NVIDIA Interview: The Sky Isn’t Falling

Posted: September 24, 2013 by: Bennett Ring

With AMD tech powering the next generation consoles, NVIDIA explains why PC gaming won’t lag behind

Bennett Ring speaks with NVIDIA’s Senior Vice President of Content and Technology, Tony Tamasi, about the impact the next generation consoles will have on the PC.

PCPP: In the past, when a new console launched, the graphics were on par, if not even better, than a reasonably well-specced PC of the time. Yet at this year’s E3, we noticed that the Xbox One and PS4 demos didn’t look as good as the earlier PC demos of the same games. Do you think the lead that consoles had in the past at launch day is over?

Tamasi: It’s no longer possible for a console to be a better or more capable graphics platform than the PC. I’ll tell you why. In the past, certainly with the first PlayStation and PS2, in that era there weren’t really good graphics on the PC. Around the time of the PS2 is when 3D really started coming to the PC, but before that time 3D was the domain of Silicon Graphics and other 3D workstations. Sony, Sega or Nintendo could invest in bringing 3D graphics to a consumer platform. In fact, the PS2 was faster than a PC.

By the time of the Xbox 360 and PS3, the consoles were on par with the PC. If you look inside those boxes, they’re both powered by graphics technology by AMD or NVIDIA, because by that time all the graphics innovation was being done by PC graphics companies. NVIDIA spends 1.5 billion US dollars per year on research and development in graphics, every year, and in the course of a console’s lifecycle we’ll spend over 10 billion dollars into graphics research. Sony and Microsoft simply can’t afford to spend that kind of money. They just don’t have the investment capacity to match the PC guys; we can do it thanks to economy of scale, as we sell hundreds of millions of chips, year after year.

“It’s no longer possible for a console to be a better or more capable graphics platform than the PC”

The second factor is that everything is limited by power these days. If you want to go faster, you need a more efficient design or a bigger power supply. The laws of physics dictate that the amount of performance you’re going to get from graphics is a function of the efficiency of the architecture, and how much power budget you’re willing to give it. The most efficient architectures are from NVIDIA and AMD, and you’re not going to get anything that is significantly more power efficient in a console, as it’s using the same core technology. Yet the consoles have power budgets of only 200 or 300 Watts, so they can put them in the living room, using small fans for cooling, yet run quietly and cool. And that’s always going to be less capable than a PC, where we spend 250W just on the GPU. There’s no way a 200W Xbox is going to be beat a 1000W PC.

But how is this different from the launch of the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360, where they still had these power limitations but were on par with the PC?

Because at that time, the PC graphics industry wasn’t operating at the limits of device physics and power. If you wind back the clock, a high-end graphics card at that time was maybe 75W or 100W max. We weren’t building chips that were on the most advanced semiconductor process and were billions of transistors. Now we’re building GPUs at the limits of what’s possible with fabrication techniques. Nobody can build anything bigger or more powerful than what is in the PC at the moment. It just is not possible, but that wasn’t the case in the last generation of consoles. Taken to the theoretical limits, the best any console could ever do would be to ship a console that is equal to the best PC at that time. But then a year later it’s going to be slower, and it still wouldn’t be possible due to the power limits.

There’s been a shift here, the R&D budgets required to build the PC’s level of graphics are enormous, there are only a few companies that can do it. The technology that we’re applying to PC graphics is literally state of the art, at the limits of semiconductor technology. That’s why I don’t think it’s possible any more to have a console that can outperform the PC.

On that note, we’ve heard developers say that they can extract roughly three times the level of performance out of a console’s hardware compared to a similarly-specced PC, due to the fixed nature of the hardware. They know exactly what they’re developing for, and there is less driver/OS bloat. Is this still true, or have newer versions of Direct X helped to tap into the PC’s performance? Will the next-gen consoles still punch well above their weight?

I think a console can punch above their weight to some degree, but not by a factor of three. I wouldn’t even say a factor of two. Partially because they have leaner and meaner operating systems and APIs, they’re closer to the metal, and also because developers can hand-craft code for these fixed platforms.

