Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 113
  1. #26
    Forum Guru
    jlippone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Age
    37
    Posts
    3,817
    Rep Power
    85
    Points
    10,073 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by keefy View Post
    AMD OpenGL support sucks, games crash left and right.
    Then it's great thing that console developers do not have to use opengl, isn't it.

    Only way to currently get a 'bad' GPU for consoles is to get old of the shelves part, best is to get nice co-operation AMD or Nvidia and make something slightly more unique and preferrably something that is similar to future GPUs.
    'no, no one in their sane mind uses OpenGL on PS3' - Repi
    'nope, PS3 uses a wonderful low-level API called libgcm' - Repi

  2. #27
    Master Guru
    Bigdoggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Age
    34
    Posts
    6,382
    Rep Power
    72
    Points
    5,212 (11,045 Banked)
    Items Baby ChocoboPlayStationUser name style
    Quote Originally Posted by itachi73378 View Post
    I don't know but if the rumoured spec sheets circulating the web are true, nvidia's kepler is going to easily beat the 7000 series. So if the ps4 gpu is based on the 7000 series, I'm worried about power.
    yea, I'm looking at the specs. You better be ready to fork over, over $600 for that thing. they say, $300 - $400 price range but I don't believe it. even the GTX 590 is still selling over $600 o.O honestly, Nvidia can suck on it. way to overpriced and still always concentrating on highend PC GPU's rather then mid range GPU's. right there is the downfall. making the prices so damn high.

    honestly, there is only a couple games within a few years that actually use those highend cards, so little games that I can count them all on one hand.
    Last edited by Bigdoggy; 02-24-2012 at 16:11.

  3. #28
    Forum Sage
    Itachi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Winterfell
    PSN ID
    iwinulose042
    Age
    20
    Posts
    8,322
    Rep Power
    83
    Points
    30,849 (151,503 Banked)
    Items Final Fantasy XIII-2Final Fantasy XIIIFull Metal AlchemistDragon Ball ZNarutoDeath NoteNaughty DogLightningNoctisAssassins Creed EzioPS3 Slim
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigdoggy View Post
    yea, I'm looking at the specs. You better be ready to fork over, over $600 for that thing. they say, $300 - $400 price range but I don't believe it. even the GTX 590 is still selling over $600 o.O honestly, Nvidia can suck on it. way to overpriced and still always concentrating on highend PC GPU's rather then mid range GPU's. right there is the downfall. making the prices so damn high.

    honestly, there is only a couple games within a few years that actually use those highend cards, so little games that I can count them all on one hand.
    Yes but don't you think it is different for consoles as they need all the power they can get to prolong their lifespan.

  4. #29
    Power Member
    Dave-The-Rave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    PSN ID
    Dave-The-Rave
    Age
    25
    Posts
    17,060
    Rep Power
    127
    Points
    36,530 (0 Banked)
    Items Final Fantasy XIIIFinal Fantasy XFinal Fantasy IXFinal Fantasy VIIIFinal Fantasy VIIFinal Fantasy VI
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Don't really care about the technicals..all about the visuals.
    Trophy-licious!


    3DS: 3754-7606-9595

  5. #30
    Forum Sage
    Itachi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Winterfell
    PSN ID
    iwinulose042
    Age
    20
    Posts
    8,322
    Rep Power
    83
    Points
    30,849 (151,503 Banked)
    Items Final Fantasy XIII-2Final Fantasy XIIIFull Metal AlchemistDragon Ball ZNarutoDeath NoteNaughty DogLightningNoctisAssassins Creed EzioPS3 Slim
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave-The-Rave View Post
    Don't really care about the technicals..all about the visuals.
    That, and larger worlds with less pop in.
    i.e more memory required.

