Close
Report Comment to a Moderator Our Moderators review all comments for abusive and offensive language, and ensure comments are from Verified Users only.
Please report a comment only if you feel it requires our urgent attention.
I understand, report it. Cancel

Valve releases Steam Machine prototype specs

Valve releases Steam Machine prototype specs

Mon 07 Oct 2013 7:42am GMT / 3:42am EDT / 12:42am PDT
HardwareDevelopment

Test unit will be high-performance, finished products to show more diversity

Valve has released the specs for the 300 prototype Steam Machine units it intends to ship to testers before the actual product launch next year.

For the initial prototype Valve chose to aim high, assembling a high-end spec from off-the-shelf PC parts. The company cites two upsides to this approach: first, the spec will be easily upgradable should users want to make improvements, and second, any member of the Steam community will be able to replicate the spec if they so choose.

"Valve didn't set out to create our own prototype hardware just for the sake of going it alone - we wanted to accomplish some specific design goals that in the past others weren't yet tackling," the company said in a statement. "One of them was to combine high-end power with a living-room-friendly form factor. Another was to help us test living-room scenarios on a box that's as open as possible."

The Steam Machine prototype units will ship with the following components:

  • GPU: some units with Nvidia Titan, some GTX780, some GTX760, and some GTX660
  • CPU: some boxes with Intel i7-4770, some i5-4570, and some i3
  • RAM: 16GB DDR3-1600 (CPU), 3GB GDDR5 (GPU)
  • Storage: 1TB/8GB Hybrid SSHD
  • Power Supply: Internal 450w 80Plus Gold
  • Dimensions: approx. 12 x 12.4 x 2.9 in high

Valve is working with an undisclosed number of hardware partners on the Steam Machines concept, some of which will be producing high-performance units like the prototype, and others that will be working towards other goals - like smaller form factors, less operational noise, or a lower price point.

"As we talked about last week, the Steam Machines available for sale next year will be made by a variety of companies. Some of those companies will be capable of meeting the demands of lots of Steam users very quickly, some will be more specialized and lower volume. The hardware specs of each of those machines will differ, in many cases substantially, from our prototype."

Valve will provide more details in how it intends to educate customers on the differences between the various iterations of Steam Machines in the future.

36 Comments

Klaus Preisinger Freelance Writing

1,130 1,162 1.0
Interesting they would use the "Heatwell" CPU known for their higher temperature than IvyBridge. Which is a life expectancy concern in smaller form factors. Interesting also, because they include a graphics card, meaning they do not really need the one that comes with the CPU.

But in essence, this is an attack on the console market as we know it. Machines that compete in price, or machines that offer more power for more money, or machines that are iterated on yearly, similar to Apple. All tied together by a unifying OS, store front end and architecture. The Androidification of the PC. Microsoft wants to sell the Xbox One for 10 years? Those will be 10 long years. Not just when competing with a more powerful machine towards the end of the cycle, but particularly when competing with a device that aims to provide the console and the PC experience at the same time.

Posted:A year ago

#1

James Boulton Tools & Tech Coder, Slightly Mad Studios

133 171 1.3
Please make it look like a bit of hifi equipment! I don't want a trapezoid box sitting under my telly.

Posted:A year ago

#2

Felix Leyendecker Senior 3D Artist, Crytek

182 202 1.1
Popular Comment
@Klaus
I think it will be several years until these machines can compete with XB1/PS4 in value. When these machines come out, they will be another flavor of expensive pre-built PCs, nothing more, nothing less. It may be in valve's best interest to launch a premium halo device to attract people to steamOS, rather than competing with console manufacturers on traditional terms.

Posted:A year ago

#3

Thomas Dolby Project Manager / Lead Programmer, Ai Solve

340 291 0.9
i7s and Titans seem a bit overkill for what they say they're setting out to achieve, but I guess they want all everything north of mid-range in their testing. I don't think anyone was really too concerned about the hardware seeing as it would always be off the shelf PC architecture, the real killer will be the price points.

Posted:A year ago

#4

Klaus Preisinger Freelance Writing

1,130 1,162 1.0
A Titan will require 236 Watts when under full pressure.
An i7 Haswell plus system around it will consume about 100W.

Adds up to 336W which any 450W PSU with an efficiency rating of 80+ should be able to provide. I wouldn't expect that PSU to work longer than a year, but it is not impossible to do. Personally, ...

