AMD Bridges Gap Between PC, Next-Gen Consoles

Status
Not open for further replies.

soldier44

Honorable
May 30, 2013
443
0
10,810
6
Well this is good news but I game with the very best the pc has to offer every year. I spend the money to make sure I have the best visuals money can buy. I game at 2560 x 1600 everything maxed currently with 2 GTX 780s in SLI and a 4770k @ 4.7 512gb SSD and it can't be beat not even by both supposed next gen consoles combined into one. I love seeing the fanboy kiddies praise these new consoles thinking they beat out PCs. Good laugh.
 

madjimms

Distinguished
Mar 7, 2011
448
0
18,780
0
Hope everyone bought AMD stock when I told them to a year ago... They have some damn good business strategies, they just need time to pan out.


EDIT: You people are correct about the year ago part, more like 6 months give or take. But I expect AMD's revenue to climb steadily. (and I don't actually own any stocks)
 

sarinaide

Splendid
Jul 14, 2011
3,820
0
22,960
74
Very exciting times for AMD systems architecture, instead of outright performance war they have done what smart business is about and that is securing portfolios, APU technology is the in thing now and its flexible enough for AMD to integrate this into every market sector with what is tremendous success.
 

goodguy713

Distinguished
Oct 23, 2009
1,177
0
19,460
94
what I really want to see is true cross platform gaming pc players can play against ps4 players and xbox1 players that would be the next best thing .. im so tired of having a group of friends here and another group on another system .. baring the exclusive titles .. but still fact of the matter is games like bf3 or the upcoming bf4 would really get a lot of benefits that way ..I really wish I could play against my friends on ps3 ... or xbox.. that's what would be really cool and interesting
 

steven785

Honorable
Jun 5, 2013
42
0
10,540
1


Well a console is a one time investment of $500 not $2k+ each year. Add up the savings. The xbox 360 came out around in 2005 and cost $500. For the past 7 years you can play most of the mainstream games at playable resolutions. How you spend your money is your problem but spending $14k just to brag is pretty pointless. Also upgrading each year is pretty useless and a waste of money when my i5-3570 and gtx 670's in sli can run everything now on max at that 2560. I love seeing pc fanboys praising how they waste there money each year on pointless upgrades.

edit: Also 2 780s in sli is not the best money can buy. And for someone like you, why do you only play on one monitor if money is no object for you?
 

acerace

Distinguished
Jan 1, 2011
970
0
19,060
36


My BS sense is tingling. It also said that you don't have that kind of PC, judging by your previous posts.
 

codo

Honorable
May 5, 2012
69
0
10,630
0
dont be salivating over your prey wishing for cross platform play- if it ever does happen it will mean the banning of mouse & keyboard for PC games. regardless, I dont have high hopes, amd has always been a second tier company- in a two horse race.
 
developers ignored the pc platform not because the consoles had a different hardware architecture, but because pc platform had the highest piracy and will still have the highest piracy. Games are developed on pc not on the consoles
 

childofthekorn

Honorable
Jan 31, 2013
359
0
10,780
0


The best part of your comment is it has nothing at all to do with what the article states. The article is referencing the way code is handled and how there is no longer several different types of hardware game developers need to go across. I'm glad you get to tout how much money your spending (some, not including myself, would consider it Wasting) on your rig, which is grossly overpowered compared to what your using it for. This could ultimately make it easier for games to be created and theoretically make games cheaper overall.

I myself, have not owned a console since N64 (I purchased a used Xbox for time splitters 3 alone, purchasing no other games and it quickly was shelved). And can definitely see the benefits to consoles using unified hardware with PC. PC will always be the strongest in terms of raw computing power, but the software needs to be able to properly utilize that power (See Crysis 1 for proof).
 

razor512

Distinguished
Jun 16, 2007
2,052
7
19,815
15
As long as it gets us more PC games then it will be good. Moving everything to x86 means that developers will have an easier time designing for consoles and the PC, and thus little barrier/ expenses to getting a PC release.

PS there is no need to waste money on a top of the line gaming PC, after around $900-1000, diminishing returns kick in big time.

While still more expensive than a console, a gaming PC will be infinitely more functional, as you can not only game, you can do many other things, and when it comes to gaming, you have more versatility.

The PS3 controller, xbox 360 (and probably the 2013 xbox ) controller, mouse, keyboard, wii controller, and many others work on the PC. (in addition to mouse and keyboard for FPS games)

PC allows you to game the way you want, at the resolution you want, and that is something that the consoles cannot do.
 

DRosencraft

Distinguished
Aug 26, 2011
743
0
19,010
6


Congratulations, you are the epitome of why so many people have such a hard time dealing with PC gamers. Your asinine gloating and sheer ignorance when it comes to smart investment in a gaming rig tarnishes the entire community. Please grow up a little.
 

10hellfire01

Distinguished
Nov 14, 2009
245
0
18,710
6


Multiple studies over the years have proven against exactly what you have stated. Piracy on consoles is as rampant as it is on PCs, if not more.