    Can't wait to see what rockstar does in GTAV

  6. #31
    Master Guru
    Bigdoggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Age
    34
    Posts
    6,382
    Rep Power
    72
    Points
    5,212 (11,045 Banked)
    Items Baby ChocoboPlayStationUser name style
    Quote Originally Posted by itachi73378 View Post
    Yes but don't you think it is different for consoles as they need all the power they can get to prolong their lifespan.
    The main point is, is it doesn't matter if the PS4 had a GTX590 in it, it would still be bottlenecked within 6 years time. Even if the PS4 had that Nvidia Kepler, I'll bet you anything you will see it age compared to the PC within even 3 to 4 years. Either way it's rubbish. Consoles do not have to compete with high end GPU's at all, they compete with mid to low end GPU's and that's all that matters.

    By the time the PS4 comes out, they could stick a 8800GTX in it and it would compete very well with the mid to low range current GPU's. The only difference here is the RAM factor between that. The lower amount of RAM you have the more tweaking a developer has to do.

    The only way a console would ever be toe to toe with graphical power is if they made the PS4 with the next GPU sets, in that case the PS4 would cost well around $800 to $900 then it would definitely go toe to toe with the PC for 6 or so years but even within that time the PC GPUs within 2 to 3 years would still be better. still though, that right there would definitely give the consoles a bump but you would be paying a huge price to go toe to toe with it.

  7. #32
    Superior Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    793
    Rep Power
    66
    Points
    5,855 (0 Banked)
    I am not as concerned with it having a high end graphics card as long as it has enough power. The point I think most worry about with graphic cards is going to be how much it will effect price. I would much rather them use new medium to high powered graphics card and save money for more ram. A nice plus would be if what they get can also be easy to port games over to the ps3 and vita as well. Having flexibility is great but I think devs would still like enough memory to make building games easier for them. Great devs like Naughty Dog, Sony Santa Monica, Bungie, Epic and the other top guys will still push to make the best looking games they can...but at least the less skilled devs will be able to get higher quality games out of the console if they have a more forgiving hardware.

  8. #33
    Superior Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Age
    29
    Posts
    987
    Rep Power
    54
    Points
    5,707 (0 Banked)
    It's not really about competing with PC's, it's mostly about competing with other consoles. A lot of console gamers stick to consoles over PC's due to the price vs performance. It's clearly MUCH more expensive to keep up with PC gaming than console gaming.

    Also not having to deal with all of the many issues that each could be caused by dozens of problems.

    It seems for years Nvidia and ATI (now AMD, though they haven't had the chance) switches back and fourth from which one is over priced, vs performance of course.

    Hopefully, whether or not the PS4 is AMD powered or not, I hope the next generation changes from this shooter dominating generation and give us a little more variety. And less glitch fest Bethesda games....
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparc View Post
    For goodness sake I hope nobody thinks to start labelling the console an Xbrick,
    oops
    -Regarding the Xbone A.K.A. the Xbrick

    "Faith - that's another word for ignorance isn't it?" -House

  9. #34
    Soldier 95B
    Guest
    I am less concerned about GPU/CPU and more concerned about the simplicity of what makes consoles so enjoyable. If I wanted to came on PC, I would game on PC. I want consoles to be simple, plug and play. I want to not have to worry about upgrading, drivers, etc. K.I.S.S.

  10. #35
    Master Guru
    Bigdoggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Age
    34
    Posts
    6,382
    Rep Power
    72
    Points
    5,212 (11,045 Banked)
    Items Baby ChocoboPlayStationUser name style
    What they need to do is while still Adding in a ton of more RAM to a console, they also need to make it Developer idie friendly. All those independant developers out there loved the PS1, the PS2 was harder but they still made games, PS3 = way to much money to developer for. I noticed a huge jump in PC indie devs once the PS3 hit, Even Xbox got that jump as well but the PS3 sure as hell didn't even come close, they lost that independent support that is very VERY important. That right there is Sony's fault, they better grab those reigns again and make it better.

