What is the lowest priced, processor to get to last for PS4 generation?

shrewdgamer

Newcomer
I'm not that knowledgeable of processor architecture. Can anyone suggest a website which gives a thorough introduction to processor architectures, etc.

Please suggest a processor which will be good for PS4 generation. I'll be mainly using it for playing games and browsing internet. The price and power consumption should be as low as possible.

Is it sensible to wait till the release of new processors?
 
I would wait at least until the end of 2014 if you want to be sure.
 
It depends whether you want a system that will always be able to top the PS4 throughout it's whole life in every console port or simply be able to play every console port at or near console settings. There's no reason you can't do both with today's offerings but the difference will come at a cost.

Assuming you're looking for the second option given you could go for something like this, obviously excluding any components you already own or don't require:

AMD 760K (Quad Richland @ 3.8Ghz): $90
Socket FM2 Mobo - Biostar A55MD2: $45
2x 4GB DDR3 1600Mhz: $65
HD 7870Ghz 2GB: $160
Case + 585w PS: $60
Wireless Keyboard/Mouse: $19
Win 8.1 64bit: $100
Blu-Ray Dirve 12x: $50
HDD 1TB 7200rpm: $67.25
X360 Wireless Gamepad: $40
WiFi Dongle: $5.30
Bluetooth Dongle: $3.80

TOTAL: $705.35

More options here:

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=64612
 
I would say go big on the cpu. An i7 should last you this generation and go deep with the amount of ram. Get a good video card and in 2-3 years upgrade the video card.
 
Thank you all for your replies.

In that thread I couldn't find anything helpful. The price and power consumption should be as low as possible.
 
Thank you all for your replies.

In that thread I couldn't find anything helpful. The price and power consumption should be as low as possible.

What exactly is it that you're looking for? You're not really going to get anything cheaper than the system I posted above while maintaining similar performance to the PS4 (unless you already have some of the parts to provide yourself or don't want certain elements of the functionality such as Blu-Ray capability).

You could save a bit on power consumption by going with an Intel CPU and SDD instead of (or as well as) a HDD but then you're looking at more cost.
 
I don't need these.

Case + 585w PS: $60
Wireless Keyboard/Mouse: $19
Win 8.1 64bit: $100
Blu-Ray Dirve 12x: $50
HDD 1TB 7200rpm: $67.25
X360 Wireless Gamepad: $40
WiFi Dongle: $5.30
Bluetooth Dongle: $3.80

Does the graphics card suggested by you require additional power supply? I'm looking at the CPU part, will a dual core be enough for PS4 generation or will a quad core be necessary? Will PS4 ability to have 8 threads pose a problem for quad core?
 
Does the graphics card suggested by you require additional power supply?

I'm not quite sure what you mean but all PC's require a seperate power supply. If you already have a power supply though then you certainly wouldn't need an additional one for the GPU. What wattage is the power supply you already have available? If you don't already have one then for this system I'd suggest something of good quality at least around the 450w level.

I'm looking at the CPU part, will a dual core be enough for PS4 generation or will a quad core be necessary? Will PS4 ability to have 8 threads pose a problem for quad core?

While in theory a fast Intel dual core should be a match or more for the console CPU's, I wouldn't risk it if you want a long term machine. The overhead of PC gaming and the fact that games will be optimised for a larger number of physical cores will work against the dual core. I'd stick with a quad core as a minimum. The extra threads of the console CPU's should pose no problem to a decent quad core though which will run much, much faster than those console Jaguars. Also remember there aren't 8 threads dedicated to gaming in the consoles. It's more like 6 or 7 so a 4 core/thread PC CPU which each thread is 2-4x faster than each console thread would have no problem keeping up.
 
It's not like the cores on PC don't have to do similar things to what the cores are reserved for on Console though - PCs do also have an OS/System overhead, surely? ;)

But normally right now most quad-cores should do fine. Still think that it will be easier to estimate what you need by the end of the year though - right now console ports are straight from PC ports, and nothing much is done yet to really optimise them, or perhaps more importantly, optimise game engines to make use of them.
 
It's not like the cores on PC don't have to do similar things to what the cores are reserved for on Console though - PCs do also have an OS/System overhead, surely? ;)

I don't think they do to the same extent - not in CPU cycles anyway. Open up task manager in Windows and see how many CPU cycles are being used when doing nothing (which would be the case when running a game other than the game itself). It's generally only a couple of percent or so at most.

Consoles need to be able to handle other functions seamlessly while the game is running which is why they reserve a worst case proportion of the CPU for non gaming tasks. PC's don't tend to do that kind of switching between game and non-game so don't really need to reserve CPU time. Plus when you do use some CPU time for something other than the game, that task will only take what it needs (from the game) in CPU cycles rather than having a large and potentially unused reserve in wait all the time. That obviously has the disadvantage of eating into game performance which might effect your experience if you don't have the CPU cycles to spare - which most decent gaming PC's do anyway.

But normally right now most quad-cores should do fine. Still think that it will be easier to estimate what you need by the end of the year though - right now console ports are straight from PC ports, and nothing much is done yet to really optimise them, or perhaps more importantly, optimise game engines to make use of them.

You'd certainly be a better position at the end of the year in terms of performance/cost ratio but the parts available today are so much more powerful than what's available in the consoles that I don't see much point in holding out just to be safe. The system I've listed above overpowers the consoles in many areas but also falls short in some (lack of HSA/ nUMA and much less video memory) so there's no doubt it will fall short in some aspects in relation to future console ports but it should also be able to make partially make up for those disadvantages in other areas to give on balance a broadly similar experience. At least until GCN falls out of primary driver support which looks like it'll be years away.

That said, if I were buying today, I'd be tempted to wait for Maxwell.
 
Why would you be tempted to wait for Maxwell, I'm guessing you are talking about nVidia's. Since PS4 and XB1 contain AMD hardware, wouldn't it be optimized for AMD?
 
Why would you be tempted to wait for Maxwell, I'm guessing you are talking about nVidia's. Since PS4 and XB1 contain AMD hardware, wouldn't it be optimized for AMD?

Yes Maxwell is Nvidia's next gen GPU. It should be both faster and more power efficient than the current gen (Kepler) Nvidia GPU's at the same price points and likely faster and more power efficient overall than the latest AMD GPU's which are also used in consoles. However at that point AMD will likely just re-set their pricing so that where you can afford a 7870 today, for the same money you might get a 7950 after Maxwell's launch.

As you say the consoles do use AMD hardware. If you buy an AMD GCN based GPU today, especially a "GCN 2.0" based GPU (260X, 290, 290X) you're basically getting a bigger, faster version of what's in the consoles. That means that any optimizations made specifically for those GPU's in the consoles may carry over more easily to PC's using the same hardware. However since PC's are using a different API you may find less cross over of optimization than expected. Mantle on the other hand may tip things back in AMD's favor but that's only in supported games and we don't know yet how widespread that support will be.

You'll probably have to wait 6-12 months as Arwin suggests to see how all that plays out but if you want to buy now, and cost is a key factor for you, I don't think you'll get much better than the system I've quoted above. Give it 6 months and you may be able to get a faster Maxwell based GPU at the same price point and with greater energy efficiency (or a faster GCN based GPU) but then that's always the case if you "wait for a bit" in the PC industry.
 
Any modern Intel quad core CPU should be fine for years to come. The i5-4570 at $200 is a good choice.

Personally I would spend a bit more for the Xeon E3-1230V3. Basically a cheaper Haswell i7. Has the full 8MB L3 and Hyperthreading for 8 logical cores. And it comes with a $20 Newegg coupon you can put towards the GPU :)

As for GPU, it's a bit tricky right now since the higher end AMD cards are all way overpriced because of coin mining apparently. I would go for a 4GB GTX760. Good card with plenty of memory, and it comes with some sweet games.

A 4GB R9 270X is also a great choice; $50 cheaper than the GeForce although no games bundled.

P.S. The reason I am recommending 4GB cards is because the new consoles have boatloads of available VRAM and although 2GB is sufficient for now, in the years to come games may start benefiting from >2GB VRAM even at 1080p. A 4GB cards basically ensures that you will always be able to play console ports at very high settings without swapping to main memory (FPS killer).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Your best bet is to wait; Kaveri will bring much needed CPU performance improvements to AMD's offerings.
Additionally the GPU market is in a bad price/perf place atm as anything below a 7950 is not a good investment(for your needs), waiting for 20nm seems like the smart choice.
 
Your best bet is to wait; Kaveri will bring much needed CPU performance improvements to AMD's offerings.
Additionally the GPU market is in a bad price/perf place atm as anything below a 7950 is not a good investment(for your needs), waiting for 20nm seems like the smart choice.

I'm not convinced the Steamrollers in Kaveri will be much faster than the Piledrivers in Richland for gaming. Not to the extent that it's worth waiting for anyway. I'd like to be wrong though. You'd also still need a discrete GPU with Kaveri as it's too slow to seriously compete with the PS4 from a GPU perspective. You'd have to be lowering resolution AND losing frame rate to maintain the same graphical fidelity. On the other hand if developers could somehow leverage it's HSA design to handle the GPGPU elements of console ports while leaving the dGPU to do the heavy rendering work then you could be looking at one potent little processor.

Incidentally, what's wrong with the 7950 itself? That has pretty awesome price/performance at the moment and should meet his needs nicely. The 7870 is cheaper but is the bare minimum for a long term "PS4 like" experience IMO.
 
Incidentally, what's wrong with the 7950 itself? That has pretty awesome price/performance at the moment and should meet his needs nicely. The 7870 is cheaper but is the bare minimum for a long term "PS4 like" experience IMO.

Uhh have you checked prices lately? I got mine for $200 a few months ago, the cheapest one on Newegg is now $400...
 
All of the Tahiti and Hawaii cards are bonkers expensive right now. If you want a high-end card you're pretty much stuck with the green team until the bubble bursts. Not that that's a bad thing - NVIDIA makes fine cards - but they aren't exactly cheap either.
 
That really depends on where you live.. I can get 280x cheaper than the 4gb 760 at the moment..
Generally the 280x is slightly cheaper than the 770, while the 4gb cards are quite overpriced.
Only the custom 290s seems to be affected here (essentially due to a high global launch msrp I guess).
 
Back
Top