59 months ago
This thread should be about strategies to build computers that fit the following definition:
- Are designed for use in a living room media center
- Are designed to match and/or exceed the capabilities of the most powerful consoles on the market (PS4 is the most common candidate)
- Are designed to be competitive with the console in question from a cost standpoint.
Most of my "business" currently revolves around people looking to get out of the console rat race and into PC gaming at a very low cost, so this particular kind of build is very interesting to me.
The first step is to make sure that I am really building a machine that at LEAST matches the PS4's specs. That console is running (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_4_technical_specifications#APU) an 8 core, 1.6ghz GCN-based APU with a 1152:72:32 core config and an 8gb set of DDR5 shared system RAM. Supposedly this machine is based on the Jaguar core design from AMD, but there are inconsistencies in the reporting there; per the aforementioned wiki page, the PS4 features four modules with two cores each. Jaguar, however, is an architecture that does not use CMT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_(microarchitecture)), therefore it is difficult for me to understand how it can be understood to share the unfortunate "module" construction of prior AMD architectures. Can anyone assist in explaining this discrepancy?
Then there's the issue of the GPU side: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1080?vs=1130. Given that the aforementioned core config of the PS4 should theoretically put it just under the R9 270, why is it that the GTX 750 Ti is generally accepted as outperforming it? I don't deny the data, and I've seen real-world tests that suggest the 750 Ti is in fact the superior GPU, but does that mean the data on the PS4's GPU is wrong, or is there something else going on that isn't immediately apparent in the numbers?