Things have changed, though. Direct X has gotten much, much better compared to where it used to be. The barrier between Direct X level of interface and to-the-metal interface has gotten much closer. It used to be huge, but not so much anymore. Also, I think the PCs and the consoles look alike these days. The PS4 and Xbox One have an x86 CPU, a PC-style GPU. It’s a giant integrated graphics PC.

It’s great for gamers, as games can be better on all platforms.

That’s great, because if devs are spending all this time optimising for a PS4 or Xbox One, then a good portion of that will benefit the PC, because they’re basically doing PC architecture optimisation. It’s good for everyone – the developers don’t have all these crazy architectures they have to sort through. 80% of their work is now applicable to all platforms. It’s great for gamers, as games can be better on all platforms. And it’s great for PC, as there’s less weird divergence between consoles and PC, which means a lot more leverage for devs to raise the bar. If there were technological reasons that games weren’t ported to the PC in the past, there are a lot less of those reasons come next-gen.

You may also like:

Tags: ,

68 Responses to “NVIDIA Interview: The Sky Isn’t Falling”

  1. MLO #

    What are you guys smoking? The graphics on a console was NEVER as good as the PC. You guys seem to think this is a recent development. It’s not and never was. You guys are putting out misinformation.

    September 24, 2013 at 3:21 pm Reply
    • P #

      he said specifically “the graphics were on par, if not even better, than a reasonably well-specced PC of the time””

      he doesnt mean any pc but the average affordable or less PC

      September 25, 2013 at 2:35 pm Reply
    • Rick #

      Never? Look at shadow of the colossus. Now give me a 2004 or older game that compares to it. Half life 2 doesnt look like half of it.

      September 25, 2013 at 4:20 pm Reply
      • davecrimsonidol #

        are you kidding? Half-life 2 looked WAY better than shadow of the collossus. Half-life had amazing shaders, super high res textures (for the time), ground breaking physics and a huge amount of detail. Shadow of colossus had great art direction but, thanks to the ps2 was a big muddy barren mess. Any perceived superiority you might think of that game is purely down to good use of what little they had to work with. There were countless games that looked better by that point, Doom 3 is another good 2004 example, even back in 2001 there was Max Payne which looked miles better on pc than on consoles (and the ps2 version looked absolutely horrible by comparison)

        September 26, 2013 at 1:58 am Reply
    • dakan45 #

      Yup.

      So what did ps2 have? black? god of war? mgs3?

      Pc at that time had far cry, doom 3, fear, quake iv.

      X360 came out and oblivion looked better on pc than on the “next gen” x360.

      In 2007 crysis killed consoles.

      All multipaltfom games currenty run on ANCIENT graphics on consoles while pc is far ahead.

      Bf3 on consoles= low settings

      crysis 3= UNDER the lowest possible pc settnigs.

      Thats what consoles are, cheap trashboxes that you just run games at inferior settings and not reallizing it because they selling you the myth of OPTIMIZATION.

      September 25, 2013 at 9:10 pm Reply
      • Louis #

        That’s harsh… Consoles are affordable gaming devices for the masses and has done so much for the industry. No reason to get nasty.

        September 26, 2013 at 5:05 am Reply
        • Foorty #

          So much for the industry? As in paid DLC’s? Dumbed down gameplay? “Casualism”?

          What did it do for the gaming industry exactly? Well other than making it worse…

          December 3, 2013 at 4:59 pm Reply
      • William #

        As someone who used to swap between playing console games and pc games, I can agree. However, bf3 on any setting looks better on pc, same with crysis games. For the first crysis to be ported to consoles they had to reduce effects and take much of the foliage out of the game, and that port came out 5 years after the game originally came out.

        October 7, 2013 at 8:11 pm Reply
    • 99man #

      B.S. PS1 was doing 3D graphic years before PCs were able to. First 3DFX card was released in 1996, PS1 was release in Japan in 1994.

      September 26, 2013 at 5:19 am Reply
      • didi #

        PS1 was released in Japan in December 1994 with only a few awful games available at that time (and only in Japan), either simplistic or games barely using 3D capabilities of the console.

        PCs were doing 3D graphics years before PS1 simply by using superior “software” capabilities of the machines. In case of games, the first game in full 3D on PC was Descent released as shareware in 1994.

