PS4: new kits shipping now, AMD A10 used as base

there is only a certain amount of hardware needed. I can watch with my Raspberry Pi HD Movies…and on my old mac book with 1,83 core duo and 2 gb ram they are laggy as hell.

I am sure they will do the right thing…at least Sony..because they will learn from their mistakes.

Can’t wait to see what video card Sony will pack in the ps4. Hopefully it’ll pack 1 GB of video memory. Nice to see 8 GB of physical memory. It seems ever more certain that when the next generation arrives, the WiiU will look more and more like the Dreamcast.

its not ssd. dont be retarded. 256 gb solid state? no way.

@52, what a decent priced system with a shit tonne of ace games? Yeah I’d take a Wii U if it turned out like Dreamcast.

Specs sound great, seems like a real balance between power and affordability (or at least I hope so, and if it’s not as affordable as some as myself put on, it better have a strong launch window of games to justify its price, including strong 1st party content), and one thing I’m glad they’ve seemed to adress (going from this report) they didn’t this gen is the functionality of the ui, which I’ve always considered ok this gen, not good or great. It’s a big thumbs up from me if multitasking with the next Sony console can and will do this. Though if I could play prognosticator for a sec, my bet is that this gets unveiled at its own event (much like the Vita did back in january 2011) in January 2013, or at GDC in March (GDC would make more sense if u ask me). As far as a release, either holiday 2013, or early 2014, and its launch line up will not include a game where you attack the crab at its weak point for massive damage

I wonder if Sony will keep the name “Orbis”? Very doubtful they’ll go with PlayStation 4, with all it’s association with death in Japan.

They could give me clear up 8Gb or 8GB -> GIGABITS =/= GIGABYTES

It´s was a typo ?

8GB of ram won’t be so much of a pricing problem if it’s flash connected on an interposer. I also expect the new system to include support for real time ray-tracing by way of an FPGA. There will almost undoubtedly be an additional gpu as the performance targets here are beyond what an A10 is capable of. I’ll put a couple of links below to an interview with Sony’s CTO which explain the tech that’s to be included a bit better than I can.

http://semiaccurate.com/2012/03/02/sony-playstation-4-will-be-an-x86-cpu-with-an-amd-gpu/

http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2011/12/maasaki-tsu-interview.cfm

If they can bare-metal program the A10 (witch they should), it should be ok if it’s paired with a nice dedicated GPU. If it’s using the integrated GPU then it’s a big disappointment.

People pay $500+ for iPads and change it every 2 years and won’t pay $500 for something that should last 10 years…

edit: About bits/bytes, speed transfer are generally expressed in bits and capacity in bytes, generally.

Processor for a console is much more important than GPU.

@53, A solid-state drive is a data storage device that uses integrated circuit assemblies as memory to store data persistently. It is used on phones & tablets. It’s not just one of those ludicrously overpriced 2.5″ SATA drives that you’d shove in your PC.

The only thing I wanna know now is the price, cause I am not gonna pay more then 400 euro’s (yeah, i live in europe, deal with it) for a new console. I will just gladly wait a year, that the price is down a bit more, before I consider it.
350 euro’s for a console (WiiU) is already above my comfort zone to be honest. But oh well. that is still acceptable.
I will have to see which launch games will be available at the beginning of the PS4, and then decide

The AMD A10 APU won’t be just its sole graphics chip. What they want is a power efficient system. So when playing a downloadable 2D game or games that just don’t require that much graphics power the MAIN GPU (separate from the APU) will simply shut down as not draw any power. The A10 chips are actually not that bad in terms of processing power, most of 4 cores too with turbo boost as well and support for 1866MHz DDR3 RAM…

Here is a link, click on Product Specs Tab to see the two variants of the A10 chips.

http://www.amd.com/US/PRODUCTS/DESKTOP/APU/MAINSTREAM/Pages/mainstream.aspx#7

More than likey they will go for the A10-5700 or some variant of it. It is powerful, your getting a 3.4GHz chip that can OC it self to 4.0GHz and has a 760MHz GPU with 384 cores. To put that into perspective, the 360′s MAIN GPU only has 48 cores @ 500MHz LOL.

