• Xbox One and PS4 are a generation ahead of the best PC, says EA CTO
    275 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Computrix;40755301]The new Xbox one's stats are [i]almost[/i] on par with my PC actually.... ....but I built it 3 years ago, and it's getting a new gfx card later this year anyways which will make it 5x better than it again. Checkmate, EA.[/QUOTE] I know Facepunch loves to use the 'PC gaming master race' card completely unironically, but this is just getting dumber and dumber. There's more to how a machine performs than just numbers and if you know anything at all about programming or hardware this should obvious. Find me a computer with a 500Mhz processor, 512 Mhz of RAM, and a Radeon X1000 card that can play Crysis 3 at 1080p, and then you can tell me that your PC is better based on paper specs.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;40754726]I bet you that my 570 will be able to run every single xboned and ps4 launch title better than the consoles[/QUOTE] PS2 emulation tends to disagree.
[QUOTE=Bokito;40755426]PS2 emulation tends to disagree.[/QUOTE] Ok first off I obviously meant multiplat ports to PC also what? I use PCSX2 for a ton of shit and it runs and looks leagues better than PS2 what are you talking about
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;40755448]Ok first off I obviously meant multiplat ports to PC also what? I use PCSX2 for a ton of shit and it runs and looks leagues better than PS2 what are you talking about[/QUOTE] PS2 emulation sucks major dick if you see what kind of hardware the PS2 had and what kind of hardware you need to run it correctly on a PC. Exactly the same reason why PS3/Xbox360 emulation is nigh-impossible at the moment.
[QUOTE=The golden;40755478]1080p at what? 25 to 30 frames per second? With a huge gun model to obscure the world so it doesn't have to render it? With at microscopic FoV which cannot be changed so even less is rendered? With massive texture pop-in and render-hiding effects like fog? That 1080p makes sense on those specs once you realize the amount of corners devs have to cut to actually make it happen.[/QUOTE] Yes, find me a computer with the specs I listed that can do [I]even that[/I]. Here's an example: During benchmarking, playing Battlefield 3 on low settings, at 1680x1050, an HD 4670 averaged [URL="http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graphics-performance,3063-9.html"]26FPS[/URL]. This was on a machine with [URL="http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graphics-performance,3063-2.html"]modern processing and memory hardware[/URL]. The 360 manages 30FPS. If a console from 2005 with a 500Mhz processor, half a gig of RAM, and a graphics card equivalent to an X1000 series can match the performance of a computer with a 3.0+Ghz quad-core, sixteen gigs of RAM, and a graphics card three years newer, the idea that the stats are directly comparable is pure bullshit. It's like comparing a tank to a sports car and saying the tank will go faster because it has more horsepower. There is so, so much more to it than raw numbers.
[QUOTE=Cuel;40752935]amount of cores means nothing if the games aren't utilizing and optimized for it. which is rather hard unlike popular belief[/QUOTE] Imagine if all console game developers were wizards like the guys at Naughty Dog.
[QUOTE=The golden;40755478]1080p at what? 25 to 30 frames per second?[/QUOTE] as opposed to a PC running those specs, which can't play Crysis 2 or 3 (that's 0 frames per second) and barely 1? [QUOTE=The golden;40755478]With a huge gun model to obscure the world so it doesn't have to render it?[/QUOTE] viewmodels don't cull objects behind it [QUOTE=The golden;40755478]With at microscopic FoV which cannot be changed so even less is rendered?[/QUOTE] texture memory matters a lot more than polycounts in modern systems, the difference is probably minimal [QUOTE=The golden;40755478]With massive texture pop-in and render-hiding effects like fog? That 1080p makes sense on those specs once you realize the amount of corners devs have to cut to actually make it happen.[/QUOTE] if it made sense, i'd love to see a PC do anything even remotely similar on the same specs
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;40754598]Think for a moment. What game will have the capacity for better graphics/tech? The one that has to run on every machine that has at least 2gb of ram, 1.4 ghz CPU speed, a 500mb VRAM card, on windows XP, or the game that ONLY has to run on the XB1's hardware?[/QUOTE] Nobody goes by those specs anymore. And didn't most devs go by them because of consoles being very old already?