    As for competing with PC, you almost have to but it's better to do it on a 6 year basis then saying "we are looking at a 10 year life cycle" which was just stupid of Sony to say, very stupid. The only reason why they said that in the first place was because the price of the system was so high, but the inner workings of the PS3 even when the first official spec sheet released proved the hardware wont last 10 years unless there is a stall somewhere in creating games.

    it's really many factors, price, lounging, etc etc. but that doesn't mean they have to sacrifice stupid things from the hardware. Put it this way, if the PS4 has only 2GB of RAM, it will be a bottleneck from the day it releases, heck even the PS3 was a bottleneck on day 1.

    This gen of consoles was NOT cheap by any means. Even with the PS3 cut as we see now, it's like 299? or something like that. everything else around that system was expensive, mainly costed as much as a damn PC for over 4 years of release. Buying an LCD, PS3, even got a surround sound system. point is, a console can create a cost of upwards to what a highend PC costs if you look outside of the box, even more might I add. for this gen, the whole "consoles are cheaper" is pretty false in my eyes.

  11. #36
    Superior Member
    TEJ2025's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    679
    Rep Power
    31
    Points
    1,603 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigdoggy View Post
    This gen of consoles was NOT cheap by any means. Even with the PS3 cut as we see now, it's like 299? or something like that. everything else around that system was expensive, mainly costed as much as a damn PC for over 4 years of release. Buying an LCD, PS3, even got a surround sound system. point is, a console can create a cost of upwards to what a highend PC costs if you look outside of the box, even more might I add. for this gen, the whole "consoles are cheaper" is pretty false in my eyes.
    Consoles are cheaper to gaming PC's when compared straight up. You can't add in that you have to buy a TV and a surround sound system too to make it more expensive to buy a console because you don't need that. Surround Sound is overkill and most people have TV's. Now people do add those extras which is fine but some (probably a lot) don't. For gaming PC's the Video Card and CPU alone can cost more than a console by themselves.
    It's funny that in this day in age people can steal as long as they have a reason too. Even if that reason is created by the thieves themselves.

  12. #37
    Super Elite
    Inzane2050's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,009
    Rep Power
    30
    Points
    9,729 (0 Banked)
    Consoles play on whatever TV on own. So as it has been said, you cannot go on about how console gaming is expensive with this whole "I spent $1200 on my new flat screen." I've seen someone do the same with PC gaming; I listed off a great build for only $400 and they tried to go on about how "nuh, uh! PC gaming is ridiculously expensive considering the $600 worth of accessories you have to buy!" (LOLWUT???) lol
    私は日本語がわかります。図書館で読みます。ビール飲みます。

  13. Likes TEJ2025 likes this post
  14. #38
    Master Guru
    Bigdoggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Age
    34
    Posts
    6,382
    Rep Power
    72
    Points
    5,212 (11,045 Banked)
    Items Baby ChocoboPlayStationUser name style
    either way it can be. do you honestly think you really need all that "shtuff" on a PC, they say quality and sometimes I say bs. honestly, once you get a good cpu after that it's really not that expensive. you don't have to update once a year and the people that do that are PC enthusiasts.

    If a console comes out when it first comes out and is better to be played in high definition, yes the PS3 was expensive for that reason and in that reason it was no different then a PC. surely you don't have to update a PS3 every year, it was how the PS3 started out. probably the most expensive console I ever had. I will also add in the accessories because like I said, the PS3 released with a HDTV in mind o.O

    take out the surround sound since it's not needed and PS3 wasn't built just for that in mind, what you have is the equal amount of what a high end top knotch PC would cost. by the way the HDTVs boosted with the release of the PS3 since it had that in mind in the first place. While it can be considered an accessory, that is what the Sony was going for with the PS3 in the first place.

    regardless it doesn't matter, my point was basically that the only way consoles would compete with PC gaming which they have to. it's not just them competing with consoles, they do still have to compete with the PC market. Which is why the next consoles that release will be even more capable compared to the 360 or PS3
    Last edited by Bigdoggy; 02-25-2012 at 02:03.

  15. #39
    Superior Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    793
    Rep Power
    66
    Points
    5,855 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigdoggy View Post
    either way it can be. do you honestly think you really need all that "shtuff" on a PC, they say quality and sometimes I say bs. honestly, once you get a good cpu after that it's really not that expensive. you don't have to update once a year and the people that do that are PC enthusiasts.

