>all those Sony fans that got hyped up at PS4 having GDDR5 because PC *only* uses DDR3 and 5 is bigger than 3
>not knowing that PC GPUs have been using GDDR5 since 2008
>not knowing that GDDR5 is simply a repackaging of DDR3 as VRAM
What are some other console hardware misconceptions, /v/?
"supercharged PC"
And yet your GDDR5 can't run Bloodborne while mine can
How do you explain that?
Any moment someone thinks a console can outperform a PC of the same price.
>>318250269
>What are some other console hardware misconceptions, /v/?
that gamesrun better on kiddiware because the console is better at running games and not because PC's have infinite configurations to account for
>>318251189
>because the console is better at running games
This was once true though.
>>318251243
Not really.
>>318251389
It was if you go back far enough in time. During 5th generation consoles had dedicated vector units to calculate polygons and lighting while PCs didn't until Geforce 256 in 1999. Before that PCs had to calculate polygons and lighting on general purpose CPUs which had to brute-force it. Or at the beginning of that generation when PCs didn't even have 3D accelerators while consoles did.
Or if you go back even further, 2D consoles had the sprite drawing hardware while PCs didn't.
It's really only starting from 6th generation where PCs had all the same gaming acceleration hardware as consoles
>>318251389
It was, in the 80s when the NES was shitting all over the PC. Then id software happened and consoles were blown the fuck out for all eternity.
>>318251684
A Pentium 200 with a 3dFX Voodoo card was better than an N64 in 1996. Selection of titles were limited though.
>>318251731
In the 80s the Amiga easily outperformed the NES.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIT3OvfDlyk
>>318251684
>>318251731
First of all PC's got popular somewhere around 1992, before it they weren't that much of a gamer's computers
Amiga computers, or(earlier) things like Atari ST or C64 were more typical.
Then, during 5th gen the arrival of 3d accelerators really changed the landscape.
Ultima 9 was designed to somewhat run(that is - run like shit) on high end 1997 computers and it was ages above what consoles could deliver in this gen. You've had physics, birds with their own AI patterns(they've had nests etc.) open world and so on and so on. The game was shit, but it was surely stunning.
>>318252082
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQiimhYI-8c
>>318252082
>A Pentium 200 with a 3dFX Voodoo card was better than an N64 in 1996.
No doubt, but that's because of brute force power. Pentium 200 alone cost more than the entire N64.
3Dfx Voodoo could accelerate 3D drawing but could not accelerate polygon T&L. So polygon T&L would have to be done on the general purpose Pentium.
The N64 had a chip called RSP which was a dedicated hardware accelerated polygon T&L unit. For gaming purposes it had much superior performance / price ratio than a Pentium even if it couldn't complete with Pentium that eventually got much higher clock speed.
>>318252458
Surprise surprise, PC's use CISC processors and solve computing problems as intended for CISC processors instead of relying on specialised units.
>>318252458
Sure the N64 was more cost effective at launch, but the PC was better at running games.
>>318250269
console "cloud gaming"
>>318250269
>Well with these current gen consoles, it practically is a PC anyways. The games look the same
>>318252554
Yes, but my point also was that these days it's changed because GPUs do use specialized units just like consoles did back in the day.
Geforce 256 introduced polygon T&L to PCs with a dedicated vector unit just like the N64's RSP chip.
Also consoles have become more like PCs now. The only company still using RISC CPUs for their consoles is Nintendo.