As for 8GB or 16GB of system memory, this seems a little high to me. I mean what will it really need that much system RAM for? I would say 4GB maybe 6GB on a push is more than enough for a console. Considering PS3 has 256MB of RAM and 256MB of VRAM and the 360 has 256MB RAM and 512MB VRAM.

Also the people stating that they hope it has 1GB of VRAM… ARE YOU SERIOUS!?? 1GB of VRAM by todays standards for 1080p gaming and above resolutions is nothing. In Skyrim on PC with 2K texture mods, 8XAA, everything maxed out on my 2x 7970 3GB VRAM GPU’s in crossfire @ a resolution of 2560×1440 I am pushing 2.9GB VRAM usage. So I say the next consoles seriously need at least 2GB VRAM if they want to push 3D 1080p gaming at 60fps (30fps per eye) then 2GB is a MUST!!!

On the GPU front, I expect this is where Sony will seriously ramp up the game and throw in a VERY strong GPU. I reckon they will aim for a variant of the AMD 2GB HD6970 as you can buy one of those brand new for £120 so if they buy these in bulk from AMD (just the chip and not the PCB board it self from a vendor) they could get these for VERY VERY cheap. Also the fact they are using an AMD A10 APU as well, AMD will give them a pretty good deal as the system will be almost all AMD parts.

I seriously can not wait to see Uncharted 4 on this machine!!!!

@61 A solid state drive is NOT used in smartphone and tablets. Its the same kind of tech but MUCH MUCH slower and does not use SATA to connect them. You are talking about SD cards and lower end built in flash memory.

Real SSD drives use faster NAND Flash Memory and they DO use SATA2 or SATA3 to connect for up to 6Gbps data speeds.

They are NOT ludicrously expensive like you claim. They used to be a few years back. I just upgraded my OS drive in my PC from a 60GB OCZ Vertex 1 drive that cost my £200+ 2 years ago to a 240GB OCZ Agility 3 SATA3 drive for £100. That you might think is expensive, but for the speed it is not. Windows 7 boots from a cold boot in 12.5seconds (yea I timed it) and the fact that SSD drives never have to be defragged is also a bonus as there is no seek time on them defragging can even cause the drives to wear out as well. No seek time means no moving parts like in a HDD which means less power draw as well.

SSD’s are the future, and if the next consoles dont use them from the start or dont allow you to upgrade them your self (like you can on the PS3) then shame on them!

I don’t really care about specs, what matters in gaming are the games.

So, what does this mean as regards backwards compatibility?

@66 I think u might want to look into them buying Gaikai to possibly answer your question.

lol you kids are so stupid you really think its going to fit a decent vga card in it while running at 300Watts from the wall. Lol console are out-dated when that come out, it takes at least a year to fit current gen vga into a notebook. I guess if it comes out in 2014 then NVidia will be up to like “900″ series and aTI will be up to 10K series if there don’t go bankrupt first. Still gutless compared to a desktop.

@67: NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

@68

You, sir, are an idiot. PCs versus console specs break down like this:

A PC has to deliver roughly 8-10 times the power of consoles just to match what they’re doing. There is a lot of waste. This is because:

1. PC games aren’t properly optimised to the specific specs of anybody’s system.
2. It takes the card manufacturers literally YEARS to get make their drivers particularly effective for any particular game because the software cannot and does not keep up with the hardware.
3. A PC has to run a very resource-hungry OS in the background.

Combining these three factors means that owning a PC with, let’s say for the sake of argument 2xGTX 690 SLI, is the exact equivalent of building a Formula One car on the roof of a tall building. It’s got the power, and its owner can brag about that power (which is, after all, what it is often all about – it’s why we have cock-measu… I mean benchmarking), but he or she cannot ACCESS that power. They cannot get it onto the road with their wheels, engine, and aerodynamics all working how they should. All it can do is drive slowly around in very tight circles for fear of falling off and exploding.