    If a console comes out when it first comes out and is better to be played in high definition, yes the PS3 was expensive for that reason and in that reason it was no different then a PC. surely you don't have to update a PS3 every year, it was how the PS3 started out. probably the most expensive console I ever had. I will also add in the accessories because like I said, the PS3 released with a HDTV in mind o.O

    take out the surround sound since it's not needed and PS3 wasn't built just for that in mind, what you have is the equal amount of what a high end top knotch PC would cost. by the way the HDTVs boosted with the release of the PS3 since it had that in mind in the first place. While it can be considered an accessory, that is what the Sony was going for with the PS3 in the first place.

    regardless it doesn't matter, my point was basically that the only way consoles would compete with PC gaming which they have to. it's not just them competing with consoles, they do still have to compete with the PC market. Which is why the next consoles that release will be even more capable compared to the 360 or PS3
    I think anyone who thinks consoles are competing with PCs as far as gaming goes is COMPLETELY ON CRACK! The largest selling game on PC in the last 10 years is WOW with about 6.2 million copies (like 1/2 of the best selling 360/PS3 game Blackops)....and if you look at the most successful games like COD which barely sells a million this gen I think you realize what can come out on a PC as far as graphics go is POINTLESS. All that matters is what your ACTUAL competition will have and that is XBOX and PS. They simply need a graphics card that will allow them to compete with other consoles or slightly outdo them. You don't think the graphics on the PS3 will stand up to those on a PC....it doesn't matter. Sure PC games can blow away console game graphics but NO developers and MOST gamers won't care because they will buy it on a console....and which ever console has the best features/graphics will likely get the majority of sales. Any PC conversation is stupid in my opinion on this discussion. The next graphics card only needs to be up to par or slightly better than the next xbox with a focus on good performance and lowering costs. Sure it needs to have some future-proof built into it but worrying about what PCs can crank out to me matters not..no matter how far they advance gaming graphics it doesn't get them more users or push consoles. Not saying PCs aren't important for benchmarking and pushing tech forward but as far as making a console obselete...it matters not. Only a new console or a better console will do that.

  16. Likes Itachi likes this post
  17. #40
    Master Poster
    ex nihilo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Age
    25
    Posts
    3,362
    Rep Power
    68
    Points
    2,080 (3,000 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by itachi73378 View Post
    I'm not so good with these things but last time I checked cache size were extremely small compared to main memory. Registers are even smaller. The most they can do is make the cache 2x or 3x larger? That still isn't enough. Considering the things ps3 has achieved EVEN WITH the infamous split memory pools, I think devs can handle it for next gen aswell.
    That was the order in the memory hierarchy, from fastest to slowest. By making the cache on the GPU larger, they can do some things much faster. Of course main memory (your ddr variant) needs a boost.
    PS4|PS3|PS2|PS1|PSVITA|XBOX 360|XBOX|N64|3DS XL|DSi|Gameboy Advance|Gameboy Color|PC

  18. #41
    Super Elite
    Inzane2050's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,009
    Rep Power
    30
    Points
    9,729 (0 Banked)
    Consoles wouldn't and shouldn't compete with PC. PC is a side note in the gaming industry due to piracy. Over 200 million PC gamers with PCs obviously more expensive than a $200-300 console and yet so many refuse to buy the same games even tho they are cheaper on PC. Which is why PC gets the port of the current generation consoles and not the other way around.
    私は日本語がわかります。図書館で読みます。ビール飲みます。

  19. #42
    Master Poster
    ex nihilo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Age
    25
    Posts
    3,362
    Rep Power
    68
    Points
    2,080 (3,000 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Inzane2050 View Post
    Consoles wouldn't and shouldn't compete with PC. PC is a side note in the gaming industry due to piracy. Over 200 million PC gamers with PCs obviously more expensive than a $200-300 console and yet so many refuse to buy the same games even tho they are cheaper on PC. Which is why PC gets the port of the current generation consoles and not the other way around.
    There are around 60 million PS3 users (I think from latest figures?) and the same for 360. While there are 200 million console owners out there, (counting any console here), only 56% have a current generation console according to an article posted in the the mulit-platform section here. If half of those 200 million gamers are buying PC games, isn't that more than console gamers buying "new" games?

