PS2 to Xbox360 GPU jump vs Xbox360 to PS4 GPU jump....

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]

[QUOTE="True_Gamer_"]

How big was the upgrade in graphics from PS2 to Xbox360? Does the upgrade from X360 to PS4 even compare?

blackace

The Xbox 360 tops out at 0.25 TFLOPS

The Playstation 4 tops out at 1.84 TFLOPS

I'd call that a rather HUGE upgrade.

PS3 topped out at .40 TFLOPS.

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]

[QUOTE="True_Gamer_"]

How big was the upgrade in graphics from PS2 to Xbox360? Does the upgrade from X360 to PS4 even compare?

blackace

The Xbox 360 tops out at 0.25 TFLOPS

The Playstation 4 tops out at 1.84 TFLOPS

I'd call that a rather HUGE upgrade.

it's more difficult to nail down PS3 gflops because Cell figures into it. Sony gave some crazy numbers (Can't remember exactly what they were) that were much higher than 360's but it never achieved anything like the performance they were claiming. So technically it can be said to be higher than 250 gflops but in my mind that's basically what both the current consoles are in real world performance.

[QUOTE="genfactor"]Jumps in graphics get smaller with every generation because of the law of diminishing returns.nameless12345

They are getting bigger but the difference is getting harder to spot.

The jumps in previous console gens seemed massive because of the big polygon-count, AA and resolution increases but now it's harder to see the difference between a 40k poly model with high-res normal maps & last gen, 20k poly model with lower-res normal maps.

The "graphics race" isn't so significant anymore as it once was, altho devs invest heavily into graphics, still.

These are the tested and most accurate TFLOP/GFLOP numbers to date (PS4 and XB1 are tested against AMD equivalent PC GPUs, since nobody has gotten ahold of the actual console GPUs yet):

PS4 = 1.85 TFLOPS MAX

Xbox One = 1.3 TFLOPS MAX (with recent clock upgrade)

PS3 = .40 TFLOPS MAX

Wii U = .35 TFLOPS MAX

Xbox 360 = 0.25 TFLOPS MAX

XBOX = 21.6 GFLOPS

PS2 = 6.2 GFLOPS

Wii = 2.9 GFLOPS

Dreamcast = 1.4 GFLOPS

EDIT - I forgot to add Wii U.

[QUOTE="navyguy21"][QUOTE="Wickerman777"]

There are articles EVERYWHERE that get into fine detail about why PS4 is more powerful. I'm not about to spend a freaking hour typing out all that stuff to you. If you're gonna be outside of the cave you've apparently been spending so much of your time in for a few more minutes check some of them out.

Wickerman777

It's a 500-600 gflops difference, more than 2 360s' worth of power. In your world perhaps that's nothing, in mine it's a pretty big difference.

These are the tested and most accurate TFLOP/GFLOP numbers to date (PS4 and XB1 are tested against AMD equivalent PC GPUs, since nobody has gotten ahold of the actual console GPUs yet):

 

 

PS4 = 1.85 TFLOPS MAX

Xbox One = 1.3 TFLOPS MAX (with recent clock upgrade)

PS3 = .40 TFLOPS MAX

Xbox 360 = 0.25 TFLOPS MAX

XBOX = 21.6 GFLOPS

PS2 = 6.2 GFLOPS

Wii = 2.9 GFLOPS

Dreamcast = 1.4 GFLOPS

 

Netherscourge

Still don't believe the PS3 is 400 gflops. Maybe in theoreticals, but not in real world performance. And wow, those Xb1 vs PS2 numbers are hard to believe. Xb1 was probably twice as powerful as PS2 but not 4X. This sort of thing is why comparing different architectures is diffiult. The nice thing about the upcoming consoles is that the architectures are similar and you can compare them in a more apples to apples way.

[QUOTE="True_Gamer_"]

How big was the upgrade in graphics from PS2 to Xbox360? Does the upgrade from X360 to PS4 even compare?

Netherscourge

The Xbox 360 tops out at 0.25 TFLOPS

The Playstation 4 tops out at 1.84 TFLOPS

I'd call that a rather HUGE upgrade.

It was said that "Samaritan tech demo" (still running on Unreal Engine 3) would require 2.5 TFLOPS to run ideally:

If Sony and/or MS picked a Radeon 7870 (which is rated at about 2.5 TFLOPS), we could be seeing this game materialize in it's "unaltered" state.

