NVidia Claims PC Gaming Sales Will Overtake Consoles By 2014 -Hardware Already 10x More Powerful

36

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

kiaghi7

Consoles already -ARE- PC's, just dumbed down, weak, closed-source PC's (at least until they are inevitably hacked in some way)...

 

Look at the XB360, it's practically already a PC off the shelf... The PS3, while a preposterously inefficient architecture, is nothing but a parallel processing nightmare of a PC...

 

The end result of these consoles is that they take off-the-shelf PC hardware to make a standard class of PC that will be uniform for them to produce games for that given level of capability. Every generation of console they simply add in more "features" of what the PC itself buried inside is already capable of, but they have subtracted from its overall function for a more simplified functionality.

 

Consoles will survive well into 2014, there is no question about that, but they will become ever more PC-lite than they already are. More over, the more they try to "close" their architecture now, the more insistent the world will be on breaking their closed system. Just look at the PS3, how hard they at Sony fought to keep it closed and now anyone with a USB stick can have their way with their PS3 in spite of Sony's herculean efforts to prevent that. Xbox360 was broken apart in no time, so it's "closed" system was little more than a doggie door to get through...

 

Consoles however will enjoy their longevity as a result of them being simple, standard, and CAPABLE at their level... What I mean is, if they were to build a console with as much muscle as a top of the line PC, it would cost round about as much as that top of the line PC, and most interested consumers aren't going to break $500 for a brand new console, much less the $1,000, $2,000, $3,000, or more still for an absolutely cutting edge PC-made-into-a-console.

One need only look at the launch of the PS3 and it's utterly abysmal numbers to see that the majority, not all mind you, aren't going to buy into the console when it's priced so high even if it can do many other things. Most consoles split the difference, giving good enough hardware to play games that look pretty good by the standards of the day, and while not comparable to the best money could possibly buy, they would arguably be comparable to that of the middle-weight systems, all without a lot of the extra bloat found on a proper PC that requires more muscle to handle on top of the game due to lost useful/necessary processing power handling menial tasks in the background.

At the end of the day, PC's will remain the forefront of computing power and capability, and the consoles will continue to benefit from the PC's advancements, albeit that they will only receive what would be current PC capability years down the road in some later generation of console...

avatar

kixofmyg0t

You have NO fricken idea what ur talking about do you? 

I couldn't stop laughing once you claimed the 360 is basically "off the shelf" "PC parts". 

 

Cool story bro!

avatar

kiaghi7

Come come now... no longer want to belly-up to the bar after a small sip of reality burned your ignorance laden tongue???

 

I'm still quite amused that you think the Xbox360 is somehow -NOT- off the shelf when basically everything in it was already antiquated hardware re-purposed for their console...

avatar

kiaghi7

Because it is... Your arrogance and ignorance don't combine well for you...

More over, look at all of the components of the XB360, rather than choosing to be ignorant, you could try becoming informed...

 

The CPU? A Triple Core IBM PowerPC architecture chip... OFF THE SHELF

The GPU? An ATi X1900/X1950 architecture chip... OFF THE SHELF

The Memory? 512MB of GDDR3... Really? Do we even need to state how preposterously off-the-shelf that is? You likely have that in your computer RIGHT NOW!

The HDD? They are 2.5" SATA drives... OFF THE SHELF... You likely have SATA drives in your PC, and if you have a laptop, they are profoundly likely to be 2.5" form factor!

 

With other parts, I won't even swing at the soft-ball that is the other components like the disk drive, peripherals, and so on, they are literally FROM PC's, even the controller plugs are nothing but an alternative shaped USB port!

Good lord, the architecture even has a north bridge and south bridge! Microsoft could have likely saved a lot of money and just asked Intel to design it for them! It quite literally -IS- a PC, with OFF THE SHELF PARTS...

 

But don't believe me, I'll smash your ignorance with a profound dose of reality...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_hardware

 

 

If you're going to be a fanboy, at least be enough of a fanboy that you know your system... Jeeze, your argument looses a lot of credibility when I have to teach YOU about YOUR platform...

avatar

xeridian

I agree with some of your points here, not all but some of it seems to makes sense. Console MFG. would be better off making a brand named PC (Like HP or Alienware) and create games under their DDS (Digital Delivery System) under a 3rd party dev community and their own community such as what Atari, EA and Codemasters is doing. While none of us like this, it is the closest to creating a Console Community in th PC world.

