dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
7034
share rss forum feed


Metatron2008
Premium
join:2008-09-02
united state

Seriously? PS4 to use AMD cpu???

»www.shacknews.com/article/77457/···u-radeon

PS4 will apparantly use an 8 core AMD jaguar chip running at 1.6 ghz for it's cpu! If anyone doesn't know, Jaguar is the 'next gen' of AMD's bobcat APU, which is their only decent cpu behind phenom... It's put into laptops and competes with Intel (And of course loses to the I3 series, but can defeat atom).

So basically the PS4 may have a better chip then an Intel Atom! Yay?

It also has 4 gigs ram, and a 7970m, which should have the same or slightly better graphics then the desktop ati 4000 or 5000 (I have heard that they may be using a 5000) series chip that Nintendo uses.

This next gen looks to be low priced consoles, with great graphics, but crappy cpus.



Alpha Phoenix
Premium
join:2001-06-15
Brooklyn, NY
kudos:1



CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County
reply to Metatron2008

It is not done with the idea it will be underpowered as that would defeat the purpose of the console.

It will be just fine...
--
Brian

"It drops into your stomach like a Abrams's tank.... driven by Rosanne Barr..." A. Bourdain



danawhitaker
Space...The Final Frontier
Premium
join:2002-03-02
Urbandale, IA
reply to Metatron2008

Apparently they're also ditching the DualShock controller.

»www.pocket-lint.com/news/49380/s···ller-ps4
--
You're watching Sports Night on CSC so stick around...



Jon
Premium
join:2001-01-20
Lisle, IL

said by danawhitaker:

Apparently they're also ditching the DualShock controller.

»www.pocket-lint.com/news/49380/s···ller-ps4

Oh hell no!


Metatron2008
Premium
join:2008-09-02
united state

So it'll be basically a slightly more powerful wii u?



danawhitaker
Space...The Final Frontier
Premium
join:2002-03-02
Urbandale, IA
reply to Jon

What I wonder is if they'd fully ditch the DualShock, or take the Nintendo route and offer a traditional DualShock model for the PS4 separately and provide backwards compatibility for existing DualShock controllers. That controller design is probably my favorite of all the consoles I've played. I'd hate to see it vanish entirely.
--
You're watching Sports Night on CSC so stick around...



C0deZer0
Oc'D To Rhythm And Police
Premium
join:2001-10-03
Tempe, AZ
reply to Metatron2008

Well, as we all know, a console remains usable for gaming far longer than a PC built on the same specs.

But one gripe I have with this is the obvious attempt by Sony to try and dominate our entertainment setups by simply having their consoles crowd everything. First they took away PS2 compatibility from PS3's, and now there's the report that because of this significant architecture change, the PS4 will not be compatible with PS3 games at all. Ironic from the company that basically became such a strong seller because of the backward compatibility angle.

Though I suppose that was basically a move to try and rip off the WiiU innovate with new Sony technology.
--
Because, f*ck Sony



Metatron2008
Premium
join:2008-09-02
united state

As much as I hate the Xbox due to the ripoff that is Xbox Live (And $130 320 gig drives ), at least they did their Wii ripoff (Kinect) in a original manner. I love PSN plus and the PS3, but I'm not surprised at all by this.



Metatron2008
Premium
join:2008-09-02
united state

Btw, you say consoles last longer then pcs, well when the 360 came out with the triple core power pc processor, and the ps3 had it's cell, THe top cpus on the market were a Pentium D and Athlon x2.

Now we have core i7s and Sony is going for a chip that barely defeats an intel atom...................................



CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County

But it will not matter as the AMD CPU will do JUST fine....



C0deZer0
Oc'D To Rhythm And Police
Premium
join:2001-10-03
Tempe, AZ
reply to Metatron2008

said by Metatron2008:

Btw, you say consoles last longer then pcs, well when the 360 came out with the triple core power pc processor, and the ps3 had it's cell, THe top cpus on the market were a Pentium D and Athlon x2.

Now we have core i7s and Sony is going for a chip that barely defeats an intel atom...................................

Yes, because PC devs feel like it's a sin against everything if they have to spend more than 30 minutes optimizing anything to run well on a broad range of hardware. Tech Demo companies in particular are guilty of this - such as id and CryTek.

