You, nirojan, might easily be just as surprised as you think I will be.
Please don't forget that all you have is 100% speculation. Unless you actually have some sources, that is. In that case, why didn't you link to them in your first post regarding the specifications?
everything is wrapped in gray
i'm focusing on your image
can you hear me in the void?
The next Xbox: Always online, no second-hand games, 50GB Blu-ray discs and new Kinect | News | Edge OnlineOriginally Posted by Mirage
The PlayStation 4 Has A New Controller, Fancy User Accounts And Impressive Specs (So Far)
Just a heads up I edited the post before this one with my 2cents on the RAM issue
Given that developers have been complaining for literally years that the PS3 didn't have enough RAM (and to some extent that the 360 didn't either), I really don't know that this relationship will continue to hold, assuming it is already accurate since I have no real data to support it and my memory of how much RAM your typical computer had doesn't really go back as far as 2000 when I didn't really care.
But 2-3 GB seems unlikely to me if only because the Wii U is already running with 2GB (admittedly reserving 1GB for the OS) and while I don't expect Sony and Microsoft to make as huge a technical leap from the PS3 and 360 as they did from the PS2 and Xbox, I doubt they'll be releasing something that competes with the Wii U in terms of power. Assuming they make a decent leap in power from their last consoles, I fully expect 4GB to be the minimum they'd add to a console with how little it would actually cost them and how much RAM has become a big problem at the end of these extended life cycles.
^ lol I said that first
I think you're stretching what is really only hyperbole. When a developer is making a game, yes, there will be some things the PS3 simply can't do, but once both versions are made, 99% of all developers spend 1000x the resources optimizing the console versions than they do optimizing PC.That's weird, because SE - known as fantastic people at pushing consoles to their limits - have often stated that the PC version of FFXIV has been limited/restricted by the PS3 cross-platform functionality.
Go on Steam and browse all the AAA multiplatform titles - notice how they all require 2 to 4 gigabytes of RAM? Imagine how poorly the game runs on those bare minimum systems. Then look at how smoothly the games play on a PS3 or a 360 which are running off of only 256mb of RAM.
Nexuiz, Splinter Cell: Conviction, the Call of Duty games, and maybe even Crysis 2. By better, I mean running at smoother framerates with comparable graphical fidelity. My laptop is just about where those PS4 specs are at, and all of those games run worse for me than they do on console. Again, it's all about optimization, how much effort developers put in to getting every last drop of performance out of the system. Some do a better job than others. Far Cry 2 is better and FEAR 2 absolutely blows away the console version.
edit: and Vivi and nirojan have the right in this, I simply cannot see these machines having less than 4GB minimum memory, not split with GPU. You can get a computer with that much memory for $200 or less these days if you look hard enough.
1 GB for just the OS on the WiiU sounds like way too much for a console that only has 2 to begin with. That means it in practice only has like twice of the PS360 for games to actually run on. Being a bit lenient and perhaps saying that the next gen might have 4 GB, that's already 4 times as much as the effective amount of RAM on the WiiU. Sounds like a pretty huge leap to me, especially if the next gen is coming just a year or so after the WiiU.
As for Bolivar, I don't even know where to begin, but I'll sort something out, don't worry.
First of, memory requirements are pointless to use as an example. On a PC, you're in a highly multitasking system, where you have a huge OS and countless of background applications running. I don't close firefox when I start a game, and that thing easily uses 600 GB alone. The windows services that are always running even here on my laptop with just 2 GB RAM use 350MB alone. Of course a PC isn't going to be able to run a game if it has only 512 MB, when the OS and background user applications already use 1 GB.
Secondly, console games use less VRAM because console games use pretty low-res textures. Console games also don't run at a very high resolution. I have no idea which resolution you play with on your laptop, but even if you play at as low as 1280x720, that is likely to be a higher resolution that many of your PS3 games run at. A lot of PS3 games are rendered at a lower res than 1280x720, and then just stretched to 1280x720.
Splinter cell conviction, for example, runs at 1024x576. Black ops runs at a laughable 960x560 on the PS3, and slightly higher on 360, although still far from "HD" even there. Are these the resolutions you play your games at on your laptop?
Thirdly, are you measuring framerates on both your laptop and on your consoles when you say they run better, or are you just "eyeing" it? Just for information, that is extremely inaccurate.
