Nvidia Calls The PS4 “Low End”

102

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

beta212

http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/consoles/amd-on-the-ps4-we-gave-it-the-hardware-nvidia-couldn-t-1141607 probably mainly because the x86 license.

avatar

RtDK

At a certain point, better graphical capabilities start delving into the law of diminishing returns. It gets to the point where paying $600 for a state-of-the-art GPU makes no visible difference that the human eye can detect. It's probably going to be based more around unique experiences in the future, and not around the hardware that each contains therein. You can always squeeze a little extra something out of an old GPU.

The 360 and PS3 were largely the same console from different companies--Nintendo learned from the Gamecube that having the most powerful console on the market doesn't necessarily mean a thing if you don't have something to command attention. This is why the Wii was so phenomenally successful. And this might be one way consoles can differentiate themselves from ultra-powerful, ultra-modern PC's and remain relevant.

That being said, the fact that you can buy a Wii U or a 360 for less than you could for the best GPU available, there are other strengths too. The success of consoles isn't undeserved. But you also have a longer time of software relevance with a Windows PC. If the next consoles are any indication, backwards compatibility is on the way out, so....

avatar

Ninjawithagun

@ RtDK

So many of your statements are just plain wrong. It does make a difference of which video card you purchase. The individual PC gamer really does know what they need for their own desirable gaming setup. There are several lines of video cards from entry level to enthusiast level cards for this very reason. Not everyone will benefit from a $650 video card. My particular setup happens to require an enthusiast video card because I choose to game at 2560 x 1440 resolution @ 120Hz. But another gamer running a monitor at 1280 x 1024 @ 60Hz doesn’t need a $650 card. He would be fine with a $250 mid-level card (or less) for gaming. And yes, you CAN tell the difference. There is a vast improvement at higher resolutions and widescreen format. PC gaming is always about two things; 1) how good the game was designed/developed, and 2) your specific computer hardware that will (or won’t) let you play at higher resolutions and graphics settings.

And no, the PS3 and XBOX360 were not and never have been “largely the same console”. These two consoles used completely different hardware. Do your homework next time before posting false statements:

http://tech-junky.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/ps3-xbox360-hardware-specifications.jpg

And the Wii success turned to sour. Why? Because almost every consumer that bought a Wii or XBOX Kinect and enjoyed it for about 2 months before turning it off and never playing it again. Motion gaming was a novelty that quickly faded and ultimately almost all Wii owners felt buyer’s remorse within the first year they owned it. Not one person in my work center that owns a Wii or Kinect (and still admits to having one) ever plays them anymore. Why? Because they don’t feel like having to work out just to play a game. They just want to sit on their butts and have some simple entertainment. Want proof? Go look at Nintendo Wii and XBOX 360 Kinect sales figures now. Not doing so great are they? And yes, the Wii U was a total flop right out of the sales gate. So much for innovation lasting the test of time ;)

Bottom line is that it is a completely flawed approach to compare PC gaming to console gaming. If you are in the sub-$500 "budget zone" and want to get the most for your hard earned money, then consoles are for you. However, if you are an avid gamer and are not on a strict budget, and want the very best that technology has to offer and want to the play games at their greatest potential, then PC gaming is the only way to go.

avatar

drayzen

I like how Tamasi conveniently neglects to mention the key points that really matter.
I suggest everyone interested in this topic read Carmack's key note discussing PC vs Console. He basically layed out how the PC has to have this extra power because so much of it is wasted in processing through operating systems and graphics API's.

So the key points I see that make lower power consoles a non-issue are:
- Drastically more efficient use of available hardware.
- 1920x1080 is going to be the maximum typical resolution for a console for probably at least the next 5 years, if not 10. While typical PC resolutions will no doubt increase.