Meanwhile, there are the consoles.

1. All of their power can be accessed. Developers optimise properly for this known quantity.
2. Drivers are not an issue.
3. The OS is extremely slimline and requires very little resource.

SO, using the above analogy, the console is the Toyota Prius down there on the street. Not only is it incredibly efficient, but it has enough road to go wherever it likes as fast as its top speed will allow. A whole lot quicker, as it turns out, than a PC.

WHICH IS WHY:
1. You can’t run Forza 4 (for example) or anything even remotely approaching it on even the best 2005 PC.
2. That Xbox 360 and PS3 versions of games, EVEN NOW, are comparable to their PC counterparts (beyond the over-resolutioned willy-waving that makes fuck all difference to the gameplay experience).
3. When the new consoles arrive, they will offer visuals, right off the bat, that are quite sickeningly beyond anything we’re currently seeing on top end PCs. And THAT’S NOT THE PC’S FAULT. PCs ARE more powerful on paper, but all that power is of very little use if you can only access 10-20% of its full potential.

And that is the last time I will spell it out for you cock-measuring PC dimwits.

@DeyDoDoughDontDeyDough, “1. PC games aren’t properly optimised to the specific specs of anybody’s system.”

Wrong. It depends on the:

1) Port

2) Processing power

If your processor is good, no matter what the game is ported from a console to PC it will run good. Everything else depends on the GPU like resolution, effects and etc..

“It takes the card manufacturers literally YEARS to get make their drivers particularly effective for any particular game because the software cannot and does not keep up with the hardware.”

Another bullshit. Since when Card manufacturers take years to get their drivers particularly effective?
give the example with the link obviously or GTFO.

you won’t give any because that’s not true.

“3. A PC has to run a very resource-hungry OS in the background.”

My previous PC had 8 GB of Ram which was already overkill for any current gen system. I have Windows 7 obviously and it only eats 1.5 GB Of ram. Games these days need only 4 GB Of Ram at best if you want them to have the best looking quality.

“WHICH IS WHY:
1. You can’t run Forza 4 (for example) or anything even remotely approaching it on even the best 2005 PC.”

Because there is no emulator YET. If there was an emulator i could run any game with graphical enchancements with the max resolution. My i7 37XX 3.50 TURBO is enough for every shit there is.

“3. When the new consoles arrive, they will offer visuals, right off the bat, that are quite sickeningly beyond anything we’re currently seeing on top end PCs. ”

Every generation of consoles was not like that and this will be no different. I’m already running current gen games with visuals that are sickeningly beyond anything you are currently seeing on your consoles.

“Another bullshit. Since when Card manufacturers take years to get their drivers particularly effective? Give the example or GTFO.”

My 4870X2s. Took Catalyst drivers two years just to fix the bugs these cards created in current resource-hungry games and even longer before they became in any way efficient at running even elementary stuff like Crysis. Let’s take The Witcher 2, for example. Classic case of NO OPTIMISATION WHATSOVER. Why? Because they know that PC gamers like yourself will unquestioningly just throw more hardware at the problem. Which is like buying trophies instead of winning them. It’s self-defeating.

Have a good old read through the driver update release notes of any top-end current card and you find the same thing over and over. Now perhaps you’d like to give me an example where that’s not the case. Perhaps you’d like to give me an example of ANY GAME AT ALL that uses (I would say 100%, but I want to give you a fighting chance here) 50% of a card’s potential power if it were properly optimised.

Go ahead son, make my day, or as you so sweetly put it, GTFO.

