DRosencraft
Distinguished
- Aug 26, 2011
- 743
- 0
- 19,010
This is a garbled statement of half-truths and ignorance of reality. The fact of the matter is, that for the same reason SteamOS sounds like a great idea, consoles have traditionally been able to provide momentary peaks of performance; a dedicated, purpose driven device works better at delivering on that purpose than a catchall device. Consoles have traditionally used the latest available technology, which only until the recent past meant that there would be a good year before PC tech, much less comparably priced PC tech, was in the same ballpark.
Even now it would be relatively difficult to completely build a PC that meets the same specs and performance as either the PS4 or XBOne. That has always been the contention and attraction of consoles - a relatively simple system that out of the box will play the games you buy at high quality with little to no maintenance, at a lower overall cost. And in 6-12 months there will be new hardware out, and you can hit or exceed that cost curve with less trouble. Two years out you can beat it no sweat, and after that PC starts to run away with everything. Can you build a PC better than a console? Certainly, if you have the money, are very frugal, and have the time to build an maintain the PC. But the DIY community is not all consuming. Most people don't know enough and can't be bothered. It's a heck of a lot harder for a kid to convince their parents to give them a wad of cash to put together a PC than it is to convince them to just buy a single device they can pick up at Wal-Mart on the way home.
Furthermore for at least the last couple generations AMD/ATI and Nvidia have predominantly designed/created/built the chips for at least one of the big 3 consoles. With the direction of chip technology constantly moving towards minimization, there is certainly nothing in the form factor that explicitly limits future console GPU technology. It would then obviously be the responsibility of AMD and Nvidia as the chip makers to push that envelope. Yes, console makers are working with such narrow margins they can't design and build revolutionary chips themselves - Sony tried with the Cell last generation and no one wanted to take it up - but that's precisely why this generation they went with AMD to design and provide one.
They mention the fact that a 1000W PSU pushing a PC GPU will always beat a 200-300W limit on a console. That may be true, but a 1000W PSU is about $200. The GPU you're likely putting in a PC with that much power is going to be at least $300. Before you even touch a SSD/HDD, CPU, or OS you've already passed the PS4's price and hit the XBOne's price. Now, the few extra FPS may be worth it for you, and you can upgrade in a couple years, but cost is at least part of the equation that has to be taken into account since we aren't all made of money.
Again, yes, you can build a PC that plays games at much higher resolutions, better frame rates, etc, but that will all cost you. The fact that you want to obviously means that you have no need or interest in game consoles. You clearly have more than enough money to build up a system at that level, and every game you'd like to play comes out for PC. But for their overall purpose, not just the narrow question of how absolutely tip-top the graphics are, consoles clearly have their place. Ignoring the monetary aspect is purely dealing in selective facts and not in full reality. This just sounds like Nvidia trying to justify the fact that they are not involved in this generation of gaming consoles with the Big 3, and the refocus on PC gaming that is necessitated for them because of it.
Even now it would be relatively difficult to completely build a PC that meets the same specs and performance as either the PS4 or XBOne. That has always been the contention and attraction of consoles - a relatively simple system that out of the box will play the games you buy at high quality with little to no maintenance, at a lower overall cost. And in 6-12 months there will be new hardware out, and you can hit or exceed that cost curve with less trouble. Two years out you can beat it no sweat, and after that PC starts to run away with everything. Can you build a PC better than a console? Certainly, if you have the money, are very frugal, and have the time to build an maintain the PC. But the DIY community is not all consuming. Most people don't know enough and can't be bothered. It's a heck of a lot harder for a kid to convince their parents to give them a wad of cash to put together a PC than it is to convince them to just buy a single device they can pick up at Wal-Mart on the way home.
Furthermore for at least the last couple generations AMD/ATI and Nvidia have predominantly designed/created/built the chips for at least one of the big 3 consoles. With the direction of chip technology constantly moving towards minimization, there is certainly nothing in the form factor that explicitly limits future console GPU technology. It would then obviously be the responsibility of AMD and Nvidia as the chip makers to push that envelope. Yes, console makers are working with such narrow margins they can't design and build revolutionary chips themselves - Sony tried with the Cell last generation and no one wanted to take it up - but that's precisely why this generation they went with AMD to design and provide one.
They mention the fact that a 1000W PSU pushing a PC GPU will always beat a 200-300W limit on a console. That may be true, but a 1000W PSU is about $200. The GPU you're likely putting in a PC with that much power is going to be at least $300. Before you even touch a SSD/HDD, CPU, or OS you've already passed the PS4's price and hit the XBOne's price. Now, the few extra FPS may be worth it for you, and you can upgrade in a couple years, but cost is at least part of the equation that has to be taken into account since we aren't all made of money.
Again, yes, you can build a PC that plays games at much higher resolutions, better frame rates, etc, but that will all cost you. The fact that you want to obviously means that you have no need or interest in game consoles. You clearly have more than enough money to build up a system at that level, and every game you'd like to play comes out for PC. But for their overall purpose, not just the narrow question of how absolutely tip-top the graphics are, consoles clearly have their place. Ignoring the monetary aspect is purely dealing in selective facts and not in full reality. This just sounds like Nvidia trying to justify the fact that they are not involved in this generation of gaming consoles with the Big 3, and the refocus on PC gaming that is necessitated for them because of it.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram