Sony PlayStation cross-platform game strategy

And a single PC has the library access of PC, Xbox, Mobile, and PS titles. The cost savings are significant especially if you are intending to purchase multiple consoles. And there are no online sub services to pay for.

The only thing with Better price performance value is GeForce Now. It is my next. I’m done buying hardware. I need power on the road. Give me an iPad or a laptop, a controller and insert required 4090 DLSS game here.

I can run the service for several years before it even catches the cost of a console, Nearly 8 years of service before catching a 4090. and during that time the expectation is that GeForce now gets better anyway. IMO: We are at the precipice of the nearing the end of console hardware for cheap gaming. The new generation does not play on TVs.

All I need is fast wifi or a good cellular plan which will continue to improve each year.
you are mostly right. I still love hardware though but in the future it is going to be more important for handheld devices than anything else.

Living in a rural area most of my life, I don't trust the internet connections, too many horror stories. Also, low powered but powerful hardware is fascinating to me.

I usually go biking or hiking or just having a walk in nature, and in those cases, I'd rather have a good handheld that you can carry everywhere to play games, and not depend on an internet connection, so if I am far from home I don't depend on an internet satellite connection.
 
No more need for any mental gymnastics and 2024 reverse-price projections


You can substract the GPU, windows license, and controller from the builds and you still end up with double the cost, exactly like I said
 
No more need for any mental gymnastics and 2024 reverse-price projections


You can substract the GPU, windows license, and controller from the builds and you still end up with double the cost, exactly like I said
Just because PCWorld couldn't do it, doesn't mean that it couldn't be done. They seamed married to the 3700X, for example, when there would have been cheaper 8 core 2000 series parts, and many games might have even run better on the faster than console clocked 6 core parts if they were intent on keeping Zen 2 parity. Though, I suspect they are fairly selective about what they consider equivalent, because they chose an nVidia GPU and not an RDNA2 part from AMD. They could have also likely saved some money on the motherboard. They chose a $180 board when AM4 boards were available under $100, sometimes as low as $50-60, at that time.
 
Just because PCWorld couldn't do it, doesn't mean that it couldn't be done. They seamed married to the 3700X, for example, when there would have been cheaper 8 core 2000 series parts, and many games might have even run better on the faster than console clocked 6 core parts if they were intent on keeping Zen 2 parity. Though, I suspect they are fairly selective about what they consider equivalent, because they chose an nVidia GPU and not an RDNA2 part from AMD. They could have also likely saved some money on the motherboard. They chose a $180 board when AM4 boards were available under $100, sometimes as low as $50-60, at that time.

You can leave out the entire motherboard as well as the GPU and it would still be nearly double.

Also their chosen SSD is not as fast as the one in the PS5:
 
You can leave out the entire motherboard as well as the GPU and it would still be nearly double.

Also their chosen SSD is not as fast as the one in the PS5:
That's true if you made a series of poor choices like PCWorld did. It would have been fairly easy to trim some cost off nearly every component in their build if you are trying to match console level performance, and not arbitrarily matching a paper spec and ignoring it when it's convenient like using an nVidia GPU when you could get closer to the paper spec with an AMD option.

I'll say this again, just because they couldn't or didn't do it doesn't mean that it couldn't be done.
 
Just because PCWorld couldn't do it, doesn't mean that it couldn't be done. They seamed married to the 3700X, for example, when there would have been cheaper 8 core 2000 series parts, and many games might have even run better on the faster than console clocked 6 core parts if they were intent on keeping Zen 2 parity. Though, I suspect they are fairly selective about what they consider equivalent, because they chose an nVidia GPU and not an RDNA2 part from AMD. They could have also likely saved some money on the motherboard. They chose a $180 board when AM4 boards were available under $100, sometimes as low as $50-60, at that time.

That system is massively over specified for an equal experience to the PS5 as should be obvious from their choice of RTX 3070 on the GPU side.

I mean, a $180 motherboard? I don't have a $180 motherboard in my own 5800X3D/4070Ti/32GB RAM system which will likely smoke a PS5 Pro, let alone the PS5.