@Felix

Posted:A year ago

#5

Barry Scott Software Design

19 2 0.1
Haswell CPU does more work pre Watt of power then IvyBridge.
Which means that if you are heat/power limited Haswell is the obvious choice.
Note that Intel lowered the cooling requirements on Haswell vs. IvyBridge because
if the efficiency improvements. If temperature is your concern simple fix a better
cooling solution.

Posted:A year ago

#6

Andrew Clayton QA Functionality Tester, EA DICE

14 38 2.7
Part of me died just looking at these specs. This will definitely be out of my price range.

Posted:A year ago

#7

Morville O'Driscoll Blogger & Critic

1,577 1,419 0.9
The thing about these specs... Well, there's two things.

One is that they're more powerful than either of the next-gen consoles. And if high-end consoles can live for 5/6/7 years on outdated tech, then so can the high-end Steam Machines. You could argue that developing for that outdated console tech has held back PCs, but I think we're now approaching the situation that the things holding back gaming are man-hours and finances, not technology.

Two is that, whilst these Steam Machines would cost a pretty penny today, when they finally see retail next year, the prices will be lower. Outside of the subsidisation of them by Valve and whichever hardware companies they're teamed up with, a Haswell and top-range 7 series Nvidia card will, certainly, cost less in a year's time than they do today.

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 7th October 2013 4:25pm

Posted:A year ago

#8

Gary Jacob Localisation Project Manager, Keywords International

10 12 1.2
hmm, seems like it will be pricey!
:(

Posted:A year ago

#9

Roberto Bruno Curious Person

104 69 0.7
@Felix: I'm honestly not sure about how you can call them "expensive PCs" when the price is still unknown.
And it baffles me that someone can think PCs need to catch up "to compete with consoles in value", when actually they already surpass them once you start taking software into account.

I'm not expecting Valve to subsidize the price, but if they can keep profit margins low or null and sell pre assembled PCs at the price of a "do it yourself" option, they may already have a winner in their hands.
Those "Steam Machines" could eventually become the "standard gaming PC" every clueless Average Joe could buy in a Wallmart without knowing the first thing about how to assemble spare parts and/or compare prices.

Posted:A year ago

#10

Felix Leyendecker Senior 3D Artist, Crytek

182 202 1.1
@Klaus: Yes, sure, the cheapest version will likely be a VitaTV type streamer. But to properly compare it with the other specs (and consoles) when it comes to performance per dollar, you'd have to add the cost of the PC it gets the stream from.

I think the most interesting question on everyone's mind is: What can they deliver at a $400 price point? That's pretty much the sweet spot, and what most people will use as a base of comparison.
Nobody doubts that they will offer great high-end machines that can blow consoles out of the water, but they'll come at a high price as well.

When talking about steambox, a lot of people seem stuck in the current PC<>Console thinking and take it for granted that any PC automatically runs everything at 1080p/60fps maxed out, without breaking a sweat. A PC you can buy for $400 today can run PS3/360 cross-platform games very well, but how about PS4/XB1 games? Not so much, and even less so in 1-2 years, when the wave of cross-gen titles is over and devs restructure their engines to make full use of the next-gen consoles unique strengths.
So the question is: At what point in time will $400 worth of PC hardware be able to compete with the next-gen baseline? If you look at the current generation, the answer to this question was that it was pretty much a moving target. Not many play cross-platform games today with high-end hardware from 2005.

Posted:A year ago

#11

Anthony Chan Analyst, CPPIB

91 79 0.9
The machines specs are definitely impressive. However to compete against the upcoming gen of consoles (whose games are supposed to be fully optimized to the hardware they are supposed to be running on), it will come down to price.

There are some on the interwebs who still believe the upcoming gen of consoles are way too expensive. With the Titan and i7 alone the hardware will be north of 500 USD, it will be hard to convert the money pinchers. Steam has some good ideas though, 1. The article mentions that the specs should be able to be recreated by end users, and 2. the hardware will be easily upgradeable in the prototype's form factor. This makes it sound like, the operating platform may be available for free to enthousiasts who may be building their own Steambox? That would be awesome.

My only criticism, is this though: If the hardware gives any indication to the price, and the steambox can be easily recreated by anybody who knows how to build their own computer, then how is it any different than a PC that fits under your TV and can use a game controller (instead of KB and mouse) to play?

Posted:A year ago

#12

Nick Wofford Hobbyist

180 190 1.1
One is that they're more powerful than either of the next-gen consoles. And if high-end consoles can live for 5/6/7 years on outdated tech, then so can the high-end Steam Machines. You could argue that developing for that outdated console tech has held back PCs, but I think we're now approaching the situation that the things holding back gaming are man-hours and finances, not technology.
The problem with the first thing is that PC's aren't usually optimized, and the Steam Machines aren't doing anything to fix that. In 3 years, a launch X1 will run whatever game comes out for it, and it'll run it better than before. And there won't be any upgrade. The Steam Machine will have upgradeable parts (like PC's), which means it won't be optimized. Devs will just do what they do on PC now, which is ask everyone to buy the latest parts to max the specs.

Console gamers simply don't want that. They don't. If they did, they'd have switched years ago. They want a box that, quite frankly, they can leave untouched (save the power button, though X1 takes even that away) for 7-10 years. They want to spend money on hardware maybe twice a decade, and then forget about the box. PS4/X1 offer that, while the Steam Machines are marketing to people that get hyped by new graphics cards. Those people aren't console gamers.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Nick Wofford on 7th October 2013 6:25pm

Posted:A year ago

#13

Roberto Bruno Curious Person

104 69 0.7
Here it comes the "super-optimization console magic" myth once again.

Look, optimized code on specific hardware can only get you that far. A Titan* today won't be outclassed by consoles in three years "because of optimization". It will be more than enough to ride along the entire next gen for multiplatform games.

*a limit case for the sake of an example, but this doesn't apply just to Titans or above.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Roberto Bruno on 7th October 2013 6:32pm

Posted:A year ago

#14

Anthony Chan Analyst, CPPIB

91 79 0.9
And it baffles me that someone can think PCs need to catch up "to compete with consoles in value", when actually they already surpass them once you start taking software into account.
I agree whole-heartedly with you here. When comparing PC to Console based on muscle and power, the PC can offer you best value for the dollar, because the tech is up-to-date. However Felix (I believe) is looking at this more from a consumerist approach. Console offers the best value to most "couch-based" users, because the stereotype is those who like to do everything from the couch are not your typical tech-savvy.

I have always said consoles are going to be around for a long time despite the fact the manufacturers are actually ripping us off for 10 year old hardware at the price point they choose. The reason is, consoles always can say every game made for that console will look great, without the need to ever upgrade anything. As long as you have a TV with an HDMI input, your already good to go at the baseline.

Computers cannot say that. Every year that goes by, the minimum spec required to play games moves up. This is extremely daunting to consumers who just want a machine that will serve them for as long as a decade. Computers cannot always play the latest and greatest at the maximum spec year after year.

So back to what I criticized about the SteamBox, given the prototype is a glorified supercar under the TV, where does Valve think they fit in the gaming hardware spectrum? Don't get me wrong, they have some great ideas, and the potential for a free and shareable software platform makes me giddy, I have trouble thinking they are even a contender to steal market share from Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft. TBH it seems like Valve may be trying to tap into the niche market that Falcon and AlienWare left behind to rot lol.

Posted:A year ago

#15

Anthony Chan Analyst, CPPIB

91 79 0.9
LoL Roberto. You speak like my other tech-savvy friends, and I don't blame you. Again like in the follow up comment, you are forgetting the console is mass marketed to those who are not tech savvy.

You are absolutely right, a PC rig with even 2 year old tech will outclass the latest upcoming gen of console. But remember who is buying the console, and also the feelings when as a PC owner.

I own both, and often it comes down to this sentiment. "WOW the latest game came out! OH NO! my computer will NOT be able to run it on MAX!!!" This is very very normal, considering I am more a casual gamer who does not have the resources to swap out video cards, motherboards, and CPUs every 1.5 to 2 years to keep up with the latest games.

On my PS3 I can still fully enjoy GTA V in its full or MAX visual glory on a 10 year old machine. I did not have to upgrade any parts. I did not have to purchase the latest PS3 slim (I own a fist gen PS3 dinosaur).

Most typical consumers are like me - in the sense monetary resources dedicated to a hobby/pastime are very limited and often fall down the list of priorities.

