PC GPU Power: Now measured in terms of Xbox Ones

Because it's a dumb argument then. We're talking about the gaming abilities, and if it can't play a majority of new and current game then it's $400 down the drain.

...although, with those parts it's probably $400 down the drain anyways

Stop trying to argue this dumb $400 PC. Just save some extra cash and buy a worthwhile PC

Isn't the whole point of building a gaming PC to play PC games? It seems like a pretty big factor to me.

So tell us, do you game exclusively on Linux, yourself?

It will be interesting looking back 3 years from now and see how the ps4 compares to a similarly powerful pc eg. AMD Phenom X4 at 2.6ghz coupled with a HD 7850 OC. Maybe the gpu in the ps4 will have to aid the relatively weak cpu cores (only 6 available for games) and because of that have less power left for graphics, however if optimization helps, the ps4 could very well have a an edge, but compared to a significantly more powerful pc there is no question.

True but i'm going to hold judgement until it comes out. There's a trend at the moment for games companies to overestimate their specs as a marketing tool, i think CoD Ghosts recommended something stupid? Also this is for budget builds so we'll have to see how many frames are dropped before it's right to claim that it's a major flaw.

I'm building a PC in the summer and i reckon i'll pass on the extra RAM for now as it's £30 that i might put into the CPU that i need to guarantee i'll max Rome 2.

I'm sitting comfortably at

around 7,8 Xbox Ones

and

around 4,7 PS4's

I'm pretty sure a Linux only PC has access to a LOT more games than a PS4. It looks like Cryengine, Unreal, and Frostbite are supporting l;inux/SteamOS as well. So a lot of upcoming games will support it. It might be limiting the vast library of PC games, but it's still sitting pretty above what a PS4 offers.

I'm pretty sure the old saying says: don't. ;)

But yeah, I'm not sure why lostrib thinks that his way of doing PC gaming is the only way to do PC gaming. I have friends who do the low end PC gaming thing and they love it. They're don't play games a ton, but they enjoy spending some time with games like Civ and Total war and Binding of isaac or Skyrim + mods or the ton of crazie indie stuff that will never be released on consoles.

There's nothign wrong with that. It's just as viable as someone picking up a PS4 4 years from now when it's absurdly outdated compared to a contemporary PC.

because I don't support building PCs that can burst into flames?

And I also find these build suggestions to be generally dishonest

No, now you're twisting my words.

But that seems to be all you can ever do

"What is that old saying about arguing with fools?"

Fair point, so I will stop arguing with a fool such as yourself

What is that old saying about arguing with fools?

@b4x said:

The number of posts in this thread say otherwise

@lostrib:

So those graphics cards listed to = X1. Can run Ryse?

I'll be sure to run right out and buy one. /s

I'll get back with you on my findings.

If you have a AMD GCN gpu just do total shaders times your core clock times 2, 2 shader ops per shader so like this

My hd 7870 ghz has 1280 stream processors, i have my GPU overclocked to 1150 mhz core clock

1280x1150x2= 2.94 teraflops my hd7870 ghz produces. A good amount higher then the PS4 gpu

I really haven't been interested in Call of Duty for while, so I haven't payed any attention. But yeah, at launch it required at least 6GB of RAM to launch, which they later changed to just a warning screen. I've been trying to find a comparison of performance between differing amount of RAM for the game, but for such a high profile title, it's proven strangely difficult.

And yes, if you're not building immediately, there's no problem keeping an open mind and seeing how things unfold. I just think that it's going to be necessary in the very near future and you could actually save a little money by just going 8 now as opposed to going 4 now and adding another 4 in the next year (not to mention leaving slots open in case your needs change). This is what I followed when I started upgrading my PC over the winter (as well as upgrading to an i5), so it's not just conjecture, it's something I'm putting my own money on.

And according to Tom's Hardware and any other tech site out there, the R7 260X is not even as powerful as the PS4 video chip, much less, more powerful. I think I'd go with them over this one chart and you.