        Long before that 3D games on PCs typically used various tricks for max performance, so technically weren’t full 3D, still I would choose a first person shooter Doom from 1993 over any stupid puzzle or racing game PS1 had to offer in 1994 in Japan.

        September 26, 2013 at 9:48 am Reply
        • Stephen #

          I believe that Ultima Underworld, released in 1992, is the first 3D game on the PC.

          October 1, 2013 at 7:35 pm Reply
    • ashantiqua #

      look back at 1996

      September 26, 2013 at 8:47 pm Reply
    • nope #

      In 2001 when the xbox first came out their graphics were roughly 2x better than the GeForce 3, the popular PC graphics cards at the time (mostly due to hardware optimization). With the 360, graphics were about on par. Now (according to AMD’s recent presentation) PC graphics cards work at 5 TFLOPS, 5x as much as next-gen consoles. So yes, console graphics were at one time better than PC graphics though that is no longer the case and it probably never will be again.

      September 27, 2013 at 5:08 am Reply
    • leandrro #

      ps2 vs pc graphics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KGLH5gmQc4

      December 16, 2013 at 4:32 pm Reply
  2. Dario #

    consoles NEVER were on par of PC and i’ll tell you why: resolution

    console games were running at 320*240 up until ps3, that is 25% of the minimal resolution the same game runs in a pc of that time, that means a pc was at least 4 times faster.

    even in ps3 and xbox360 only a few games run at 1080p and 30fps without choking. most of the games run at 720i when those games in pc tend to run at 1080p and 60fps and when they not is because poorly conversion from console to pc (because it’s how game industry works now, they focus on making the game for the console and then make a poor conversion for pc without a single optimization or fix… if it works then they are done) raw numbers.

    ps4 and xbone now will run games at fullhd and 30fps, but some pc can run those games at 4k. even notebooks can run the games at the resolution and framerate of a ps4 and xbone

    September 24, 2013 at 4:43 pm Reply
    • pl #

      Wrong. Some console games were running at 704 x 480i on Sega saturn… The Saturn version of Virtua Fighter 2 was running at 704 x 480i at 60fps. The Nintendo 64 with its expansion pack was also running games at 480i. The Sega Dreamcast was running most of its games at 640 x 480p with the vga cable.

      September 25, 2013 at 9:22 am Reply
    • No such thing as 720i

      September 25, 2013 at 1:24 pm Reply
    • 99man #

      Again, that’s the biggest pile of B.S. since the above statement.

      http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/graphics_extravaganza_ultimate_gpu_retrospective

      September 26, 2013 at 5:23 am Reply
  3. G #

    I’m not sure where Nvidia is getting all this money from? they think they have more r&d budget than Sony and Microsoft combined! The new consoles are based on a SOC from AMD optimised for 1080p gaming. And NO I don’t want a 1000W pc under my tv thanks Nvidia, your crappy cards can hardly drive the current res pc screens let alone the next step up of 4K. I think they are running scared as there is even less reason to by a pc nowadays with tablets and phones. The fact the consoles are now more pc like is the main advantage here, but boy if they suddenly supported keyboard and mouse for gaming my pc would be history.

    September 24, 2013 at 5:53 pm Reply
    • Vladimir #

      You dense motherfucker.

      September 25, 2013 at 2:53 am Reply
    • Mark #

      Nvidia’s Tegra chips certainly help increase their R&D budget…

      September 25, 2013 at 4:09 am Reply
    • Chas #

      Why is it so hard to believe that nVidia drops a billion and a half on R&D?
      They’re the market leader at this point. As they don’t have the split priorities that AMD does. And most of their R&D winds up going into products down the road. So the money does come back to them over time.

      The new consoles are based on an AMD solution this time.
      Why? Because Microsoft didn’t want to pay the price-per-part that nVidia was willing to deliver for. So, like all the other money-misers out there, they opted for the cheaper solution from AMD. Nice, but not AS nice. And likely going to have hardware and driver issues along the way (this IS AMD we’re talking about).

      As for nVidia’s cards not handling current PC resolutions?
      Um. Yeah, you’re on drugs. nVidia cards handle high resolution gaming better (AND MORE STABLY) than AMDs solutions do. Why the heck to you think all the work is going into framerate stabilization in the AMD drivers right now?

