Will Consoles finally past PC games?

[mckmas8808]

I think the console hardware of this coming generation will set a new standard. I don't think PC CPU's will be breaking 100 GFLOPs in a year (not even in multi-core form), so that end seems pretty well tied in for consoles, imo. I don't think PPU's will be coming standard in every PC, so that can't very well be the universal "workaround" for GFLOP performance. GPU's will likely scale accordingly on the PC, as time passes. However, it is very questionable if they can really be pushed to their potential with such relatively "underpowered" CPU's driving the show. Even if they could, there are all the traditional bottlenecks of the system bus and main memory bus that would remain a challenge for PC's (w/o some serious re-working of established traditional architectures).

Randy you are 100% correct and describe exactly what I was trying to say (you just said it better). The one thing that the PC's will have over the consoles are GPUs. ATI and Nvidia will always come out will bigger and better GPUs, but it seems like more devs are going for the make it look, feel, talk, grow, and walk more natural. And the way I understand it that will be coming from the high floating GFLOPS that the consoles CPUs have.

And guys we are kidding ourselves when we don't even ackledge the BW problem that the PC has compared to the next-gen consoles. One big key advantage indeed.

 

[OVERLORD]

Interesting comments on gaming conumdrum!

Being also an Homecinema & Audio enthusiast.

This is how I see things.

Consoles are the equivalent to midi/all in one units.

Hifi & homecinema expectations & trends follow this cycle much the same.

Where are midi systems in relation to seperates in the grand scheme of things when defining hign end audio or AV?

Most got crushed by our expectations and changing tastes.

Look @ it this way whilst the consumer will be quite happy with a system in a box.

It still takes high end machines to redefine the next generation of entertainment.

Consoles need the PC's modular advancements in technology more so than people give it credit.

This modular attribute is what has seen the PC last as long as it has.

Whilst nextgen consoles aspire to be more like the venerable PC they will merely be another footnote in console history whilst the PC continues to evolve.

That's why all nextgen consoles have returned to the mainstream PC protaganist!

Namely IBM, ATI & Nvidia.

No doubt it also helps cut cost on R&D for console makers as most of the work has been shared and are subsidised by advancements in PC architecture manufacturing processes by the Open market and not just one or two companies.

 

[swanlee]

What people seem to keep forgetting is yes PC hardware will be more powerfull over time but how long will it be before games actually use that power? PC devs always shoot for low to middle spec PC's to run there games. So the pc may be more powerfull 6-8 months after release of the new consoles but it will be 2-3 years before and large number of games come out that actually use that power and would not be possible on the newer consoles.

So you simply can't do direct hardware comparisions cause it becomes irrelevant.

 

[swaaye]

To answer this question all one needs to do is to look at the ~30 years of console history. This question/prophecy comes up every time. It just goes to show that the marketing folks rock at their jobs

 

[_leech_]

To answer this question all one needs to do is to look at the ~30 years of console history. This question/prophecy comes up every time. It just goes to show that the marketing folks rock at their jobs

It's very different this time.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

To answer this question all one needs to do is to look at the ~30 years of console history. This question/prophecy comes up every time. It just goes to show that the marketing folks rock at their jobs

Huh? Most console's have thrashed PC's for gaming. Anything with hardware sprites whipped the PC's of it's period. The only difference came with the advent of 3D where the room for growth is humungous and PC's could support new tech every 6-12 months. And for 3D we've only really had 2 generations, PS1/N64 and DC/PS2/GC/XB.

 

[overclocked]

We alredy have more powerful atleast Graphics cards now (7800GTX*2 in SLI).
The Cell Cpu seems ahead of its time though.

 

[Bobbler]

The Cell Cpu seems ahead of its time though.

Depending entirely on what you want it to do, of course.

It seems to me the technology in the consoles are about equal to what is actually purchasable now (give or take a little -- 2 dual core athlon 64s, a few gigs of ram, and a couple of 7800gtxs will be quite a bit more powerful than what's in the consoles for almost every task you throw at it... of course nobody is going to tweak a piece of software just for that setup). Of course a console is also a fraction of the cost and so much easier to deal with. In the end it doesn't really matter how powerful the hardware is compared to PCs, it is an entirely different situation (to the point where they aren't even really comparable).

 

[randycat99]

Here's the problem with that...everybody is bellyaching about moving to multithreading programming on consoles, but can you imagine the uproar in the PC world to actually start churning out multi-processor aware Windows software? It won't happen (exaggerating a bit, here), because just about no one will bother programming any different then they do now. So essentially, no one program will ever be able to wrestle more than 100% of a single processor (though work may be distributed across multiple processors), w/o some HUGE changes in the programming model (includes software down to the OS).

The fact remains that for pretty much all consumer software (business database and professional server being different beasts from this examle, altogether), it will run "good enough" on a single processor, so that will point to the amount of incentive to bother with scaleable programming beyond a single processor. So the PC world may have 16-core desktops for all its worth, but nearly any program Joe Blow will want to run, won't be multiprocessor aware, or even particularly good at it, even if it was. Perhaps, we'll see some oddball exceptions in a 3D animation or rendering engine, but just about everything else won't get any benefit beyond a single processor.

 

[a688]

Here's the problem with that...everybody is bellyaching about moving to multithreading programming on consoles, but can you imagine the uproar in the PC world to actually start churning out multi-processor aware Windows software? It won't happen (exaggerating a bit, here), because just about no one will bother programming any different then they do now. So essentially, no one program will ever be able to wrestle more than 100% of a single processor (though work may be distributed across multiple processors), w/o some HUGE changes in the programming model (includes software down to the OS).

Most PC software couldn't take advantage of multiple cores or processors. Its not because of lazy or incompitent programmers, its because they either can't or don't need to. How many cores do you need to run a spreadsheet or word. PC operating systems will perform the majority of the work for PC applications by just having programs use whatever process is less loaded down at the moment. PC programs that can use multi-core/processor to their advantage are already doing it, although maybe not as efficiently as they could.

 

[randycat99]

I absolutely agree, and I think this underscores a general theme that the PC is destined to hit an "implementation wall" w/o some profound changes in the way software is made and the way software is executed. The only software that will really put n-cores to work will be custom software for a specific platform...which is essentially what console development is all about (just far more mass market).

 

[mckmas8808]

I absolutely agree, and I think this underscores a general theme that the PC is destined to hit an "implementation wall" w/o some profound changes in the way software is made and the way software is executed. The only software that will really put n-cores to work will be custom software for a specific platform...which is essentially what console development is all about (just far more mass market).

And I guess this is why Intel's sight for multicore CPUs is so far ahead of what the consoles are doing. I think Intel is looking at the year 2012 or 2015 or something like that. Consoles would have pasted a WHOLE generation by the time the everyday CPU has multicores. Who knows the CELL in the PS4 might have 16 cores by then. Sony should be using 45 nm tech by then too so...

 

[overclocked]

Depending entirely on what you want it to do, of course.

It seems to me the technology in the consoles are about equal to what is actually purchasable now (give or take a little -- 2 dual core athlon 64s, a few gigs of ram, and a couple of 7800gtxs will be quite a bit more powerful than what's in the consoles for almost every task you throw at it... of course nobody is going to tweak a piece of software just for that setup). Of course a console is also a fraction of the cost and so much easier to deal with. In the end it doesn't really matter how powerful the hardware is compared to PCs, it is an entirely different situation (to the point where they aren't even really comparable).

I like your first sentence, PLAY GAMES i hope

 

[SubD]

Here's the problem with that...everybody is bellyaching about moving to multithreading programming on consoles,

That isn't true.

Every console engineer I know has been anxiously waiting for the day they would get their hands on more VUs that look a lot like SPEs. I assume others who worked at console dev houses had similar discussions like I use to over the past five years in white board sessions or idle tech wouldn't it be cool chats with other engineers where the PS2 was extrapolated into a PS3ish piece of hardware.

Concurrent code execution has never been an issue. If I had to summarize the general consenus of engineers who do real console work it would be: Multi-core&chip/Multi-threading? Yes, more please.

 

[Arqentus]

Well, lets sumerise a bit.

