Technically the most underpowered console generation ever?

de3d1

de3d1

Well-Known Member
Sep 11, 2013
7,462
1,683
3,079
Sure it seems great to people used to 360.ps3, but I can't remember the last generation when consoles were so underpowered compared to the latest PCs. In the past. it seemed like consoles could hold their own for a few months at least. I remember them being mind blowing experiences technically right from the start, but not this time around.
 
Well, we don't know yet. On its face, the new consoles are pretty much a bore when compared to most gaming PCs. But, we don't know what will happen in the future with coding that is optimized for multi-core processors. When the 360 came out with 3 cores and unified shaders, that was a big thing. There was really nothing to compare to it in the PC world until the strong dual cores came out along with the 8800gtx. With these new consoles, they are using netbook or laptop processors that are modified to give more performance. I don't know what will happen in 3 years but I think that in this year and perhaps the next, there is nothing to worry about if you are a PC Gamer.

In short, yeah the new consoles are rather underwhelming. I personally think they are just Iphones/Ipads with HDMI out ports.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hammerclaw
Anyone expecting a 400 watt Titan to fit into a console when the Xbox 360 struggled to fit a tiny underpowered 7800GT is seriously unrealistic. Graphics cards have only had the enormous power gains over the years because the cards and die sizes themselves have over doubled in size, and I doubt Sony and MS want to create home consoles the size of Manhattan. Nothing out of the ordinary or expected has happened. We all knew this from the start.

That and I'm pretty sure Sony and MS got tired of losing billions selling good hardware at dirt-cheap prices. Consoles never outpace PC. Nothing unexpected has happened.
 
Last edited:
de3d1 said:
Sure it seems great to people used to 360.ps3, but I can't remember the last generation when consoles were so underpowered compared to the latest PCs. In the past. it seemed like consoles could hold their own for a few months at least. I remember them being mind blowing experiences technically right from the start, but not this time around.
Click to expand...
I'd say consoles could hold their own vs a decent PC for a year or two. Then a decent PC blows past it. But this gen, a decent PC is better right off the bat.

Console makers getting cheap, PC tech get exponentially faster than usual, who knows. But consoles are having trouble right away.

It was amazing back in the day when Genesis and SNES could do any kind of fast sprite based gaming better than a PC for eons. 3D fx were a different story, but for standard fast paced arcadish action games or sports, those archaic 16-bit systems ran rings around my 386 and 486. Those PCs just couldn't handle stuff like that though on paper the cpu and ram were 10 times better.

Even something like parallax scrolling which Genesis/SNES really showcased would make a PC fall to it's knees. Laughable results while Genny and SNES had neat effects.
 
Kassen said:
Anyone expecting a 400 watt Titan to fit into a console when the Xbox 360 struggled to fit a tiny underpowered 7800GT is seriously unrealistic.
Click to expand...

Valve fit a titan into a case roughly the size of the launch 360. Just throwing that out there. And that's an off the shelf card. I'm sure if Microsoft/Sony really wanted to, they could have fit a R9 280x in these things.

Also, pretty sure when the 360 launched, the xenos gpu was compared to the X1800/X1900 ATI gpu's which were considered high end at the time.

But I agree with your price point. An R9 280x probably would have cost them $200+ alone.
 
Last edited:
A few console E3 showings blew away anything on pc... now lets wait and see if they keep or improve what they showed us then.
Can't do nothing but speculate at this point.
 
Yep. We have 3tflop and 5tflop GPUs out now in the PC space....before this generation is out we will have 10tflop GPU's. These consoles are going to have a TOUGH time....hell the struggle has already began. Resolution problems, framerate problems, etc...
It is worse this gen too for consoles because they are so close to PC general architecture that the gap will start to grow exponentially.
Developers already know how to get to the mettle of x86 platforms and once they iron out any other small issues the Xbox 1 and PS4 have they are going to look hilariously outdated in contrast to the PC platform. Wait for the next rush of multiplatform games to really see this in effect. I'm thinking Witcher 3 will be the first to really drive that home. It is actually quite sad.
 
With the release of the 750ti it should be no problem at all for a company to build a steambox that can easily compete with these consoles (if not outright exceed them) for the same (roughly) $500 price tag. If they can deliver this type of machine by the end of this year and market it properly Sony and MS could be in real trouble, especially if they're given the same free reign over games that PC gamers currently enjoy (graphics settings, mods, etc...).
 
I think (read it somewhere) on their launch. XBOX one is equalvant to a basic gaming PC, while PS4 is a medium gaming PC.

I remember when PS2 is launch, reading that it will take abiout 2 years before PC will ctach up with PS2. Sound about right then, as I did not see any PC game looking as good as PS2 until a while.

I think ideally, cost vs perfomance, I think somewhere between medium and high end will be the sweet spot. Imagine most gaming PC less than 2 years old performance already better then consoles at launch?