Why anyone would compare PC performance to game consoles, when PC can be upgraded everything is beyond me. lol!! There's really no fair comparison unless you are using the same cards and CPU that are in the game consoles and of course PC gamers aren't. It's just dumb.

...it's just measuring the GPU performance in terms of console power

jeez, people get way too serious

SW is serious business.

Way to argue against points no one made.

So this means you only use Linux to play PC games, right?

Well what consolole gets are the stripped down version of PC games and then some movies from first party which anyone can enjoy for free on youtube. :D

very helpful. thank you.

Lets hit this so call unfair comparison.

The CPU on rig while only been quad core is way faster than the PS4 one and stronger to.

The PC version was no running TressFX because the penalty was to high,so the effect was no TressFX.

The PS4 version runs a streamline version of TressFX that is less demanding,but still demand something is not free,so if the PS4 version would not have TressFX in on that streamline form it would probably hit 60 FPS most of the time like the R270 was doing without TressFX.

You may say is unfair because the PC version has a bigger hit to performance than the console TressFX but how is it fair that the PC version runs no tressFX at all while the PS4 does in did have some even if it has lower hit to performance.

First of all you are a joke,so your whole argument is lets top the PS4 in just 1 thing and forget about any bottle necks or things that don't quite stand up to the PS4.

You can't buy a stronger than PS4 console cheaper because of 1 reason.

Cutting corners will let you no where,baring in mind that you already try to claim that the R260X would give you better graphics than the PS4 and paired with a damn dual core CPU i most assume that you know sh** about PC and its environments,the fact that you are trying to argue that all you need is linux to try to windows cost is a joke.

Linux not only sucks when it come to support for most PC games out there,ATI drivers for the GPU also suck ass as well,and take longer to reach Linux,so how is that Mantle on Linux now.?

AMD is Looking at Feasibility of Mantle on Linux – No Mantle-Linux Code Currently Exists

Read more: http://wccftech.com/amd-feasibility-mantle-linux-mantle-on-linux-code-exists/#ixzz30ydknRJM

March 24 2014.

You make a stupid list that bottle neck you from the off set,i correct you and you again make another one,gimping the units in several places and cutting corners to try achieve a cheaper than PS4 console and you failed again.

Fact is building a console like the PS4 cost you some $600 dollars without cutting corners,so if i want to watch a 1080p movie on my PS4 i can,but you can't because you only have DVD,so is upscale sh** for you,oh you can also stream from online yeah that would not beat Blu-ray quality either,but what if i don't want my console close to my damn modem yeah the PS4 has wifi your PC doesn't.

Oh and PC games install completely,so a 250GB HDD will serve you for nothing specially if you have to erase a game to install another because you ran out of space,the PS4 has double the space of that 250GB HDD you have.

So basically you built a lemon.

Oh did i mention that the PS4 has 8GB of GDDR5,can you buy that for you PC.? So 3 or 4 years from now when games on PC will be pushing 4GB or 5GB for games what will happen to your 2GB card.?

See you in 3 years...

Such a lame troll

PS4 does not have 8gb of memory free for Vram... 3.5 gb is taken for OS and features then the other 4.5gb has to be split between both game cache and Vram. What is funny is that your making a direct x 9 based game your proof of needing more then 2gb of Vram for 1080, Lets not ignore the fact that anadtech's test with Skyrim is running 1920x1200, with 4xAA(MSAA) with the HD texture pack. If you cut the AA, performance would not any different or not use the HD pack.

O look 1gb performing on par with 2gb cards how strange....

Also whats funny is that the PS4 has all that memory for graphics why cant the PS4 use max texture quality and detail quality in multiple multiplat games.....

Also whats sad is that the PS4 gpu does not have enough ass behind it to make full use of a 4gb buffer to begin with.

