = 829440 pixels

The PC version in this benchmark is 1680x1050

1680x1050 = 1764000 pixels

That is over twice the amount of pixels which would take over twice the power to run at that resolution.

Both console versions struggle to run at 30fps and usually take deep fps hits into the low 20s.

The benchmark for the 8800gt at 1680x1050 runs on average at 43.2 fps which is quite the difference.

Add it all up and you can see that the power needed to run it at that resolution and frame rate would be about 3 times the power.

This is not even taking into account the performance of the 8800gt when overclocked.

[QUOTE="ShadowriverUB"][QUOTE="Baurus_1"]

If that's the case, then why do high-end (or even mid-grade) gaming PCs ALWAYS have better graphics and better performance than consoles??

Consoles cannot match the gaming power of gaming PCs. Period. It's no contest.

Baurus_1

WRONG!!! Games look better and run better on PC!!!!

[QUOTE="Magescrew"][QUOTE="RyviusARC"]

 

Actually the 8800GTX is about 3x the power of the PS3/360.

And my old 8800GT, which was slightly weaker than an 8800GTX, was able to play the same games as consoles at around twice the pixel count with almost twice the frame rate.

So it performed around 3 times better than consoles.

The API overhead is barely felt on a GPU and is more a problem for the CPU.

A PC GPU similar in power to a console GPU will perform similar.

RyviusARC

Nah the 8800 GTX is about 3 times as powerful.

You can play games at around twice the pixel count and almost twice the frame rate.

The 8800GT is a bit weaker than the 8800GTX and here is a benchmark of it in Crysis 2.

This is with the gamer settings which are the settings used in the console version.

I will take the best performing version on consoles which is the 360 version.

The 360 version displays at 1152×720.

1152×720 = 829440 pixels

The PC version in this benchmark is 1680x1050

1680x1050 = 1764000 pixels

That is over twice the amount of pixels which would take over twice the power to run at that resolution.

Both console versions struggle to run at 30fps and usually take deep fps hits into the low 20s.

The benchmark for the 8800gt at 1680x1050 runs on average at 43.2 fps which is quite the difference.

Add it all up and you can see that the power needed to run it at that resolution and frame rate would be about 3 times the power.

This is not even taking into account the performance of the 8800gt when overclocked.

lol oh carmack I remember when you and Id were still relevent to the games industry.

Lol. This is so old and he never says anything about PS4 or Titan. Never specifies the GPU. 

Let's see what he really has to say about next-gen consoles:

"If you take a current game like Halo which is a 30 hertz game at 720p; if you run that at 1080p, 60 frames with high dynamic frame buffers, all of a sudden you've sucked up all the power you have in the next-generation."

gamecubepad

Now this "My PC is better" bullshit can rest, unless you own a Titan.

DrTrafalgarLaw

[QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

Lol. This is so old and he never says anything about PS4 or Titan. Never specifies the GPU. 

Let's see what he really has to say about next-gen consoles:

"If you take a current game like Halo which is a 30 hertz game at 720p; if you run that at 1080p, 60 frames with high dynamic frame buffers, all of a sudden you've sucked up all the power you have in the next-generation."

GuNsbl4ziN

clearly just talking about the Xbone, he really dislikes the Xbone hardware and think its weak as shit with low ramxboxiphoneps3

Cows are the new f*cking Lorax's of the world.

"We speak for the Carmack."

He was talking about both systems. Clearly says, "Sony and Microsoft are going to fight over gigaflops and teraflops and GPUs and all this. In the end, it won't make that much difference" and "[they]will let us do everything we want to do now, with the knobs turned up".

[QUOTE="DrTrafalgarLaw"]

This topic may be old but I want to reiterate on wasdie's beautiful post that PC's have a lot of bullshit overhead to deal with so they gimp their games to the lowest specs. From the legend Carmack himself. Hermits lining up for a Titan as we speak.

Now this "My PC is better" bullshit can rest, unless you own a Titan.

Baurus_1

If that's the case, then why do high-end (or even mid-grade) gaming PCs ALWAYS have better graphics and better performance than consoles??

Consoles cannot match the gaming power of gaming PCs. Period. It's no contest.

This is obvious. Because a current mid-grade gaming PC, or even if it's a couple years old, is many times faster than a 2005 console (year of release of 360 and of the hardware design of the PS3).

It proves what Carmack says.

