• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Why don't consoles incorporate faster hardware?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
usp8riot

usp8riot

Member
​
Joined
May 26, 2003
Just curious but have been wondering for years because they all wanna lay claim to the fastest/powerful gaming machine but yet they haven't even broke the 800mhz mark yet for consoles while off the shelf PC's can almost reach 4 ghz. What exactly is the problem with gaming companies and why they don't have more ram, cpu power, and so on? I realize that a PC has to run an OS and everything that goes along with it so hertz against hertz the console would win but is it a cooling problem or what? I mean seeing the games an X-box is capable of at 733 mhz, correct me if I'm wrong, I just wonder what it could do at 4 ghz and a good load of RAM.
 
It is probably $$. If they came out with something that fast, it would probably be too expensive to produce and cost a lot, so a lot of people would not be able afford it? That is my guess :D

edit: Spelling :D
 
Exactly, cost.

Although, they can do a heck of a lot for whats in those machines. But they have to appeal to the masses, you get any more expensive and people just wont spend the money.
 
if consoles had faster hardware, the prices would go up really high. i wouldnt want to buy a $500 gaming machine when i could just upgrade my pc. the only reason i have a ps2 is because it wasnt that expensive. i think eventually the consoles will get to where pcs are right now, but they really dont need to yet. the reason xbox graphics look so good with only a geforce3 (slightly different geforce3 for xbox) is because tv resolution is 640x480.
 
Oh, ok. I wasn't even thinking about the money. But I wonder how much resources the OS and it's processes take away from the overall gaming experience? My last comp. was more powerful than an xbox and it would've had some serious lag in a game like Splinter Cell. And does any company make any sub-OS like DOS where minimal resources are run to play a game? I would think there would be a demand for that type of software since it could make gameplay alot better for any PC.
 
Also keeping a console at a given speed helps the game makers to be able to create thier games easier. They can optomize thier games to run as well as they can for "ONE" machine rather than the headache that it is for game makers to try and make games run well on a wide array of machines like a PC. Also, consoles ustilize thier ram much differently than a PC does. If I remember correctly (cant remember which link or article I read it in, cut it was off of here) the ram in the PS2 runs at half the speed of the processor. I am going to try and find the link.
 
OLMI said:
the reason xbox graphics look so good with only a geforce3 (slightly different geforce3 for xbox) is because tv resolution is 640x480.
Click to expand...

It is different in more ways an dis capable of more than a regular Geforce3
 
TheFrag said:


It is different in more ways an dis capable of more than a regular Geforce3
Click to expand...

oh, sorry.. i just kinda glanced over an article on google to find out what kind of gpu it has. thanks for the correction ;)
 
The money argument seems valid after a few years but when they are released they are rediculously expensive. The PS2 was $800 here when it was released (I think xbox same price) and has gradually dropped to around 3 or 4 hundred.

For $700 here I can get a celly 1700, 256ram, 17inch monitor keyboard, mouse etc. Basically everything. (onboard graphics tho)

It does seem rediculous the asking price for the initial release. XBOX has the right idea using pc parts but they sell every machine at a loss! (M$ that is) If the prices stayed like this then we should expect better machines, but they drop and in the long run the hardware specs will proberly prove too expensive.

Must be all the R+D involved also. Again use computer parts-less R+D
 
Cost, heat and compatibility are the main reasons, but here is another that may influence things:
bleeding-edge technology is far more prone to errors than something that has been time-tested.

Using components that are slightly removed from the forefront of development in consoles may keep them more reliable.
 
well, you have to also keep in mind that most consoles don't use normal pc parts. they have to develop their own components for certain parts of their machine like ps2's emotion engine. also, asking price isn't too bad in my opinion. i bought the ps2 when it initially came out which was 300 US. i found that to be a great deal for a console that had a built in dvd player, could run old ps1 games, and the new ps2 games. heat is also a big factor, who wants a console with a delta?
 
Aside from a lot of listed reasons (cost, heat, etc), why is it necessary for an Xbox or Gamecube to have faster processor or more ram than it has? Because at the time they were designed, the video card (well not necessarily a card, you know what I mean) was powerful enough to play the games with the graphic capabilities they could come out with at the time. Why have a 4ghz processor and a gig of ram, when they would be fine with much less?
 
Yeah, you got a point there. Actually what I learned from 3DMark '03 is alot of the gaming power is in the video card. Even my system sucked which is plenty of cpu and ram for any game nowadays, I just got a 1600something as a score due to my graphics card not being very high end. So the holdup is mainly video card technology, right?
 
usp8riot said:
Yeah, you got a point there. Actually what I learned from 3DMark '03 is alot of the gaming power is in the video card. Even my system sucked which is plenty of cpu and ram for any game nowadays, I just got a 1600something as a score due to my graphics card not being very high end. So the holdup is mainly video card technology, right?
Click to expand...
Yep. :( ;)
 
Most peoples TV as at a res of a bit less then 640 x 480 and you don't need kill hardware for that. There are a few that will do 800x600 and then there is HD/1080i, but how people have those compared to standard TVs.

XBox will play DIII so I'd say its got pleanty of power.
 
It's simply 'what the public' or the greatest 'calculated mass' will pay for.... Has NOTHING to do with speed, heat, compatibility, next 'reason', etc.

It's all about 'product' & 'profit'. In example: The p4 was full blown in concept, why did we not get it that way ? (Intel boosted at the time of conception that it had to be 'scaled back' for 'general affordibilty' ('they had determined thru their 'position' that we could not afford it, LOL).

'We' the population, will be 'milked' for EVERY little performance upgrade we get..... The p4 IS the standard of example.

You, your needs (according to ? LOL) and your pocket are being 'jacked' for what 'they' think they can get at this time, now.

This is a calculated game, NOT an example in what is the cutting edge. MHO ;)
 
My TV does 1024x768... but I don't have any consoles... why have a console when I have such a nice PC?
 
Im surprised no one has menchioned my thoughts.

Why would they want to put out a top-of-the-liner right away when they can make money by gradualy going faster and faster? I could understand that the other compeditor could cream them but i havn't seen them do it yet... they go along with the game and gradualy go faster instead of making an "ultimate" machine :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Niku-Sama
DIY router hardware, which setup?
Replies
6
Views
1K
The_Jizzler
The_Jizzler
F
Pihole Build Thread - A Complete Walkthrough
Replies
2
Views
627
freakdiablo
F
magellan
AMD Radeon Instinct MI100: why no directx support?
Replies
1
Views
1K
EarthDog
EarthDog
G
Need critique for new build plz.
Replies
6
Views
723
gravitywell
G
Al_bundy
Alucryl - 3DFX - CNC - Retro pc
Replies
2
Views
393
EarthDog
EarthDog
Back