Keep your fans close and your sales closer, so to speak. If Steam/Valve built their own PCs that would play any game they had or sale, this would be what I am talking about. So if you notice a lot of Huge publishers are taking small steps from consoles to the PC market, trying to cross their own fanbase over to PC so they no longer have to deal with the hell that is consol programing and development.

It does seem like 3rd party support is jumping ship from Nintendo, Sony and M$ console world to a small degree. More and more Devs are creating PC games every month, where the increase in hardware demand is proof of the increase in applications that require them.

avatar

jhains

My predicition is that "consoles" will disappear, but not because of the PC.  They will be replaced by streaming services to your internet capable TV.  Netflix/Gamefly/Whatever will stream the games just like they do movies.  The PC market will likely improve, as console add-in cards become available.

*Play your Wii/PS3/Xbox games right on your PC with the new Nvidia Console Card*

Then you can drop your proprietary console DVDs right into your PC, and play them on the 60" LED-LCD 240Hz 1080i TV in your living room with your wireless controller, or keyboard and mouse.

 

avatar

xeridian

No way in hell would Nvidia or AMD ever create a "Console Card" that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

They make "PC Video Cards" now, why dumb down their tech to please a fanboy. Also, no consumer in their right minds would buy a "Console Card" by Sony or M$ when they could buy an Nvidia or AMD card that was 10x's more powerful and could play much better games.

Sorry, but your idea doesn't really follow any true position either a business or consumer would take today or in the future.

avatar

DasHellMutt

I think you're way to fast to dismiss this the idea. I have thought of something similar. It would not be a replacement for the GPU at all. It would be more along the lines of a dongle that contained the decryption hardware to authenticate a console style disc and make it playable in conjunction with a software loader. I actually think this would be the perfect model for Microsoft to follow to bring xbox to the PC.

 

The integrated graphics in the newest AMD and Intel processors are about on par with current consoles. This means that pretty soon any idiot who buys a $300 PC at wal-mart could conceivably play games at the level of a console if those games were made available. Microsoft would just need to mandate the the manufacturers that in order to get the "xbox capable" logo the PC had a certain minimum hardware spec. All games would be designed with that spec as the reference and would automatically scale their graphics up on more powerful hardware.

 

Now, Do I think Microsoft will do it? No. I think its more likely they will buy on-live and re-brand it xbox.

avatar

phsv83

if you look in the ps3 book that came with the unit you would see that nvidia indead play a part in the makeing of the video unit of the ps3

avatar

kixofmyg0t

Not with  all the bandwidth caps that every ISP has.....

 

People also forget that not everyone has stoopid fast internet access.

avatar

kevjohn

Nice timing NVidia. 2014... Isn't that right about the time they're predicting the next generation consoles to be coming out?

avatar

Wingzero_x

Nvidia is right PC gaming will make a come back. Unfortunatly it won't be with the action games us builders like, to show off the power of our systems.

No, it will be Sims, Farmville, Angry Birds...and those types of games. Everybody knows console hardware if ever more powerful than PC hardware, isn't for long. What makes the difference is the cost. I doubt many average PC users will spend $150-$650 in addition to the cost of the PC, on a dedicated card, let alone 2 or more. Especially when they can get the same experience on a $300 console.

