It's not even a matter of optimization, they aren't going to target 5 year old PC hardware, and they shouldn't.
PCs will actually hold consoles back next gen on the CPU side for a while
- Thread starter DonMigs85
- Start date
- Status
That isn't true or what I said.
The point is, devs will develop for consoles and trust PC gamers to buy what they need to, a relationship that has existed for decades. System requirements increase, new tech gets bought, games get bought. It's the very nature of the market. Nowhere in there does the dev ever stop to wait for the PC gamer to buy new shit first.
PC can't hold consoles back because developers knows the PC consumer is always upgrading in times. Those who don't upgrade day one will later and the game will eventually get bought. No one gets permanently left behind.
I think you need to amend the title.
After reading some of your recent posts, then going back a bit more in your previous posts, then re-reading the op again, it's not actually the same thing as your thread title is implying, which is probably where the confusing part of this whole discussion really is.
The way your title is framed, is that you're implying that stronger PCs will actually be detrimental, and hurt the progression of games being developed, and produced, and thus, limiting their capabilities, and reducing the quality of games on consoles.
This is different than what you're talking about, which is that older PCs will need to upgrade in order to keep up with newer games because of the capabilities, and the future of console gaming, which is very different than what your thread title is implying.
When I first read the thread title, it was asinine, but now that you've kind of explained it a bit, I guess it makes a bit more sense, though, I'd still vehemently disagree with you on the point, but in regards to why so many people are dogpiling you right now for the thread title, should make more sense now, or at least I hope it does.
But those are the clocks that desktop CPU's are at. So why would an 8 core desktop CPU be slower than the consoles, when they'd have the same core/thread count?
Since PC CPU clock speeds are higher, why would this be true?
Console Magic. (even when history has shown that the raw numbers are always worse on console even with the same family of chips)
Did you miss the launch of Oblivion? It was a nightmare to play on your average gaming PC at the time and it wasn't strictly because any optimization issues of the game itself. The new GPUs had yet to be released, and you actually had to run the game on PC to the point in which there was parity with the consoles, instead of superior. This was no longer a thing a few months later, but when using anything but the current flagship GPU at release, you weren't really gaining anything other than the ability to use mods.
No clue how the Dreamcast compared either, and I owned one at release. The only thing I know for sure is that it was doing justice to the Titan board arcade games in a way that the Saturn had for Capcom's CPS2 stuff.
Last edited:
Bingo.
There will be a hard power/heat budget with the 9th gen twins. And they know that even a cut down Ryzen derivative will have plenty of power for games. So by clocking it down a bit and cutting some cache, they have more room for GPU portion of the APU as well as TDP budget for the graphics.
Exact numbers would be impossible to measure, but with the same upper limit in place, a console with an 80/20 split for GPU vs CPU allocation in the APU will look much more impressive to gamers than one with a 60/40 split.
OP
OP
OS overhead, poor optimization, other tasks you may be running on the PC
OP
OP
I can see them cutting the cache from 32 to 16MB perhaps but I doubt the base clock will go below 3GHz since the 3700X is quite power efficient already with its 3.6GHZ base clock
Goal post after goal post. This thread comes off as quite trolling. I know you know better and you're just trying to stir up the pot.
You know that doesn't mean the PC CPUs will have a lower base clock speed right? Like they are totally unrelated?
Then you'll get the occasional super lava hot take on here about how PC gaming is obsolete because consoles have "caught up" to PC tech. Buzzwords like 8K, super-fast SSDs and hardware-based Raytracing are stirring up a craze.
OP
OP
again, my main point is that something like a Ryzen 5 2600 or i5-8400 very likely won't be as long-lived as say, the i5-2500K since the console baseline is hugely increased now. The 2013 consoles had really weak CPUs for the time, and the enhanced ones are still weak, just boosted by like 400-600Mhz
Op the TDP for the console package will probably be less than some GPUs you can buy right now.
Overall the new consoles will keep their temperature limits and total power draw much lower than most Desktop CPUs you can buy right now.
Current CPUs will be just fine in 3-4 years. The only advantages the new consoles will have will be in-box raytracing and possibly faster than average ssd speeds. So some people might have to update their GPUs to a ray tracing capable one and buy a new ssd.
Overall the new consoles will keep their temperature limits and total power draw much lower than most Desktop CPUs you can buy right now.