@72, that’s one case with a manufacturer renowned for bad drivers. Hardly merits sweeping statements like “It takes the card manufacturers literally YEARS to get make their drivers particularly effective for any particular game” Which is clear bullshit. Typically driver optimisations are available for new games (by Nvidia anyway) on launch if they’re required. Years? Please.

Really, I’d like to see sources for all your claims, because more than a few of them smell like bullshit, and there is a lot of heavy exaggeration throughout.

I’ve got a question- why are we getting 2K tablets before laptops? Why is the standard laptop still using a petty 1366*768 resolution when its architecture is multiple times stronger? Even the average smartphone is quickly approaching that, there’s already 1920*1080 phones out in the wild like the HTC One J. An average CPU+GPU combo really shouldn’t be having these problems of running modern applications at higher resolutions. By now a $500 budget laptop should be toting a fHD display.

@74, because Resolution for tablets is a requirement for your eye. Most of the people like reading something on the tablets and better resolution – better looking font (sharp, high quality and etc.) and less stress for your eyes.
Resolution on the tablets will always have a priority.

@72, “My 4870X2s.”

you can stop here. Crappy outdated videocards from Radeon. Well of course it’s going to take a while from them.

Buy Nvidia next time.

@74
I think it’s got a lot to do with OS design. With PC O/S the design is effectively as you go up in resolution your monitor tends to get bigger. So the OS doesn’t tend to be as useable on a very small 1080p screen. Sure there are allowances like scaling icons, fonts etc – but it’s not a intrinsically embedded in the OS as for tablets.

With Tablets/Phones you are looking at a fixed size screen and lots of resolutions. Hence the OSs are designed around that.

@75
Of course it’s going to be an outdated videocard, they were asked for an example where drivers took years to be sorted. You also can’t dismiss the example because it’s ATI. They are a very big section of the market.

@76

Thank you, Dr Damn.

@75

You know, just because you want to believe something it doesn’t make it so. You are yet to provide me a single example of a game in which the power of any PC graphics card has been specifically optimised for. You know why, because there aren’t any. And that’s not a ‘oh, so what, I lose 20% power I could have got from optimisation’. The difference between thorough optimisation (See RAGE on 360 as a good example) and no optimisation is MAGNITUDES of the useable power.

You pay £800 for a GTX690? Well done, sir, you have just spent £600 of that on power you cannot use. It’s very simple, really, if you just get your head around the notion that there are many more factors in play than ‘you get what you pay for’.

Sincerely, someone who knows.

“You are yet to provide me a single example of a game in which the power of any PC graphics card has been specifically optimised for. You know why, because there aren’t any.”

Starcraft II, Diablo III, Crysis 1, Hawken, Witcher 2 I need to continue?

“You pay £800 for a GTX690?”

No.

I hve GTX 580 and i’m fine with it for the rest of this generation and the start of the next.

“Sincerely,”

you know shit but you can always guess what cards I use.

@DrDamn, “Of course it’s going to be an outdated videocard, they were asked for an example where drivers took years to be sorted.”

because you know, ATI Drivers are always crap. ATI Cards are not really great for gaming first of all. They do not even have proprietary gaming technology like PhysX. Their drivers are nothing like WHQL drivers from Nvidia: http://www.nvidia.co.uk/content/DriverDownload-March2009/confirmation.php?url=/Windows/306.97/306.97-desktop-win8-win7-winvista-64bit-international-whql.exe&lang=uk&type=GeForce

@78

“Starcraft II, Diablo III, Crysis 1, Hawken, Witcher 2 I need to continue?”

None of these games are optimised to anything like the degree console games are. Keep trying. And try and stay on topic this time, since:

“No.

I hve GTX 580 and i’m fine with it for the rest of this generation and the start of the next.”

Has nothing whatsoever to do with what we’re talking about.

This is exciting news, no matter what happens, I WILL be there at the midnight launch! and I’ll probably get half the release titles! I have to start saving up now.