I'll guarantee if NVIDIA could have had those contracts they would have taken them. I would guess the truth to be that they don't have a competitive integrated solution, which left them out of the running...

avatar

jlh304

1080p over took 720p pretty quickly. There are already 4K projectors and TV sets out. I don't think 1920x2160 will be able to fight off 3840x2160 for very long. Once they get the pricing down and more content. Granted you will have to get a new version of the old console that adds in the resolution if they do it perhaps. Who knows these could be the last dedicated consoles, or have a shorter run. With more agressive broadband and cloud based games (heck even some TVs play low end games now with now console).

avatar

drayzen

I guess given NVIDIA's GRID platform (http://www.nvidia.com/object/cloud-gaming.html), their goal is to trash talk consoles in general...
I'll be interested to try something like this once I've got my NBN connection, looks like I'll be waiting a while for that though.
Still, I'd rather be making $1 on a few hundred million console sales than nothing.

avatar

Casecutter

Wow talk about sour grapes, big whoop Nvidia! Consoles don't need GTX680 or 670 level to run console optimized games at 1080p. Like you offer a APU solution that simplifies design and is efficient. Nope!

The qualifying words he used are "offer about half the performance of a GTX680 GPU (based on GFLOPS and texture)". Any good mid-level graphics card is like 17% off the GTX680... Oooh watch out PS4. While if optimizations are done to what foreground/background qualities you present, a decent level of eye-candy achieved provideing visually enhancement without sucking resources.
Wanna I spilt my milk...

avatar

Wingzero_x

Was this the same Nvidia guy who used to go all gushy over Apple before Intel released a decent onboard package?

avatar

roberto.tomas

Companies trash talk when they should be developing new tech instead. It's actually not entirely too far away from the performance of my 660 Ti.

avatar

Hilarity

Obviously. Give me games that rape my i7 and 680. Something like Crysis 3 where 45FPS is the average - on High with TXAA on Medium. I want 50GB 50hr games that show what the PC is really capable off, not 6GB 6hr shitbox ports.

When the PS4 comes out its already obsolete, by the end of 2014 it will be primitive, by the end of 2015 it will be an archaic fossil. Fucking consoles.

avatar

Ninjawithagun

Finally, and intelligble comment. So true in so many ways. Not exactly going to win you PR points, but then again I don't think that was your intended goal...lmao. Well put Hilarity. The plain fact is that the folks here posting comments are evidently NOT PC gamers or ever have been. They are all console fanboys. I can speak for both since I've owned high end PCs as well as an XBOX360 and PS3. Of them all, I found myself going back to the PC every time. Better graphics, higher resolutions, and better game control (keyboard & mouse can NOT be beat or replaced by any console controller) is what keeps me an avid PC gamer. But then again, I can afford to have a nice gaming PC. Gaming consoles have their place...at the low end of the budget gaming world.

avatar

jgottberg

Out of curiousity, do you ever game on a console?

avatar

ZombieKiller

Really? I really though it was going to put Quad SLI'd TITANS to shame! LOL Total Joke! Umm... hello! for only about $500 of course it's gonna be low end! I don't think people want to spend $1,500 on a console, But I will admit, for low end and being AMD/ATI its got some amazing graphics! Well now that there's gonna be more powerful game consoles we should be seeing better graphics in PC games even! :)

avatar

QUINTIX256

If jaguar is the "low end" then what's Tegra?
OH SNAP!

Oh wait, I have more
If it AMD's ~7850 gpu is "mid to low range," then what do you call NVidia's entire laptop line of GPUs?

avatar

afunyun

Tegra is an ARM processor and isn't even the same market at all as jaguar.