    http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/02/21/al...with-pc-sales/

    I'm not saying your idea is dumb, but I think PC games can make devs a lot of money still.
    PS4|PS3|PS2|PS1|PSVITA|XBOX 360|XBOX|N64|3DS XL|DSi|Gameboy Advance|Gameboy Color|PC

  20. #43
    Master Guru
    Bigdoggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Age
    34
    Posts
    6,382
    Rep Power
    72
    Points
    5,212 (11,045 Banked)
    Items Baby ChocoboPlayStationUser name style
    Quote Originally Posted by davin_g View Post
    I think anyone who thinks consoles are competing with PCs as far as gaming goes is COMPLETELY ON CRACK! The largest selling game on PC in the last 10 years is WOW with about 6.2 million copies (like 1/2 of the best selling 360/PS3 game Blackops)....and if you look at the most successful games like COD which barely sells a million this gen I think you realize what can come out on a PC as far as graphics go is POINTLESS. All that matters is what your ACTUAL competition will have and that is XBOX and PS. They simply need a graphics card that will allow them to compete with other consoles or slightly outdo them. You don't think the graphics on the PS3 will stand up to those on a PC....it doesn't matter. Sure PC games can blow away console game graphics but NO developers and MOST gamers won't care because they will buy it on a console....and which ever console has the best features/graphics will likely get the majority of sales. Any PC conversation is stupid in my opinion on this discussion. The next graphics card only needs to be up to par or slightly better than the next xbox with a focus on good performance and lowering costs. Sure it needs to have some future-proof built into it but worrying about what PCs can crank out to me matters not..no matter how far they advance gaming graphics it doesn't get them more users or push consoles. Not saying PCs aren't important for benchmarking and pushing tech forward but as far as making a console obselete...it matters not. Only a new console or a better console will do that.
    saying I'm on crack to try and prove some point that still has yet to be proven is nothing more then a immature way to join in on a discussion, period. Also, I believe the 2 games that sold the most on PC are the Sims & The Sims 2. with the release of BF3, the highend GPU market got a huge bumps, quite a few people even on the consoles got a PC to get "the BEST version possible" because that is what DICE was advertising for and that is what Nvidia paid them to do. It kind of worked, they sold a lot of highend GPU's on that basis and also had a slight growth. That is competition, that is competition with consoles. deal with it. The more capabilities consoles get the more they are in competition with PC gaming o.O

    As of right now, it's not really the case but more so as newer consoles are made, the competition between consoles and PC are growing and that is my point. it's growing, as in the more accessible consoles become. In this case, the xbox and PS3 are in more of a competition compared to PC but the competition is still there. The next consoles will be in more competition with PC, just watch.
    Last edited by Bigdoggy; 02-25-2012 at 16:13.