But I guess with optimizations and the new UE4 we gonna see close results anyway.

Where are my $700+ consoles sold at $400? http://www.joystiq.com/2005/12/28/xbox-360-costs-715-to-make/True_Gamer_

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]

These are the tested and most accurate TFLOP/GFLOP numbers to date (PS4 and XB1 are tested against AMD equivalent PC GPUs, since nobody has gotten ahold of the actual console GPUs yet):

 

 

PS4 = 1.85 TFLOPS MAX

Xbox One = 1.3 TFLOPS MAX (with recent clock upgrade)

PS3 = .40 TFLOPS MAX

Xbox 360 = 0.25 TFLOPS MAX

XBOX = 21.6 GFLOPS

PS2 = 6.2 GFLOPS

Wii = 2.9 GFLOPS

Dreamcast = 1.4 GFLOPS

 

Wickerman777

Still don't believe the PS3 is 400 gflops. Maybe in theoreticals, but not in real world performance. And wow, those Xb1 vs PS2 numbers are hard to believe. Xb1 was probably twice as powerful as PS2 but not 4X. This sort of thing is why comparing different architectures is diffiult. The nice thing about the upcoming consoles is that the architectures are similar and you can compare them in a more apples to apples way.

PS3 had factually more FLOPS perfromance than X360 thanks to it's CPU.

But it's graphical capabilities were below those of X360 because of a worse graphics chip.

More raw power doesn't always equate to much better graphics, if the graphics hardware isn't on-par. (see Sega Genesis vs SNES - Genesis had stronger CPU but worse graphics because of worse graphics chip)

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]

These are the tested and most accurate TFLOP/GFLOP numbers to date (PS4 and XB1 are tested against AMD equivalent PC GPUs, since nobody has gotten ahold of the actual console GPUs yet):

 

 

PS4 = 1.85 TFLOPS MAX

Xbox One = 1.3 TFLOPS MAX (with recent clock upgrade)

PS3 = .40 TFLOPS MAX

Xbox 360 = 0.25 TFLOPS MAX

XBOX = 21.6 GFLOPS

PS2 = 6.2 GFLOPS

Wii = 2.9 GFLOPS

Dreamcast = 1.4 GFLOPS

 

Wickerman777

Still don't believe the PS3 is 400 gflops. Maybe in theoreticals, but not in real world performance. And wow, those Xb1 vs PS2 numbers are hard to believe. Xb1 was probably twice as powerful as PS2 but not 4X. This sort of thing is why comparing different architectures is diffiult. The nice thing about the upcoming consoles is that the architectures are similar and you can compare them in a more apples to apples way.

Developers designed most multiplats for the Xbox 360 at 21.6 GFLOPS MAX and ported 99% of those games over to the PS3 at around the same level, ignoring the extra Cell CPUs just to save money and development time. The result of that lack of mutlithreading + less RAM meant 360 games looked and ran better. Only Sony's 1st party developers bothered going all-out with the hardware.

- Xbox 360 has 278.4 GB/s of memory system bandwidth. The PS3 has 48 GB/s of total memory system bandwidth. So naturally, if you ignore the extra Cell CPUs picking up the slack, you will have inferior performance. But that's just lazy developing and bad SDKs.

This time around, both machines are 8-core Jaguars, both machines have CLOSE to the same TFLOP levels and both machines are X86-64 architecture. The games should look and run identical, even if lazy developers go with the "slower" Xbox One specs, which aren't that much slower to begin with.

Xbox One's advantage = Direct X 11.2

PS4's Advantage = Low Level access to more powerful hardware API.

Both systems will crank out some awesome graphics, just in different ways.

1st party lifetime exclusives should be pretty freaking amazing for each console and multiplate should run almost identically in ever way.

Bascially, you just pick whichever system has the exclusives you prefer. WIN-WIN all around.

The jump is big......from PS3/720p to PS4/1080p.Yes it is big.AtariKidX

No it's not.

These are the tested and most accurate TFLOP/GFLOP numbers to date (PS4 and XB1 are tested against AMD equivalent PC GPUs, since nobody has gotten ahold of the actual console GPUs yet):

 

 

PS4 = 1.85 TFLOPS MAX

Xbox One = 1.3 TFLOPS MAX (with recent clock upgrade)

PS3 = .40 TFLOPS MAX

Wii U = .35 TFLOPS MAX

Xbox 360 = 0.25 TFLOPS MAX

XBOX = 21.6 GFLOPS

PS2 = 6.2 GFLOPS

Wii = 2.9 GFLOPS

Dreamcast = 1.4 GFLOPS

 

 

 

EDIT - I forgot to add Wii U.