7850 is a desktop GPU and does not compete with mobile GPUs, Nvidia's mobile GPUs are more or less similar to AMD's.

avatar

Arnulf

Of course Tegra isn't in the same market as PS4 and Xbox720 APUs - it's just a budget phone/tablet chip,

NVIDIA isn't capable of creating anything even remotely similar to those chips, hence they didn't get any console design wins for quite some time now (well over half a decade ago they got PS3 GPU design win).

avatar

PCLinuxguy

"it will only offer about half the performance of a GTX680 GPU"
Um.. Last I checked it IS a game console that is supposed to be under $700 and play scaled down games vs using a Real PC that has the i5/i7 and GTX 690 or SLI'ed 680s etc.

avatar

jonnyohio

Yeah nvidias bias makes their opinion just useless here...I'm sure the new consoles won't have cutting edge hardware but then they have to be affordable otherwise they don't sell. One "good thing" that may come out of this is that us PC gamers will probably start to see better looking console ports in the near future that will now make our graphics cards more useful. Unlike the console owners I won't be spending a few hundred bucks for better graphics and the ability to play new games. The graphics card I bought a little over a year ago will handle any game they put out without hardly breaking a sweat...I'm just hoping that we will see better game play...a game can look great but who cares if the gameplay sucks. If they increase processing power and memory capabilities in the new consoles considerably, we will see more games (hopefully) with better gameplay, more dynamic content, better AI, and bigger maps...new games coming out are made for consoles because its more profitable for devs to do that, but unfortunately the hardware limits them in what they can do. To me it has felt as if in recent years PC gaming has taken a step backwards because of this....so I'm happy to see ANYTHING they can put out to drive the market forward because I'm sick of playing games on a nice PC I built that was made to run on 5+ year old hardware. I can't wait to see it...I won't be buying one, but I look forward to the new games that come out because of this. Nvidia, I like your products, but go suck an egg...if you wanted in on the console graphics market you should have competed better for it.

avatar

jgottberg

What did anyone expect Nvidia to say? "Oh yeah, our competitors GPU's in the new consoles are so mush better than ours... We couldn't compete with AMD so we gave them the console market."

No business ever leaves money on the table. Mvidia couldn't compete from either a performance or monetary standpoint so they are sounding... well... butthurt.

avatar

limitbreaker

I think the truth is that while amd and nvidia are similarly strong in gpu tech, only amd has x86 cpu tech and already had a ton of research in building apu all in one chips. Going with nvidia would mean to either get a lowly arm based chip or get two separate chips which would raise the cost dramatically. Nvidia just can't compete against amd when it comes to value in this specific situation.

avatar

jgottberg

On another note - I scrolled through some postings... What is the deal with people getting all fired up over what platform people game on? What does it matter? We ALL play games right? jeeze.

avatar

limitbreaker

Yeah I know eh? If only they cared about politics which has a much greater effect on our life's as much as they Care about this. Lol

avatar

MaximumMike

I know I'm late to the fray, but I'm glad people on this site don't currently have the political vigor they do over video games. Political thread on this site have been a big turn off to me in the past. Fortunately, most of those people are gone or post seldomly. I can laugh and giggle all day long over the hilarity of what some people think about technology. But politics tends to stir me up. And I don't come here to get riled up. If I did, I'd be hanging out at MSNBC or Fox depending on which group of nuts I wanted to argue with. And I would argue that caring about politics is very important anyway. Politics will continue whether you care about it or not. The only way to have an impact is to get involved in it. And if you're involved in it, you're too busy to be here. But caring about it and hanging out on a tech site doesn't really make sense to me.

avatar

limitbreaker

I didn't mean to say that they should be discussing politics here, just that getting riled up over platform or brand preference is ridiculous. Oh and caring about politics IS very importance, we all have a vote and understanding who you vote for matters very much, we're all involved in politics.

avatar

PCLinuxguy

Agreed. some like to put debates or topics into discussions that don't belong there and it's always boggled my mind as to why. I'm just glad this place is politics free so I can read about tech and not have to worry about the outside crap funneling into and mucking up a good site.

avatar

jgottberg

Add me to the list... Debating politics is pointless.

Politics aren't like PC's with hard stats or benchmarks for comparison and arguments sake in which a true winner could emerge. Politics are subjective. And like you both pointed out, I didn't come to a tech site, to get my fix on politics. Much as I don't go to a politically motivated site to discuss technology lol.

avatar

jgottberg

lol, it does seem very trivial!

avatar

jgottberg

ops, double post - which seems to be happening a lot lately.

avatar

jgottberg

No disagreement here but Nvidia could have saved some face and took the high road in their response instead of sounding... like they sounded.

avatar

beta212

Sour.

avatar

PCLinuxguy

Agreed.

avatar

scottmana

Hope this does not hold back gaming. I have had my PC for 5 years and done only a couple minor upgrades to date. While I can't play all games at max settings, I am put off that gaming progress is so slow that a 5 year old PC can still rule them all.

Games are clearly slowing down and it is not because of some technological curve. Take games like Skyrim fully modded and in 3D, the console guys have no idea what they are missing.

My old computer sits idol playing games with the worst ever being a 40% usage spike and 30% of my ram used and when I got it, it was only upper-mid ranged. Geez, what has happened to gaming?

avatar

Damnlogin

I actually think this would help both the PC and Console markets. Porting x86 PC games to X86 consoles would be much easier than jumping through hoops with the previous PowerPC architectures. So we can probably expect faster game releases, better quality, and maybe even a better chance of cross platform multiplayer compatibility.

avatar

Scatter

Are we really complaining that we haven't had to spend a lot of money to upgrade our PCs to play the latest games? Personally I'm happy when a newly built PC can serve faithfully for 5 years.

Besides, I think that the game industry is at the point where while the hardware definitely CAN provide better graphics, the time and man power required to create them aren't necessarily worth it.

avatar

vrmlbasic

No, we're complaining that gaming hasn't given us much reason to upgrade our hardware for years now. I don't know how many more half-baked console ports based on the Unreal Engine I can take. Multiple threads seem to be ignored: while there's definitely merit to the sequential nature of games, I think that truth has been blown up into a cop-out when I see a single "rendering thread" trying to do every rendering task & AI not given its own thread. Honestly, its getting as though game devs are still living in a single-core world and only threw out the second thread to make themselves feel modern.

DirectX 10 hasn't even been truly capitalized on by the DX9-era console ports, to say nothing of DX11. Few games even come close to taxing my mere 1 GB of GDDR5 per card as they sport the horridly low res console textures. GPU computation hasn't been capitalized on, which is a crying shame as, due to games not truly taxing them, my aged GPUs have plenty of power to spare. Power that is a shame to see wasted when I see my framerates dip because the Unreal developers decided to leave shadow processing on the CPU, incorporated into the already bloated rendering thread.

avatar

jonnyohio

I can relate here...I built a system last year mainly for work but I also use it for gaming. I moved my old PC to my daughters bedroom which is at least 4 years old now. It still handles any game we throw at it with ease. It's quite sad really...I buy games and get so depressed playing them (exception would be Skyrim)...it's not the graphics that are so depressing its just that everywhere I look I see where the devs had to cut corners so the game would work on PS3 and Xbox.

avatar

Jack1982

Most of Nvidia's graphics cards are pretty low-end compared to their GTX 680. Seems like they're saying that all of their customers who bought those cards are no better than low-end console gamers.

avatar

Chris6878

I've just purchased my first high end pc. I've always been a console gamer. I've got wii u and ps3 now. Just for fun last week I bought tomb raider from steam. I freaking love it. Next purchase will be dmc. I will play the consoles because.........of exclusives. I plan to from now on buy games on pc when the option is available. But I don't wanna miss out on games because I hope they make it for the pc. IMO, just do both. Of course pc will look better....if they developer makes it so. But why miss out on games waiting for a pc port.

avatar

buttersoft

Welcome... to the real world

:)

avatar

ZX9RDan89

You seem sensible Chris. this is unacceptable. You MUST be a fanboy for one or the other! YOU MUST!!