  21. #44
    Superior Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    793
    Rep Power
    66
    Points
    5,855 (0 Banked)
    Sorry. I disagree. I am not saying PCs are not relevant and no one is playing them. There probably are 200 million PC gamers out there and yet the games that people are paying for and accounting for the most in the industry is games like farmville and WOW and Starcraft and other such subscription based games. Those games aren't exactly pushing the bar graphically. Games that do like Crysis did sold 3 million games. For publishers and paying gamers it is clear that games sell better on consoles. The publishers are seeing that they get more revenue on consoles for these AAA type games. That is all I was saying. I am sure there were millions and millions more that played Crysis but didn't pay for it but that means nothing to a developer like Crytek who will continue to look toward consoles to make money. I apologize if I made it sound like PC gaming is irrelevent...far from it and I understand there are more gamers playing on PCs. Just more paying on consoles and I do think more certainly developers shifting focus to consoles where they can make the most of their investment. While hardcore PC gamers will always have the best graphics and push the envelope of gaming with content I just don't think it is relevent when discussing consoles graphics or decissions by microsoft or sony in where they are focused with how to develope their next console. It is like looking at handhelds and basing your next graphics card on consoles. Sure you want to progress graphically but are you worried that a console is going to be so much more powerful....not in the least...you base it on your competition in your market. I honestly don't see PC gaming really competing or stealing away enough business from Sony and Microsoft through graphics to be relevent. By addictive new subscription gaming and others possibly....but not because of the graphics. Those people on PCs are primarily gamers that play games like farmville or subscription games that graphics have no relevence to those gamers....and a majority of the rest DON'T PAY for their gaming. Certainly microsoft and sony would still like to gain more gamers but they are not going to bring people over no matter how great the graphics if those people have to pay...they simply game because it is free to them outside their rigs.

    Clearly PC gaming could make a comeback and is certainly still here but I don't see gaming becoming more hardcore. I see it becoming very very casual. Even PC gaming is heading that way if you ask me. Gaming in the hardcore area if you ask me will continue to shift towards consoles because developers and publishers know they can recoup their money there and no matter how great the PC graphics can be. There will continue to be a few benchmark games but nothing that will cause waves of people to give up on console gaming imo.

  22. #45
    Forum Sage
    Itachi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Winterfell
    PSN ID
    iwinulose042
    Age
    20
    Posts
    8,322
    Rep Power
    83
    Points
    30,849 (151,503 Banked)
    Items Final Fantasy XIII-2Final Fantasy XIIIFull Metal AlchemistDragon Ball ZNarutoDeath NoteNaughty DogLightningNoctisAssassins Creed EzioPS3 Slim
    Guys I think this thread wasn't supposed to compare if PC gaming is cheaper than consoles.

    Just sayin

  23. Likes Two4DaMoney likes this post
  24. #46
    Superior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    707
    Rep Power
    62
    Points
    2,650 (0 Banked)
    This is poopy if true. Having NVIDIA make the next GPU would help with backward compatibility. Switching graphics chipset designers makes this much harder to implement. Think of your consumers SONY! We want B/C!
    Shinei!

  25. Likes Zswordsman likes this post
  26. #47
    Dedicated Member
    Centurion's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,021
    Rep Power
    50
    Points
    2,837 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by NuSoardGraphite View Post
    This is poopy if true. Having NVIDIA make the next GPU would help with backward compatibility. Switching graphics chipset designers makes this much harder to implement. Think of your consumers SONY! We want B/C!
    Somebody care to explain why going with an AMD GPU would make backwards compatibility any more difficult?

    Even with an nVidia GPU, the chip architecture is still going to be completely different.

    I don't think Sony's next console with have backwards compatibility. Even this generation they had it, and then removed it. Even Microsoft stopped adding titles to the list of Xbox games that can be played on Xbox 360. I personally don't see the benefit of it..

  27. #48
    Master Guru
    Bigdoggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Age
    34
    Posts
    6,382
    Rep Power
    72
    Points
    5,212 (11,045 Banked)
    Items Baby ChocoboPlayStationUser name style
    my point in the beginning anyway wasn't for saying which platform is more successful. if there is anything for Sony and MS to learn is to create at least somewhat of an open platform which only Sony isn't really shy to do, MS on the other hand is very stubborn in this category. Also, part of that point was stemming to the point of "if you get a highend GPU for a console, it's still obsolete and bottlenecked within 4 or more years" That is if a developer wants to go beyond that point and if they do, they are just stupid to begin with. The RAM factor has always been extremely important, which is why certain games are running extremely better on the PC rather then on the console. It isn't so much the GPU, its' the RAM. They don't need a highend GPU or at least consoles don't. If they used a 8800GTX in the next consoles (which when customized could be very powerful for a console) add in a nice amount of RAM so developers don't always have to tweak this or that to have something run smoother, well it would be better and wouldn't cost developers more to make whatever game they are making.