Go cry some more

Here is Skyrim without texture pack

here some more modern examples

@farrell2k: Humorous coming from the one that thinks the r7 760x is stronger than the hd7850, that Linux is just as good for gaming as Windows and resorts to insults constantly. Perhaps if you used some facts, you wouldn't constantly find yourself at odds with actual pc gamers.

Burn

Such a butthurt hermit..

The PS4 has 3GB for OS the PS4 can use 1GB is basically split which is call flexible and half of it is been use ,so the PS is using 4.5 GB idiot..

http://www.dualshockers.com/2014/04/02/how-infamous-second-son-used-the-ps4s-8-4-5-gb-of-ram-cpu-and-gpu-compute-to-make-our-jaws-drop/

But wait Sony lower the ram usage of the PS3 from 125MB on 2006 to just 50MB now,so what make you think it will not happen then same with the PS4.? Specially since it has been say that the whole 3GB reservation is nothing more than sony playing it safer rather than just an actual limitation after all is UNIFIED memory sony can lower it if they seen feet.

But how does that change anything.? The R270 still has 2GB the PS4 still has 4.5 didn't you went to school.? 4.2 is more than double of 2.

So when games on PC start using 4GB or more yeah those GPU will suffer.

You are sad i already posted what Ram limitations can do to frames,is from Anandtech..lol

There is no spinning it buffoon,both 7850 were the same the only difference was memory,1920x1080 is just 120 lines lower than 1920x1200 nothing that will consume double the ram of 1080p,in fact Lego the Hobbit on PS4 is 1920x1280 actually higher than 1920x1200.

Per frame data on the PS4 GPU is enough for little over 5GB of video game usage dude.

Actually he is wrong that article i quote own him hard,if you install the high resolution texture pack Sky rim is fu** on those 1GB card vs the 2GB version,is irrefutable but i find it funny that a hermit who hype better textures mods and higher resolution textures want to actually cray when a situation is presented that show that those high resolution packs actually require more ram,so basically is all good until you hit a limitation,then like you he start to downgrade and say lets use this lower settings and ignore high resolution packs which actually make the game look BETTER which is the actual point of having a stronger than PS4 GPU.

You claim that a dual core and a R260X have better graphics than the PS4 your opinion is as useless as the cigarets lighter is to a diver 100 feed under water.

that's amazing the playstation 4 only uses it's single large pool of memory for video memory things. makes me wonder why computers have video ram, and ram on the motherboard?

purely decorative I suppose. anyway i'm satisfied with 10 gigabytes of ram (2+8), and by the end of the year I'll have 20 (4+16).

(VRAM+Sys)

I am sure you read it buffoon...

Butbutbut dual core and R260X better than PS4 ignore windows and use linux ass drivers and poor game support..lol

lol troll.... try harder

PS4 reserves up to 3.5GB for OS and features leaving 4.5 gb of physical memory and the option for 512mb to be returned.That 1gb is flexible memory developers can ask Sony to be able to reclaim by disabling specific feature/s to gain 512mb of physical memory back and the other 512mb is plain old swap file used on the harddrive they have access too

ISS had 4.5gb to play with and they used almost all of it "Most of the 4.5 Gb of RAM actually available were used" its not just vram noob, they used around 1.5gb of that pool for video and 2.5gb for game cache for dedicated jobs and had 512mb for misc. These consoles cant stream like before since the design changes to be like pc's they have to pre load the data onto memory and then swap, alot more data being moved then before.

RFOL with PS4 having 4.5gb for vram HAHAHHA..... someone cant subtract you need to go back to school.

Sony had to desperately trim down OS foot print to make more room on that 256mb pool for system use. With 8gb at their becking their not going to trim anything down until they need too, and when they do it will be first with different compression methods for the features.

Making an excuse with 1200p vs 1080p? though it is another 10% increase in pixel count. 4XAA and HD texture does consume alot more memory the HD textures are 2x the resolution, 4xAA can add nearly 200mb more over 2xAA vs 0 can save you another 100mb on top of that.

