(21-01-2013 23:03)chente link [ -> ]Lo que no entiendo, es por qué la gente rápidamente se pone a comparar esto con los PC actuales, o incluso con el suyo propio cuando un sistema cerrado puede sacar mucho más partido a unas especificaciones determinadas que un PC.
Vamos, compraros un PC con los componenten técnicos a pelo de una 360 y ya me diréis si mueve los juegos de la forma en que lo hace 360.
Me parece absurdo, sinceramente.
Precisamente en neoGAF han abierto un hilo comparando el supuesto
hardware de las nuevas consolas con el de un PC.
The impact of next-gen console hardware on PC gaming
We now have a pretty good idea of what the next-gen consoles will provide in terms of hardware. It's all just based rumors at this point, but enough of them and consistently enough to enable some discussion about what this means for PC gaming.
When I write about the specs of the systems in this thread, I always mean the rumored specs, which may or may not be accurate and complete. Also, all the consequences listed below are pure speculation on my part, and may well be way off the mark. I place this disclaimer here once so it doesn't clutter the rest of the post.
CPUs
Both systems use an 8 core Jaguar CPU clocked at 1.6 GHz.
This is an interesting configuration, since it's far weaker per-core than recent desktop CPU, but also has more "real" cores than anything outside of HPC hardware.
Potential consequences:
- Games are finally optimized for a large number of homogeneous cores
- Intel finally starts selling 8 core CPUs for consumers
- AMD gets a much-needed (though slight) boost vs Intel in CPUs, at least in games, because more attention is paid to their architecture in compiler (and manual) optimization
GPUs
The systems use AMD GPUs based on the GCN architecture (or its successor?). The raw performance is between 1.2 and 1.8 TFLOPs.
Purely in terms of numbers, this puts them around mid-range dedicated GPUs on PC, but we can probably assume that they will be used more efficiently than what is common with PC games.
Potential consequences:
- AMD get a slight boost compared to nVidia in console ports at least, since those will be designed with their architecture in mind
- PC gamers will need to get used to playing ports at only twice the resolution or twice the framerate of their console counterparts for a bit, compared to a combined total of 14x. Well, unless they just add more GPUs (Hello Dennis!)
Memory
Games will likely be able to use 3.5 to 5 GB of memory on the upcoming consoles. It's probably fair to assume that this will get at least slightly higher on PC at console-like settings.
Potential consequences:
- We'll finally get 64 bit binaries. Fuck yeah
- People will probably want more than 8 GB of main memory at some point, good thing it's dirt cheap
- GPU memory may be the most concerning factor for ports in the short term, unless you've already invested in a 4GB/6GB card
Other
The systems are each based on a SoC design, with memory pools shared between GPU and CPU.
Potential consequences:
- Broader adoption of GPGPU in games, outside of vendor-supported physics features and the occasional CUDA waves
- PCI express bandwidth may start to matter again because of the above, especially if gameplay-relevant results need to be read back to the CPU side from the GPU
So, do you agree/disagree with any points? Did I miss something important?