[QUOTE=Bokito;40755499]PS2 emulation sucks major dick if you see what kind of hardware the PS2 had and what kind of hardware you need to run it correctly on a PC. Exactly the same reason why PS3/Xbox360 emulation is nigh-impossible at the moment.[/QUOTE] Emulating a ps3/xbox is probably going to be a 12+ core CPU level of ridiculous
How do I explain this to my console mates who are already unsure about moving over to PC gaming? How can I make an argument to them against a CEO of EA? AFAIK the 8 core thing is the only 'better' thing on these consoles than most PC's. But even then they probably dont run fast at all and most games will not utilize them anyway. Half of them will probably be for all the social crap in the background.
[QUOTE=catbarf;40755570]Yes, find me a computer with the specs I listed that can do [I]even that[/I]. Here's an example: During benchmarking, playing Battlefield 3 on low settings, at 1680x1050, an HD 4670 averaged [URL="http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graphics-performance,3063-9.html"]26FPS[/URL]. This was on a machine with [URL="http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graphics-performance,3063-2.html"]modern processing and memory hardware[/URL]. The 360 manages 30FPS. If a console from 2005 with a 500Mhz processor, half a gig of RAM, and a graphics card equivalent to an X1000 series can match the performance of a computer with a 3.0+Ghz quad-core, sixteen gigs of RAM, and a graphics card three years newer, the idea that the stats are directly comparable is pure bullshit. It's like comparing a tank to a sports car and saying the tank will go faster because it has more horsepower. There is so, so much more to it than raw numbers.[/QUOTE] That analogy is complete bollocks, and then you say its, 'more than just raw numbers' when you literally used number data the paragraph before, let me explain why I disagree. Game developers have been switching their priorities from PC to console since the 6th gen because of one very simple reason, you don't have to deal with wildly different hardware. When you are developing for a very [I]very[/I] specific architecture or system, it's a hell of a lot easier to optimize for that hardware. This should not, in any case, give the false assumption of more power. Let's go deeper and actually compare consoles to PC's, (A completely redundant comparison on EA's part). On a PC, you have the kernel, shell of the operating system, background tasks, and a multitude of GUI counterparts that require their own computing power and memory. On a console, say the Xbox360 or PS3 as easy examples, the operating system is [I]extremely[/I] discreet, nothing like how a PC operates. When you start a game on one of these consoles, nearly every single percent of computing power is dedicated to it, which is why they can seemingly do so much without the apparent specs for it. There's hardly any multitasking, there isn't much in the way of obstructing what processing power there is. In your example, you said the Xbox360 could do as much as a PC with 16 gigs of RAM, this is so fundamentally wrong that I seriously question your ability to even understand the simplest level of how computer's work. The fact of the matter is that games of last gen could never use that much memory, (Unless there was some serious coding issues), I even doubt any later next-gen games will even use the 8 gigs of RAM in the new consoles. Everyone in this thread acting like either consoles or PC's are vastly superior over the other is completely full of shit, purely because of how arbitrary and redundant the comparison is, especially EA. The CTO claiming next-gen consoles are more powerful than the most powerful computer hardware is so fucking stupid I can't seriously believe he would make such an assumption, I can't help but think he's just getting on his knees and suckling on Sony's/MS's tits to keep the company relevant. What about the PC's used to make the games? Are you trying to tell me that developers are making these games on the best hardware, yet the games only run on consoles smoothly? Because I assure you that is completely wrong. They have to test and debug their product, and while they do eventually do this on the console, the power of current-gen PC's allows them to quickly streamline the creation and testing process with something as simple as compiling the game and running it. Honestly, EA is being a console fanboy at it's very finest, the only thing this statement will do is make the seperation between console and PC gaming bigger because of the ridiculous uninformed people that believe the CTO. [quote=Juniez]if it made sense, i'd love to see a PC do anything even remotely similar on the same specs[/quote] This isn't how it works, you are implying that console specs and PC specs are even remotely comparable, when in reality consoles are developed [I][B]specifically [/B][/I]to play video games, not run a complex operating system shell and kernel, as well as do any sort of serious multitasking. The games made for consoles are developed with that hardware in mind, and optimized accordingly, whereas with computers you have a massive breadth of hardware combinations to account for, making it eons harder to optimize for. Honestly defending one or the other is pointless, but seeing everyone make these ridiculous comparisons is seriously beyond annoying to anyone with any degree of knowledge in how computers work.