 

Netherscourge

You know whats funny?

You could measure the Next-Gen consoles in Wii U units!

The PS4 = 5.29 Wi Us

The Xbox One = 3.74 Wii Us

The PS4 has 1.41 more "Wii Us" of power than the Xbox One.

:P

Ok, I need to go to bed.

;)

These are the tested and most accurate TFLOP/GFLOP numbers to date (PS4 and XB1 are tested against AMD equivalent PC GPUs, since nobody has gotten ahold of the actual console GPUs yet):

 

 

PS4 = 1.85 TFLOPS MAX

Xbox One = 1.3 TFLOPS MAX (with recent clock upgrade)

PS3 = .40 TFLOPS MAX

Wii U = .35 TFLOPS MAX

Xbox 360 = 0.25 TFLOPS MAX

XBOX = 21.6 GFLOPS

PS2 = 6.2 GFLOPS

Wii = 2.9 GFLOPS

Dreamcast = 1.4 GFLOPS

 

 

 

EDIT - I forgot to add Wii U.

 

Netherscourge

Going from SD to HD was ridiculous; going from 2D to 3D was even more ridiculous. This gen's leap is meh especially when compared to what the PC can already do.22Toothpicks

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]

True_Gamer_

GPU wise, the RSX has 176gflops maximum of theoretical power. The PS4's card is nearly 10 times more powerful than the RSX, and because the difference in architecture and not memory starved it can be even more powerful theoretically.

The original xbox had a custom NV2A chip which had about 20Gflops. Comparing both the RSX and NV2A chip, we get that the RSX is nearly 9 times more powerful than the Nvidia Geforce 3 custom chip. The Xenos is 240gflops, so 12 times more powerful.

The only big difference this time around is the weaker CPU. The card jumps are pretty similar, so please stop the BS comparisons.

[QUOTE="True_Gamer_"][QUOTE="Netherscourge"]

Razor_defiace

GPU wise, the RSX has 176gflops maximum of theoretical power. The PS4's card is nearly 10 times more powerful than the RSX, and because the difference in architecture and not memory starved it can be even more powerful theoretically.

The original xbox had a custom NV2A chip which had about 20Gflops. Comparing both the RSX and NV2A chip, we get that the RSX is nearly 9 times more powerful than the Nvidia Geforce 3 custom chip. The Xenos is 240gflops, so 12 times more powerful.

The only big difference this time around is the weaker CPU. The card jumps are pretty similar, so please stop the BS comparisons.

Whatever happened to looking forward when it comes to console design? It's been a long time, 8 years, but memory is telling me that when 360 came out it had a GPU in it that wasn't even on the PC market yet. Didn't the PC version come out later? Fast forward to now and we're getting consoles with Radeon 7000 GPU tech in them, which has been out a while already and will be getting replaced with Volcanic Islands late this year or early next year. Had this gone down the way 360 did Volcanic Islands is the architecture these consoles should be using.

These are the tested and most accurate TFLOP/GFLOP numbers to date (PS4 and XB1 are tested against AMD equivalent PC GPUs, since nobody has gotten ahold of the actual console GPUs yet):

 

 

PS4 = 1.85 TFLOPS MAX

Xbox One = 1.3 TFLOPS MAX (with recent clock upgrade)

PS3 = .40 TFLOPS MAX

Wii U = .35 TFLOPS MAX

Xbox 360 = 0.25 TFLOPS MAX

XBOX = 21.6 GFLOPS

PS2 = 6.2 GFLOPS

Wii = 2.9 GFLOPS

Dreamcast = 1.4 GFLOPS

 

 

 

EDIT - I forgot to add Wii U.

 

Netherscourge

I want my $500 GPU in consoles like in Nov 2005 not $150 one like now....The X1900XT was the only one that could battle the 360....Today equivalent is the 780GTX...True_Gamer_

Well tough luck, because it's rare that consoles would use extremely powerful components in general (especially today). It's like you were born today or something.