Not gonna lie, guys, I’m not incredibly bullish on either console this generation. Last generation, we got the promise of HD gaming with acceptable framerates. The result? Lots of sub-720p games running in low detail with clunky framerates, despite all of the graphical power that was touted (especially on the Sony side). Before anyone calls me out as a PC fanboy, I have both a PS3 and PC as gaming platforms, and love both.

@DeyDoDoughDontDeyDough #77-

You say you are someone who knows. So let me ask you- are you involved in the industry? As in, are you someone who is in silicon design/architecture, embedded systems design at a major silicon/platform firm, or in embedded software/OS/driver development at the same? I don’t see your optimization argument holding that much weight- pc graphics card drivers are designed to allow developers plenty of access to the hardware resources on the card, and in recent years allow them plenty of freedom to scale their game engines to utilize whatever level of resources exist.

You’re correct in stating that console games are optimized for console video hardware. Of course they are! But to say that the PC games are not largely optimized to the same degree? Not at all. Just because a game has not been specifically written using a particular video card as part of the development kit or a specific streamlined OS/driver stack has not been written for it (as in the case of consoles), does not mean that said game is not optimized to PC CPU/GPU architectures. Far from it. OpenGL and DirectX exist to standardize calls to commonly used hardware-accelerated features in PC GPU’s, and allow for plenty of optimization by game developers in how they choose to break up and target rendering tasks to hardware available on whatever card is being used. Modern game engines are also designed to scale extremely well across the targeted user base, because more games can be sold if more people can run them.

You said the following, which cuts to the heart of what’s being discussed here:
“WHICH IS WHY:
1. You can’t run Forza 4 (for example) or anything even remotely approaching it on even the best 2005 PC.”

Nope. Ertzhaus was right- the only thing stopping us is a good emulator (which is an oxymoron- emulation is not “good” for obvious reasons for the sake of our discussion), or actually developing the game natively in the major PC graphics API’s and OS. The best cards of 2005, like the X800XL and 6800GT would shred Forza 4 if it was developed for the PC- those cards have more texture memory resources on-board, faster core GPU clocks and memory interfaces, and are built to run the games of the day at much higher resolution (1600×1200 or 1280×1024) with high detail using 4xFSAA and 16x anisotropic filtering- the latter being something that console games typically discard (or kick down to a much lower level like 2x or 4x) because it’s not something that makes a huge difference at 720P and lower. And we’re not even bringing cross-platform game development into the discussion here…A survey of cross platform console games of the last couple of generations would reveal that lots of potential performance has been lost in the shuffle of attempting to make games look and play identically across competing consoles. Your claims about optimization are FAR too simplistic.

So yeah, console games are optimized, but no, this does not mean that PC games are not. A lot of your comments seem to miss the nuances of recent (2002 and forward) development challenges.

The “ultimate goal” for the hardware, we were told, is for it to be able to run 1080p60 games in 3D with “no problem,” to create a machine that’s powerful enough for “today and tomorrow’s market”.

Meh… hopefully it will take more time and offer something better than that.

LOOOOL a Goddamn comment war !! LOOOL problem is that game websites forget the old news they post. SONY spoke in 2011 of a home multimedia version of the PS3 and not the PlayStation 4, I mean COME ON !! how can an APU !! deliver the next gen EXPERIENCE !!! some comments are really funny !!! … LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL …. VG247 are even funnier.

I am a console user who never finds it comfortable to play games on the PC, but that will never prevent me from saying that the PC is much superior to the consoles and I have seen this many times. Say nothing about the games being cheaper,Steam’s sales, strategy games,having more games on PC and the whole modding communities.

That said, I’ll probably pick up a console next gen !

@81
I don’t think there’s anyway a x800xl/6800GT could run forza 4 or uncharted 3 with a 2005 processor. I doubt they could even run the PC version of NFS: Shift at an acceptable clip/resolution. Though there maybe a bit of hyperbole, I agree with most of what DeyDoDoughDontDeyDough is saying. There’s no game today made for the PC that looks light-years ahead of console games despite the huge gap in potential power. The best example would probably be The Witcher 2–it’s the best looking game built from the ground up for the PC, but still managed to get a comparable looking 360 port. And even though there’s more going on in The Witcher 2, it still doesn’t ‘look’ quite as good as uncharted 3.