Its called the PC Mustard race because consoles need to ketchup
Can you even really measure PCs in generations? It sounds like they are just bullshitting and hoping it will net some sales from idiots.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;40755892]Can you even really measure PCs in generations? It sounds like they are just bullshitting and hoping it will net some sales from idiots.[/QUOTE] No, you can't. If we use the term generations for consoles, PC's are more a kin to getting 'decade' updates, IE new hardware every year as opposed to every six. EA is literally just sucking up to MS and Sony to stay relevant and nothing else, any arguments caused by it are a complete waste of time because of fundamentally moot the entire comparison is at the most basic of levels. [B]EDIT: [/B]Anyone who is saying that these consoles are more powerful because 'they have 8 cores' has no place in this argument. You could have a hundred cores and it wouldn't mean shit, it's [I][B]all[/B][/I] down to the developer to utilize and optimize for each core, which I assure you is a lot harder than it sounds. I won't be surprised if the first year or two of the next generation console games don't use half of the power simply because of how new they are to developing with multiple cores and x86-64 bit architecture in mind.
Even with the same parts (which is an impossibility, as the best brand top-tier parts are likely to cost as much as the entire console itself) a computer inherently has more power on the simple fact it can overclock. The games might be more optimized on the console than the PC, but eventually you can brute force your way past the issues through sheer computing power. The original PC release of GTA 4 comes to mind, at the time my PC was the latest and greatest so I simply didn't have any of the performance issues even though the port itself was shit.
[QUOTE=tarkata14;40755830]That analogy is complete bollocks, and then you say its, 'more than just raw numbers' when you literally used number data the paragraph before, let me explain why I disagree. Game developers have been switching their priorities from PC to console since the 6th gen because of one very simple reason, you don't have to deal with wildly different hardware. When you are developing for a very [I]very[/I] specific architecture or system, it's a hell of a lot easier to optimize for that hardware. This should not, in any case, give the false assumption of more power. Let's go deeper and actually compare consoles to PC's, (A completely redundant comparison on EA's part). On a PC, you have the kernel, shell of the operating system, background tasks, and a multitude of GUI counterparts that require their own computing power and memory. On a console, say the Xbox360 or PS3 as easy examples, the operating system is [I]extremely[/I] discreet, nothing like how a PC operates. When you start a game on one of these consoles, nearly every single percent of computing power is dedicated to it, which is why they can seemingly do so much without the apparent specs for it. There's hardly any multitasking, there isn't much in the way of obstructing what processing power there is. In your example, you said the Xbox360 could do as much as a PC with 16 gigs of RAM, this is so fundamentally wrong that I seriously question your ability to even understand the simplest level of how computer's work. The fact of the matter is that games of last gen could never use that much memory, (Unless there was some serious coding issues), I even doubt any later next-gen games will even use the 8 gigs of RAM in the new consoles. ... This isn't how it works, you are implying that console specs and PC specs are even remotely comparable, when in reality consoles are developed [I][B]specifically [/B][/I]to play video games, not run a complex operating system shell and kernel, as well as do any sort of serious multitasking. The games made for consoles are developed with that hardware in mind, and optimized accordingly, whereas with computers you have a massive breadth of hardware combinations to account for, making it eons harder to optimize for. Honestly defending one or the other is pointless, but seeing everyone make these ridiculous comparisons is seriously beyond annoying to anyone with any degree of knowledge in how computers work.[/QUOTE] I suggest you re-read my post, then read back a page or two because you're saying the exact same thing I've been trying to point out, repeatedly, in this thread. Console and PC hardware specs are not directly comparable for a variety of reasons, and given a console and a PC with roughly equivalent hardware the console can be expected to perform significantly better. If people are going to say the console sucks because [I]on paper[/I] the specs of their PC are equivalent or better than the console's specs, then clearly examples where the paper specs are vastly different but performance is similar demonstrates that there's more to it than just quantities like processor speed or memory. My example, where the specs are vastly different but the performance roughly equivalent, shows this.