If people can accept min of 720p/30fps on xbox & maybe 900p/30fps on PS4, then its not so bad, & the consoles will not hold back game visually for PC.

What I am curious is, didn't developers warn, especially MS, that their rig is severely underpower. If they did, why didn't MS listen. Maybe they change their spec last minute to be less powerful to cut cost?
 
starseeker said:
I think (read it somewhere) on their launch. XBOX one is equalvant to a basic gaming PC, while PS4 is a medium gaming PC.

I remember when PS2 is launch, reading that it will take abiout 2 years before PC will ctach up with PS2. Sound about right then, as I did not see any PC game looking as good as PS2 until a while.

I think ideally, cost vs perfomance, I think somewhere between medium and high end will be the sweet spot. Imagine most gaming PC less than 2 years old performance already better then consoles at launch?

If people can accept min of 720p/30fps on xbox & maybe 900p/30fps on PS4, then its not so bad, & the consoles will not hold back game visually for PC.

What I am curious is, didn't developers warn, especially MS, that their rig is severely underpower. If they did, why didn't MS listen. Maybe they change their spec last minute to be less powerful to cut cost?
Click to expand...

It's all about costs on top of the fact that people were happy with a console released in 2005 just 2 years ago. Better specs alongside kinect would probably mean a $600 Xbox One which would pretty much be a suicide price.

The Xbox One is a huge improvement over the 360 so I don't think that devs said that. We know devs told Sony and Nintendo that. Nintendo for obvious reasons (Wii U); Sony since they were about to go with 4GB of RAM for the PS4. From that I'm assuming that MS went with 8GB of RAM before Sony did since devs told Sony that they would "get crushed" if they stayed with 4GB.
 
Bgamer90 said:
It's all about costs on top of the fact that people were happy with a console released in 2005 just 2 years ago. Better specs alongside kinect would probably mean a $600 Xbox One which would pretty much be a suicide price.

The Xbox One is a huge improvement over the 360 so I don't think that devs said that. We know devs told Sony and Nintendo that. Nintendo for obvious reasons (Wii U); Sony since they were about to go with 4GB of RAM for the PS4. From that I'm assuming that MS went with 8GB of RAM before Sony did since devs told Sony that they would "get crushed" if they stayed with 4GB.
Click to expand...
So why didn't MS react when they know they will be 'crushed', when Sony reveal their spec?
 
starseeker said:
So why didn't MS react when they know they will be 'crushed', when Sony reveal their spec?
Click to expand...

They really aren't being "crushed". They are still getting next-gen multiplats. The only system that is being "crushed" in specs is the Wii U since it's taking a toll on the system's third party support (which is almost non-existent at this point).

MS couldn't have changed the specs after Sony revealed them. The system was set to launch in November 2013. A change after Sony's reveal would have meant that the Xbox One wouldn't have been able to release until Fall 2014 at the earliest and MS would be in a terrible position since too many people would have a PS4 by that point.
 
ZombiesRUCrazy said:
Valve fit a titan into a case roughly the size of the launch 360. Just throwing that out there. And that's an off the shelf card. I'm sure if Microsoft/Sony really wanted to, they could have fit a R9 280x in these things.

Also, pretty sure when the 360 launched, the xenos gpu was compared to the X1800/X1900 ATI gpu's which were considered high end at the time.

But I agree with your price point. An R9 280x probably would have cost them $200+ alone.
Click to expand...
Valve fit a titan into a "prototype" machine; there is no guarantee it actually stays cool in there w/o overheating. And a 280x would also be too big to not overheat. And the Titan Steambox is not going to release for under $1500; the PS4 is.

And the 360's GPU specs are out there for you to study; the Xenos was a little over half the power of the 7800GTX, and the PS4 is about half the power of the 7970HD. Given that die sizes and heat have went through the roof, it's surprising how well equipped the PS4 is, the difference being that the PS4 doesn't get the dreaded RROD overheating problem. The PS4's GPU price point is nearly sitting where the Xbox 360's Xenos was. But that won't stop illogical comparisons to the $1000 Titan followed by claims it is somehow proving consoles are underpowered compared to the last generation.
 
Technically, perhaps. To me, they get the job done though.
 
ZombiesRUCrazy said:
Valve fit a titan into a case roughly the size of the launch 360. Just throwing that out there. And that's an off the shelf card. I'm sure if Microsoft/Sony really wanted to, they could have fit a R9 280x in these things.

Also, pretty sure when the 360 launched, the xenos gpu was compared to the X1800/X1900 ATI gpu's which were considered high end at the time.

But I agree with your price point. An R9 280x probably would have cost them $200+ alone.
Click to expand...

That steambox also requires almost 4 times the power of PS4/XBO.
 
