PS4 or Sony related console confirmed

Originally posted by dadudemon
For some.

Not for me. It is both. Crappy graphics with excellent gameplay? It is not as fun.

Improve the graphics and keep that awesome gameplay? Awesome combination.

In fact, some games have done decently specifically because of their "oooooo" and "ahhhhhh" graphics.

Of course, the "name some" comes to mind. What I name no one will agree with. They will claim it had great gameplay. I disagree. I just don't think a sweeping statement like "gameplay >graphics everytime" is a good position.

And yet terrible gameplay covered up with shiny graphics is just...gold-plated garbage. Graphics can make a good game better, but they can't make a bad game good.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
The consoles of today is nothing compared to the PC.
Never was, never will be.
PCs will ALWAYS be superior to ANY console.

IMHO, the graphics of consoles of this generation are inferior in this day and age.
Now we are in 2011, when quad-core smartphones are being developed, and when PCs are running in 32-cores (even 64-cores).
And here we have a console with 8-cores and STILL reigns supreme (graphically) amongst the other consoles.

If Sony can produce the PS4 with more cores than the PS3, it will be at least 'future-proof' for the next 4 years.
All they need now is to find a better GPU and switch from HDD to SSD.

32 and 64-cores? Are you a time-traveler from the future? Quad cores are more or less still the norm, though 6 and even 8-cores exist(there are CPUs with even higher core counts than that, but they aren't for your average end-user). Actually, X360 has the highest core count of the current-gen consoles, which is 3.

It's all about the graphics chip.

It's the same on PC. My CPU is 4-5 years old but my GPU is brand new and I can most games at highest settings. It's all about the GPU.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
32 and 64-cores? Are you a time-traveler from the future? Quad cores are more or less still the norm, though 6 and even 8-cores exist(there are CPUs with even higher core counts than that, but they aren't for your average end-user). Actually, X360 has the highest core count of the current-gen consoles, which is 3.

There are 12-core and 16-core Macs available in the market.

BTW, the PS3 has 8-cores vs X360's 3-cores.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Haha. I was just exagerrating/semi-trolling.

There are 12-core and 16-core Macs available in the market.

BTW, the PS3 has 8-cores vs X360's 3-cores.

I would love to see one of these Macs. Maybe they have dual-CPUs or some crazy shit like that.

PS3 has 1 core and 7 SPEs(1 of which is redundant), but those can hardly be called cores.

Originally posted by Peach
And yet terrible gameplay covered up with shiny graphics is just...gold-plated garbage. Graphics can make a good game better, but they can't make a bad game good.

Here's the problem: I cannot think of a game that went overboard with graphics but utterly failed with the gameplay. It is "passable" at worst. This is why I cannot see your "every time" statement holding true "every time". In fact, it is almost not every time.

Gameplay is crap if you have a crap visual. Do not take that out of context, either: most of the old games were crap, when I was a kid because of the graphics. Utter and complete crap. Nothing has changed since I got older. Some games have an artistic visual that do not require millions of pixels: it works.

I will never hold the stance that gameplay beats out graphics every time. It is both. I must have both.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
32 and 64-cores? Are you a time-traveler from the future? Quad cores are more or less still the norm, though 6 and even 8-cores exist(there are CPUs with even higher core counts than that, but they aren't for your average end-user). Actually, X360 has the highest core count of the current-gen consoles, which is 3.

You're correct based on the terms.

Originally posted by Smasandian
It's all about the graphics chip.

It's the same on PC. My CPU is 4-5 years old but my GPU is brand new and I can most games at highest settings. It's all about the GPU.

Actually, it's not. It is a combination of the memories (CPU, RAM) and the graphics capabilities (discrete or integrated).

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
I would love to see one of these Macs. Maybe they have dual-CPUs or some crazy shit like that.

PS3 has 1 core and 7 SPEs(1 of which is redundant), but those can hardly be called cores.

This guy knows.

It's a cell processor, not a multi-core processor. Different architectures.

Hmm, still think GPU's make the difference between good and great graphics.

That's why everybody upgrades their GPU's whenever they want to play the next best thing in graphics.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Hmm, still think GPU's make the difference between good and great graphics.

That's not right all the time, however. Sometimes, the difference is simply upgrading RAM or replacing your motherboard and CPU.

Originally posted by Smasandian
That's why everybody upgrades their GPU's whenever they want to play the next best thing.

And they are idiots if they do that.

What you see on the screen is a combination of the CPU, the OS, the game, and the graphics card.

Putting the latest and greatest card will do you shit if the rest of your computer is not up to the task.

Well, if your using an ancient CPU then yes, a video card won't make a huge difference.

But if your using anything in the last 4 years and you have a new video card, it will be fine.

But vice versa, if your using a crappy video card with a top of the line CPU, it's basically useless.

I know this because I did the exact same thing. I put in a new 560 Ti and now the games I have trouble playing with the old one are magically doing better.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Well, if your using an ancient CPU then yes, a video card won't make a huge difference.

Let's go with a motherboard CPU combo of 3 years and older.

Originally posted by Smasandian
But if your using anything in the last 4 years and you have a new video card, it will be fine.

If you're using a CPU motherboard combo from 4 years ago, the video improvement will be minimal.

Originally posted by Smasandian
But vice versa, if your using a crappy video card with a top of the line CPU, it's basically useless.

Not at all. The burden is then shifted onto the CPU. If you have a suficientlly awesome CPU, then you can put out quite the resolution and frame rate. The graphics card, however, gives us some of the additional video goodies like special textures and shading.

The entire reason for discrete graphics is to take some of the burden off of the CPU and shift it to the GPU. It is still burdened, however: it still processes quite a bit to put up a pretty picture.

Originally posted by Smasandian
I know this because I did the exact same thing. I put in a new 560 Ti and now the games I have trouble playing with the old one are magically doing better.

This is simply a case of a decent CPU and motherboard having an underpowered graphics card.

Hmm, still see a difference when I put the new video card in. Didn't change anything else.