It's absolutely ludicrous to expect consoles to match a high-end gaming PC, just like it was ludicrous back then when there were arcade cabinets. It's a rare case that usually doesn't happen unless the company has other ways to make up for the loss per console. Sony used to do it, but as we all saw - the PS3 was a major money sink and wasn't profitable for years. The 360 was a money sink too, but it managed to recuperate a lot of the money through xbox live, proprietary HDDs, cheaper components and other things.

The console consumer doesn't really care about high-end graphics, and they won't buy a console just solely because it's more powerful (as proven by the Xbox and Gamecube).  

People dont like to admit it, but we are in the era of greatly diminishing returns on hardware power.

I think John Carmack made a great point during quakecon when he said the gpus in next gen consoles are powerful enough to not be limiting to developer's creative visions on a rendering basis outside of rare things like fur. He also doesnt think there is much to be gained from increased gpu power until hardware becomes powerful enough to enable real time ray tracing... which is still a ways off. He even went on to say he thinks GPU power in high end PCs and ps4 is a bit overkill and he expects to see gpus utilized alot more for things like physics calculations rather than just rendering pixels like we are used to.

and i agree with him, until we hit a milestone like ray tracing... adding more raw gpu power beyond what next gen consoles are capable of, will have very minor graphical benefit. And outside of screenshot wars over minor details between fanboys we are hitting somewhat of a brick wall in terms of what brute forcing graphics non the backs of gpus can accomplish.

[QUOTE="True_Gamer_"] I want my $500 GPU in consoles like in Nov 2005 not $150 one like now....The X1900XT was the only one that could battle the 360....Today equivalent is the 780GTX...Razor_defiace

Well tough luck, because it's rare that consoles would use extremely powerful components in general (especially today). It's like you were born today or something.

It's absolutely ludicrous to expect consoles to match a high-end gaming PC, just like it was ludicrous back then when there were arcade cabinets. It's a rare case that usually doesn't happen unless the company has other ways to make up for the loss per console. Sony used to do it, but as we all saw - the PS3 was a major money sink and wasn't profitable for years. The 360 was a money sink too, but it managed to recuperate a lot of the money through xbox live, proprietary HDDs, cheaper components and other things.

The console consumer doesn't really care about high-end graphics, and they won't buy a console just solely because it's more powerful (as proven by the Xbox and Gamecube).  

These are the tested and most accurate TFLOP/GFLOP numbers to date (PS4 and XB1 are tested against AMD equivalent PC GPUs, since nobody has gotten ahold of the actual console GPUs yet):

 

 

PS4 = 1.85 TFLOPS MAX

Xbox One = 1.3 TFLOPS MAX (with recent clock upgrade)

PS3 = .40 TFLOPS MAX

Wii U = .35 TFLOPS MAX

Xbox 360 = 0.25 TFLOPS MAX

XBOX = 21.6 GFLOPS

PS2 = 6.2 GFLOPS

Wii = 2.9 GFLOPS

Dreamcast = 1.4 GFLOPS

 

 

 

EDIT - I forgot to add Wii U.

 

Netherscourge

These are the tested and most accurate TFLOP/GFLOP numbers to date (PS4 and XB1 are tested against AMD equivalent PC GPUs, since nobody has gotten ahold of the actual console GPUs yet):

PS4 = 1.85 TFLOPS MAX

Xbox One = 1.3 TFLOPS MAX (with recent clock upgrade)

PS3 = .40 TFLOPS MAX

Wii U = .35 TFLOPS MAX

Xbox 360 = 0.25 TFLOPS MAX

XBOX = 21.6 GFLOPS

PS2 = 6.2 GFLOPS

Wii = 2.9 GFLOPS

Dreamcast = 1.4 GFLOPS

EDIT - I forgot to add Wii U.

Whatever happened to looking forward when it comes to console design? It's been a long time, 8 years, but memory is telling me that when 360 came out it had a GPU in it that wasn't even on the PC market yet. Didn't the PC version come out later? Fast forward to now and we're getting consoles with Radeon 7000 GPU tech in them, which has been out a while already and will be getting replaced with Volcanic Islands late this year or early next year. Had this gone down the way 360 did Volcanic Islands is the architecture these consoles should be using.

Wickerman777

AMD plans to release Volcanic Islands during AMD's Developer Summit 2013 i.e. November 11-14, 2013.

http://semiaccurate.com/2013/07/17/keynotes-for-amd-developer-summit-2013-announced/

[QUOTE="Razor_defiace"]

[QUOTE="True_Gamer_"] I want my $500 GPU in consoles like in Nov 2005 not $150 one like now....The X1900XT was the only one that could battle the 360....Today equivalent is the 780GTX...True_Gamer_

Well tough luck, because it's rare that consoles would use extremely powerful components in general (especially today). It's like you were born today or something.