Personally I believe AMD (and Intel) are on the right track with putting good graphics on the CPU die. This is key as it gives developers a base sytem average to short for when developing games. However PC still has another drawback that holds back mass development, and that is piracy. While you have people making excuses for stealing because they work for their money and they have the right to play a game because it might suck, then the developers are going to stay away.

avatar

Nimrod

Do you lobby for the RIAA or MPAA on the weekends also?

avatar

mrl1007

besides all of the obvious reasons that have been noted already, I believe people who have no technical knowledge would rather just go out and buy a console and be set. Looking for a graphics card and then knowing whether it is compatible with your computer and such and then buying controllers or dealing with a mouse and keyboard and multiplayer aspects (would need to convienently connect the computer to maybe a big screen?) all hold PC gaming back. Graphically the mid range cards and computer surpass consoles today but consoles are so much more convienent for the average joe. I would love to see PC gaming rise above consoles and I know they will eventually after another generation or 2 like someone else said above but it will be a lil while still.

avatar

JCGPZ9

It's become common to install updates and game related items in a console now. In essence they are mimicking PCs (consoles can be considered PCs anyway) with some items requiring an install process.

No need for the top of the line stuff. 

PCIe has made searching for a GPU much easier compared to the days when you had to choose between AGP and PCI. Almost every desktop computer nowadays ships with a PCIe 16x or 8x slot.

The box of the game shows the minimum and recommended requirements. It shouldn't be that hard to figure out.

MS has released xbox controllers for the PC. Gamging keyboards are more of a preference than anything. Same with a mouse. They all run USB.

I've played consoles all my life but going over to PC gaming wasn't difficult. Even in the days of AGP/ PCI.  

avatar

Architek9

PC gaming is getting its ass kicking because people don't have 2k to throw down on a top of the line gaming rig.

avatar

aferrara50

u mean 2k for a budget rig. Looking at atleast 5k for a midrange considering you build it yourself.

avatar

JCGPZ9

This again? Are you really that stupid?

It doesn't cost $2k for a gaming rig. Most people have a PC already and you don't need to purchase top of the line equipment to get the most out of a game. I made do with my setup for 5 years then spent around $200 to upgrade it to play today's most demanding games, which by the way, isn't a whole lot in terms of count.

 

avatar

bling581

"Most people have a PC already and you don't need to purchase top of the line equipment to get the most out of a game."

To get "the most" out of new games you do need to purchase higher end to midrange equipment. $200 in upgrades on a five year old machine isn't going to get you much. My last machine was only 4 years old when I replaced it and I couldn't play new games because I had Windows XP and it only supported DirectX 9. Vista or W7 alone is over $100 (non-upgrade). Plus I'd like to see you run Windows 7 on a 5 year old machine with only $200 in upgrades. The speed would be painful.

What you want out of your games depends on the individual. If you like running everything on low to medium then by all means buy a low budget rig. I just bought a new machine last fall and went top end on most of my components and it cost me around $3,800 with a single GTX 580 superclocked card. It boots to Windows 7 in about 10-15 seconds and can play any game at max settings.

avatar

txstatekevin

you're an idiot for spending that much and you got ripped off. All you need to max every single game out there is a 2500k + 2 gtx 580's. Even that is stupid overkill and you don't even need to second 580 except for Witcher 2 with ubersampling, BF3 fully maxed, or maybe crysis 2 maxed out in 3d. Quit telling everyone that cheap upgrades won't get you anywhere, because its blatantly false.

As long as you have a pci-e slot, then anything from a hd 6770 to hd 6950 1gb (between $100 and $200) will let you play anything on high/very high. And DX11 doesn't even matter, tesselation is overrated and most games that run on DX11 also have a DX9 mode that looks fine. So you're a fucking tool for trying to make a point out of that. Oh and someone is too cheap to buy windows 7? What the fuck? Do you even realize how old XP is? Everyone should be finding a college student, getting windows 7 for $30, and shutting the fuck up. It's not that hard.

avatar

bling581

First of all, rage less.

You countered your argument by saying that you need a $2.5k rig to play games at max, which is definately not a low budget rig. Regardless of what you say, $200 on a 5 year old machine is crap and won't get much at all. It's not my first time building a machine and I admit I probably spent a little too much by getting the latest Intel processor but when you have a machine a year old that can do anything you throw at it then it's worth every penny. It'll be another 2-3 years before I even have to think about upgrading. The average person upgrades their machine every 2 years. The machines that I build last a good 4 years without a single upgrade so it's worth the money.

