That doesn't have to be true, I doubt dev kits are ready and prepared the day after the final specs are decided. Besides how you do know internal Sony devs at least don't have the final kits?
I agree with you on the first part. What I was trying to get at is they are probably still working on final specifications. The last development which is first system on chip based one according to leaks was available this January. The conference we learnt that they decided to make retail console 8GB GDDR5 and only few people in Sony knew about it and some of the secrets held were told to others participating in the conference just hours before they did it live IIRC.
By "both sides", do you mean Sony and Microsoft? Personally, I wouldn't be so sure of that. There are two things that I'm fairly certain of: First, if they wanted to get into an arms race, both consoles wouldn't share such similar hardware. Two, if changes are requested, they're probably going to be requested unigquely by either Sony or Microsoft to set their console apart.
Well, the development teams can't really be a small group of people. You've got to have pretty decent amount of folks involved, starts with the managing board as it's a big decision to make, the heads of the financial departments to calculate whether it's paying off and, of course, the R&D department. Maybe even the marketing department.
And there's a very distinct possibility that they'd have to start over with the development of the cooling solutions, have to re-evaluate the power consumption and so on and so forth.
We're how far away from release? Less than a year? And how long has the console been in development for? The last three years? More? What do you think has Sony been doing for the biggest part of the development cycle? Do you honestly think that it takes years on end to develop a console if you can just twist it around a year prior to release?
Sounds like you're just trying to come up with reasons as to why you might get what you want.
I found it more interesting that it underlines what I've beens aying. These next-gen consoles won't offer the same "cutting edge technology" as the older ones did in comparison to other available hardware.
Lost out? Sony and MS were probalby just unwilling to pay the price NVIDIA asked. NVIDIA, as a company, is in much better shape than AMD is - and that's been the case for years.
I'm fairly certain that companies such as NVIDIA are privy to more inside information than most of us are.
Here's a chart nvidia showed off at GDC showing the PS3 ahead of the next Xbox in terms of power:
Well, "privy" wasn't quite the word for it. Let me rephrase that: A company such as NVIDIA has more means to get to know what competing companies are up to than the general public. Which includes to have research done by other companies...
If you're bringing the 360 into the picture, then yes, they're losing quite a bit of money there. Thing is, they probably could have competed with AMD. However, not being in as bad a financial situation means they probably didn't have to be desperate for the partnership, much unlike AMD. Wouldn't be too suprising if AMD is actually amking very little money because they wanted to undercu NVIDIA at all costs.
It's a little harsh to call it "belittling console users" when all they've done so far is show a graph that basically shows the obvious. Stating that the PS4 and next Xbox is not going to be as powerful as a contemporary PC isn't exactly a mudslinning campaign, it's obvious.
Agreed. And I do think that the Wii's success did pla a major role when the PS4 and next Xbox were designed with less hardware power in mind. Making hardware sales profitable from day one made Nintendo stupid amounts of cash - and it did show that you don't need to have cutting egde hardware to get a console to sell.
Reminds me of what one of the guys at Rockstar said about GTA III. "You only go from 2D to 3D one", or something along those lines. It's just that, outside of more powerful hardware, what else is there? Sure, the Wii sold based on the novelty value of motion gaming (which, seemingly, wore of) - but there's nothing to that extend for Sony and Microsoft. Sure, some nice touches here and there. I just wonder what they're going to offer outside of better graphics. Which is partially why I, personally, am not too happy with the hardware not being as cutting edge as it was in previous generations.
I do hope that you're right. I might be mistaken, but I do think that Epic Games said something along those lines about the UE4 engine. About it being easier to develop games with or something like that.
) 7990 beats it in some games and uses good old 2011 tech. These cards alone cost more than a console by 2x, thats just the card, not the PC. I'd be impressed if they could achieve it with less everything. But no, its pure brute force.
Not from a technical stand point in my opinion. They are using the most expensive desktop card on the market for reference. The cheaper(by pennies
PC graphics have evolved through brute force. Massive GPU's with massive power draws with massive heat and massive cost. Then people with lots cash to burn pile them up in SLI and crossfire then like to brag like Nvidia is doing. But it means absolutely nothing for the console gaming economy.
My $550 Pentium 3 with Radeon 8500 back in the day was the top of the line back in the day. when consoles were $300. The price gap for PC and consoles have sky rocketed at an even greater rate.
Explain why they have the Next Xbox on there then and why Microsoft went with them in the first place? Its not business it console bashing for no good reason.
.
Not from a technical stand point in my opinion. They are using the most expensive desktop card on the market for reference. The cheaper(by pennies
PC graphics have evolved through brute force. Massive GPU's with massive power draws with massive heat and massive cost. Then people with lots cash to burn pile them up in SLI and crossfire then like to brag like Nvidia is doing. But it means absolutely nothing for the console gaming economy.
My $550 Pentium 3 with Radeon 8500 back in the day was the top of the line back in the day. when consoles were $300. The price gap for PC and consoles have sky rocketed at an even greater rate.
And even if they didn't, that point would remain the same. When the PS2 launched, it was ahead of the PC tech. When the PS3 launched, it was ahead of the PC tech. And even now, before launch and even when you're not taking the 5.1 TFLOPS GTX Titan into account, the PS4 would be behind PC tech. Where the PS3 was ahead of the Geforce 7800, the PS4 is behind the GTX 680.
You can. The graph uses FLOPS to measure the hardware. The PS4 hovers around 2 TFLOPS (1.84 if I remember correctly), the 680 around 3 TFLOPS, the Titan is at 5.1 TFLOPS. It's a bit inaccurate in that regard, but you'd just have to make a point in 2012, pretty much halfway between the PS4 and the Titan.
And dispite all of that (which is obviously true), BF4 is already said to not run in Full HD on the next gen consoles. There's only so much you can get out of mid-range hardware, optimisation or not.
. The good old RSX has had some good times. Pretty sure this 7800GT I still have would struggle w/ Bioshock on low. Its weaker than my Laptop's gpu.