[IGN] Report: PS4 Dev Kits Surface - Page 37  

BUT what if next gen console games are not as good looking as current gen PC games ?
Some developers are already hinting at next gen consoles being inferior to current High-End PCs.

Last time I checked consoles don't work like PC's

Next-gen consoles will push new game engines like Unreal 4, I promise you that next-gen console games will look much better than current PC games, although they'll likely have lower resolution and possibly less AA. Of course, once the next-gen consoles are out and those new game engines are in use it will translate to much better looking and demanding PC games. PCs will always be ahead of consoles, luckily consoles gamers don't really care about a hardware e-peen war, they're too busy playing games to care.

Guys.....

There will be no games that run at 4k res. You most likely WILL get an updated HDMI spec that will allow video output of 4k material. In fact, the latest AVR's all have 4k video scalers in them already.

Nobody should give a flying fart about playing at 4k res on your TV that you will be sitting a comfortable distance from. At most distances there is only a very small difference in perceived resolution from 720p to 1080p.

You would be wise to ask for processing grunt to go elsewhere rather than using it to drive a bunch of unnecessary pixels.

You sir are smart beyond your years!!

+rep to you

Or may next-gen version of games will remain exclusive to PS4, X720. And they'll just Keep the PC version same as PS3, X360.
That way nobody can compare next-gen consoles to PC version.
As good as Watch Dogs looked, Ubi is still saying it's coming to ps3 & 360. Clearly they have 2 different versions of this game.

I'm not quite following the argument in regards of the max theoretical fill rate. As far as I understand it its just basically the devices ability to show a uniform color screen - in my understanding its relevant as far as showing the maximum theoretical frame rate you can achieve at any giver resolution, however, the actual content shown on that screen tends to be more complex involving geometry, particle effects, after processing , etc so the actual frame rate which is achieved on a given device will always be determined by the lowest performing part for that particular content, be it then shaders, geometry processing or something else. Its not the limiting factor in current gen consoles and I don't see a reason why it should end up being so in the next gen. Now, the current argument seems to be, that as 7850 is only approx x6 times stronger than the GPU in PS3 when one focuses on the theoretical max fill rate, but the 4K content is x8 of the resolution when compared to 720p on the current gen consoles then this is not adequate. However, you very correctly do point out that the situation is more complex and involves other parts which do not scale in similarly linear manner. The other parts which are obviously more important as far as showing actual content goes as we are clearly currently not seeing a frame rates near the max theoretical fill rates.

As far as Source engine goes, it happened to be just at hand at that moment. It would make sense that even if I'm using some kind of other engine the other engine would scale in similar manner even if the actual fps numbers would be different. For example, I mentioned earlier Crysis in which I'm able to achieve on "high" settings frame rate of approx 45 fps average and minimum of approx 35 fps during the GPU stress test at ~30 "megapixels" (2560x1600 with x8 AA) - for some reason Crysis benchmark does not run at 5400x1920 resolution for me even though I'm able to play the actual game at that resolution fine. I do not own Battlefield 3 nor Crysis 2 so cant compare these. As far as Metro 2033 goes I think I should have it installed, but have not really looked into it how to run a benchmark in there. If you want I can try to do that if thats something you think that would prove anything in particular.

As far as argument goes that human with a normal vision will not really benefit from a 4K resolution when sitting at reasonable distance from a TV set which is of average size - then yeah - to that argument I can quite agree. However, I do think that enough people will fall victim of marketing talk once the price of these screens drops enough to go get one and as such will be on a lookout for a content that can take "advantage" of such resolution. A good example of such behaviour is all the people who dial their games straight to "Ultra" settings which usually involves x16 AA - a human with 20/20 vision sitting at 2 feet from a 23'' 1920x1080 screen can not tell a difference between 0xAA and x2 AA not to mention x16 AA without looking it up in the settings - that number is based on the physical limitation of a human vision system - roughly at that distance the two adjacent pixels will end up on the same light sensitive cell within human eye central part where sensitivity is the greatest meaning that human sees the average of these two pixels. Take it a AA within an eye - and there is no point in wasting a processing power on something that nature already does for you - yet the forums are full of people who feel they cant play a game if their hardware is incapable of running it with x16 AA.