If having a console size of OG XBOX means able to have more than 4 times the power, sign me in. How many people carry their console on a regular basis for size to matter? I sure do not.
 
Bgamer90 said:
They really aren't being "crushed". They are still getting next-gen multiplats. The only system that is being "crushed" in specs is the Wii U since it's taking a toll on the system's third party support (which is almost non-existent at this point).

MS couldn't have changed the specs after Sony revealed them. The system was set to launch in November 2013. A change after Sony's reveal would have meant that the Xbox One wouldn't have been able to release until Fall 2014 at the earliest and MS would be in a terrible position since too many people would have a PS4 by that point.
Click to expand...
In a way they are getting beat a little badly, it would have been more of a crushing if supply was there, no telling how many parents bought xbox's for that ps4 wish list present.
 
Last edited:
Yea I'm disappointed but it's all about the exclusives so I'll buy them.
 
starseeker said:
If having a console size of OG XBOX means able to have more than 4 times the power, sign me in. How many people carry their console on a regular basis for size to matter? I sure do not.
Click to expand...

Size isn't the detrimental factor, I was speaking on power consumption.
 
starseeker said:
I think (read it somewhere) on their launch. XBOX one is equalvant to a basic gaming PC, while PS4 is a medium gaming PC.

I remember when PS2 is launch, reading that it will take abiout 2 years before PC will ctach up with PS2. Sound about right then, as I did not see any PC game looking as good as PS2 until a while.

I think ideally, cost vs perfomance, I think somewhere between medium and high end will be the sweet spot. Imagine most gaming PC less than 2 years old performance already better then consoles at launch?

If people can accept min of 720p/30fps on xbox & maybe 900p/30fps on PS4, then its not so bad, & the consoles will not hold back game visually for PC.

What I am curious is, didn't developers warn, especially MS, that their rig is severely underpower. If they did, why didn't MS listen. Maybe they change their spec last minute to be less powerful to cut cost?
Click to expand...

No. Absolutely not. They are both low end PC's these consoles are stuggling with 1080p, more specifically the Xbox One, but real mid range gaming PC's do not have issues running games at max settings (that means with MSAA (not post process AA like FXAA, MLAA, SMAA, etc.) and AF) at 1080p 30fps, 30fps on PC is considered barely playable.
 
I think so. At this point, 1080p (or at least 900) should be standard along with 60 fps.

Both consoles are horribly underpowered. The fps really bothers me.

I do think things will get better, launch games are always terrible (compare 360 launch games to say GTA V)
 
The gap is only going to widen too. With MS on the verge of dropping DX12, which is supposedly far more to the metal than previous DX version, you'll be able to squeeze even more performance out of PC hardware.

But the only way to look at it is, my GPU cost more than a Xbox One on its own. It is entirely unreasonable to expect that kind of hardware to be packed into a affordable box. Consoles are mass market machines, mass market machines require mass market prices.

If you want the best of the best, your only option is a PC.
 
Adam said:
But the only way to look at it is, my GPU cost more than a Xbox One on its own. It is entirely unreasonable to expect that kind of hardware to be packed into a affordable box. Consoles are mass market machines, mass market machines require mass market prices.

If you want the best of the best, your only option is a PC.
Click to expand...
In before the "you can make a gaming PC way more powerful than either next gen console for cheap" comments.
 
Both consoles were built to avoid heavy, front loaded, losses on each piece of hardware sold.

High end PC hardware had progressed to the point where it was impractical for use in a console sized box. Too expensive, too hot, too loud and too difficult to manufacture for the yields required to sustain demand early on.

Xbox One and PS4 are high end PCs but not of today, they have the theoretical maximum horse power of a high end machine from 2009/2010.
 
^If we are comparing TF's which you can't when it comes to custom closed set hardware that consoles use.


Out of what's ACTUALLY OUT NOW nothing on these consoles look better then Crysis 3/Metro LL/BF4 to name a few. Quantum Break and Dark Sorcerer look better but aren't actually available and might not live up to what was shown.
Hopefully they do so then the PC front will up the ante again.



 
Last edited:
We are on the verge of the Nvidia GT800 series cards. And MS is announcing/showing DX12 in a couple of weeks at GDC.

Obviously the closed box still has its advantages and we are going to see some amazing looking games on both systems. But this gen, PC is king from the start. But you also have to pay for that advantage.
 
VaLLiancE said:
^If we are comparing TF's which you can't when it comes to custom closed set hardware that consoles use.


Out of what's ACTUALLY OUT NOW nothing on these consoles look better then Crysis 3/Metro LL/BF4 to name a few. Quantum Break and Dark Sorcerer look better but aren't actually available and might not live up to what was shown.
Hopefully they do so then the PC front will up the ante again.



Click to expand...


Yes lets compare games that are a couple years old out now to videos that we have 0 idea if they are pre rendered videos or not.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back