Posted:A year ago

#16

Nick Wofford Hobbyist

180 190 1.1
Roberto, I'm not saying consoles will outclass PCs. But like Anthony mentioned, that minimum spec requirement climbs higher every year. The minimum spec requirement for a console is just the console. Done. That's incredibly attractive, and it's what console gamers pay for every generation. Valve seems to have missed that, in my opinion.

Posted:A year ago

#17

Felix Leyendecker Senior 3D Artist, Crytek

182 202 1.1
I don't think valve is really trying to compete with MS/Sony for the average Joe customer that just wants a box to play madden and call of duty.
As many of you pointed out, what this would ultimately require is a closed box with fixed hardware, and they can't and won't compete on those terms. They are simply future-proofing their market from the OS side, and, in the process, try to lower the barrier that separates Joe average from a gaming PC under his TV. If it works, great, if not, it's cool as well, as long as they reach their existing user base and get them to install SteamOS.
Increasing the OS installed base, not the hardware/box install base, is most likely their ultimate goal, and to reach it, they'd do well establish themselves with a high-end halo device at a premium price point, and win over mindshare.

Posted:A year ago

#18

Morville O'Driscoll Blogger & Critic

1,577 1,419 0.9
which means you have to buy 100 games for the PC to make up the difference.
*insert obligatory remark about the amazing Steam sales here*

Posted:A year ago

#19

Roberto Bruno Curious Person

104 69 0.7
@Christian: you are somehow forgetting that just one configuration out of three included a 1000$ GPU and that even the weakest out of these three is more than capable to compete with next gen consoles on even ground and for a fraction of that cost.

Beside, the 10$ difference in price tags becomes usually far more wide when you start including deals that are incredibly common even for new software on the PC side (GMG preorder bonuses, internet key resellers, etc) and buying dozens of games even across a single year is not really uncommon for many Steam users.

Posted:A year ago

#20

Roberto Bruno Curious Person

104 69 0.7
Yeah, I think i'll give up as we are slipping in a pointless game of rebuttals, and quite frankly you are also making things up on the way.

A 660 and a i3 aren't "underpowered" compared to a XB1/PS4 under any way you want to look at them, if you assemble your own PC with them they are indeed comparable to the cost of these new consoles, and even if they weren't no one ever claimed that a PC needs to be on the same price point of a console to offer comparable value. In fact this whole argument started from me stating the exact opposite of it.

On top of that you are making assumptions about the pricing point of these Steam Machines which may or may not be correct, but at this point are just that: assumptions.

You are also somehow implying that only indie games are cheap on PC and that "AAA productions" are console exclusives, which is frankly moot.
Beside, we were talking about new releases, not about 4-5 months old games, because if that was the case the comparison would be even more embarrassingly favorable to the PC, because at that point many PC games are consistently and reliably available under the 10 dollars threshold. Not just when you have a striking episode of luck browsing into a bargain bin.

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Roberto Bruno on 7th October 2013 8:43pm

Posted:A year ago

#21

Adam Campbell Associate Producer, Miniclip Ltd

1,178 967 0.8
I think SteamOS/SteamMachines is a brilliant idea, but the timing could see it struggle versus the devices and strategy Sony and Microsoft have come up with in PS4 and Xbox One.

People would have had more reason to to buy into this platform about a year ago in my opinion, the next gen consoles have some serious momentum and a great impression left on both the consumer and development communities. To an extent that SteamBoxes may not offer a strictly better alternative to what they can.

That said, the advantages of the platform are equally very clear, especially looking at the model we see in Steam on the PC, as well as Valve's impressive research into peripherals. Something I'm certain doesn't stop at the Steam Controller.

Posted:A year ago

#22

Bruce Everiss Marketing Consultant

1,692 594 0.4
All the talk about hardware is misguided.
Steam has a vastly superior business model to Xbone and PS4.
It is better for gamers and better for publishers.
If Dell, HP, Lenovo etc get behind it it will be massive.

Posted:A year ago

#23

Roberto Bruno Curious Person

104 69 0.7
Do you realize that you are just counting cores, when the 2 cores/4 threads i3 CPU can run up to 3,4 ghz (depending on which one they are exactly using) and the fantastic "8 cores" one in those consoles is a 1,6 ghz?