Look at this overclocked HD7850, it uses 122w at load for the card only, those numbers are (as far as I can tell) full, 100% load ie like Furmark which the custom AIC HD7990 reviews are showing can make a significantly higher number than what will be there in reality, the TDP on the 5800k is also higher TDP than the A10-5700, despite having clocks within 200Mhz Turbo clocks and being clocked higher for Turbo than the other 100w Trinity APU, it's well known AMDs TDP numbers are more worst case scenarios plus as you can see here, the power consumption while gaming is lower than doing something designed to use as much of the CPU as possible, games will always have times when it has to wait for the GPU, etc. This is also assuming that AMD won't tweak it to reduce power consumption for Sony..which nVidia did for the RSX.

The PS3 also had a 380w PSU, I also want to see Uncharted 3 numbers on a launch PS3..That would be actually using most of the hardware to its fullest whereas the launch titles wouldn't, as 7800GTX + Core 2 Duo/Athlon64 power consumption vs a PS3 would prove.

Nearly no-one else did.

You mean like how there were no HD games on the PS2? Oh wait. Much like how some 360 games manage to support 1080p despite how most games can't due to the lack of graphical prowess or the like. but you can't run around saying games like Minecraft, Osmos, Qubed, Plants vs. Zombies, etc would all require ultra high-end GPUs to run at 4k res and wouldn't benefit from the higher resolution.
Some games will have support simply because they'd still be at a fluid FPS at 4K resolution, it wouldn't require much work to do and would give them a marketing bullet point.

I've seen many people say that, but at 3m I can see the difference when I'm wearing glasses/contact lenses and I'm very shorted sighted (I can't see more than 10cm without squinting without correcting lenses). I want to see actual proof.

/sigh

Thanks for pointing out the handful of examples that most won't care about.

My point was that devolopers and gamers alike shouldn't be as concerned with sheer resolution. Would you rather have Crysis 3 quality graphics at 1080, or Plants vs. Zombies quality graphics at 4k? If your game will run smoothly at 4k on next gen hardware, then pushing graphical prowess was not your main objective in the first place.

Saw this a few pages back also, maybe a couple of days ago.
My question is that wouldn't other things come into account for the performance of the graphics card?

Or does It rely solely on those "stats" which the hardware seems to be capable of delivering.
I'd expect the AMD Radeon 7850 to be able to deliver four or maybe 5 times what the RSX Is capable of. From your stats It seems It would offer 4x more as the minimum, but constantly PC gamers who claim to know their hardware are always saying how the hardware is really weak in consoles even for the time they have lasted and that their hardware is an X amount times more powerful than the PS3 and Xbox 360, while in most cases this is factual but It also depends on how you harness this power, GPGPU for instance If utilized correctly will blow the Cell's SPEs out of the water.

I personally expect the APU's CPU power to deliver around 4 times what the Cell is capable of, If not maybe 3x more, those SPEs seem to be still holding their ground but I think with a more "popular" and familiar architecture they'll be able to push out power to rival if not surpass the PS3's SPE's capabilities easier than using the Cell itself, however at the moment consider the GFLOPs the Cell is capable of It doesn't really look too good for the APU's CPU power, but then again I may be wrong, I believer It's the number of SPEs and the GFLOPs they are capable of delivering which have created a formidable foe to conquer, the PPE on the other hand is easily surpass able if they use the right hardware but those SPEs are dangerous, but It's GPU power should dominate the SPEs GFLOPs if used correctly, only this may create yet another problem where developers have claimed that the Cell processor is to hard to program for, hopefully they'll be able to get their heads around GPGPU otherwise I feel the same scenario will repeat again.

And It's GPU power which I'm not totally sure about around 3 times more, but even this doesn't seem enough to be able to run to our expectation they'll be a lot more VRam however 6 years down the line when possibly 2560x1400p may come into the mainstream market they would be problems at running it at that resolution, but with a 7850 this shouldn't be a problem so they must be aiming for a discrete card, I belive that the 7850 could possess around 8x or more than the RSX.

But clearly from your stats It appears I'm wrong, I know those Statistics matter a lot but are there other things to take into account about a single component's capabilities and when you compare it to other hardware?
Of course when you have the entire system, the CPU, GPU, Ram Speed and other components you can then really compare what It is capable of but wouldn't you be able to push out more power especially because of optimization as mentioned before, the new hardware available has a lot more Video ram than the RSX, is the video ram taken into account within those statistics? I know a decent amount about hardware and how they work but haven't really gotten the full picture especially when It comes to GPU power.

My personal expectations of the power the "PS4" could deliver is 4x more power than the PS3, you and everyone else have changed my opinions of what It could previously potentially produce, 8x does sound ridiculous when you are using budget hardware and comparing It to a console. (My previous assumption of possibly power)
Edited by TopicClocker - 11/13/12 at 10:01am