Current CPUs will be just fine in 3-4 years. The only advantages the new consoles will have will be in-box raytracing and possibly faster than average ssd speeds. So some people might have to update their GPUs to a ray tracing capable one and buy a new ssd.
What overhead ?
Windows overhead is 2-5% idle with Steam open. You know how much CPU ressources were reserved on PS4 ? 20% at launch. 2 entire cores.
Heck because of the clock advantage, even a Ryzen 3600 might outperform those console cpus.
The only thing I truly care about for next gen, now that we know for sure loading times with be drastically reduced, and that they should be on par to current load times off of an SSD in a gaming PC is VRR. If the next gen consoles incorporate VRR, and it works across all games, then the gap between 60fps on PC and your average game on the consoles will at least appear smaller than what it currently is. The frame rates and loading times are the biggest issues I have with console gaming. This likely means nothing for those who insist on 144hz or bust, but that's not me.
Nah. Your main point was that PCs will be holding back consoles, not that current processors will become obsolete quicker than a previous CPU champ did.
OP
OP
exactly why I'm probably going to upgrade to a 12-core Ryzen 4900X or whatever they call it next year if it still supports AM4, or maybe a 3900X if they get a lot cheaper. I just want extra cores and threads over PS5 and hoping it can last me at least 5-6 years or more
I phrased my initial statement poorly. I guess I'm considering how something like Doom (2016) runs on a toaster-level PC, with considerations given to how well their engine scales.
I agree that we aren't seeing a lot of developers focus on PC-only hardware advances, but if they're having to consider lower level PCs as well couldn't we concede that they aren't focusing the entirety of their efforts on appeasing console players? At the very least there is an emerging parity in regards to how multiplatform devs see the PC space.
If this has been your point the entire time, you need to reflect on how you managed to create a wildly different thread.
Don't they already do this though? Don't many minimum requirement games actually perform about the same, or even sometimes worse than their console counterparts? Minimum requirements are usually extremely low. This has been a thing for decades now though, even before consoles were the priority.
How many duct taped Gamecubes is that?
Remember how 8 cores on PS4 would mean 4 cores on pc are dead ?
Well guess what: it didn't happen.
No. It'll be based on the same chipset. But with lower clocks. More than 1Ghz lower. With likely less cache.
Devs don't really care if PC gamers have to upgrade tbh, if your still using a quad core with no HT in late 2020, you should probably change that. Besides i am doubtful these console CPU's are going to be as good as people think, they are not using the full desktop equivalent ryzen 3700x, there is going to be a few compromises.
the cache will be lowered for sure, they don't really need it as much with GDDR6 anyway.
That's kind of my point though, can we say that either PCs or consoles have a "priority" if we've continually witnessed developers require a graphical flexibility that allows their games to run on the lowest-end of the scale (which are usually PCs, in this case)?
OP
OP
again, it's because those cores were weak netbook-class cores to begin with. By 2015 even smartphones had faster cores
How strong will these cores be and how will these CPUs compare to the desktop variant?
Hmm. I guess I was really just focusing on innovation and leveraging the power of even a midrange PC. If you are only considering midrange on up through enthusiast (up to the highest tiers of performance), there was a definite shift in priorities last gen. That was made even more apparent as last gen dragged on, and on, and on.
Never really thought too much about not needing to upgrade at some point though.
Yet the discussion was the same. "well it's lower clocked.. but there's 8 of them !!"
The reality is that because of the console OS overhead, 1 to 2 cores might be reserved out of those 8 cores. And even if it weren't, the lower cache and the far lower clockspeed means there'll be a performance penalty on the console side.
Sure, there's no denying that it'll raise the bar on the cpu side. The same way it'll raise the GPU side.
Consoles won't go past 60fps, so OP has made a losing bet here. The GPU tech in the consoles will hold them back. The locked, PR serving graphics settings will make the CPU's not matter. 4K is a buzzword that will handcuff next gen consoles. We are looking at 5700XT level GPUs in the consoles which are mid range in 2019.
I will guarantee you a 9900k will last people that long, not at the highest settings towards the end of the generation. Saying anything else is just spreading FUD.
OP is right, you PC gamers have been holding back consoles since forever, hell, it happened this gen; Batman Arkham Knight. We could've had games that look just as amazing but you cried about the PC port because it didn't run well on your shitty ass CPUs, get with the times please.
- Status