Yes, you can build a good gaming rig for a lot less then what I spent, but it most likely will not last as long (in terms of speed and handling new games).

avatar

compguytracy

My pc, not 3k+btw, will make a xbox, ps3, and wii look ridiculous, just in the amount of stuff i can do, game, internet, email, type up and print a document, watch movies, make a cd/dvd, watch dvd, edit pictures, video, sound, web pages. storage, play music, talk to you console retartds who think the next gen console is so great. bull. i had a faster computer 4 years ago than the current ps3. i can upgrade faster, am not limited by sony or microsoft as to when ill get new hardware. can play all aaa pc games, keep buying your toys, us real gamers will stick to what actually works. ps3, wii, xbox, all glorified atari 2600s

avatar

MrHasselblad

A good part of the reason why PC games fail is that the pc gaming industry does not know what to aim for. Which is exactly why games like the sims (with sub par graphics) still remain as the best selling pc game ever.

As for aiming point for pc games... Does a gaming manufacturer aim for; someone with a pc perhaps a few year old - and then perhaps not have availability to upgrade and/or add the correct drivers? Or for the 1k pc market; 3k pc market, or 10k++ pc market.

Which is also exactly why cod does so well; because it plays across two platforms, and sometimes three. What ppc game makes could ever hope to attain those numbers in pc sales alone (perhaps outside of the sims and wow)?

Nice charts and number claims by NVidia (and I confess I've run their hardware for more than a few years) but... If they would put their chips on the table on that one; I'd be first to take the bet

avatar

kixofmyg0t

 

I don't think consoles are going anywhere anytime soon. As far as being replaced in concept. We're gonna have at least two more generations.

It's been publicly said that even current gen consoles still have untapped potential....and I believe it. The PS3's Uncharted series is a good example. Uncharted 1 was written the "traditional" way with the RSX(the PS3's GPU which later became the GeForce 7800 GTX we remember) handling the graphics chores. Uncharted 2 took a radical departure and used Cell's SPU's to render most everything and used very little of RSX(well except for frame buffer). Both games look great....but when you look at Uncharted 2 and know that everything you're looking at is (mostly) CPU rendered....you come to think "Well how much else can they do?"

I'm not sayin that current consoles will be able to do the fancy DX11 ultra high 12,600 x 8,348 or whatever stupid res you people play at or whatever. I'm sayin that we can still expect more out of current gen consoles. 

PC hardware IS more powerful....no doubt about that. But really what is all that power worth nowadays? PC gaming isn't that big of the gaming pie right now.....the hardware is being wasted. You can blame consoles....you can blame ur mom....you can blame tablets...Apple...whatever. But the REAL reason is.....money. It takes so much more money to develop games nowadays....it takes SKILLED programmers to make use of "10 times more powerful" hardware that PC gamers are so proud of. In a business sense that's why the "Call of Duty"s reign supreme. (I want to make a disclaimer...I think COD's graphics look fine. COD4 is still a beautiful looking game to this day). Your beloved Crytek had to succumb to the business sense....they HAD to make a console version of everyones favorite graphical showcase game/tech demo to make money.

 

 

In the end their still is another generation of console on the horizon......

avatar

CHR15x94

Yeah, you'll probably never see PC's used as a mainstream gaming machine. Few are willing to spend $800+ on a gaming computer when they could just get a console for $250-300.

But, current generation consoles are pretty much dead from a technical stand point. The PS3 does have a bit left to give, but, making use of the Cell's processing power is VERY difficult. That's why you only see a few odd PS3 exclusives actually make use of the Cell's potential.

It's quite easy to program for current generation PCs, especially in comparion to the PS3. You have a CPU with four or so cores, and a GPU, that's it. The PS3's got effectively 8 processors to use; six SPUs and two PPC threads, and the GPU. Scaling processing over multiple cores is far more difficult than using a few faster cores, and programming the CPU to do/share the GPU's task is far more difficult than that (incredibly impressive though, what the Uncharted 2 programmers were able to pull off).

As far as the Wii and Xbox 360, well, the Wii was dead from day one, and the Xbox 360 really maxed out like two years ago. The resolution that the 360 is forced to work with is pathetic (you cannot display 1080p video on the 360, there is not enough eDRAM for the frame, depth and stencil buffers, and all modern games on the system work at around 480p because the hardware's too weak).