It's absolutely ludicrous to expect consoles to match a high-end gaming PC, just like it was ludicrous back then when there were arcade cabinets. It's a rare case that usually doesn't happen unless the company has other ways to make up for the loss per console. Sony used to do it, but as we all saw - the PS3 was a major money sink and wasn't profitable for years. The 360 was a money sink too, but it managed to recuperate a lot of the money through xbox live, proprietary HDDs, cheaper components and other things.

The console consumer doesn't really care about high-end graphics, and they won't buy a console just solely because it's more powerful (as proven by the Xbox and Gamecube).  

What is the test of time though?

Whats the benefit of more powerful hardware if you are playing open world games at 1080p? Fact of the matter is there is no significant benefit to increased hardware power. The next graphical milestone after 1080p is ray tracing, and they obviously cant use hardware capable of that.

Outside of creating a world so dense with foliage the player cant see anything, there is no major benefit to more raw power at this point. Its getting to the point where major upgrades in gpu power only result in minor graphical upgrades. Its simply a non issue.

Sure the launch titles definitely have room for improvement, but if you compare the launch titles of the current gen, to the games of today once the next gen titles experiences that level of improvement there is going to be very little benefit to stronger hardware.

EDIT: you have to realize the hardware engineers arent thinking in terms of screen shot wars on forums and per pixel comparisons, they are thinking in terms of noticeable benefit to the consumer and their gaming experience. And if devs have adequate power to create their vision at 1080p on the hardware, there is very little realized benefit to going above and beyond that.

The wiiu is ctually 160 gflops or .16 tflops

[QUOTE="Razor_defiace"]

 The thing is that if a console starts with a $500 GPU it stands the test of time and doesnt become a walking joke. Look at X1900XT: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html Its equivalent of a 430 GT a cheap graphics card launched october 2010 at $80....so nearly 5 years to drop to a $80 GPU to compare to the 360. Now look at this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131482 $150 bucks....What will happen to it in 5 years? Imagine Microsoft putting this: http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/ATI-Radeon-X1600-XT-Review/230 In the 360....a 2005 $150 GPU..... What would be the 360 running after 2 years? Hell the 37 dollar 6450 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102933 would run all 360 games maxed... So IMO its not sane to put cr@p hardware in the console that is designed to last 7+years...True_Gamer_

Seriously, just don't buy a console and stop with the shitty trolling. It's not that hard really. 

Last generation, even though had amazing hardware for the time-- was also the worst console generation ever. Hardware matters, but lets be frank here-- the PS2 was one of the best consoles of all time and its main point wasn't hardware -but game library. 

[QUOTE="True_Gamer_"][QUOTE="Razor_defiace"]

 The thing is that if a console starts with a $500 GPU it stands the test of time and doesnt become a walking joke. Look at X1900XT: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html Its equivalent of a 430 GT a cheap graphics card launched october 2010 at $80....so nearly 5 years to drop to a $80 GPU to compare to the 360. Now look at this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131482 $150 bucks....What will happen to it in 5 years? Imagine Microsoft putting this: http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/ATI-Radeon-X1600-XT-Review/230 In the 360....a 2005 $150 GPU..... What would be the 360 running after 2 years? Hell the 37 dollar 6450 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102933 would run all 360 games maxed... So IMO its not sane to put cr@p hardware in the console that is designed to last 7+years...Razor_defiace

Seriously, just don't buy a console and stop with the shitty trolling. It's not that hard really. 

Last generation, even though had amazing hardware for the time-- was also the worst console generation ever. Hardware matters, but lets be frank here-- the PS2 was one of the best consoles of all time and its main point wasn't hardware -but game library. 

Better hardware was a big deal for the ps2 until the gc and xbox came outTheKingIAm

It's always a big deal in consolites minds. Objectively, it's not.

I was hardly impressed by the game graphics in early PS2 games, and wasn't impressed until later in its life-time. But it wasn't because of the textures and stuff like that, but by the artistic visions that were presented in games such as Shadow of the Colossus.  