GPU power:

PC will overtake Consoles down the line. My personal bet is Q2 2006 where it will be evenly matched or overtaking it. To keep up with PC games these days, you need to upgrade your GPU atleased every 2 years. If you dont, the quality of the graphical improvents will slowly start to deterierate sinds your GPU/CPU etc can not keep up, and you are forced to start gaming on lower resolutions with less & less graphical effects.

Money:

Lets face it, a 300 a 400$ console vs atleased a 1000$ PC. The console that will last you longer then the PC.

Market:

The Console market is way larger then the PC market today. And it shows. Lots of titles these days are multi platform. PS2/PC, Xbox/PC. The PC games releases look more & more like a extra bonus for the developers. They bring out there game for there xbox/ps console, and devote some time to make a port to the PC for a bit of extra market share & income.

Upgradeability:

Development time on a console is a lot less thanks to the fact that your hardware is fixed. You dont need to take in account the fact that xx% has only 1 to 1.4Ghz cpu's with maybe Geforce 4's at best. That xx% has 1.5 to 2.0 GPU's with R9500 -5xxxFX's. Etc.

They only need to write for one shader group, no more 1.1, 1.4, 2.0, 3.0 etc. The list goes on.

PC/Console?:

Today, the next generation consoles are beyond the current PC generation ( unless you own a 4000$ rig with the latest of the latest pc hardware ). Yet, add mouse + keyboard on them, and a OS like windows/linux, all of a sudden, you have a full fledged computer. The CPU's in the console can run any pc program you trow at it widout any problem widout even using the multi core's, only one core is enouf to run word, exel, video playback, internet brouwsers etc etc. This makes up 90% of the none gaming useage of a PC.

A 500$ PC can do those non gameing taks widout problems, yet, its the games what really push pc upgrades & sales. Take this away, by allowing consoles to perform the same talks as PC's, then we will see a collapse of PC & components sales. Thats why you wont see MS releasing addons for the xbox360 that turn the it into a pc. Becouse it will hurt them in there pc os/office sales.

To me, the future looks a lot like the past. Amiga is a prime example of a PC/Console hybriate from the past. Amiga 500 anybody?

People can not keep affording the constant increase off PC hardware costs. Todays its CPU, GPU, RAM the main items. Tomorrow you need CPU, GPU, RAM, Physic Chip, and whatever alse that needs upgrading.

Its diversity ( the big gap between PC components / generations ) & price is whats slowly killing off PC games sales. Combined with the fact that PC market is slowly becoming the Consoles games dumping ground.

 

[Nite_Hawk]

That isn't true.

Every console engineer I know has been anxiously waiting for the day they would get their hands on more VUs that look a lot like SPEs. I assume others who worked at console dev houses had similar discussions like I use to over the past five years in white board sessions or idle tech wouldn't it be cool chats with other engineers where the PS2 was extrapolated into a PS3ish piece of hardware.

Concurrent code execution has never been an issue. If I had to summarize the general consenus of engineers who do real console work it would be: Multi-core&chip/Multi-threading? Yes, more please.

Many people listen more to the vocal minority rather than the content majority. By the way, if you don't mind me asking, what developer do you work for?

Nite_Hawk

 

[mckmas8808]

Well, lets sumerise a bit.

GPU power:

PC will overtake Consoles down the line. My personal bet is Q2 2006 where it will be evenly matched or overtaking it. To keep up with PC games these days, you need to upgrade your GPU atleased every 2 years. If you dont, the quality of the graphical improvents will slowly start to deterierate sinds your GPU/CPU etc can not keep up, and you are forced to start gaming on lower resolutions with less & less graphical effects.

Money:

Lets face it, a 300 a 400$ console vs atleased a 1000$ PC. The console that will last you longer then the PC.

Market:

The Console market is way larger then the PC market today. And it shows. Lots of titles these days are multi platform. PS2/PC, Xbox/PC. The PC games releases look more & more like a extra bonus for the developers. They bring out there game for there xbox/ps console, and devote some time to make a port to the PC for a bit of extra market share & income.

Upgradeability:

Development time on a console is a lot less thanks to the fact that your hardware is fixed. You dont need to take in account the fact that xx% has only 1 to 1.4Ghz cpu's with maybe Geforce 4's at best. That xx% has 1.5 to 2.0 GPU's with R9500 -5xxxFX's. Etc.