What would prove him to be wrong would be someone, with a 2005 CPU, GPU, RAM, MoBo, etc. being able to run games with the same quality and fps as those consoles.

[QUOTE="Baurus_1"]

[QUOTE="DrTrafalgarLaw"]

This topic may be old but I want to reiterate on wasdie's beautiful post that PC's have a lot of bullshit overhead to deal with so they gimp their games to the lowest specs. From the legend Carmack himself. Hermits lining up for a Titan as we speak.

Now this "My PC is better" bullshit can rest, unless you own a Titan.

SambaLele

If that's the case, then why do high-end (or even mid-grade) gaming PCs ALWAYS have better graphics and better performance than consoles??

Consoles cannot match the gaming power of gaming PCs. Period. It's no contest.

This is obvious. Because a current mid-grade gaming PC, or even if it's a couple years old, is many times faster than a 2005 console (year of release of 360 and of the hardware design of the PS3).

It proves what Carmack says.

What would prove him to be wrong would be someone, with a 2005 CPU, GPU, RAM, MoBo, etc. being able to run games with the same quality and fps as those consoles.

[QUOTE="SambaLele"]

[QUOTE="RyviusARC"]

 

How about you take a class in critical thinking and find out what quote mining means so you can see that OP is an idiot.

Also learn about the fallacy called appeal to authority.

RyviusARC

Appeal to authority is not always a fallacy.

What you said is, because of unconditional generalization.

The way it is used in this thread it is a fallacy.

Also the OP is quote mining which anyone should be able to see.

With that I agree, it was used as fallacy by the TC, to justify his quote mining. But Carmack's argument of authority, itself, is not a fallacy in this case, since it's a perfect position for taking in consideration what he has to say about the matter, even if that does not equal such a conclusion like the one brought by the TC.

Unified Architecture + No Shell OS = Better gaming machine.

Those Operating System themselves are gonna eat up a few Gigs of RAM, before they even launch the games. And then add to that alll the background stuff going on like your AV scanners, Auto-Update checking programs, Emails, Browser stuff, etc...

And I didn't even mention all the PC fragmentation caused by different hardware configs.

The problem is that Developers are instantly pigeonholed with PC development because they have the constant tug-of-war between maxing out graphics/features vs. lowest common hardware tech installed base. Add to that waiting around for hardware developers to update their drivers/firmware/BIOS/etc... it's just a big headache.

TECHNICALLY, a tricked out PC could OBLITERATE a console. REALISTICALLY, no developer will ever be able to build a PC game for a specific tricked out PC without sacrificing something for all the other PC configurations - and costing themselves lots of money in lost sales. So, they are stuck wasting time making scalable graphics instead of only focusing on one set of the highest possible graphics.

And there it is folks - PC developers aren't making games for YOUR PC, they're making them for EVERYONE'S PC. Consoles developers ARE making games for YOUR console because they're ALL THE SAME.

With that I agree, it was used as fallacy by the TC, to justify his quote mining. But Carmack's argument of authority, itself, is not a fallacy in this case, since it's a perfect position for taking in consideration what he has to say about the matter, even if that does not equal such a conclusion like the one brought by the TC.

SambaLele

We'd have to hop on twitter and tell him SW is trolling years-old articles and needs clarification on whether he meant the system as a whole, or just the GPU.

[QUOTE="SambaLele"]

[QUOTE="Baurus_1"]

If that's the case, then why do high-end (or even mid-grade) gaming PCs ALWAYS have better graphics and better performance than consoles??

Consoles cannot match the gaming power of gaming PCs. Period. It's no contest.

04dcarraher

This is obvious. Because a current mid-grade gaming PC, or even if it's a couple years old, is many times faster than a 2005 console (year of release of 360 and of the hardware design of the PS3).

It proves what Carmack says.

What would prove him to be wrong would be someone, with a 2005 CPU, GPU, RAM, MoBo, etc. being able to run games with the same quality and fps as those consoles.

No, that didn't prove anything.

If you're mentioning the post from RyviusARC, he made the observation himself that the 8800 GTX is 3x faster than the 7800 based chip that's on PS3.

That still proves Carmack's point.

Also, the other thing mentioned about the 8800 GT there also can't prove anything. The 8800 GT was released 2 years after the 7800.

You're comparing that system with one that's a whole generation ahead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce

Show us a system with a 7800, a 2005 CPU, etc., running games like Bioshock Infinite, Batman AC, Far Cry 3, as good as the 360/PS3 can, then you'll have proved your point.