Diminshing Returns

The wiiu is ctually 160 gflops or .16 tflops

TheKingIAm

[QUOTE="TheKingIAm"]

The wiiu is ctually 160 gflops or .16 tflops

faizan_faizan

[QUOTE="True_Gamer_"][QUOTE="Razor_defiace"]

 The thing is that if a console starts with a $500 GPU it stands the test of time and doesnt become a walking joke. Look at X1900XT: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html Its equivalent of a 430 GT a cheap graphics card launched october 2010 at $80....so nearly 5 years to drop to a $80 GPU to compare to the 360. Now look at this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131482 $150 bucks....What will happen to it in 5 years? Imagine Microsoft putting this: http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/ATI-Radeon-X1600-XT-Review/230 In the 360....a 2005 $150 GPU..... What would be the 360 running after 2 years? Hell the 37 dollar 6450 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102933 would run all 360 games maxed... So IMO its not sane to put cr@p hardware in the console that is designed to last 7+years...Razor_defiace

Seriously, just don't buy a console and stop with the shitty trolling. It's not that hard really. 

Last generation, even though had amazing hardware for the time-- was also the worst console generation ever. Hardware matters, but lets be frank here-- the PS2 was one of the best consoles of all time and its main point wasn't hardware -but game library. 

The wiiu is ctually 160 gflops or .16 tflops

TheKingIAm

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-8790m-mars-benchmark,3382-7.html

AMD 8790M GCN with 6 CUs (384 stream processors, 8 ROPS) @ 850Mhz = 652 GFLOPS.

AMD 7670M VLIW5 with 6 CUs (480 stream processors, 8 ROPS) @ 600Mhz = 576 GFLOPS

AMD 8790M is more efficient than 7670M.

Whatever happened to looking forward when it comes to console design? It's been a long time, 8 years, but memory is telling me that when 360 came out it had a GPU in it that wasn't even on the PC market yet. Didn't the PC version come out later? Fast forward to now and we're getting consoles with Radeon 7000 GPU tech in them, which has been out a while already and will be getting replaced with Volcanic Islands late this year or early next year. Had this gone down the way 360 did Volcanic Islands is the architecture these consoles should be using.

Wickerman777

The new design thing is unified, APU architecture.

Show me a PC APU that rivals PS4's & X1's.

Hint: there are none as of yet.

Yes, the first Xbox and 360 were very advanced for their times.

But they also were bringing almost a pure loss to MS for the first few years.

The first Xbox was borderline un-profittable and they dropped it like a brick when the 360 came out.

And still, they both had issues with memory shortage later on.

The next-gen will probably be the first gen when consoles will actually have the RAM to accomodate the CPU and GPU.

And let's not forget about 360's over-heating issues.

Do you really want to know what would happen with a Nvidia Titan or Radeon 7990 in a compact console case?

[QUOTE="Wickerman777"]

Whatever happened to looking forward when it comes to console design? It's been a long time, 8 years, but memory is telling me that when 360 came out it had a GPU in it that wasn't even on the PC market yet. Didn't the PC version come out later? Fast forward to now and we're getting consoles with Radeon 7000 GPU tech in them, which has been out a while already and will be getting replaced with Volcanic Islands late this year or early next year. Had this gone down the way 360 did Volcanic Islands is the architecture these consoles should be using.

nameless12345

The new design thing is unified, APU architecture.

Show me a PC APU that rivals PS4's & X1's.

Hint: there are none as of yet.

Yes, the first Xbox and 360 were very advanced for their times.

But they also were bringing almost a pure loss to MS for the first few years.

The first Xbox was borderline un-profittable and they dropped it like a brick when the 360 came out.

And still, they both had issues with memory shortage later on.

The next-gen will probably be the first gen when consoles will actually have the RAM to accomodate the CPU and GPU.

Atm, X1 and PS4's APUs are not released for retail.

[QUOTE="Razor_defiace"]

[QUOTE="True_Gamer_"][QUOTE="Razor_defiace"]

 The thing is that if a console starts with a $500 GPU it stands the test of time and doesnt become a walking joke. Look at X1900XT: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html Its equivalent of a 430 GT a cheap graphics card launched october 2010 at $80....so nearly 5 years to drop to a $80 GPU to compare to the 360. Now look at this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131482 $150 bucks....What will happen to it in 5 years? Imagine Microsoft putting this: http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/ATI-Radeon-X1600-XT-Review/230 In the 360....a 2005 $150 GPU..... What would be the 360 running after 2 years? Hell the 37 dollar 6450 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102933 would run all 360 games maxed... So IMO its not sane to put cr@p hardware in the console that is designed to last 7+years...True_Gamer_

Seriously, just don't buy a console and stop with the shitty trolling. It's not that hard really. 