@64, My point was that flash storage is technically a solid state drive. At least to my knowledge- it doesn’t have to be the traditional 50c-$1 per GB SATA drive. I could be wrong but I’m more or less arguing over semantics. If you can explain to me the difference between built-in flash & an SSD, I’ll gladly apologize for being wrong. As far as I know, the type of memory doesn’t necessarily dictate whether or not it’s an SSD.

@83, No one expects the graphics to be driven by the APU, at least not in any graphics intensive games, there are many laptops today that use the built in APU in CrossFireX- mine for example is the 7520g+7670m & gets something a little above these results

http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-7520G-HD-7670M-Dual-Graphics.81182.0.html

& this is just a budget $400~ laptop. I’m more than capable of running Skyrim on medium using my laptop’s display & run VLC on my TV right next to me with 30+ FPS. Without VLC I am able to manage it on high with 30~ FPS.

This looks good. It seems sony is learning the lessons. Next-gen sure will be interesting with big 3 looking set for bigger things .
The controller is still open for debate. I hate dual screen gimmick, but as many pointed out, it may turn out to be an unfortunate industry standard next-gen (although I dont think so, just because if that was the case, we would have heard about its implementation in next-gen games that are in development). If they make vita the standard ps4 controller, it would be amazing, although it will probably be just a wish considering how costly vita is. But who knows what will happen in 2014.

@79
“No.

I hve GTX 580 and i’m fine with it for the rest of this generation and the start of the next.”

Has nothing whatsoever to do with what we’re talking about.

It kinda does. You don’t buy GTX 690 for year or two. Its investment that will grant you max settings in every single new game coming in maybe even in next 4 or 5 years.

@83

“how can an APU !! deliver the next gen EXPERIENCE !!! some comments are really funny !!! … LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL …. VG247 are even funnier.”

APU can easily deliver next gen experience. If you have been playing on console and havent even seen DX11 its your shame. A10-5800k with HD 7660D (which is remotely cheap CPU/GPU combo) Can deliver 1080p gaming with solid 30fps in almost every modern game. They will probably use new Trinity “dual-GPU” technology and put down HD 7670 or similar small GPU in crossfire with the HD7660D. This way they can use on-board GPU for less demanding jobs and when playing high end 3D-games it will take HD7670 and crossfire it with HD7660D and bring some extra performance.

Some way this would be ideal for the PC’s as well as for consoles. AMD gets their hybrid crossfire developed further which helps PC gamers to get their computers cheaper, but they will still be able to play modern games with good settings@1920×1080. If AMD does that the game developers have to optimize their game for hybrid crossfire. Atm only few games get huge FPS boost out of it. Even this hybrid GPU-GPU/CPU setup would probably multiply the power of consoles to match 2012 med range gaming PC. But consoles will never ever give better graphics than a PC with high res textures. This is a hard fact. Even FC3 on console will look very very bad compared to PC.

@88 Is it possible for AMD to make APU with six core cpu for PS4 ?
I mean to make it more stronger then desktop a10 + crossfire ?

@89, The PS4 won’t need a stronger central processor than an A10. Games being optimized to the specific chip-set on a gaming console will deal out vastly superior graphics to it’s PC equivalent.

Of course the built in GPU side of the A10 would be a huge bottleneck unlikely to improve much over the current standard we expect from the PS3 which is why it’s been implied that it’ll likely be in crossfire with a dedicated GPU- most expectantly the Radeon HD 7850 which is a relatively capable single card by today’s standards.

AMD’s shitty driver support can really hold their cards back but imagine the possibilities when that’s no longer a problem & on top of that- every game is designed to specifically run on it.