REALISTICALLY, no developer will ever be able to build a PC game for a specific tricked out PC without sacrificing something for all the other PC configurations - and costing themselves lots of money in lost sales. So, they are stuck wasting time making scalable graphics instead of only focusing on one set of the highest possible graphics.

Netherscourge

Epic stated they are addressing this by scaling from the top down. Crytek has made similar statements.

Consoles being htpc with x86 AMD CPU and Radeon 7xxx-series GPUs on single die has made it easy to target higher-end PCs. 

funny thing when looking at articles of microsofts DX11.2, they say the managed to lower the API overhead yet said it wasn't a big deal since the overhead only took like 3 FPS.

I think I'll listen to a legendary expert over you slack jaws.

No, that didn't prove anything.

SambaLele

It casts serious doubt on the idea that Carmack's statement applies directly to GPUs.

Also, the other thing mentioned about the 8800 GT there also can't prove anything. The 8800 GT was released 2 years after the 7800.

You're comparing that system with one that's a whole generation ahead.

SambaLele

Except the PS3 had Cell to augment gfx capabilities, so it's apples-to-oranges. PS3 and 360 are equal, 360 sports modern unified shader architecture akin to Radeon 2xxx series. So if you can find a GPU like x1950 pro or x1950 xt that performs simillar to 360 in multiplats while being "a generation behind", then we have shown you don't need 2x the GPU power to match these systems.

Let's compare x1950 pro in early gen multiplats as an old GPU vs next-gen console comparison. Then let's check 2900xt, a GPU 2x the performance as the Xenos from the same gen, against the 360 and see what happens...

thread's bad, should feel bad

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="SambaLele"]

 

This is obvious. Because a current mid-grade gaming PC, or even if it's a couple years old, is many times faster than a 2005 console (year of release of 360 and of the hardware design of the PS3).

It proves what Carmack says.

What would prove him to be wrong would be someone, with a 2005 CPU, GPU, RAM, MoBo, etc. being able to run games with the same quality and fps as those consoles.

SambaLele

No, that didn't prove anything.

If you're mentioning the post from RyviusARC, he made the observation himself that the 8800 GTX is 3x faster than the 7800 based chip that's on PS3.

That still proves Carmack's point.

Also, the other thing mentioned about the 8800 GT there also can't prove anything. The 8800 GT was released 2 years after the 7800.

You're comparing that system with one that's a whole generation ahead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce

Show us a system with a 7800, a 2005 CPU, etc., running games like Bioshock Infinite, Batman AC, Far Cry 3, as good as the 360/PS3 can, then you'll have proved your point.

Asking for 2005 based pc specs and comparing that to the 360/PS3 is moot since in 2005 PC didnt go to unified shader based gpu's until 2006 at the same time as the PS3. The xbox 360 was ahead of the curve in that respect in having an unified shader based gpu. However its processing performance is in line with ATI's x1950pro which is not unified based however it did play crysis 2 with a dual core cpu comparable to the 360.

[QUOTE="RyviusARC"]

[QUOTE="SambaLele"]

 

Appeal to authority is not always a fallacy.

What you said is, because of unconditional generalization.

SambaLele

The way it is used in this thread it is a fallacy.

Also the OP is quote mining which anyone should be able to see.

With that I agree, it was used as fallacy by the TC, to justify his quote mining. But Carmack's argument of authority, itself, is not a fallacy in this case, since it's a perfect position for taking in consideration what he has to say about the matter, even if that does not equal such a conclusion like the one brought by the TC.

Yes but just because Carmack is very experienced in developing video games does not mean what he says is right.

A fact is not a fact because of the person saying it.

[QUOTE="SambaLele"]

[QUOTE="RyviusARC"]

 

The way it is used in this thread it is a fallacy.

Also the OP is quote mining which anyone should be able to see.

RyviusARC

With that I agree, it was used as fallacy by the TC, to justify his quote mining. But Carmack's argument of authority, itself, is not a fallacy in this case, since it's a perfect position for taking in consideration what he has to say about the matter, even if that does not equal such a conclusion like the one brought by the TC.

Yes but just because Carmack is very experienced in developing video games does not mean what he says is right.

A fact is not a fact because of the person saying it.

Did'nt he spin things similarly with Rage? As far as I'm concerned, he's a businessman these days.

Yay, a 2 year old statement from a man who (sadly) lost nearly all relevancy in the modern game industry.