      Because AMD was getting higher framerates, but image quality was suffering mightily, and there were lots of nasty framerate drops in situations outside of canned benchmarks.

      So please. Tell us again why AMD is so darned good and nVidia is crap?

      Less reason to buy a PC? Sure.
      The market is broadening due to the introduction of these other devices. So situations where desktop machines were less than optimal are seeing explosive growth.

      But they’re STILL PCs!
      And yes, in a lot of cases, they don’t need discrete video, as Intel’s on-chip solutions are fine for 90% of use cases.

      What you’re missing is that, for high-end gaming, and content PRODUCTION, consoles *NEVER* were a contender. And *NEVER* will be. And anyone telling you differently is deluded, or pushing a scam.

      It’s nice that you believe you could get away with a system as minimally spec’ed as a console. Good for you! Let us know how that works out for you for 4-6 years.

      September 25, 2013 at 4:21 am Reply
      • Truhls #

        Chaos, this part made me laugh.

        ” And likely going to have hardware and driver issues along the way (this IS AMD we’re talking about).”

        You realize Nvidia has had the biggest fuckup of all time with one of their driver updates right? You know, that one just a year or two ago that literally DESTROYED your gpu.

        Both companies have driver issues, all the time. Stop being a fanboi.

        September 27, 2013 at 5:07 am Reply
    • Valtiel #

      The reason Nvidia and AMD have larger R&D budgets is because other companies use their professional level graphics cards such as the Verto and whatever the AMD equivalent is for high intensity computing and 3D design work such as drafting, video production. and engineering. Not only that, but discreet graphics cards are also being used routinely to create purpose-built systems that are capable of running highly parallel FLOP (FLOating Point) equations for academic research. Those cards may not excel at generating gaming graphics, but they are what ends up being optimized FOR consumer level graphics. As stated in the article earlier, the main thing consoles have had going for them historically was a lack of OS overhead. However that advantage is quickly going away because of the way that more recent consoles such as the Xbox, Playstation 2, Xbox 360, Playstaion 3, and so on have operating systems that take up more system resources. It’s not like those systems have separate co-processors specifically to handle the UI and other non-essential tasks. Also, your statement about Nvidia cards not being capable of running games at 4k resolution is like tin foil hat crazy. My GTX 680 as it currently stands would be capable of running 4k of resolution as it stands now and at playable framerates (30-40 FPS). Now I realize that you might just be a person who prefers consoles, that’s all well and good, but talking about system architectures like you have the first clue about them when your only experience has been playing around on peasant boxes like the Xbox and Playstation is laughable. It would be like a religious nutjob trying to tell a cosmologist how the universe was formed. One has a lot of ranting and conjecture whereas the other has verifiable evidence.

      September 25, 2013 at 4:27 am Reply
    • Zethnar #

      You need to reread what he said. They spend roughly 1 billion a year, over a ten year life cycle that’s 10 billion, not 10 billion a year. If you think Sony and Microsoft are pouring less than a billion a year into R & D you’re kidding yourself. Unfortunately, however, neither Microsoft nor Sony is likely to be putting that money into graphics technology, which is what Tony is talking about.

      September 25, 2013 at 6:36 am Reply
    • P #

      umm all nvidia does is graphics tech so they can afford to spend ALL their money on that. while MS and sony have their hands in about 100 different pots to spread their money out with.

      September 25, 2013 at 2:36 pm Reply
    • dakan45 #

      id argue but you are a complete clueless retard.

      nvidia>amd, pc>consoles power> low power

      tablets= trash

      ps4 cpu= tablet low power weak cpu.

      You do not have the power nor the budget to have that kind of perfomance.
      if anything is crappy is consoles not nvidia’s cards.

      September 25, 2013 at 9:07 pm Reply
    • C to the J #

      Just about every computing device I can think of uses Nvidia. Where have you been?

      September 26, 2013 at 7:12 pm Reply
    • nope #

      “PC gaming hardware sales unaffected by overall PC decline”

      http://hexus.net/business/news/components/58669-pc-gaming-hardware-sales-unaffected-overall-pc-decline/

      Your opinion us unfounded and your comment ignorant.

