PlayStation 4 General DiscussionPS4 

  • Thread starter Sier_Pinski
  • 9,445 comments
  • 530,390 views
CrackedTrigger
Makes an interesting read, and slightly contradicts a low powered PS4. 300fps for 1080p 3D....

http://mandetech.com/2012/01/10/sony-masaaki-tsuruta-interview/

That will not Happen with PS4 i think. NVIDIA made a 1,000€ graphic Card which can run Games like BF with 100FPS. And this Card is State of the Art.

And Sony has Financial Problems, they will Never put a 1000€ GPU in a Console. And the GPU is Not powerful enough to handle 300 FPS in 1080p
 
On what game? A PS1 title? Sorry but I call BS. 300 FPS 3D is not even possible with my $2,000 PC. Not gonna happen.




I think you're just reading into that too much and interpreting it to be what you want it to.

That will not Happen with PS4 i think. NVIDIA made a 1,000€ graphic Card which can run Games like BF with 100FPS. And this Card is State of the Art.

And Sony has Financial Problems, they will Never put a 1000€ GPU in a Console. And the GPU is Not powerful enough to handle 300 FPS in 1080p

I'm not the one saying this is what Sony are aiming for, The CTO of Sony Computer Entertainment is. I'm not too in the know on the technology but they say in the article that the 3D will possibly use TSV technology. Also if you've heard the rumours, AMD are struggleing against their competitors too, and are rumoured to have offered subsidised pricing on cards for the next round of consoles, which got them a clean sweep of GPU and CPU for both the Xbox and PS3. The CTO also says there will be more emphasis on DSP. Sony being in trouble doesn't meen as much as what everyone here is saying, if you read the article I posted, the CTO talk about return-on-investment and turnaround time. And if they do their sums right, they'll spend money to make money. If sony see the PS4 as a way out of their situation then they're not gonna look at loosing ground on the xbox. You can't say Sony are in trouble, so with that PS4 will be bad.
 
He is not saying that the console will run 300fps in 3D... but that it will be able to run 3D and will be able to run up to 300fps (probably in 2D) from what I understand... but whats the point of running more than 120fps? is there any TV/Monitor that has refresh rates bigger than 120hz?
 
Yes but the human eye wont be able to tell the difference between 120 and 240 hz because its frame interpollation above 120hz. Now motion blur-thats where tvs have really started to perform better.
 
Anyone else ready for the PS4 yet ???.I want to put the PS3 behind and move on with a new console.Who thinks it'll be like a gaming pc ???.

I'm with you, I think this console generation has nothing left to offer. The consoles have been pushed to their limits, I just hope the next gen have cutting edge tech like PS3 did and the PS4 is not inferior to most PCs.
 
Yes but the human eye wont be able to tell the difference between 120 and 240 hz because its frame interpollation above 120hz. Now motion blur-thats where tvs have really started to perform better.

Plasma TV's don't really have that problem either.

Personally I've never been bothered by refresh rates in games, as long as its not stuttering I'm pretty happy. I think all games over 60Hz should be a reasonable target for the next gen consoles.
 
He is not saying that the console will run 300fps in 3D... but that it will be able to run 3D and will be able to run up to 300fps (probably in 2D) from what I understand... but whats the point of running more than 120fps? is there any TV/Monitor that has refresh rates bigger than 120hz?

It's not going to be able to run 300 fps. I would put my car on that.

That is unless we are looking at running SNES games on the PS4.

I'm not the one saying this is what Sony are aiming for, The CTO of Sony Computer Entertainment is. I'm not too in the know on the technology but they say in the article that the 3D will possibly use TSV technology. Also if you've heard the rumours, AMD are struggleing against their competitors too, and are rumoured to have offered subsidised pricing on cards for the next round of consoles, which got them a clean sweep of GPU and CPU for both the Xbox and PS3. The CTO also says there will be more emphasis on DSP. Sony being in trouble doesn't meen as much as what everyone here is saying, if you read the article I posted, the CTO talk about return-on-investment and turnaround time. And if they do their sums right, they'll spend money to make money. If sony see the PS4 as a way out of their situation then they're not gonna look at loosing ground on the xbox. You can't say Sony are in trouble, so with that PS4 will be bad.


It's not going to happen.

I don't care who said it, implied it, or stated that it was their "goal." The technology doesn't exist within the price point of a console.

You guys are just throwing around numbers and rumors with out actually understanding the technology that is required to render 3D applications at 300 fps.

The GTX 680 (currently the fastest single gpu card) cannot render 3D apps at 300 fps. The 680 is $500+ depending on where you live. That is JUST the graphics card. 680 (x3) MIGHT be able to render BF3 on Ultra @ res. higher =/> 1920x1080 (which probably still surpasses the graphics level of next-gen consoles) at 300 FPS. So, that is $1,500+ for JUST the graphics cards......

Its all marketing, and the gullible will eat it up.


I'm with you, I think this console generation has nothing left to offer. The consoles have been pushed to their limits, I just hope the next gen have cutting edge tech like PS3 did and the PS4 is not inferior to most PCs.