Also to point out that the texture management with direct x 9 based games is less efficient then DX10 or 11 hence the reason why BF3 and Crysis 2 maxed on 1gb vs 2gb yielded little difference. you didnt show anything besides the fact that direct x 9 is ancient in the way it handles memory. Bethesda textures are not optimized, so they take up more space than necessary, and don't look as good as they should. while modded textures packs that have 4x resolution and detail use only abit more memory.

Just because PS4's memory bus is able to handle 5gb of memory buffer does not mean that the GPU has the processing power to actually render that much data on screen.And the fact that PS4 cant allocate 5gb to the gpu to begin with nor 4.5gb lol.

the GPU cant allocate more then 4gb only expect 2-3gb average usage. again having to rely on common sense with allocation and subtraction. The more complex and open the game is less VRAM that can be allocated.. like ISS needing 2.5gb for system/game cache leaving 2gb left.

Fact is there has already been tests on gpu's that are multiple times faster with 2gb vs 4gb with settings and resolutions the PS4 cant handle but yet see no difference in performance. BF4 using max settings at 3840x2160 did not see any difference from 2gb vs 4gb fact is that by the time you need more than 2GB of frame buffer for 1080, the GPU would not have the processing power needed to render at that type of shader & detail workloads.

Really? you're going to group us in with El Tormo?

That's just cold

@b4x: lol ryse

@tormentos: I agree with you that an dual core coupled with a 260x probably won't keep up with the ps4 in the long run. I think you need a pc that is a tad more powerful than the ps4 to do that. But are you basically saying that the ps4 will hold up better over time than any pc with a with 2gb vram.

By the time games start to use more than 2gb vram at 1080p with a low amount AA the ps4 gpu will be far to weak to render those games nearly as good as the pc versions, it's already to weak run today's games at max settings, and newer, more advanced games will be even farther behind on the ps4 .

Even a GTX680 (which is much more powerful than the ps4 gpu) with 2gb vram will most likely get bottlenecked by it's gpu before the memory runs out at 1080p.

So basically you are repeating what i say about flex memory,but once again you butthurt hermit what is more 2 or 4.5.?

You don't know sh** and last i remember you were one of those morons claiming the difference between the xbox one and PS4 would be just a few frames,remember how you defended my comparison between a 7770 and a7850 just because the xbox one has a bigger bus than the 7850.?What happen on launch.? Yeah total domination double resolution,double frames resolution and frames advantages,your predictions are as good as crap hell you claim the PS4 would not use more than 4GB hell first you say 3 then you switch to 4,so basically swing and a miss is all you do.

I don't see any feature on PS4 that would require such a big quantity of ram,and i am use part of that memory is going without use.

Buffoon you are a joke of a poster i already told you that Lego the Hobit is actually 1920x1280 on PS4 is higher than the resolution that test,the PS4 like the 7850 can go over 1080p is just not push because that resolution is not supported by normal TV dude,so hiding in 120lines more is a joke and show how out of argument you are,specially since those high resolution textures make skyrim look way better,oh isn't that what PC is about making everything look better.?

But how does it change the fact that the texture pack demanded more ram and that when to little was present the game got a 63 frame hit how does it change it how.?

Oh it doesn't if the R270 is memory constrain 3 years from now because games are demanding 4 or 5 GB of memory it will suffer like hell,so either resolution,image quality or frames will suffer.

In fact that same screen compared those games to you buffoon but it was skyrim the one that actually need it the extra ram,can't you read there were several games benchmark and the results were the same,but on skyrim which demanded more video memory,because well the world everything you change stay and high resolution textures demanded more ram.

The GPU on the PS4 has enough power per frame to do little over 5GB,it was already posted on Beyond3D with actual math divided by frame.

So yeah it can use more than 5,it doesn't reach 6GB but pass 5.

Really what 2 cards you compare on BF4 on that resolution to know it doesn't demand more.? Where is the test.?