Let's take the specs one at a time:

CPU
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X - $305 - A 3700X is overkill for a broadly equivalent experience, a 3600X would have saved $100 and given pretty much the same experience. Yes, slower in some games that burden the PC CPU more than the console CPU, but faster in others that don't. Reasonably equivalent on balance.
Motherboard
Asus TUF Gaming X570-Plus (Wi-Fi) ATX - $180 - As noted above this is a ridiculous choice for a budget conscious build. Your own link from earlier showed that an ASRock B450M could be picked up for $60 and provides all the required interfaces for a build that delivers an equivalent experience. Saving - $120.
RAM
G.Skill Ripjaws V 16GB DDR4/3600 (2x8GB) - $64. The Ryzen 3xxx series doesn't even support faster that DDR4 3200 Mhz so why are we spending extra money on 3600Mhz memory? Saving ~$15
Graphics card
Nvidia RTX 3070 - $500 - And noted in my earlier post, a 3060Ti would save $100 here and is still more than fast enough to match and exceed the PS5 in almost every scenario.
Storage
Sabrent Rocket 1TB NVMe Gen 4 SSD - $200 - As noted by others, a fast Gen4 NVMe is simply not required for an equivalent to PS5 experience. There are no tangible benefits for gaming between a Gen3 and a Gen4 NVMe. And if any can be found, they would be minor and countable on one hand. Again your earlier link showed a 500MB Gen3 NVMe could have been picked up for $61. So we either get 2 of them or a 1TB equivalent for $120. A saving of $80 for more total storage albeit at a slightly slower speed.
PSU
Cooler Master MasterWatt 750W 80+ Bronze - $95 - Even the article states this overkill for their chosen system, and the changes I make here make the system even less energy hungry. Your own link from earlier showed we can get a 500w PSU which is plenty for this system for $48, saving another $47.
Case
Metallic Gear Neo Air ATX Mid-Tower (White) - $60- No issue here
OS
Windows 10 Pro license - $40 - No issues here (and feely upgradable to Windows 11)
Controller
Sony PlayStation DualSense Controller - $70 - Lol, just why? How is this in any way the optimal solution for PC gaming where the defacto control pad is Xbox for $50? Granted no K/M was included in this build though so I won't claim a saving here, but I will claim a superior control inteface because this PC will offer both gamepad and mouse/keyboard support.

Total: $1,514 - Total saving - $462 for a new total system cost of $1052 including additional control options, more storage and a faster GPU. And the cost minus the GPU? $652. Still well below your previously claimed 'more than $800'.
 
Last edited:
The difference between the PS5 GPU and a 4080Ti is smaller than the difference between PS5 SSD and your “500MB Gen3 NVMe ”

Again, a lot of mental gymnastics required for your arguments..
 
The difference between the PS5 GPU and a 4080Ti is smaller than the difference between PS5 SSD and your “500MB Gen3 NVMe ”
After a full breakdown, you respond with just this? And it doesn't matter - PS5's SSD isn't needed to get the same games. If you are trying to match hardware specs, yes, you'd need an expensive SSD. If you are trying to match the game performance, which is what this is about, then no, you don't.

Again, a lot of mental gymnastics required for your arguments..
That's not sane discussion. Discuss the points, or if the discussion is tiring you, walk away.
Feel free to edit yours
And this is more of the same non-discussion.

Elevate the discussion. If people aren't willing to debate the points maturely, acknowledge this topic has worn itself out and move on to other things.
 
CPU
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X - $305 - A 3700X is overkill for a broadly equivalent experience, a 3600X would have saved $100 and given pretty much the same experience. Yes, slower in some games that burden the PC CPU more than the console CPU, but faster in others that don't. Reasonably equivalent on balance.
in the link you provided the CPU is on sale for 149€. It's a pretty old CPU and that's a fair price. A decent CPU, specially if you use an app like Lossless Scaling. My PC has one.
Asus TUF Gaming X570-Plus (Wi-Fi) ATX - $180 - As noted above this is a ridiculous choice for a budget conscious build. Your own link from earlier showed that an ASRock B450M could be picked up for $60 and provides all the required interfaces for a build that delivers an equivalent experience. Saving - $120.
can attest to that. My PC has an Asrock B450M and it's been working fine for almost 5 years. It did cost like 90€ at the time.
 
Back
Top