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Roberto Bruno on 7th October 2013 9:54pm

Posted:A year ago

#24

Roman Margold Rendering Software Engineer, Sucker Punch Productions

24 34 1.4
I don't understand all the efforts here trying to compare consoles with these machines while we have no clue what the price point is.

Now, what baffles me, is why they're putting only nvidia cards in these rigs. I doubt they have some kind of deal (or do they?), and if not, is that wise considering 95% of future games will be optimized for AMD GPUs? I'd love to know the decision making here.

Finally, I'm disappointed to not see a properly sized SSD inside. 8 GB may be enough for the system, but who likes waiting for these monstrous games of today (and tomorrow) to load?

Posted:A year ago

#25

Roberto Bruno Curious Person

104 69 0.7
I guess you haven't tried to run one of the games I mentioned on an i3, haven't you?
@Christian: If I have "tried it"?
I played the whole Witcher 2 twice with an E6550, a Dual Core Duo CPU which is vastly outperformed by those i3, while equipping a GTX460 as GPU.
I don't think you actually know what you're talking about.

Posted:A year ago

#26

Roberto Bruno Curious Person

104 69 0.7
Well, first things first, I played at 1680x1050.
Second point, I never claimed that I played the game at 60 fps on that system.
And last but not least, I'm not sure how max settings are supposed to be relevant here.

Even ignoring that what you can consider "max settings" on PC is quite arbitrary, this argument was all about these Steam Machines being a valid alternate option to console hardware even with the lower configuration, not about outperforming them vastly.

Posted:A year ago

#27

Ahmed Sharif Software Development Engineer in Test (R&D), Sony Computer Entertainment Europe

14 6 0.4
@ Christian
Do you honestly think a 2 core CPU is comparable to the 8 core CPUs of the XBox One and PS4? I can say for sure, that games like Witcher 2, Dirt Showdown, Sim City, Rome 2 or Crysis 3 won't come near the 30 FPS on a 2 core CPU, no matter what GPU you use.
This misconception that you must have a quad/hex/oct core uber CPU for gaming is false.

I'm not sure where you're getting your data from, but my test machine consists of an Intel Core 2 Duo with a GTX 670 and I can run The Witcher 2 at a consistent 27-37 FPS. Most well-engineered, modern AAA games offload the majority of processing onto the GPU, the CPU's effect on performance is very game dependent and negligible in most cases.

Edited 4 times. Last edit by Ahmed Sharif on 8th October 2013 5:15pm

Posted:A year ago

#28

Morville O'Driscoll Blogger & Critic

1,577 1,419 0.9
Sadly, the discussion minimum/required specs comes down to something that's entirely unrelated to hardware manufacturing: Developers and publishers.

Whether by choice or not, a fair number of PC games aren't optimized for the PC, and this is exacerbated when things like Tessellation, PhysX and UberSampling are added into the mix. Batman: Arkham City will run smoothly on the minimum specs. But enable DX11 Tessellation or PhysX, and the frame-rate drops from a steady 30+fps, to anything from 20-40fps, variable, on a system that exceeds the recommended. I don't know of anyone who has a "sensible" gaming rig who can run Witcher 2 with UberSampling on, but off it's smooth as silk on an i5. GTA4's quality/fps is restricted by CPU, because the developers didn't optimize to take into account better GPUs than the consoles it was originally developed for.

All this is to say that people can argue about minimum specs of games and the specs of the Steam Machines all they want, but unless all developers (and the publishers who force release dates upon the devs) start treating the PC as an actual machine in its own right, and not a secondary market that's below the consoles, it's all for naught. Which is why I argue that the Steam Machines are good - the base spec of an i3 may be below that of the next-gen consoles, but if a game is optimized for it, it won't matter. This is particularly true when you consider the GPUs of the Steam Machines will most likely be ahead of the consoles, even if the CPU isn't.

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 8th October 2013 5:42pm

Posted:A year ago

#29

Roberto Bruno Curious Person

104 69 0.7
he base spec of an i3 may be below that of the next-gen consoles
But it isn't.