Going off rumored specs the PS4 is already inferior (look up the rumored AMD cards suggested to be going into next gen consoles, they're this years low end cards). Even IF it is superior to a high end PC, which it won't be, it will be surpassed within months if not weeks.
 
Last edited:
Yea I know new GPUs come out every few months but if the next gen console at least comes out with whats cutting edge its at least relevant for a few years.

I brought my GFX card last summer but it still runs every new game on the highest setting and it will for at least 8-12 months.

If the next PS4 comes out with an AMD equivalent of at 67xx 68xx series card then whats the point; they cant even run today's game on the highest eye candy settings.
 
Because the architecture and resources are fixed, the optimisation of the game engines are far superior and tighter than that of PCs. With the consoles abilities closer to a fixed model, the programmers know what they have, and can do the very best they can with it, as opposed to PC games, where the programmers have to try and make their games as reliable and stable, with so many different combinations of equipment.
 
The optimization that comes from developing games for PS, XBOX, AND PC simultaneously?

Sorry, but the whole "optimization" thing is a moot point.

The ONLY way that holds any significance is for exclusive titles. Even then the difference between an exclusive PS3 title and an exclusive PC title is mind shattering. How long exactly do you think it takes them to "optimize" their code for a console generation? (and just so were on this same page this is just using less code to increase resource capability; or taking short cuts....) A couple years? Almost end of life?.... Even then you can only do so much because you have PHYSICAL limitations (ie the amount of RAM, VRAM, CPU/GPU processing capability).

Consoles also have fixed graphics settings (meaning you can not change the quality). PC... obviously anything you can think of(tessellation, textures, a-aliasing, etc) . Hardware and software updates, community support, mod support, throw in 'instant' patches for those "reliability and stability" issues you mentioned... and any optimization superiority you think you had in the console department just went out the window.

Don't get your hopes up too high for the PS4. It is not going to be this "300 fps 1080p 4k ready 3D blah blah" monster that you think it is.

Neither will any of the ps4 titles be "optimized" lol at launch. More like, a year from end of life.
 
For those of you who are sitting there reading the post above thinking "huh??" "opta- what?" "Hard and soft ware?" "Ugh! Too many terms!" allow me to explain..

Think of the PC as Android. And think of consoles as Apple.
Android, compared to Apple at least, has less boundaries ie; apps, music, international relations etc... while as Apple requires you to pay, sign up, sign something you dont understand etc... Android has countless Apps for one topic, while as Apple has a few, ie; Itunes..

So in simple terms ladies and gents., consoles won't reach the bar that the PC has set. At least in our lifetime...
 
Thing is, you completely failed to point out the advantages that consoles (read: Apple's iOS in your analogy) have over the PC.
 
New spec rumours:
CPU AMDs APU A8-3850, GPU: Radeon HD 7670 AMD, 1GB Ram (which is absolutely LOUSY considering the console is not comming any nearer than end of 2013, even by today that would be bad). Anyway, how do these specs compare to the highest high-end of today's PC's? What can we expect graphically? Can someone elaborate?
 
Think something along the lines of beyond current top end PC. You've got to understand that because the architecture is fixed, the optimisation can be much better than on the PC, so the graphics will be better. But I too would like to see more RAM, 2Gb would be considered a minimum. Also, with the APU being the A8, it can work with with 7670 in SLI, so it's graphical capability will be better than the Xbox has been in the past.
 
66019497913364665701335371811EYYTYMYO6t5DKeUrNGxF.JPG


Devkit Features? Fake?
 
Seems fake. 20GB of ram would cost like 250€ alone. Also it says DDR6, DDR4 is not even ready yet.

GDDR6, it's different. But your point it still valid however, they're only up to GDDR5 at the moment - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDDR5

The rest of it all is also clearly not true, wild specs that would cost far too much. I also doubt spec sheets like this would actually exist for a machine like this.

I mean 128 SPU cell and 2Ghz GPU? Yeah right.
 
Also, the idea of a code name is so that people don't know what it's a code name for. What's the point of having that on there then telling you it's the PS4 anyway? Plus that blurb at the top sounds like something a fanboy would write, not Sony. I mean, 'way ahead of the competition spec wise'?. Just no.
 
That would be one hell of a monster. Way over the top to be true though. Mind you, comparing the PS2 to PS3, the difference is dramatic there.

We can dream.
 
Some of that is plausible, but I honestly can't see these being the new specs; considering the combined cost of the individual components would be too high to begin with. I think i'd call BS on the GDDR6 though, why on earth would you need 10GB of that + 10GB of the other when high end gaming PCs rarely have more than 8GB shared + 2GB dedicated

You'd think they would learn from their mistakes with the PS3's release; They released it too late and with a too high RRP compared to their competitors.

If those specs are true, they would have to be aiming at toppling the PC gaming market, which doesn't make business sense considering volume sales in the traditionally lower end console market are where the big money is.
 
The funniest thing is it says in big text 'for developer use only' but does anyone really think Sony pass on information like this to developers on A4 pieces of paper? "Oh hey Steve run off some of those spec sheets will you, we need to stick it in the post to Konami, let them know what's going on. Oh, make sure you write 'for developer use only' on it though, wouldn't want it falling into the wrong hands".
 
Back