    Also, they need a lot of RAM in the next consoles if they want to continue running games in HD. next consoles with both Xbox and Playstation will need games to run HD smoothly. PS3 was bottlenecked for what it was trying to achieve, there are no if, ands, or buts about this. They could easily add in 8GB of RAM within the next consoles for dirt cheap. Cheaper then what we would be getting the RAM at considering Companies such as Sony and MS by in bulk if not just make their own? who knows. the part PS4 MIGHT be powered by AMD is a good thing, their GPUs are currently cheaper so are there CPUs, plus they have just as much power. So really, they could push the system a bit more compared if they use Nvidia. I really don't have much against Nvidia, but the part I don't like is they are just very expensive right now for what their GPUs are capable of.

    my entire point on cheaper vs expensive is if they go the AMD route, they can put a bit more in hardware wise vs if they kept on using Nvidia which is going to cost a bit more so they will have less in terms of hardware if they are going for a certain pricetag. Personally think that if they do use AMD, it's for that reason.

    -----------

    As for BC, it would make the consoles cost even more. lets say the PS4 would cost $450 (I don't see them costing $399 anymore) if they added in BC it would cost well over $500 for the PS4. I don't see any benefit from such a pricetag vs playing past games. PSN titles will possiby work but really, at this point it's hard to tell what Sony is going to actually do.

    8GB man
    Last edited by Bigdoggy; 02-25-2012 at 20:43.

  28. #49
    Superior Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    793
    Rep Power
    66
    Points
    5,855 (0 Banked)
    Yeah sorry to get off track on the PC thing. I have just been hearing so many people not really even here keep talking about chips and how they would get blown away by the PC ones and they need this and that to be relevent and I just got carried away. I just think Sony and Microsoft are looking at each other and what will be cost effective rather than what PCs will be achieving. I like a real solid chip but cost effective enough that will allow them to be flexible in adding enough RAM and other features that they want to throw in and keep the console no more than $449-$499 depending on features. Any more and I think they will have priced it out of being reasonably accessible and any less than $399 and I think that we likely aren't seeing the power we want. I really am just excited to see what new gaming capabilities this will provide. I mean we got limited move, HD and 3D gaming this gen. What great new things will we be able to add next gen. That will be exciting...perhaps some limited VR gaming would be amazing.

    I don't think backwards compatibility is anything people want...however portability of games down to the PS3 and Vita I DEFINATELY would like to see. I think the PS3 will last easily into the next gen to perhaps like a 10-12 year sustainable lifecycle if they can make porting games over from the PS4 to the PS3 and Vita possible. That I think many people including devs would like too.

  29. #50
    Dedicated Member
    Centurion's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,021
    Rep Power
    50
    Points
    2,837 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by davin_g View Post
    Yeah sorry to get off track on the PC thing. I have just been hearing so many people not really even here keep talking about chips and how they would get blown away by the PC ones and they need this and that to be relevent and I just got carried away. I just think Sony and Microsoft are looking at each other and what will be cost effective rather than what PCs will be achieving. I like a real solid chip but cost effective enough that will allow them to be flexible in adding enough RAM and other features that they want to throw in and keep the console no more than $449-$499 depending on features. Any more and I think they will have priced it out of being reasonably accessible and any less than $399 and I think that we likely aren't seeing the power we want. I really am just excited to see what new gaming capabilities this will provide. I mean we got limited move, HD and 3D gaming this gen. What great new things will we be able to add next gen. That will be exciting...perhaps some limited VR gaming would be amazing.

    I don't think backwards compatibility is anything people want...however portability of games down to the PS3 and Vita I DEFINATELY would like to see. I think the PS3 will last easily into the next gen to perhaps like a 10-12 year sustainable lifecycle if they can make porting games over from the PS4 to the PS3 and Vita possible. That I think many people including devs would like too.
    What is the benefit of porting PS4 games to the PS3?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
vBCredits II Deluxe v2.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2010-2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.