@89, Cores does not make a difference. Especially from AMD because to call them “cores” actually is incorrect.

@90,
“Games being optimized to the specific chip-set on a gaming console will deal out vastly superior graphics to it’s PC equivalent.”

Lolwut?

@90 I know that ”optimized for specific chip…” but some games already use more then 4 cores like Capcom games,Battlefield 3,maybe even Source ?
So for next gen I thought they would go more then 4 cores because xbox 360 have 3 real core ?

@91, Compare any PS3 game to one running on a PC with a 7800GTX.

@92, Cores, clock speed, neither way gives a definitive answer to speed performance anymore. To make it easier, the A10-5800K is around as powerful as a second gen i5 CPU at the price of an i3 while crushing both in the integrated graphics department but most hardcore PC gamers are still more likely to grab the Intel processor & top it off with an Nvidia GPU.

@93 In games probably is faster if you consider intel’s IGPU is very week.
But cpu perfomance Intel sandy bridge or even previous one is def. more powerful.

@85
“I don’t think there’s anyway a x800xl/6800GT could run forza 4 or uncharted 3 with a 2005 processor. I doubt they could even run the PC version of NFS: Shift at an acceptable clip/resolution.”

Turns out both DeyDoDoughDontDeyDough and I were making the wrong comparison. The PS3/360 have roughly the level of power of the Nvidia 7800 series, which are more than capable of running the games we are discussing. If those games were targeted to the PC with the same hardware, you’d get more bells and whistles at the same resolution.

“There’s no game today made for the PC that looks light-years ahead of console games despite the huge gap in potential power.”

A lot of this has to do with the finance side of things. A large percentage of the “triple-A” titles in recent years have been multiplatform for obvious reasons. There’s more money in selling to both console and PC platforms (and comparatively much less to be made on the PC). To that end, many games are being designed to scale across lots of different platforms. Nobody who wants to make money wants to design a game engine that won’t scale to the largest potential base of consumers.

Note that within some current franchises, a lot of sacrifices have to be made to get certain games to run on consoles in any playable way. Look at BF3. They bumped the resolution down to sub-720p, turned down the texture detail, used minimal anti-aliasing, and allowed a generous amount of pop-in that’s visible almost all the time. And all the while, the game runs somewhere around a little under 30fps average. The point is, there are sacrifices to maintain an acceptable experience, and that’s where the gap in power is easily noticed. There will be a few instances where games fit so well into the strengths of the consoles as to be really stunning, but as we’ve seen time and again, with the last generation, most games featured less bells and whistles than their PC equivalents to deliver a stable experience.

@95

Name me ONE PC game that can run smoothly at 720p on an Nvidia 7800GTX that looks even 1/4th as good as Uncharted 3 or Killzone 3. Wait, you can’t? Discussion = ended.

The pure, undeniable fact of the matter is that consoles are CLOSED platforms. PCs are OPEN platforms, with the added overhead of a Microsoft Windows OS. You will ALWAYS be able to achieve far superior graphical performance by targeting and optimizing specifically for a closed platform with a very specific, unvarying set of components.

Case in point: http://youtu.be/c7PKpGyjqBw

The 7800 GTX can BARELY run Bad Company 2 on LOW settings, at 1024×768 resolution. LOL! Yeah, that looks better than Uncharted 3, sure.

These guys suggest that this amount of RAM required for advanced OS with amazing features from sony.

@FeaturePreacher It’s an A10 AMD Processor. The GPU is built in…
So some form of this: AMD A10-5800K Trinity 3.8GHz (4.2GHz Turbo) Socket FM2 100W Quad-Core Desktop APU (CPU + GPU) with DirectX 11 Graphic AMD Radeon HD 7660D
I’m sure custom and dedicated for gaming only. The fact is, the A-8 is cheaper and out performs the A10 in a lot of games. But Sony like’s to spend more money than they make, so whatever! lol

Facepalm.