Last generation, even though had amazing hardware for the time-- was also the worst console generation ever. Hardware matters, but lets be frank here-- the PS2 was one of the best consoles of all time and its main point wasn't hardware -but game library. 

And which console outdid $1200 worth of PC hardware?

360?

lol, it couldn't even run Oblivion past 720p and with big framerate drops and reduced texture detail...

Also, PS3 was dated on release unless we count the CELL and blu-ray drive as "big steps forward".

You could get a sub-700$ PC that trashed the PS3 in graphics and that was not far-off from PS3's launch price of 599$.

[QUOTE="True_Gamer_"][QUOTE="Razor_defiace"]

 

Seriously, just don't buy a console and stop with the shitty trolling. It's not that hard really. 

Last generation, even though had amazing hardware for the time-- was also the worst console generation ever. Hardware matters, but lets be frank here-- the PS2 was one of the best consoles of all time and its main point wasn't hardware -but game library. 

nameless12345

And which console outdid $1200 worth of PC hardware?

360?

lol, it couldn't even run Oblivion past 720p and with big framerate drops and reduced texture detail...

Also, PS3 was dated on release unless we count the CELL and blu-ray drive as "big steps forward".

You could get a sub-700$ PC that trashed the PS3 in graphics and that was not far-off from PS3's launch price of 599$.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="True_Gamer_"] We will see the test of time...Also my point is that if youre competing against $1200 PC hardware you make a point...You say to the consumer: If you want comparable experience in late 2005 fork out 3 times the cost of console. Now Sony sais: Here is a $400 console with paid online which needs a $600 PC to compared DAY ONE! See the difference? @BeardMaster http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvaGd4KqlvQ 8:55 This is the next step...no ray tracing whatsoever...True_Gamer_

And which console outdid $1200 worth of PC hardware?

360?

lol, it couldn't even run Oblivion past 720p and with big framerate drops and reduced texture detail...

Also, PS3 was dated on release unless we count the CELL and blu-ray drive as "big steps forward".

You could get a sub-700$ PC that trashed the PS3 in graphics and that was not far-off from PS3's launch price of 599$.

You said $1200 worth of PC hardware. ;)

But if you want to - when the 360 came out, a GeForce 7800 GT card (c.a. 300$ at the time) was still pretty competitive to it.

For example it ran Quake 4 better than 360 and could run Oblivion at 1280x1024. (higher res than 360)

Generational jumps are constantly shrinking since.

Generational jumps are constantly shrinking since.

Link3301

Note that PS2 had a pretty bad GPU to begin with.

It was about on-par with a GeForce 1/2 in performance but it couldn't even do anti-aliasing or bump-mapping.

The GPU in PS4 is about 7-8 times better than the one in PS3 and supports much newer graphics effects so it's not bad.

[QUOTE="True_Gamer_"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

 

And which console outdid $1200 worth of PC hardware?

360?

lol, it couldn't even run Oblivion past 720p and with big framerate drops and reduced texture detail...

Also, PS3 was dated on release unless we count the CELL and blu-ray drive as "big steps forward".

You could get a sub-700$ PC that trashed the PS3 in graphics and that was not far-off from PS3's launch price of 599$.

nameless12345

You said $1200 worth of PC hardware. ;)

But if you want to - when the 360 came out, a GeForce 7800 GT card (c.a. 300$ at the time) was still pretty competitive to it.

For example it ran Quake 4 better than 360 and could run Oblivion at 1280x1024. (higher res than 360)

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="True_Gamer_"] November 2005...Link me a PC at 699$ that rivaled the 360.....True_Gamer_

You said $1200 worth of PC hardware. ;)

But if you want to - when the 360 came out, a GeForce 7800 GT card (c.a. 300$ at the time) was still pretty competitive to it.

For example it ran Quake 4 better than 360 and could run Oblivion at 1280x1024. (higher res than 360)

The card can run at 1280x1024 high setting at an average of 17fps with HDR on. If you adjust to xbox settings (medium), you would get higher framerates and you can also up the resolution a bit. 

The xbox version also doesn't run at a solid 30fps, it drops to 20fps and sometimes dips a bit lower in certain areas. 

