Now, I do know that a flat-out number of Floating Point operations in TFLOPs doesn't mean everything. I think it's fair to say that texture and pixel rate say far more for how well a GPU will generally perform. But if those values go in tandem with the TFLOP output of the PS4 Pro's GPU, then what the hell does that mean?
It's not far-fetched to assume that the majority of the cost of the PS4 Pro would have gone into the GPU. The CPU seems to have simply gotten a bump in frequency, which, at the end of the day, isn't doing much. It's still powerfully weak. Which also leaves us with the assumption that SURELY the GPU must be bottlenecked with this setup.
But all of this is just mostly food for thought. And to help generate and outline the general scope of the topic and what is to be discussed. What I'm REALLY getting at is what we pay for. If this upgraded PS4 has just reached or possibly surpassed GTX 970 level of performance, then we must seriously rethink what we are paying for when we purchase a piece of hardware. Anyone who has any knowledge of computer hardware will know that yes, perhaps a new CPU or GPU has costed a company millions, if not billions in research and development, we ultimately pay for the varying levels of performance. We aren't paying for the materials (for the most part). Hence why a new GTX 1070 is more pricey than a 1060. Increments of value to go alongside increments of performance.
Also. Just a little heads-up. Anyone looking to derail and turn this into a discussion that would belong on IGN, you just may get shot by a Gestapo guard. Keep in engaging, keep it EDUCATIONAL. But don't turn it into a debate, guys. I'm too fucking old for this shit... I'm just a very, very curious fellow.
As consoles are a volume market and custom build pc more of a niche, I don´t think we are paying to much. At least if you grab the low-budget AMD cards.
He means that if the PS4 costs 400 currency units and performs like a GTX970, he should pay 400 minus all the not-gpu parts for a GTX970. That hands the question: Why would you want a 3 1/2 wheeled car?
I mean I'm happy with a system that would be 2 9800 GX2's SLI'd and another 9800 GT as physX. I don't understand why people spend as little as possible to see how far they will giet and that idea there is one I've had for a few months.
I want a second R9 Fury because they are half their launch price right now, but then I would have to throw out my W8100 which is an amazing card for running 2x2 monitors... Deciding hurts!
Oh no trust me I want a system STACKED with Fury X's. 9800's are just easier to get.
At that, ATi Radeon 9800's are my holy grail. 6 striped in a PCI->slave, AGP->Master config is my dream. I have seen that done only once and it was a pain in the ass for the guy.
Why would you buy a console, when a PC can earn you money, and taking the streamer industry into account, a PC can do FAR more to earn you money than a console can.
Like, learning IT stuff and getting a better job, etc. Worked somewhat for me. I'm only making $1 more an hour than I was previously, but I'm actually working 40 hours a week (compared to a mandatory limit of less than 29 hours a week. Any more than that and you got fired), AND I get paid time off.
Yeah, maybe that's true. But I'm sure someone can make a PC when the PS4 comes out with an GTX 970 and the same price as the console. Consoles are more optimized than PCs but, since they're lacking in CPU power, all the frames the GPU can dish out can get "lost". What I think is that Sony and Microsft want to push heavly on DX12 for their games to keep the CPUs inside their consoles still decent in the near future.
Floating Point can't really be used when comparing NVidia cards to AMD, heck, it's inaccurate to even compare AMD's Polaris Cards to their previous cards with floating point, case in point, the R9 390 having a lower TFLOP count but still outperforms the RX 480.
The PS4 Pro's GPU at best is 85% as powerful, which isn't terrible since the PS4 is only like 35%. The PS4 is featuring an underclocked RX 480, which is actually weaker than an RX 470 in fact.
Not even that, I just think there are simply too many advantages to a PC for me to consider getting a console, the big problem I have with PC now is pretty much Microsoft and Windows and how they are screwing it, but by no means is this a win for consoles since they have it even worse.
I believe that console hardware is essentially sold at as a lost leader or at minimal profit. The profit then comes from game sales or subscription services.
A console, like a tablet, is mostly a device for consuming content - granted there are some ways to be creative but mostly in a walled garden kind of way. A PC on the other hand is a device that can be used for creation as much as consumption.
@Zoltan (whatever happened to him?) used to love to call Windows a 'software console' . He had a point, as you are not free to the same point as a Linux or BSD OS, but even with Windows (or OSX) you can still write code and develop your own software and tweak your environment to some extent.
I guess you need to think about what you do, are you a creator or just a consumer? If you only consume, you might have no need for a PC at all - or maybe just a simple one like a Chromebook. If you get most of your enjoyment from creating, or just playing around with hardware & software, a PS4 could be $99 and still a waste of money.