My Opinion Doesn't Matter.
Dan

avatar

Chris6878

Ha ha, I'm a video game fanboy. I've got Sony, Nintendo, and my pc is my Xbox.

avatar

Eblislyge

For years we have been approaching the death of PC Gaming. That being said I don't have a dog in the fight. I don't own a console, I used to play on a Xbox 360 but they kept dying and I got tired of buying new ones.

Consoles give developers a way to develop for a specific hardware set. If you code a game for a playstation its gonna run on all playstations. This is not true for the Pc industry since the hardware and software are different on all PC's.

I understand a developers incentive to develop on a console. It makes the most financial sense.

Tablets and smartphones are also hurting PC sales and shrinking the PC market.

Will the New Gen consoles be as powerful as the best PC someone can build? No, no it will not. But due to it's closed hardware set developers can eek out every last bit of horsepower for years to come. Something that you cannot do when coding PC titles.

This Allows Console games to do some impressive graphics. Even a 8 year old XBOX 360 makes some decent graphics by today's PC Standards.

Im personally looking forward to the new Gen consoles. Reguardless of there power versus a PC. They will launch with the hardware the industry needs to offer new gaming experiences, And at the end of the day all I care about is that experience. Reguardless of what I'm having it on.

avatar

vrmlbasic

"This Allows Console games to do some impressive graphics. Even a 8 year old XBOX 360 makes some decent graphics by today's PC Standards."

This is simply not true. The Xbox 360 (and PS3) do not come close to even the lowest standard set by PC. Very few console games run higher than the lowly 1280*720, and some (eg:Halo 3) run at even lower resolutions. At these pathetically low resolutions the 360 lacks the power to max out the graphics.

The 360 was almost acceptable back in 2005. It was passable for me when I bought mine in 2009. However, it didn't measure up to PC standards in 2009 and it certainly doesn't now. I'm not sure that it ever did.

avatar

devin3627

all PC games are console games with prettier graphics. with the xbox 720, the 8gb will hold audio, textures, coding, and data. that will make it so crowded areas have all their artificial intelligence individually. this type of gaming has never been done before because most people are stuck in the 512mb-1gb videocard world. trust me, graphics aren't everything if you have the texture memory to make things beautiful without processing special effects.

avatar

Renegade Knight

With the 720 rumors are you will also be stuck in the cloud.

avatar

Mediziner

I have a website for you to go to: www.maximumconsole.com
Go there and don't come back.

avatar

H1N1theI

I'll refute those statements.

"All PC games are console games with prettier graphics."

False, although that's common now-adays, PC games can often have much better features, such as modding support, larger maps, and some-times, titles are PC that are down-ported into consoles. I.E. C&C3, which was PC ported down to consoles.

"With the XBox 720, the 8gb..."

Technically true, but PCs have had 8 gigs for a while, and not to mention that what they're using is GPU-tied "ram", which is technically not Ram, but more of a framebuffer that they added CPU-access to.

"Crowded areas have all their..."

PCs and I believe consoles have done this for ages. It's something us coders called "instancing". It's really not that big of a deal.

"512mb-1gb videocard..."

Which is enough, because PCs have system memory to use in addition to the graphic memory.

"Texture memory..."

Not entirely true, semi-photorealism requires beamtraces and raytraces, both of which are complex vector operations that require quite a bit of processing power.

That being said, Consoles are great low-cost gaming platforms, but PCs are just better, although more expensive to boot.

avatar

jgottberg

I have to say that the modding aspect of gaming oon the PC is what drives me away from it. I have tried play MW3 and it seems I'm the only player that isn't invincible or have unlimited ammo. Makes an FPS kinda pointless. lol.

avatar

Mediziner

"although more expensive to boot." True, the PS4 does cost less than a going rig, but if you were going to build a standard rig of $500-$600, you could easily use the $500 that the PS4 would cost and add it to the $500 you're already using to build the PC to build a something that would easily trump the PS4.

avatar

mattman059

Basically, Warrior247 is winning the troll war.

I think that Warrior247 and Wintel would be best friends forever...

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.