And yeah, can't blame Crytek for jumping on the console bandwagon. There aren't nearly as many PC's built for gaming as there are consoles. They have to make money after all.

Either way, I hope Sony and Microsoft show off some new consoles soon (E3 2012 please). They're certainly holding gaming back.

 

BTW, few people on this site have a PC anywhere near as powerful or expensive as what MaxPC shows off, or a tri-monitor setup, etc (I personally use a 1080p screen). They are MAXIMUM PC after all. If you picked up a magazine called Maximum Car (or whatever) and they showed off Ford Focuses and Toyota Corollas, well, you get the point. Not very maximum.

avatar

JCGPZ9

No need for anything over $500. Hell, just upgrading a current PC shouldn't cost anywhere near that.

avatar

Nimrod

Sorry kid but the only people saying that consoles still have untapped power are the publicity agents. And you fell for it. The last time i checked BF3 only had 24 players on condole and 64 on PC, plus bigger maps and higher res gfx AND the potential for higher resolutions AND higher frame rates.

avatar

kixofmyg0t

Kid? Wow....i havn't been called that in 20 years.

 

You totally missed my point. If you want to throw up the "PC has more players" card then last time I checked MAG supports 256 players on console...so that TOTALLY makes it better than BF3 right?

 

......hell most console games I know of sport 32 players.....on console....

 

What I meant was consoles still have some life left in the graphics department.

avatar

Nimrod

MAG looks like SHIT kid. It has the gfx of Quake2, thats the only reason is can support 256 players. Way to fail on making your point that consoles have untapped power. You just threw down the biggest example of why your WRONG.

 

Moreover, if consoles still had untapped power, i think BF3 would have been a good time to use it. I dont think we even know what resolution and frame rate that runs at on consoles yet.

avatar

kixofmyg0t

Yep MAG DOES look like shit. So does Deus Ex....what's ur point? World of Warcraft looks like shit and that's for PC....Diablo 3 looks like shit and that's PC as well......see where I'm going here?  You think I'm tryin to say that current consoles can do DX13 level 12,000 x 85,000 res a million players and smell-o-vison or something. That's not what I'm sayin. 

 

I'm sayin that consoles still have room for better graphics.....cuz as we all know graphics mean EVERYTHING right?

 

You might wanna take a look at the screens and video's of BF3 on console....looks pretty good TBH. Crysis 1 looks really good as well and that's coming to consoles in a few days.

avatar

MrGeek

When top of the line gamin rigs cost about $200, then yeah... they will become mainstream.  In the mean time the xbox 360's of the world (or PS3's/Wii's)  will continue their dominance in the gaming arena.

avatar

xeones

to be more mainstream would be to be more accesible to the average joe, not just the hardware enthusiasts like us that watch this site.  Difficult to do when the top of the line video card costs double or triple what a console system costs.  However these days a mid range affordable card is still way more powerful than any console.

But there are types of games that are better played on the couch too i suppose.  Not for me i prefer pc gaming it's been ages since i've touched my xbox or ps3.

So maybe they have a point.  I don't see much excitement about consoles these days if they don't put out some new machines soon eventually our phones will have better graphics.

avatar

rawrnomnom

Yes a top shelf GPU is more expensive than a console, but even an entry level gpu works for gaming. 

avatar

dragonfang18

How old are these consoles? Back in the 90's a console would be changed every 4 years? thus their hardware would mostly keep up with the PC's. Right? These current gen ones are how old? So lets say consoles kept up the trend of changing every 4 years... Would "current" consoles be 10X faster than current consoles as well?

avatar

rawrnomnom

No... Because there are no consoles newer than 06... and even in 06 they didnt put a top of the line gpu in their system because noone would spend $700+ for something that can't be used for anything but videogames. The "new gen" of consoles is considering adopting the equivilant of a 4800 series graphics card... which is peanuts, and cant even handle dx11...

avatar

kixofmyg0t

You're kidding right? You can't remember back that far? Current gen consoles are 2006 vintage. You must have still been in diapers then.

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.