Well there are a couple things at play. The first is the most important point

1. With each successive generation, the grahpical leaps are going to get smaller and smaller as the human eye begins to have a harder time telling the more sutble differences as games get closer to photorealism.  The harware to power very small but integral changes is tremendous and you can look at DX11 and tessellation as evidence as turning that feature on and off in games greatly costs GPU resources and minimally adds IQ (Image quality). 

2. Yes, the companies this time around are not going for bleeding edge technology to sell the consoles for quite the loss that they were in the past (probably took a page or two out of Ninty's book).  The 360 GPU was similar to a high end AMD at the time of launch.  Come November, the AMD 7850 that the PS4 GPU is most akin to, is a very very mid tier GPU. 

This won't matter in the scheme of things as the consoles will ultimately sell, provide great gaming experiences and I think Sony and MS are both realizing that they are going to have to be creative with their software to capture the consumers that they want.  I don't think MS or Sony are happy with the number of units sold this gen and I think they are going to focus more on their unique approach to gaming as opposed to focusing on raw horsepower or who "delivers the better port" so to speak. 

For PC gamers this is good because the porting should be easier because they are using more developer friendly kits and because the power needed to run the games should be less given the consoles specs.  Also given the prominence PC gaming has been getting over the past generation of gaming (2005 to present) I think we will see more exclusives come the way of the PC as Steam has really breathed a lot of fresh life into the platform and it is much more accessible than it was a generation ago.  Most everyone knows someone with a gaming PC nowadays and I don't think it had that type of userbase a generation ago.  Digital Distribution truly saved PC gaming IMO (Steam and to a smaller degree Origin).  Direct2drive and others just can't compete.  Steam is fantastic and I prefer using Steam over XBL and PSN.  I have purchased more PC games than I ever would have if I had to go to a brick and mortar and purchase my games. 

[QUOTE="True_Gamer_"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

 

You said $1200 worth of PC hardware. ;)

But if you want to - when the 360 came out, a GeForce 7800 GT card (c.a. 300$ at the time) was still pretty competitive to it.

For example it ran Quake 4 better than 360 and could run Oblivion at 1280x1024. (higher res than 360)

Razor_defiace

The card can run at 1280x1024 high setting at an average of 17fps with HDR on. If you adjust to xbox settings (medium), you would get higher framerates and you can also up the resolution a bit. 

The xbox version also doesn't run at a solid 30fps, it drops to 20fps and sometimes dips a bit lower in certain areas. 

the locked 30fps on console would need at least a 40fps unlocked average for pc to realistically match the performance. 

Well there are a couple things at play. The first is the most important point

1. With each successive generation, the grahpical leaps are going to get smaller and smaller as the human eye begins to have a harder time telling the more sutble differences as games get closer to photorealism.  The harware to power very small but integral changes is tremendous and you can look at DX11 and tessellation as evidence as turning that feature on and off in games greatly costs GPU resources and minimally adds IQ (Image quality). 

2. Yes, the companies this time around are not going for bleeding edge technology to sell the consoles for quite the loss that they were in the past (probably took a page or two out of Ninty's book).  The 360 GPU was similar to a high end AMD at the time of launch.  Come November, the AMD 7850 that the PS4 GPU is most akin to, is a very very mid tier GPU. 

 

This won't matter in the scheme of things as the consoles will ultimately sell, provide great gaming experiences and I think Sony and MS are both realizing that they are going to have to be creative with their software to capture the consumers that they want.  I don't think MS or Sony are happy with the number of units sold this gen and I think they are going to focus more on their unique approach to gaming as opposed to focusing on raw horsepower or who "delivers the better port" so to speak. 

For PC gamers this is good because the porting should be easier because they are using more developer friendly kits and because the power needed to run the games should be less given the consoles specs.  Also given the prominence PC gaming has been getting over the past generation of gaming (2005 to present) I think we will see more exclusives come the way of the PC as Steam has really breathed a lot of fresh life into the platform and it is much more accessible than it was a generation ago.  Most everyone knows someone with a gaming PC nowadays and I don't think it had that type of userbase a generation ago.  Digital Distribution truly saved PC gaming IMO (Steam and to a smaller degree Origin).  Direct2drive and others just can't compete.  Steam is fantastic and I prefer using Steam over XBL and PSN.  I have purchased more PC games than I ever would have if I had to go to a brick and mortar and purchase my games. 

Dave_NBF