      September 27, 2013 at 5:11 am Reply
  4. Justin dea #

    I find this interview highly misleading, and Tamasi seems to have a very skewed view of the pc market these days(or willfully arrogant). The PS4 is probably faster than 95% of the PCs still in use today, the xbox one is probably also close to being 90% faster than all the PCs. When we talk of PCs we imagine cutting edge, but that isn’t the case, most of the PCs still in use are barely game capable, and creating a 200W Gfx card that out performs the PS4 & XO is hardly impressive.

    September 24, 2013 at 10:39 pm Reply
    • Will C. #

      Next gen is going to be faster than 90 and 95% of current gaming pc’s? Next gen consoles are about equivalent to mid range current gaming pc’s.

      September 25, 2013 at 4:42 am Reply
    • didi #

      And do you realize how many PCs are faster than PS3/2/1 now? And PS4 isn’t ouy yet. If you compare top machines, compare top machines. Other comparison isn’t fair.

      September 26, 2013 at 10:09 am Reply
    • didi #

      My mom’s PC is faster than 100% of the game consoles on the market.

      September 26, 2013 at 10:11 am Reply
  5. Sebastian #

    If you shop around you can build a pc for the price if a new xbox one with decent specs, above 360/ps3 easily . For 700-2000$ you can build a computer that will out perform new Gen systems easily . 1-4amd gpuswith a 6 or 8 core CPU. Lots of ram. Ssd. 700w+ psu..
    Those who game on PCs have these 700+ systems. And update them every year or every other..
    So I agree that the new gen systems will beat most consumer computers, but most computers are integrated Intel graphics systems not built for gaming..
    I don’t know where you are getting your numbers from. But I’d say new gen consoles will out perform less than 5% of gaming computers being used today.

    September 25, 2013 at 3:58 am Reply
    • Will C. #

      I have a 550w psu a single gpu a 4 core cpu and I haven’t upgraded my pc at all since I built it.; I can run all AAA games and max setting 1440p at 60fps. Your making up “facts” Yes I have an SSD, it makes booting up much quicker; as for lots of ram 12gigs isn’t a lot. But if something does fail on my pc I can swap it out for a new one no problem and not have to go through any hassles. If something fails on a console you have to go out and buy a new one.

      September 25, 2013 at 4:48 am Reply
  6. Brian #

    Shut up Nvidia.

    September 25, 2013 at 6:46 am Reply
    • dakan45 #

      shut up brian and go die

      September 25, 2013 at 9:12 pm Reply
  7. Mel #

    Jeez a loo. Let put this in another perspective. If Microsoft and Sony would’ve signed on to have Nvidia Chipsets in their CONSOLE boxes. Would this comment exist? I play PC and CONSOLE games. As a gamer I don’t get into the PC vs Console.Tony has to realize. You can’t compare one Nvidia GPU costing as much as the whole CONSOLE itself in some cases double. Of course there’s going to be graphics fidelity that CONSOLE can’t match. There better be. Also the general user is not willing to invest year after year in expensive Nvidia GPUs. I know the freaking cost of it. I had the 9800 GT, 460 GTX and 670 GTX all in SLi mind you, not including ATi brands. So that was double the freaking cost. Was it worth it no because at the end of the day my freaking friends was paying COD on PS3. Granted the nature of console is close to PC than it ever has been before. Installs, patches, hardware but at the end of the day who cares. People don’t buy consoles because ooh it has a Nvidia 670 GPU in it. They buy it to play the freaking games with or without their friends. If you ask me this is one of many bitter articles I’ve seen over and over. I love Nvidia GPUs but I really wish they stop down playing the release of Next Gen CONSOLES because their GPUs aren’t in them. Sony and Microsoft in my opinion played a smart game when it came to their next gen systems. The looked at the freaking Nintendo Wii sell millions and millions of hardware not because of an Nvidia 670 GTX GPU but because people had fun playing the d@mn games. Who cares about GPU specs and power when you one of few that has it and are you kidding me. The power usage debate. I tell you this when my electric bill come out I’ll be much happy with this low watt CONSOLE than one GPU sucking up 1000 watts alone. Nvidia just come up with other ways to make your mark in the gaming community other than downplaying CONSOLES. H3ll make one yourself with upgradable GPUs if you like. Test that out and see if Sony and Microsoft are making the correct decisions.