Decided to match the supposed specs of the X1 as close as possible. The hardware [I]should[/I] all work properly with one another, and this is a fully working build (sans OS, but that's what linux distros are for!): [thumb]http://i.imgur.com/fncC71g.jpg[/thumb] So, if the X1 is under 580 bucks, it's cheaper to buy the Xbox One upfront. I could make this be even cheaper, but I'd rather not mimic RRoDs with PC hardware. ...the more I look at this the more I think this will be my next PC build, sans the computer case, GPU, PSU, RAM, and HDD. That brings the cost for me to about 260 bucks. That's another important factor to bring up for PCs though: If you have computer hardware that you can just swap out of an older gaming rig, you can reduce the cost dramatically.
[QUOTE=nagachief;40756061]Decided to match the supposed specs of the X1 as close as possible. The hardware [I]should[/I] all work properly with one another, and this is a fully working build (sans OS, but that's what linux distros are for!): [thumb]http://i.imgur.com/fncC71g.jpg[/thumb] So, if the X1 is under 580 bucks, it's cheaper to buy the Xbox One upfront. I could make this be even cheaper, but I'd rather not mimic RRoDs with PC hardware.[/QUOTE] And this is exactly the shit I'm talking about. Try designing a build that matches the specs of the Xbox 360 as closely as possible, then try to tell me that you could play Crysis 3 on it. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. It's not comparable.
Pc gaming is always at least one generation ahead of console gaming and it will always be that way.
[QUOTE=catbarf;40756059]I suggest you read back a page or two because you're saying the exact same thing I've been trying to point out, repeatedly, in this thread. Console and PC hardware specs are not directly comparable for a variety of reasons, and given a console and a PC with roughly equivalent hardware the console can be expected to perform significantly better. If people are going to say the console sucks because [I]on paper[/I] the specs of their PC are equivalent or better than the console's specs, then clearly examples where the paper specs are vastly different but performance is similar demonstrates that there's more to it than just quantities like processor speed or memory.[/QUOTE] Two people pointing the same thing out isn't a bad thing, and it'll hopefully enlighten a few more people who believe EA's PR garbage. The CTO doesn't have a clue what he's talking about and it's quite obvious, he's doing it purely for business, and this kind of disinformation seriously does not sit well with me. This will just start a whole other generation of consoletards and 'PC Master Race' fanboys who argue about things they really know nothing about, it's quite obvious EA doesn't appreciate its PC roots, and I find it hilarious that they are trying so hard to seperate the consumer market like this. [quote=catbarf]And this is exactly the shit I'm talking about. Try designing a build that matches the specs of the Xbox 360 as closely as possible, then try to tell me that you could play Crysis 3 on it. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. It's not comparable.[/quote] And where's your point? The CTO didn't say, "Next gen consoles are more powerful than any computer of the same price", he said quite boldly "Next gen consoles are more powerful than the highest end PCs". You seem to be making a point that isn't there, consoles are designed to play games and hardly anything else, whereas a PC can do a multitude of other things as well as play games. Not to mention the huge array of different hardware that makes optimizing for PC a much more involved process, whereas with consoles you have similar hardware and similar architectures, the fact that a console may play games better than a PC of the same price doesn't mean either one is better because they are very clearly not comparable.
I think this guy is practicing for when he decides to run for political office the way he shits on everything else that isn't his, when what he has is shit itself.
