Hmm am I the odd one out here? Do most people not update their computers every 5/6 years? I thought that was the norm.
PCs will actually hold consoles back next gen on the CPU side for a while
- Thread starter DonMigs85
- Start date
- Status
OP
OP
my point was a CPU released in 2011 could beat 2013-released consoles and last you this entire generation. I don't think that will hold true for current tech though for the next gen
OP
OP
Time will tell. We don't have details yet but my gut tells me the next gen consoles will have a fixed maximum clock of at least 3 or 3.2GHz. They may also go for a lower 45W TDP for the CPU portion. And I don't think the PS5/Nextbox will be quite as conservative as the PS4 and Xbone were for 2013, they're gonna cut loose a bit more.
OP
OP
you telling me I'm wrong about a Ryzen 2600 or Core i5-8400 not being able to keep pace with the next gen consoles? At least once we're out of the crossgen phase.
Oh, well then that settles it!
Maybe you are underestimating them? Even if you aren't trying to build some high end enthusiast machine, those that are professed "PC gamers" and not simply those who occasionally game on their random desktop/work PC tend up upgrade every 3 - 5 years.
Time won't tell. It is clear that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Yeah they will jack up the clocks, lower the TDP, then "cut loose" .. probably also throw in a magical GPU and physics defying cooling system too.
OP
OP
Oh whaddya know, Digital Foundry has a recent video that partially covers the point I'm trying to raise
OP
OP
Quoting this post to see who ends up eating crow next year. I'll buy you a Steam game if I end up wrong
My prediction: at least a 3 or 3.2GHz-clocked Zen 2 chip, GPU that can exceed the Radeon 5700 XT, maybe at least 16-24GB of RAM in total (max 32GB).
OP'a goalposts have moved like nine times already. We've gone from 'PCs are going to hold back consoles' to 'select 2019 CPUs won't match the price efficiency of a 2500k, one of the best values of all time'.
What are the specs for your current PC?
Edit: I thought you were predicting 150W TDP for the console? But it's going to have a GPU stronger than a 225W 5700 XT?
Last edited:
To the best of my knowledge, no one is arguing about next gen consoles being the best value (at least for a while anyway). That's not what you have been talking about though.
OP
OP
I stand by my point that any 8-core CPU you can buy today will likely not be able to match up to the next gen consoles once we're out of the crossgen phase.
Even if next gen console CPUs were to leave PCs in the dust (and people have repeatedly tried to explain to you why they won't), no developer is going to hamstring their console game on behalf of PCs.
They would optimize their game for the console(s) they're releasing it on, and PC gamers would have to upgrade to play the PC port, if it came to that.
They would optimize their game for the console(s) they're releasing it on, and PC gamers would have to upgrade to play the PC port, if it came to that.
I stand by my point that that's a wildly different statement than the one you started this thread with.
OP
OP
Fairly midrange, just a 4GB Radeon RX 570, 16GB 3200MHZ DDR4, and Ryzen 5 1600.
I'm likely gonna upgrade the GPU and CPU by 2021 and add another 16GB RAM, we should have midrange parts that can comfortably exceed PS5 by then
OP
OP
I did say in my OP that devs likely won't tap the full potential of the next gen console CPUs at least initially
That's not how this works, that's not how any of this works!
Must've saw the Mick Mulvaney conference and wanted to try it here
Must've saw the Mick Mulvaney conference and wanted to try it here
So an Ryzen 7 3700x at 4.2Ghz or an i9 9900k at 5Ghz will be outspecced but a vastly downclocked Zen 2 CPU ? Ok.
OP
OP
OP
OP
obviously because the baseline goes up. Even something like Metal Gear Solid 5 on PC requires a CPU much more powerful than the PS4 and Xbone CPUs for decent performance
OP
OP
sure at those clocks maybe they'll keep pace or outperform the consoles, unless maybe you turn up certain settings beyond console-level in games. Always gotta account for overhead
So is your entire argument based around simply the chip as a standalone with integrated graphics or something? It seems like you are not really factoring in dedicated GPUs at all.
OP
OP
No, I know the GPU will likely be around the level of the 5700 XT or a bit more powerful plus some ray tracing hardware
I guess if we're talking strictly multiplatform AAA games, then yes. There are tons of developers who couldn't care less about consoles.
OP
OP
I guess I need to amend the OP: People sticking with older CPUs/fewer than 8 cores will be holding back the consoles until they upgrade, depending on clocks we get
Holy crap you move the goal posts multiple times per page.
If you comfortably turn up settings beyond what consoles are capable of then the console has been outperformed.
Just a few posts ago you claimed consoles were about to get a better 8 core CPU than you can buy for a PC today. But you walked that back to "older CPUs" in like 2 posts.
And best of luck to AMD as they try to chop the GPU TDP by 60% or so while increasing performance and adding ray tracing. That's gonna be rough.
Last edited:
In the cartridge days you could add extra chips to cartridges which expanded capabilities, basically giving the hardware a boost on a per game basis, but even still the likes of Star Fox was pretty simplistic to what Doom was achieving visually. Quake and Mario 64 released pretty much simultaneously. Another thing to keep in mind is that resolution and framerate expectations on PC were far greater than on console. I was playing the likes of Quake 1-3 with framerates greater than 30 at 1024x768. Mario 64 runs at 320x240 at 20-30FPS. Quake 3 on Dreamcast had its visuals chopped, resolution at 640x480, and framerate at 30.
Well yes, that is what I was talking about. There used to be a lot more big budget, PC only titles that were able to leverage the more powerful hardware, and that's all but become extinct. I know there are plenty of developers still doing their own thing exclusively on PC, but how many are developing games that really take advantage of the hardware anymore aside from maybe some strategy games? Star Citizen is the only game I can think of, but by the time it finally releases, it will run on a future toaster anyway.
Not sure how that's even relevant to what you initially said though. Developers that have been doing multiplats will continue to do so, and still put the console first. Those that don't care about console development likely still won't, unless there's an incentive such as simply wanting to try making a different kind of game that would also be console friendly. In any event, PCs are not going to be a factor in the way games are made for the next gen systems.
No, they won't. Jesus Christ. It's already been mentioned, but we've already been in this situation once before where a game console was actually more powerful at the time of release than most gaming PCs and that affected nothing regarding console game development.
Last edited:
Show me a time in history that the devs have failed to simply increase the system requirements, then tell the PC gamer to "sink or swim."
In your rush to a conclusion you failed to learn the subject. The developers will shrug as PC players sink under the weight of requirements before they hold something back from the console market.
OP
OP
That's true, I forgot few devs really care about optimizing for PC nowadays except maybe the likes of CD Projekt, 4A Games and Rockstar
If 3rd party games are not using the full power of next gen hardware for the first couple years it will 100% be because they will also have to be made to play on consoles that came out on 2013, and not anything to do with PC hardware.
- Status