    September 25, 2013 at 7:49 am Reply
    • Jason #

      Your complaining about the price of graphics card but admitting you always get SLI… this is not needed and you could save alot of money

      September 26, 2013 at 1:39 am Reply
  8. Mel #

    On another note football players shake hands after a game. Even when one of them has got their @ss kicked. I don’t recall a game where I heard players say. “you know we should’ve won because our uniforms fit and look better” something to think about.

    September 25, 2013 at 8:15 am Reply
    • Jason #

      Cause they get paid fool, of course your gonna shake hands when your on tv and your career is on the line

      September 26, 2013 at 1:35 am Reply
  9. Mel #

    I also forgot to add. I had my 670 GTX in SLi mode run Batman Arkham City and it didn’t run well at 1080p 60fps with all the graphic options enabled. Coding issue? perhaps or just maybe the freaking game didn’t know what to do with cards and use a fraction of the power. I never beat that BB AC however I did beat Drake series on PS3. I’ve seen some graphics in little old Drake 3 on inferior PS3 that made my jaw dropped. I was actually afraid the system was going to lock up or something. Sure Nvidia 1000 GTX is on it’s way to produce real world graphics fidelity. But by that time there will probable be close to 20-30 million users playing their nice and cozy PS4 / Xbox One myself included. Or maybe the close to 300 million enjoying their last gen cozy PS3, 360 or Wii. I do see a trend too I hate to say. I’m seeing more developers hold back pc in favor of consoles. Shooters excluded. GOD know I’ve waiting years for Gears of War 2 and 3 to appear on PC but never happen. Red Dead Redemption MIA on PC. I think I’m going to hold off on my next GPU purchase for a bit. Things aren’t looking so rosy might just pick up that (fixed) TEGRA enabled tablet for some quick gaming session. I’ll just check out Nvidia Shield cough! cough! console. But guessing I should stay away from those as well as it won’t have the graphic fidelity to compare with my 670 GTX in SLi mode waiting to do something great before 1000 GTX release. ;)

    September 25, 2013 at 8:48 am Reply
    • I have two 670′s as well You must know games produced on the unreal engine are usually caped at 62 fps.

      September 25, 2013 at 8:22 pm Reply
      • Mel #

        The problem is not the game capped at 62. The problem is with those two 670s and over 2 k in cuda cores combine. Batman with PhysX and all the other full on effects still suffer frame rate issues.

        September 26, 2013 at 1:43 am Reply
  10. mantas #

    I think nVidia is still butthurt over losing all the console contracts to AMD. And as an aside, I know PC is much more powerful, but console’s exclusives and their ease of use easily outshine higher resolutions and better framerates of PC games. Another catch is that one purchase, and the ability to buy games used in console market. That’s my take.

    September 25, 2013 at 12:35 pm Reply
  11. Ed #

    Soo…. my 4cores CPU and overclocked GTX 660 is more than enough for next gen games….

    September 25, 2013 at 2:52 pm Reply
  12. cfisher2833 #

    All the fucking console fanboys need to pull their heads out of their asses. What Tamasi said is exactly what Cevat Yerli said earlier–you simply can’t design a console that can perform as well against a PC when console manufacturers are aiming for a low price point and low power consumption. It’s not possible.

    September 25, 2013 at 4:31 pm Reply
    • Mel #

      And all PC gamers need fucking realize who the fuck cares. PC gaming is more about getting high frame rate than it’s playing the fucking game.

      September 26, 2013 at 1:45 am Reply
  13. ahahhah #

    This is fake talking. Nvidia can bring pc to the deadland of PC era.

    September 25, 2013 at 7:00 pm Reply
  14. Dirk #

    I would say that he has a point with most of his comments, but some of them appear to be pure marketing nonsense or simply not thought out. For example: the energy budget of a PC vs. Console. He talks about having a 1000 watts for PC vs. 200-300 watts for Console. While this is technically accurate it is also misleading. A PC doesn’t exist to supply the graphics card with all the power it requires. A high end PC will consume at least 2/3rds to 3/4ths of it’s power by the other components that doesn’t even directly support the graphics. This is just 1 example and I could go on and on.