With a console, you're more or less pressed to wrench everything there is in its hardware platform, and this leads to more efficient games, and some rather ambitious tricks.

If not for the fact that the PS1 for example had such an embarrassingly low amount of total RAM in its system, many games would still be very small for the platform, until some more enterprising developers finally dawned on the idea that if they keep the CD-ROM motor spinning, they could continuously load new data as the player leaves a portion of the game world... enabling the creation of finally appropriately large and more detailed worlds.

With the n64, the biggest fail on Nintendo's part was creating a GPU capable of so very much more than any of the other consoles it was competing against, yet saddling it with an equally abysmal amount of texture RAM. Then some of the guys that did Rogue Squadron figured out a way to use the expansion RAM pack and some pointer voodoo to try and extend that into the expanded memory... which ended up being the de-facto killer app that made it almost a requirement to get a Ram expansion pak in your n64, to see the games at their best... or in the case of Perfect Dark, play the game at all.

These concepts we take for granted today that allow such large game worlds and a masking of the loading screens (if not eliminating them entirely once we are in-game) have - for a majority of which - come from working on consoles, which benefitted PC, and vice versa.

Not to mention, nowadays we have GPU's capable of processing physics and other general-purpose stuff in their cores as well, and their architectures being exploited for more than just throwing the polygons at the screen. So while you might want a strong, efficient CPU to avoid bottlenecks, it's simply just not as much pressure to try to put the fastest thing they could make, and then end up having low yield problems like they had with the PS3.
--
Because, f*ck Sony


Metatron2008
Premium
join:2008-09-02
united state

All of these lovely excuses conveniently ignore that this destroys the reason why consoles last so long:

They came with top of the line parts when they launch. The Xbox 360 and PS3 could compete with the best cpus on the market (and win) at the time, which is the reason why they are still usable now.



Metatron2008
Premium
join:2008-09-02
united state

It looks like anyone's hope for a long lasting console is now (Extremely ironically) the steam box.



CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County
reply to Metatron2008

First - I bet they were not top of the line as you think and ----- the top of the line is overkill and costs a ton more. CPUs now have more power than the average need - from PCs to consoles.
--
Brian

"It drops into your stomach like a Abrams's tank.... driven by Rosanne Barr..." A. Bourdain



danawhitaker
Space...The Final Frontier
Premium
join:2002-03-02
Urbandale, IA
reply to C0deZer0

"Yes, because PC devs feel like it's a sin against everything if they have to spend more than 30 minutes optimizing anything to run well on a broad range of hardware. Tech Demo companies in particular are guilty of this - such as id and CryTek."

Tell me about it. One of the small contributing annoyances that built up for me with Diablo 3 and the latest expansion of WoW was how horribly they ran on my system. I noticed a huge difference between Cataclysm and Mists of Pandaria when trying to multi-task (and by multi-task I mean browse the web). My system is 4.5 years old, yes, but still, WoW was one of those games that was never terribly graphically intensive. One huge change they made was that they removed the ability to turn off shadows. Even with every graphical setting on both Diablo 3 and WoW turned down to the lowest setting, it became an exercise in frustration. I like the fact that when I stick a game in my Xbox 360, it's going to play as intended without me tweaking a ton of settings and being frustrated.
--
You're watching Sports Night on CSC so stick around...



Ghastlyone
Premium
join:2009-01-07
Las Vegas, NV
kudos:5

1 edit

said by danawhitaker:

Tell me about it. One of the small contributing annoyances that built up for me with Diablo 3 and the latest expansion of WoW was how horribly they ran on my system. I noticed a huge difference between Cataclysm and Mists of Pandaria when trying to multi-task (and by multi-task I mean browse the web). My system is 4.5 years old, yes, but still, WoW was one of those games that was never terribly graphically intensive. One huge change they made was that they removed the ability to turn off shadows. Even with every graphical setting on both Diablo 3 and WoW turned down to the lowest setting, it became an exercise in frustration. I like the fact that when I stick a game in my Xbox 360, it's going to play as intended without me tweaking a ton of settings and being frustrated.

You're comparing an MMORPG poor performance to that of your Xbox 360? If there was an MMO available on Xbox to compare to performance wise, you might have an argument.

Also, I don't even want to know how crappy of a PC you have, if it can't even run WoW on the lowest of settings. LOL


danawhitaker
Space...The Final Frontier
Premium
join:2002-03-02
Urbandale, IA

Diablo 3 isn't an MMORPG, it's an ARPG with some multiplayer thrown in and is where I first started to have serious issues. It seemed like many of the graphical "advances" they made in that got thrown into the next WoW expansion. One example of an unnecessary change was removing the ability to turn off shadows completely. I suspect that alone is the sole reason I had to kick things down from solidly medium settings into low.

I have a kid. I'd love to build a top of the line machine, but the money isn't always there. And if you'd like to see how "crappy of a PC" I have, feel free to look at my profile, that should contain the system specs from my last build. The only difference would be the graphics card, which I replaced in August, and hard drive space.

It *can* run WoW, but not as well as it used to. That would be a more accurate statement. I could still run the LFR with 25 people okay, and dungeons. But there was a distinct shift between the two expansions.

My argument is still valid either way. If there were an MMO for 360, it would play equally on each 360, and not vary - because every 360 is fundamentally identical. The developers don't have to worry about tweaking it for lots of different hardware combinations. People who own a 360 (or substitute PS3 or Wii U here, it's not really relevant, I just used that one because that's the one I play the most right now) know that a game released on the 360 in 2005 will play, and a game released on the 360 in 2013 will play without issue. The same can't be said for someone who built a PC with that same time gap.
--
You're watching Sports Night on CSC so stick around...



Ghastlyone
Premium
join:2009-01-07
Las Vegas, NV
kudos:5

said by danawhitaker:

Diablo 3 isn't an MMORPG.

I didn't say it was.

said by danawhitaker:


I have a kid. I'd love to build a top of the line machine, but the money isn't always there. And if you'd like to see how "crappy of a PC" I have, feel free to look at my profile, that should contain the system specs from my last build. The only difference would be the graphics card, which I replaced in August, and hard drive space.

It *can* run WoW, but not as well as it used to. That would be a more accurate statement. I could still run the LFR with 25 people okay, and dungeons. But there was a distinct shift between the two expansions.

I understand having kids, etc. blah blah blah. I have 2 myself. But complaining about how a brand new WoW expansion doesn't run well for you with 2 years between releases with only a minimum GPU upgrade, is non sense. You've already admitted to running an ancient PC even before MoP released. And then complain when it doesn't run well? Hmm.

said by danawhitaker:

My argument is still valid either way. If there were an MMO for 360

But there's not. And probably never will be an MMO on a console.

If you want to speculate on how well your Xbox would run an MMO, then have at it. I'm not getting into an argument based on speculation.


danawhitaker
Space...The Final Frontier
Premium
join:2002-03-02
Urbandale, IA

1 edit

I'm not trying to compare an MMO. You're completely missing my point here. It could be any PC game. It doesn't have to be an MMO. Any PC game will play differently on each PC, whereas the 360 game will play exactly the same on each 360. No tweaking required. It could be The Sims. It could be Call of Duty. I picked WoW or Diablo 3 (which again, is not an MMO) because those are the only PC games I've played in recent history. I played Sims 3 in 2007-2008 after I had first built the PC.

Point being, Microsoft doesn't make me upgrade the hardware in my 360 every few years to keep playing new games. The 360 I bought in 2008 will play any 360 game released today without trying to catch on fire. PC game developers have no qualms about not caring about throwing PC gamers under the bus when it comes to hardware requirements.

Edit: And you're actually wrong. There is an MMORPG on a console. DC Universe Online is available for the PS3 in addition to the PC.

Edit 2: And I'll concede that on occasion consoles have released certain "upgrades" that are at the very least recommended if not required for certain games, like with Perfect Dark on the Nintendo 64. But at least that is one consistent upgrade that everyone with a Nintendo 64 can buy and know will work the way it's supposed to, without trying to play a guessing game about which piece of hardware might end up providing the most benefit.