Oh and the 7850 can go in BF4 to 2560x1600 so can the PS4 it just isn't supported or doable to the frame target by Dice.

It can't keep up at any moment,is weaker hardware paired with a weaker CPU,it will just not cut it from the start the R260X is a re bag 7790.

Killzone and Infamous already use 4.5 GB of video ram.

Battlefield 4 uses 2.78 GB vram at 3840x2160 with 4x MSAA at ultra settings. No sane person would believe that any ps4 game uses anywhere near the amount of vram that BF4 uses at that resolution with those settings, regardless of what preposterous claims the game developers make.

Do you really believe that the ps4 will beat a pc with a GTX 680 with 2GB vram in the future?

Killzone and infamous may use 4.5 gigs of the PS4 buffer, but that's not all rendering data. On the consoles that buffer needs to hold EVERYTHING (object states, sound, calculaiton results, etc), while on PC the GPU buffer only needs to hold data required for rendering the scene.

It's not like Killzone is runnign 4.5 gigs of textures. But then again console gamers tend not to understand technology and rely on marketing to learn about it.

Narcissism is weird. Narcissism through your rig... is just weirder.

Your a sad sad troll who cant comprehend that the PS4 cant do what you think it can do.

You cant do basic math 4.5 -2.5 =? its not 4.5gb or 5gb (thats a hint)

Hows that 7gb of ram for games? and now its 4.5gb for video when it only has 4.5gb for everything lol. PS4 does not have clear cut domination in resolution or framerates quite a few games coming up the difference is not that large, many are both 1080, while the others are only 900p vs 1080 or 720 vs 900p there are only hand full of games that that are 720 vs1080. also whats funny is that PS4 claims 60 fps but yet tends to only average mid to upper 40's while dipping into the 30's plenty of times. The 7770 vs 7850 was only defended based on TFLOPS gap not on gpu architecture the X1's gpu is bonaire which is related to tahiti and pitcairn the 7770 is Cape Verde its own. which means its not clear cut.

You seem not to understand that the gpu can only allocate upto 4gb does not mean typical usage cant be be 2-3gb.again you missed the key point The more complex and open the game is less VRAM that can be allocated.. like ISS needing 2.5gb for system/game cache leaving 2gb left is prime example.

Buffoon? are we getting testy now? because you are losing against your nonsense....

Fact is that Bethesda textures are not optimized, so they take up more space than necessary, and don't look as good as they should based on their usage. Modern games that are optimized correctly do not see the over buffer issue because those games adjust the streaming and allocation to to fit the gpu's buffer limit. which is why you do not see massive differences between 1gb vs 2gb etc.

Again by the time the 270 needs more then 2gb to handle 1080 gaming the PS4 will be the same boat where it does not have the processing power to handle the workloads needed.

No the PS4 does not have processing power to correctly use 5gb of memory lol, Hell AMD's 6900 series based on the same math can handle upto 4.5gb but yet we know those gpu's cant handle the modern workload. OMG ROFL PS4 can use more then 5gb that's a new low for you when you ignore the fact that there is only under normal circumstances 4.5gb of shared physical memory pool with a max of 5gb with a disabled a set feature or features from PS4.

This^

The ps4 simply does not have the power to outperform a much more powerful pc (not sure about if r7 270 is enough though), the ps4 gpu will be the bottleneck way before games actually start use more than 2gb vram at 1080p.

Well, the master race isn't known for their looks. They have to fall back on something.

First dates must be a pain, dragging their pc with them everywhere. One of the many reasons the steambox was made I guess.

@tormentos: Doesn't the the 7850 has three versions? 1GB, 2GB(the original) and 4GB? Weren't the 2GB and 4GB versions revealed to perform basically the same on the 4GB version's reviews/benchmarks? Isn't the PS4 GPU more powerful than a 7850 yet less powerful than a 7870? Why is Skyrim the only game that shows a difference in performance? Why are you using this outlier as the base of your whole argument?