    September 25, 2013 at 7:16 pm Reply
  15. erudito87 #

    You can always rely on nvidia for the butthurt comments

    September 25, 2013 at 7:28 pm Reply
  16. Dan #

    I’d like to see any brand new US$400 PC come close to the power of the US$400 PS4 specs. Even the PC enthusiasts agree you will have to spend a lot more curently on a new PC to match PS4 specs, particularly compared against fully optimised console games.

    That may not be the case in the future, but I’m sure the PS4 price will come down also, the point is that consoles are aimed at the mass market and the bargain US$400 PS4 price combined with the performance it offers means that it will sell by the boatload. That is why PS3/X360 sold over 150 million combined, and so will the PS4/X1. Most games on PS4 will run 1080p/60fps, and that will be good enough for the next few years.

    Consoles have always sold well because they are accessible and aimed at the mass market with the offer of the best performance for the relatively cheap price. That is why Sony cannot manufacture the PS4s fast enough to meet demand.

    September 25, 2013 at 8:25 pm Reply
  17. You all bragging or saying bullshit about Consoles vs PC war.

    I still have my old AMD 64 2800+ , 1 gb DDR1, and a GT430.

    And can play a few selection of games from 2013.

    I’m sitting myself here LOL’ing about.

    But yeah, Consoles will stop being a competitor against nowdays low, Mid, or High End computers and upcoming Processors and GPUs.

    The lifespan of these consoles will be shortier than the current consoles at this time. As PCs will increase their power every year. And I’m impressed in nVidia’s work on graphics card with this GT430 I have.

    My current setup is not enough, but still, can play most actual games at a reasonably/playable speed without breaking my PC (like most consoles will do soon).

    The games I played so far:

    DmC Devil May Cry
    Tomb Raider 2013
    Half Life 2
    Left for Dead 2
    Portal 2
    Sonic and All Stars Racing 1 & 2
    Sonic Generations
    Silent Hill Homecoming (these two being the most horrid optimized for PCs)
    Batman: Arkham Asylum
    Black Ops
    Modern Warfare (all of them)
    Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit
    And a few others…

    So yeah… PC is been outperforming current generations consoles, obviously they will do it again…

    September 26, 2013 at 7:00 pm Reply
  18. Cole #

    Of course a gaming PC will always out preform a console. But the average person that plays games isn’t going to know that or care. Because it’s all about money and simply consoles have more money for most game developers. Because most people would think think the games are better and more diverse on consoles. It’s about software and money.

    September 26, 2013 at 8:47 pm Reply
  19. Ron Davidson #

    I think the point that’s being missed is this: PS3 or Xbox 360 for $299 vs a $1200 PC !

    September 27, 2013 at 1:25 am Reply
    • Passing by #

      Necropost here.
      On 1200$ PC you can get 3-4 times more FPS (90-120), 1.5 times higher resolution (1080p) with high/ultra quality preset.

      April 21, 2014 at 12:59 am Reply
  20. Jonathan #

    If you got a piece of hardware that run it all nice and easy why messing with pc rigs ? ??
    Go spend / save the money on better stuff like health education other entertaiment

    September 27, 2013 at 8:27 pm Reply
  21. NR #

    Well, a 1200 dollar PC will get you a system that is more than 4X faster than a ps3 or xbox shit60. Plus windows, plus software, plus… you get the idea. The only reason to have a console is for console-exclusive titles. The pride of having a custom-built, unique, and upgradeable system comes with huge benefits, as well as huge costs. I played and loved console gaming till I was 18. Then I got into PC gaming, and have never looked back. Games are cheaper, it runs better, and I have my windows desktop at my fingertips. Moving onto PC (albeit with my friends, who all migrated) made me realize that smoothness, gameplay, and GRAPHICS, should never be compromised. This is PC gaming biotch.