Snakeoil
Ignore Button. The coward's feature.
Premium
join:2000-08-05
Mentor, OH
kudos:1
reply to Jon

said by Jon:

said by danawhitaker:

Apparently they're also ditching the DualShock controller.

»www.pocket-lint.com/news/49380/s···ller-ps4

Oh hell no!

Gotta find a way to use all those unsold PS visas.
--
Is a person a failure for doing nothing? Or is he a failure for trying, and not succeeding at what he is attempting to do? What did you fail at today?.


Snakeoil
Ignore Button. The coward's feature.
Premium
join:2000-08-05
Mentor, OH
kudos:1
reply to danawhitaker

I had DC universe installed on my PC, and dumped it shortly after. It ran like a huge crap fest.

I then installed DC universe on my PS3 and it ran fine.
Both devices are about the same age, but the PS3 is more powerful then my PC.
--
Is a person a failure for doing nothing? Or is he a failure for trying, and not succeeding at what he is attempting to do? What did you fail at today?.



Snakeoil
Ignore Button. The coward's feature.
Premium
join:2000-08-05
Mentor, OH
kudos:1
reply to Metatron2008

I wish they'd improve their move system to something like what the 360 has.



sleuth
Premium
join:2001-08-30
West Des Moines, IA
reply to Jon

said by Jon:

said by danawhitaker:

Apparently they're also ditching the DualShock controller.

»www.pocket-lint.com/news/49380/s···ller-ps4

Oh hell no!

Think the Xbox is supposed to use a touchscreen controller too. Well, at least everyone can be equally frustrated right?


C0deZer0
Oc'D To Rhythm And Police
Premium
join:2001-10-03
Tempe, AZ
reply to Ghastlyone

said by Ghastlyone:

But there's not. And probably never will be an MMO on a console.

If you want to speculate on how well your Xbox would run an MMO, then have at it. I'm not getting into an argument based on speculation.

Except there are MMO's on consoles. Final Fantasy XI on Xbox 360 for one; and DC UO for PS3. that's not even accounting for PSO 1 & 2 on Dreamcast and Gamecube.
--
Because, f*ck Sony


Metatron2008
Premium
join:2008-09-02
united state

Nintendo never gets online (Until now) or HD (Finally 1080p but the other consoles will have support for 4k), everyone copies Nintendo... Rinse and repeat



Metatron2008
Premium
join:2008-09-02
united state
reply to C0deZer0

said by C0deZer0:

said by Ghastlyone:

But there's not. And probably never will be an MMO on a console.

If you want to speculate on how well your Xbox would run an MMO, then have at it. I'm not getting into an argument based on speculation.

Except there are MMO's on consoles. Final Fantasy XI on Xbox 360 for one; and DC UO for PS3. that's not even accounting for PSO 1 & 2 on Dreamcast and Gamecube.

PSO is NOT a real MMO sorry to say. A multiplayer team of 4 is not in the same league as an MMO.

I played that game on the DC and GC. It was fun but not an MMO.


stonhinge
Premium
join:2003-07-28
Topeka, KS
reply to Metatron2008

FFXI - For PS2, some PS3s, XBox 360. FFXIV(relaunch) is going to be on PS3 as well as PC.
--
When the ship lifts, all bills are paid. No regrets.



Gyp Thompson

@comcast.net
reply to Metatron2008

They come with top of the line parts? Are you familiar with RROD? If not, google it.


me1212

join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO
reply to Metatron2008

»kotaku.com/5977849/the-playstati···s-so-far

"# CPU: 4x Dual-Core AMD64 "Bulldozer" (so, 8x cores)"

looks like it may be 4 2 core bulldozers, still thats horrid. They will most likely be underclocked, so a phenom ll would beat the crap out of it. Maybe I made the right move getting the wiiu now.

Full system specs according to that if anyone cares "

# System Memory: 8GB
# Video Memory: 2.2 GB
# CPU: 4x Dual-Core AMD64 "Bulldozer" (so, 8x cores)
# GPU: AMD R10xx
# Ports: 4x USB 3.0, 2x Ethernet
# Drive: Blu-Ray
# HDD: 160GB
# Audio Output: HDMI & Optical, 2.0, 5.1 & 7.1 channels"