Posted:A year ago

#30

Felix Leyendecker Senior 3D Artist, Crytek

182 202 1.1
@Morville
Yes, it's the same old story. Three things work against proper optimization for PC, for one, it's a small market, two, there are very many hardware configurations, and lastly, they improve at a constant pace. So developers are neither forced to, nor do they have a real incentive to properly optimize for PC the same way they do for consoles.
The result is always the same, playing a multiplatform game on PC in many cases requires much stronger hardware than consoles to run it at a comparable quality and performance as their versions. Nobody is playing today's titles on a medium to high-end PC from 2005, when the 360 launched.
The steep hardware requirements of new multiplats like CoD:Ghosts and Watch_Dogs further prove this. PC gamers will have to do some serious upgrading to stay on top of things, judging from steam hardware statistics.

All this means that the hardware power of the steam machines need to be on the higher end than what many people assume, and the same must be true for the price.

Posted:A year ago

#31

Ian Lambert UI Developer, Ghost Games

17 18 1.1
[EDIT - Bah, hadn't refreshed the page for a while and missed half the conversation. Never mind]

@Roberto "...it baffles me that someone can think PCs need to catch up "to compete with consoles in value", when actually they already surpass them once you start taking software into account."

http://www.vgchartz.com/analysis/platform_totals/Tie-Ratio/Global/

So, unless Valve can work out some spectacular deals or are willing to absorb a hefty loss, it looks to me like this will end up being an expensive option, so probably not competitive with the living room incumbents. Happy to be proved wrong, but I'm not seeing this as the second coming of the glorious PC master race just yet.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Ian Lambert on 9th October 2013 12:32pm

Posted:A year ago

#32

Adam Campbell Associate Producer, Miniclip Ltd

1,178 967 0.8
Sadly, the discussion minimum/required specs comes down to something that's entirely unrelated to hardware manufacturing: Developers and publishers.
Agreed. Even the games mentioned above make me laugh in term of system reqs, when the same games and engines scale back to consoles like the WiiU, PS3 and Xbox 360.

I've also played plenty of games in the past where the system requirements turned out to be a joke and weren't actually necessary for the game in question both in theory and practice.
the base spec of an i3 may be below that of the next-gen consoles
But it isn't.
True. Next generation console CPUs aren't actually that powerful compared to bigger PC processors. How they behave in their specific context however could and will be a different story. Engines will be closely optimised and code will aim to be incredibly parallel across multiple cores.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Adam Campbell on 9th October 2013 11:07pm

Posted:A year ago

#33

Adam Campbell Associate Producer, Miniclip Ltd

1,178 967 0.8
All this means that the hardware power of the steam machines need to be on the higher end than what many people assume, and the same must be true for the price.
A factor that is quite interesting but hasn't been picked up much ids exactly how much optimisation we may get out of the Steam Machines due to the OS architecture and other factors such as APIs being different to a typical PC.

Posted:A year ago

#34

Tom Keresztes Programmer

683 335 0.5
True. Next generation console CPUs aren't actually that powerful compared to bigger PC processors.
The Jaguar core (that powers the PS4) is actually available on the market as Amd A5000 (Kabini), which combines and Amd 8830 graphics core with a 4 core jaguar running on 1.5ghz. Kabini review . In short: it will not be a match (clock-for-clock) for an i3, not to mention the high performance i5/i7 parts. Bobcat, which Jaguar is the improvement of, was originally designed as a 25W netbook cpu.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Tom Keresztes on 10th October 2013 11:04am

Posted:A year ago

#35

Tom Keresztes Programmer

683 335 0.5
An i3 has 2 cores, the PS4 CPU has 8 cores, so a clock for clock comparsion is only intersting as long as the engine the game runs on doesn't use more then 2 cores.
Not everything scales linearly with the addition of cpu cores. The Kabini is sufficiently underpowered that even a dual core i7 running at similar clockspeed was faster in multithreaded benchmarks (like rendering) that scale better than typical game engine workloads. Yeah, the PS4 cpu is no slouch. but its nowhere near fast enough to be competitive with a quad core i7 (but uses quarter of power, therefore easier to keep cool and quiet). Of course, this assumes that the Kabini's Jaguar core is identical to the PS4's jaguar, but assuming the proximity of the launch, this is probably going to be very similar.
As far as PS4 performance is concerned, the benefit will be the unified memory model, and the GPU - plus that the operating system might be better tailored for single tasked application (e.g. only one app running at a time). The DDR5 will affect the cpu performance minimally, probably less than 1% (as it can be observed with most cached architectures in the past, most recently with DDR2 -> DDR3 transition).

Posted:A year ago

#36

Login or register to post

Take part in the GamesIndustry community

Register now