    September 28, 2013 at 9:22 pm Reply
  22. Hey i was running gears of war and nfs carbon on pc with a 256mb graphics card with cleaner clarity than game cube, xbox 360, ps3 and ps2 when i bought them, In fifa 05 icould see the grass on the pitch long before the consoles decided to do it 2007 with madden. So this is really not news to me.
    The thing is some consoles come with there own games So making them to run on pc would create a loss in profits, why i say this , some hacker is going to crack it put a virus in it and post it up for free and microsoft said this, They said “they wont build another gears a war for pc because they dont make any money on it”.
    But the companies can solve this problem by making hardcopies of the game and advertise on the internet which retailers have them in their various countries” sell it to retailers world wide”. This credit card thing with game companies only kill the game. Kids to teens even adults don’t a have credit card so they look for a crack version on the internet. Just sell hard copies to retailers and then activate it online. I used to buy the product but where i am the stores don’t sell them anymore. Give buyers a reason to play online and do some proper marketing for Satan’s sake
    As for the graphics card not news, come up with something thats not ten years

    October 13, 2013 at 3:06 am Reply
  23. Carl #

    I got given an Xbox 360 with a tv I purchased a few years back. Have used it once, what a heap of junk! The graphics capability of it are sooooo far behind my pc it’s a joke. I really don’t know how people can game on them. PC mouse & keyboard ftw! Consoles really are trash boxes! A collector of dust in my house.

    October 18, 2013 at 8:55 am Reply
  24. LexLuther #

    We must also remember that PC’s have typically been running games at higher resolution than consoles, even if all else is equal, higher resolution alone makes a game look better on a PC. If the previous gen consoles had to run games at the same high res of a PC, you’d end up with unplayable frame rates.

    October 25, 2013 at 11:44 am Reply
  25. Dr Alex Patterson #

    This interview by NVIDIA is like a big wad of cotton candy. Looks impressive until you put it in your mouth and it dissolves into little substance. Look, you had the lead in in PC and console for years and the biggest your company could dream was PHYS-X and high prices. It’s time for another company to serve the customers. We deserve better.

    October 30, 2013 at 4:20 am Reply
  26. Grinder #

    I’m not sure what this discussion is actually about. If we’re talking specs and power and whatnot, then of course an expensive PC can be built to beat a console any day. But does an expensive PC look that much better than a console? Show us a youtube comparison of the same game with the price of the PC below, compared with the console, to prove it, and we can decide for ourselves if the PC is worth it.
    Then consider a very important word that I haven’t seen yet in this discussion: fun. I’ve played plenty of PC and console games. At one point I played only PC games, and then bought a 360 a few years ago because I actually missed playing on a console. I found the console to be more enjoyable.
    With the 360 I had kinect games if I wanted them. I had no issues like a buggy PC or messed up pirated games or anything.
    So when crunching numbers and going into wonkish detail about specs, never forget the bottom line: fun and customer satisfaction. And I think, in those regards, consoles are still superior.

    November 17, 2013 at 6:12 pm Reply
  27. Simon Willis #

    I don’t think you can compare platforms based purely on the graphics of exclusive games on them at the time unless perhaps there is a game on all platforms you can then compare. A pc may have better specs and capabilitys than a console at the time but it doesn’t mean to say a developer has used it’s full potential when making a game for it. so there may have been a time the consoles may have appeared better but it may only be down to the games made at the time and what developers are doing. I would have thought pc have always had better specs than consoles but that is more a guess than factual

    November 20, 2013 at 6:56 pm Reply
  28. Good post! We are linking to this particularly great
    post on our website. Keep up the great writing.

    February 25, 2014 at 2:18 pm Reply

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Nvidia: Consoles to have better graphics than PCs? Pssh | BaciNews - December 28, 2013

    […] to Australia’s PC Power Play in an interview posted recently, Tony Tamasi, Nvidia senior vice president of content and technology, said that […]

  2. [PCPP] NVidia talks about Console graphics - February 22, 2014

    […] […]

  3. “PCs Têm Gráficos Melhores Que os Consoles”, Diz Chefe da Nvidia : Troll Brain – Nerds das Cavernas - April 14, 2014

    […] Fonte: PC Powerplay […]

Leave a Reply


two × = 16