-edit-
Just some math. Even if those resolution changes seem pretty small, they actually aren't. The PS3 res of Blops is actually just 55% of what it is if you run it at 1280x720 on a PC. Then who knows, maybe your laptop actually is 1280x800, and you run it at that res instead? In that case, the difference is even greater, and the PS3 res ends up at 50% of what your laptop would be running it at.
Last edited by Mirage; 02-06-2013 at 09:25 PM.
everything is wrapped in gray
i'm focusing on your image
can you hear me in the void?
You can't look at it in terms of "twice the amount" or "four times the amount." Technically the Wii U have six times the amount of RAM as the PS3, but it's probably going to be years before we see anything that scratches the surface of the Uncharted and Killzone franchises.
I heard the announcement is... They're pulling out of the console gaming market
When you're talking about the amount of RAM, yes, you can look at it in terms of "twice the amount". If you're talking about the total graphical performance, then you also need to take into account the GPU and memory bandwidth. However, I wasn't talking about the GPU, I was talking about the amount of RAM. if we don't see a game like Killzone 3 on the WiiU, that has absolutely nothing to do with the RAM in the WiiU. You could have 50 million GB RAM without getting graphics that are even 1% better than the current gen console graphics.
everything is wrapped in gray
i'm focusing on your image
can you hear me in the void?
I was only saying that it's excessive to paint a 4GB PS/Xbox as too big of a leap over the Wii U just because it's 4x the ram. I'd have to say developers would be pretty vocal if these things shipped with less than 4GB.
Also, just talking about resolutions doesn't sum up the whole debate. I'm running Black Ops II at 1440xsomething on my PC because it was about the highest I could go keeping the framerate at 60fps. The game doesn't look as detailed or vibrant as it does on console, and it does dip just below that perfect 60fps quite a bit.
The only reason I brought all this up is to drive home that at the end of the day, specs don't matter as much as how much effort gets put into optimization. If you disagree with that, then I honestly don't know what to say.
You mention that it dips below 60 fps quite a bit, but at the same time, black ops' PS3 average framerate is closer to 40 than it is to 60. So there you have it, your laptop pushes out a higher framerate, while you also have something around 3 times as high a resolution. If I'm going to make a guess, I bet you run the game with higher res textures on your laptop as well.
In addition, your laptop doesn't just run your game. At the same time, it runs a gigantic, enormous OS, with a lot of applications in the background, while still keeping your framerate high. At the same time, XMB slows down tremendously when displaying it during a game, even if the game you play is really, really, really lightweight. It happens to me even when I play Disgaea 3, in the headquarters with almost nothing going on. I just don't think you're giving your laptop as much credit as it deserves
As far as color vibrance goes, that's most likely to be due to you playing it on a laptop monitor, which are notorious for having poor contrast ratio and brightness levels, while in the TV world, the LCD panels are generally a lot better. Maybe you even have a plasma TV, which offers even better picture quality. However, the PS3 is probably not the one to thank for this, it's most likely the TV.
The impression of there being less details could be a by-product of your monitor not showing contrasts as well as your TV does, so those might one and the same issue.
In either case, the resolution doesn't tell the entire story, of course. However, it does tell an important part of the story, seeing as the resolution has a very direct impact on how much juice you need to display a frame of a certain level of detail.
Last edited by Mirage; 02-06-2013 at 11:54 PM.
everything is wrapped in gray
i'm focusing on your image
can you hear me in the void?
All of these technical terms make my head hurt. :twak:
Soak it all up. It's good for you!
In either case, I have a PS3 myself and I am pretty satisfied with it. I'm just not going to pretend like it is anywhere near my PC in terms of gaming performance.
I'll probably get the PS4 too, if it looks all right. All I really want is a reasonably priced console. It doesn't have to be super awesome hardware wise. I would probably be satisfied if the PS4 just looked twice as good as the PS3, while displaying every single game in 1080p with around 4x AA and at a stable 60fps. I don't really need more "juice" than for it to be able to do that.
Of course, that's not really a hardware issue, but a developer issue. No matter how much power a machine has, some people just think it is so important for it to have that extra level of flashiness, instead of keeping a stable and high framerate.
Last edited by Mirage; 02-07-2013 at 12:08 AM.
everything is wrapped in gray
i'm focusing on your image
can you hear me in the void?
$400 dollar price point?
Japanese Newspaper Claims PlayStation 4 Will Cost About $400 - IGN
What's this? Games designed to run on the PS3, which has been notoriously difficult to develop for due to its specific hardware configuration, runs more smoothly on that system than it does on an open-ended upgradable platform with superior (but variable) hardware? Color me shocked.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
