Is PS4 Just a Branded Gaming PC?

Posted in:  

Written by Ray Gillespie

With Nintendo’s Wii U struggling with low sales, and Sony moving from its controversial ‘Cell’ processor to an AMD x86-64 processor, are we about to enter a new era in games console hardware, where bespoke CPUs are a thing of the past and games consoles are little more than branded gaming rigs with a custom OS? If so, is PlayStation 4 just another one of these branded gaming rigs? Let’s take a look at the PlayStation 4 specs that have been released so far:

Processor x86-64 AMD “Jaguar” 8 core CPU
Graphics 1.84 TFlops, AMD Radeon Graphics Core Next engine
Memory 8GB GDDR5 RAM
Storage HDD (size unconfirmed)
Optical Drive 6x Blu-Ray drive
Input/Output USB 3.0
Ethernet 10BASE-T, 100BASE-TX, 1000-BASE-T
Wireless IEEE 802.11 b/g/n

You can pick up most of that kit, or at least a comparable retail version, at any decent computer hardware retailer. So does this mean that PlayStation 4 will essentially be Sony’s new gaming rig, with a PlayStation OS? In a way, yes. But having its own OS, as well as a fixed set of hardware (unlike the virtually infinite combinations of PC hardware), means that PlayStation 4 will still be a long way from a Windows PC.

The next PlayStation OS, whatever it is called, will be a very lean piece of software when it comes to resource usage. Just look at what PlayStation 3 manages to achieve with just 256MB of RAM. Compare that to Windows Vista, which was released just a couple of months after PlayStation 3 and needed at least 1GB of RAM to run effectively, and you’ll see what kind of advantage home consoles have with regard to RAM usage. By the same standard, PlayStation 4′s beefy 8GB of RAM will probably be enough to see it compete with PCs that have 16GB of RAM or perhaps even more.

The same is true with the CPU and GPU specs: by having to cater for so many variations of hardware, PC game developers have to sacrifice a significant amount of performance if they are to keep development time within a financially manageable length. By having just one (for first party developers) or two (for dual platform developers) sets of hardware to focus on, developers are able to push a console to its absolute limits, and take advantage of all the specific optimisations and nuances available to them. Again, this will allow a console to out-compete a similarly spec’d PC by some margin.

The story doesn’t end there however. By offering a “walled garden”, game piracy is kept to a minimum, and this is a big incentive for developers. We’ve heard time and time again from developers that piracy is frequently a barrier to PC game development, whereas this is only a minimal issue for consoles. This, along with other factors, results in many best-selling console games simply skipping PC release altogether, which is a real shame for PC gamers. The only way to play games like Red Dead Redemption, Final Fantasy XIII, and Tekken Tag Tournament 2 is to buy a  console, and that’s before you get into system-specific exclusives like Gran Turismo 5, Ni No Kuni, Forza and most of the Halo games.

One of the other major benefits of the walled garden is that everything works, from the word go. Every Xbox 360 comes with a predefined wireless joypad and a headset/microphone to plug into it. Every PlayStation 3 comes with a Blu-ray drive capable of storing 50GB of data and a motion sensitive controller. Developers know exactly what their audience will be using, and can develop games to specifically take advantage of whatever features they like. Like any iPhone developer will tell you, development is simplified when you know exactly what you’re working with.

So yes, in theory the hardware of PlayStation 4 does make it look a lot like a branded gaming rig. In practice however, there will be as much difference between PlayStation and PC as there ever was. Does that mean that PlayStation 4 will be better for gaming that a PC? No, but it’s clear that for the time being at least, there’s room for PC and console to exist side-by-side as they have always done.

Share this story with your friends


  1. Default avatar

    JC Denton - March 5, 2013 6:00 am

    I like how half the games you say can “only be played by buying a console” actually have PC releases. Burnout Paradise, Gears of War, LA Noire…all of them on PC and playable in higher resolutions with better graphics and framerates than the console versions.

    You also drastically overstate the point about “gaining performance by not catering to many versions of hardware.” The real reason consoles appear to be more efficient is the much lower resolution. Many Xbox 360 games are 540p and upscaled. True 1080p games are rare. Most PC gamers use 1920×1200 or 2560×1600 monitors, so many more pixels are being pushed to create a much more detailed image, taking more hardware power but creating a superior experience. Many PC gamers even use 3x 1080p or 1200p screens. Personally I use 3x 30 inch monitors for a resolution of 7680×1600…the PC I use to run that is already several orders of magnitude more powerful than the currently unreleased “next gen” consoles.

    If anything PCs and consoles are becoming MORE different due to improved multi-gpu configurations, which were spotty when the 360 and PS3 came out. Thus the gap between those consoles and the best PCs was much smaller. Now the PC-Console gap is only growing.

    You should retract this article…you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

  2. Default avatar

    Ray Gillespie - March 5, 2013 9:12 am

    Hey, you’re right about the exclusives. I messed that up, so I’ve edited the article to take those three out.

    As for the rest of your comment, you’ll find that the majority of Xbox 360 and PS3 are rendered in 720p, only a small number are in 540p or below. In addition, if you look at the Steam stats, you’ll see that by far the majority of PC gamers play games in 1080p or below. Only 0.17% of Steam gamers use 2560 x 1600:

    Clearly, PCs have the potential to be vastly more powerful than even next-gen home consoles, but very few people have these kinds of gaming rigs, and they are much more expensive than games consoles. That’s not really the point of this article anyway.

  3. Default avatar

    Ben - March 14, 2013 11:50 am

    Like you’ve said, I think consoles have the advantage that developers only have to develop for a definitive single hardware configuration, compared to PC where you can’t optimise for specific hardware since not everyone will have the same setup – which is why we see games like Uncharted 3 running on the PS3′s paltry (by today’s standards) 512MB RAM compared to something like Assassins Creed on PC requiring far more. Like you say, the OS footprint for the PS3 is much much lower (I think its like 60MB?), which helps a lot more.

    As for the PS4, I think what will set it apart from PCs is that GDDR5 RAM, which is pretty much unheard of when talking about unified memory. The addition of extra chips built to download, stream and compress data will also no doubt set the PS4 apart as well.

  4. Default avatar

    Dan - May 21, 2013 8:08 pm

    What the hell is the point of this article? You ask a theoretical, nonsensical question at the start of the article, then leave the discussion without saying anything: “Does that mean that PlayStation 4 will be better for gaming that a PC? No…” Well thanks a ton for clearing that up. Why even bother writing this?

  5. Default avatar

    Ray Gillespie - May 21, 2013 9:43 pm

    The point is that I found it interesting to explore this topic in writing. I don’t care whether you like it or not.