[QUOTE=tarkata14;40756123]Two people pointing the same thing out isn't a bad thing, and it'll hopefully enlighten a few more people who believe EA's PR garbage. The CTO doesn't have a clue what he's talking about and it's quite obvious, he's doing it purely for business, and this kind of disinformation seriously does not sit well with me. This will just start a whole other generation of consoletards and 'PC Master Race' fanboys who argue about things they really know nothing about, it's quite obvious EA doesn't appreciate its PC roots, and I find it hilarious that they are trying so hard to seperate the consumer market like this.[/QUOTE] Honestly, though, I'm not sure how off-base the CTO's remark is. Considering the capabilities these consoles are likely to have, how many gaming PCs out there can really match? How many PCs in 2005 would be able to run the latest batch of 360 games? Most of that is software optimization, but I don't think you can completely exclude optimization from such a comparison because it's such a fundamental part of how consoles work. On a side note, it's really not that hard to program on a PC and test on a 360. At my college we had devkits on every lab machine that made it as easy as a few clicks to compile in VS for the 360 and then immediately test.
EA is just intentionally trolling us now. They've given up trying to fit in. They were never any good at it anyway. Now they're just Fuck It, let's just not hide the fact that we're colossal dumb dicks
[QUOTE=tarkata14;40756123]And where's your point?[/QUOTE] My point is that, whether the CTO's remark is valid or not, anyone who says 'hah the CTO is dumb because my computer has more RAM and a faster processor and a shiny graphics card so clearly it's more powerful' has absolutely no idea how gaming consoles work.
[QUOTE=catbarf;40756204]Honestly, though, I'm not sure how off-base the CTO's remark is. Considering the capabilities these consoles are likely to have, how many gaming PCs out there can really match? How many PCs in 2005 would be able to run the latest batch of 360 games? Most of that is software optimization, but I don't think you can completely exclude optimization from such a comparison because it's such a fundamental part of how consoles work. On a side note, it's really not that hard to program on a PC and test on a 360. At my college we had devkits on every lab machine that made it as easy as a few clicks to compile in VS for the 360 and then immediately test.[/QUOTE] It's not that hard, but it's an unnecessary step for almost the majority of the development process when you can just test all of the features you need to test on the development PC, the most important reason for testing on the console in question is mainly for performance and optimization reasons.
Excuse me since I skipped some pages (gonna read them later) but: Purely on a level of playing games, since that's the entire point of a console, as literally every one complaining about the Xbox 1 has said... Are there any desktop computers you can buy that'll cost the same as the PS4/Xbox 1 that could run the same games at the same settings? As much as i don't like it, the xbox 1 is (I believe) slated to run games at 60 fps @ 1080p. Also, find me a computer that uses GDDR5 RAM for the main system RAM. Now obviously you can dump money on a system to buy a computer that is more powerful than another computer. Hell, you could buy a super computer for all I care, but it'd probably cost way more than these consoles. So comparing price, how many generations will it be where you can pay the same to play games at the same settings? I don't care about what a real desktop can do, that's beside the point. Taken in this way, I think the CTO isn't too far off. Also, before you ask, I am an avid PC fan with nothing but respect for Steam and PC games. I just want to give this guy's remarks a fair trial.
^This argument is the same this gen the cost of online and games for Xbox makes it more expensive over the long term [QUOTE=Bokito;40755499]PS2 emulation sucks major dick if you see what kind of hardware the PS2 had and what kind of hardware you need to run it correctly on a PC. Exactly the same reason why PS3/Xbox360 emulation is nigh-impossible at the moment.[/QUOTE] I thought that was because the reason that emulation is so difficult is because the amateur programmers have to work backwards to figure out how the system is structured since the companies would never release documentation on it, making it nearly impossible to optimize. And still emulation had nothing to do with what I said. We know what a bunch of the launch titles are going to be, and seeing as a huge portion of them are also going to be on PC, my not-so-expensive PC could probably run them better than the consoles.
[QUOTE=catbarf;40756226]My point is that, whether the CTO's remark is valid or not, anyone who says 'hah the CTO is dumb because my computer has more RAM and a faster processor and a shiny graphics card so clearly it's more powerful' has absolutely no idea how gaming consoles work.[/QUOTE] ...but it's still ahead of the console? :pwn:
Lol I'd like to see the PS4/XBox One compete against my rig...
Dont thier games start on a pc? like developing wise.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.