They don't port games due to the fact it costs more money and time. Even then, there would still be a profit. To them, that profit usually isn't enough, although to me, a profit is a profit and it should be taken advantage of. Publishers are in it for the most profit along with the least amount of work, as is the rest of the world today (unfortunately).
 

LukeCWM

Distinguished
Oct 5, 2011
146
0
18,680
0


You do realize trailing one-year performance for AMD is -31.3%, right?
 

kinggraves

Distinguished
May 14, 2010
951
0
19,010
12
The unified platform across consoles is good for PC, and oddly enough bad for the consoles themselves. Despite morons like the one above still perpetuating that you need a $2k PC to game, you can really get on the ground floor with a cheap rig these days, not costing much more than a console would. The lines are so blurred between what an HTPC is doing and what an XBox is doing, what's the difference really? Even the old claim that a console is better optimized may not be true anymore when the system is no longer just running the game. Now it's running the game, Kinect, DVR, multitasking in the background. When you're multitasking like a PC with a multitude of background processes, you aren't optimized. Even the simplicity of a console is getting closer to PC with Steam. When XBox and PS4 are running the same kind of digital shop Steam sells, and selling licenses instead of games, who wouldn't go for the company with more experience, leverage, and better sales? MS and Sony do not have enough of a 1st party presence to survive with this kind of port friendly market, which is why MS is trying to lock down XBone exclusives and Sony is trying to befriend indies at any cost. Good luck with that. Just because you make it exclusive doesn't mean people aren't going to backend it and bring it to PC themselves. The sorry attempt to try and bring online DRM checks to consoles has likely got the hacking community ready for war. The more you try and lock it down, the more they focus their attention on you. Only Nintendo has enough exclusives to float by on their own efforts.
 

somebodyspecial

Honorable
Sep 20, 2012
1,459
0
11,310
20
FAIL - made for consoles first? DIE consoles DIE.
""It is absolutely the end goal to create a development ecosystem where first-party games will be written to the games consoles first"

I want games made for PC first, then ported to mobile. Can't wait for consoles to sell like crap (like wiiu, vita & 3DS) and PC's take back over totally as the dev platform. If AMD believes this is a great strategy (which has held us PC gamers back for YEARS!) I hope they die and get replaced by NV once Denver hits. At that point they'll have their own cpu, NV can crank up denver to as many cores as equal to ~75w (haswell/richland wattage) and pair it with a Maxwell gpu. Design games on that in opengl/webgl/opencl/html5 (take your pick) for very simple porting to mobile when the pc dev part is done and never being held back by consoles again. Consoles can just go away under this idea, and so can DirectX/Microsoft having us by the nuts. Without dependence on directx I will have lost my need to upgrade MS operating systems and office. I can move to another office (many out there, most free and do what 90% of us use it for anyway), and won't miss DX.

Mobile will probably do more to kill consoles (happy with that), but PC dev is where the work will get done and in any of the 4 mentioned api's porting to mobile is a cinch. AMD made a mistake investion a LOT of money in consoles that are on their way out. Now they have to push them as hard as they can to recoup the R&D spent on them. NV on the other hand chose the more elegant way, by getting your PC games to your TV and NOT aiding consoles which hold us back for another 8yrs at 1080p while 4K is where we should be shooting during that time. Thank you NVIDIA. With this comment, I'm not a little ticked at AMD unfortunately. I understand why they have to do it, but they should have just let consoles die and went further into mobile (they did consoles and were 3yrs late to mobile because of it). We'd already have an ARM based AMD core by now and they'd have an answer to NV's Titan/780 GTX etc if they'd have spent on CORE products also instead of betting the farm on consoles.

Nobody involved with console hardware has gotten rich right? NV did the math and ran to mobile with 1B units selling now and 2.5B by 2017. Simple math. If they sell even as much as last time it's only 250mil units TOTAL between 3 consoles over 7yrs (35mil/year for all 3 total). I'm not even sure they will make money yet, as they may have just done deals to cover GF wafer starts so they wouldn't be fined more and more. Note all AMD chips are coming from GF this year as they try to cover their agreements with them. Why do you think Richland is GF 32nm? They have to make chips there or OWE a big bill for nothing to GF (well for not making enough chips with GF, basically for nothing). We'll know which way this story goes by end Q1 2014. I hope it isn't just chips being made to cover foundry wafers and actually is for SOME profit. AMD needs to stop making mistakes: ATI purchase overpriced, FAR too many GF wafer starts promised, consoles, laying off 30% of your engineers, drivers lacking due to those layoffs, no Arm until 2014 due to consoles etc. I could go on.
 


Ok if this is your belief tell me one thing that a console can do that a PC can't do better?

the option for cable to run through the new Xbox? Nope PC has had that tech for years.
play games? PC's been doing it for years before consoles. in fact with a controller also.
surf the net? PC has a been doing this long before consoles.
play games with friends? PC has been doing it for years.
the ability to customize and make maps for your games? OOPs consoles don't have that yet.

I will not list them all because the list is very extensive but my point is becoming clear. without the PC there will be no games. the games get created on PC and then the consoles read and play the information.

The tech that is deployed in consoles comes from PC so I think it's time that console lovers realize that one tidbit of info.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS