what taz said.

and my point is that sony gone to nvidia first but they turned sony down.

his point is that nvida does not make cpu’s or apu’s

Don’t listen to the horrible little PC troll “DAKAN45” below, I’ve played Crysis 3 on a high end PC and saw Killzone running in the flesh on a PS4 at PAX. Killzone looked BETTER, and game played fantastically with the new PS4 controller.

NO $350 PC IS GOING TO EVEN CLOSE TO THE POWER OF A $350 PS4 (I have taken out the $50 for the Dualshock 4) – FACT. INFACT YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO SPEND CLOSER TO $1000 TO BUY EQUIVALENT GAMING PC WITH THE POWER OF THE PS4.

PC GAMING IS EXPENSIVE HASSLE, constant hassle of hardware upgrades ($400 for the latest graphics cards), configuration updates, windows driver updates, and the worst part of it are the cheaters, hackers, mods and aimbots that kill all the enjoyment on any multiplayer PC game.

Yes i remember a time amd cpus were more powerfull.

However amd has fake cores not actual cores like intel. Intel doesnt have 8 cores to beat FX but their cpus are actually more powerfull than amd’s fake cores.

I buy amd cpus because they are cheap and games dont need em, but try emulators and you will see how weak they are compared to intel.

I did not claim ati was weak, i said they are on par. Ofoucrse nvidia has better drivers but ati has better backwards compaibility with old games.

Nvidia is still beating amd, amd does not offer better price and perfomance ratio, which is sad. On sli, nvidia is better but both are crap.

Thats the stuff i know.

AMD CPUs are always weaker than intel? How about back in 2005, when AMD’s weakest Sempron was absolutely dominating Intel’s fastest Pentium Extreme? Or how AMD’s legendary FX-5x and FX-6x had no competition whatsoever? There was a point in time during which AMD had a much larger relative performance gap over Intel than Intel has over AMD today, and the only reason why Intel survived was through dirty business tactics and money made through its years before AMD dominance. Know your facts.

In regards to cores, you are absolutely mistaken as well; it is Intel that is enamored with their “hyperthreading” technology. Current AMD processors do not offer true multicore, as each integer processor shares certain components with a sister core, but it is the better part of a physical core. If you want to degrade AMD in this way, you have to compare it to what its competitor is doing.

Historically, AMD GPUs are much more powerful than their closest Nvidia competitor. You are completely wrong with regards to power. However, processing power isn’t everything. Nvidia’s programmers make fantastic drivers that optimize and compensate for their weaker hardware, and the result is a very solid match between the two spanning from the turn of the century until now.

There have only been two significant upsets in the history between AMD and Nvidia: In 2002, ATI released its legendary r300 architecture Radeon 9700. This chip was not only faster than Nvidia’s fastest chip by easily 80% in many games, but it single-handedly allowed ATI to rest on its laurels for 3 generations without introducing a new architecture. The second upset went in favor of Nvidia, with its introduction of the Geforce 8800 GTX in 2007. This chip did to AMD what AMD did to Nvidia half a decade before, and AMD has since recovered the performance gap, and today, is again offering a higher price/performance ratio than Nvidia is doing as of now. You can obviously see that in the debate between AMD and Nvidia only depends on whether one enjoys the color red or the color green more.

As for Sli/Crossfire, both companies have major and similar problems with their technology; AMD is, however, ahead with regards to multi-GPU solutions for single-monitor setups.

Know your stuff, scrub.

Doubtful as long as you have a decent GPU in your PC . Either gtx 770 upwards for Nvidia or AMD 7950 onwards would likely see you through this next console cycle. An I7 2600 is still only about 20% slower than a 4770k for gaming or thereabouts so definately no slouch.

Again you cluless uninformed moron, why was x86 needed?

Sony gone to nvidia first, they turned it down because it didnt worth the price they were offering.

Amd made wii and wiiu.

The only reason they gone to amd was becasue they are cheap, not because they are powerful.

Amd cpus are ALWAYS weaker than intel and they got a huge price diffirence.

So amd is better multithreaded applications? Ofcourse they are, since amd doesnt have actual cores, but it has threaded cpus.

Intel has ACTUAL cores thats why intel doesnt have 8 core cpus yet. Those “inferior” cpus are actually better than amd 8 core cpus. Most programs are written on intel cpus and made to utilize intel cpus.

Where exactly has amd better perfomance on multithreaded applications with the GPU? You better not talking about SLI, thats Nvidia’s front.

Amd claimed that they are perfomance kings on far cry 3, yet nvidia offered the same perfomance for the same price.

You are basing your facts on what you heard about the previous generation.
You also do not see the obvious benefits of using x86.
Saying AMD hardware is always weaker is incorrect. AMD is better in multithreaded applications with CPU and with GPU AMD and Nvidia have been trading blows for years.
Again, the reason AMD was chosen was because only AMD can do what was done.

The only reason its sold for so litle is because consoles are always sold at a loss and amd hardware is always weaker.

Also the previous consoles did not have x86, so why you think they needed x86 on a console is beyond me.

That is the reason its cheap, so get your facts straight.