They only need to write for one shader group, no more 1.1, 1.4, 2.0, 3.0 etc. The list goes on.

PC/Console?:

Today, the next generation consoles are beyond the current PC generation ( unless you own a 4000$ rig with the latest of the latest pc hardware ). Yet, add mouse + keyboard on them, and a OS like windows/linux, all of a sudden, you have a full fledged computer. The CPU's in the console can run any pc program you trow at it widout any problem widout even using the multi core's, only one core is enouf to run word, exel, video playback, internet brouwsers etc etc. This makes up 90% of the none gaming useage of a PC.

A 500$ PC can do those non gameing taks widout problems, yet, its the games what really push pc upgrades & sales. Take this away, by allowing consoles to perform the same talks as PC's, then we will see a collapse of PC & components sales. Thats why you wont see MS releasing addons for the xbox360 that turn the it into a pc. Becouse it will hurt them in there pc os/office sales.

To me, the future looks a lot like the past. Amiga is a prime example of a PC/Console hybriate from the past. Amiga 500 anybody?

People can not keep affording the constant increase off PC hardware costs. Todays its CPU, GPU, RAM the main items. Tomorrow you need CPU, GPU, RAM, Physic Chip, and whatever alse that needs upgrading.

Its diversity ( the big gap between PC components / generations ) & price is whats slowly killing off PC games sales. Combined with the fact that PC market is slowly becoming the Consoles games dumping ground.

QFT. This is the best overall view that I was trying to display in creating this thread. Acert has everything and I mean everything covered from front to back. I wish we could save this for 2 to 4 years from now just to use it as reference.

 

[pjbliverpool]

One thing to consider is that while the xbox may be able to output similar to PC graphics today, it does so at a much lower resolution. The next gen consoles won't be afforded that luxury and thus they will fall behind technically much faster.

Think about it, if the xbox's requirement was to render everything at 1024x768 today, would it still have similar to PC graphics?

 

[borntosoul]

i'm not so sure about the power of the new consols yet!
i'm waiting to see how r-e-a-l released games run and then make my judgement.
so i dont think anyone can say how long pc will take to surpass this coming generation of consols. we got dual cores getting faster and new gpus coming next year that will kick butt big time.

sony europe did say theyre calling the ps3 an entertainment machine instead of a games machine--as funny as that sounds it does show where they are heading.
consols will be home computing and entertainment in one package. i dont think the pc will die within the life span of these coming generation of consols (slowly losing steam maybe) - after that though i wont be too suprised if it did die.

for me the main problem with pc is this-
we have to get to the point where programs just work- no fiddling around, no fine tuning, no drivers, no compatablity problems, and no upgrading. it should be just like watching a DVD, put it in and it works--current pc dont do that- im not sure they ever will - this alone will eventually kill it off because everything will be much more mass market than it is today and joe average and his wife should be able to use it.

the main problem with consols is-
*edit -they have to cut corners on consols to keep the price down.
theyre great after a year but when a the pc catches up and surpasses them their appeal is not as great. also pc games tend to be more personal and in depth.


games that sell in millions of copies will rule more than ever before, new era of gaming will hit us soon enough. just look at the growing % of gamers these days that arent even mildly tech savy. consols look to have the legs on that score.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

it should be just like watching a DVD, put it in and it works--current pc dont do that- im not sure they ever will - this alone will eventually kill it off because everything will be much more mass market than it is today and joe average and his wife should be able to use it.

I agree (though this is slightly OT). PCs have to be backwards compatible and use lots of different IHV components. There'll always be trouble. In the good old dayts of computing you'd buy a computer and it's have a fixed collection of bit for people to use. I know a lot of PC fans like the upgradeable nature of PCs, but IMO if you're going to spend money ugrading a machine, it's no different to buying a new machine. the only thing going for PC's was the low price due to competition, but I don't think that low price is worth the hassle.

I look forward to the re-emergence of a computer like the C64 or BBC of Amiga or any of those millions of machines that just worked without having to faff around. Actually I guess that's the Mac is, but I'd rather have a REAL computer