Submitted by Orpheus 672d ago | article


It is a small price to pay to have next-gen gaming right now. (PC, PC Gamer, PS4)

« 1 2 »
Pandamobile  +   672d ago
So a similarly spec'd PC will only run you $600. That's actually quite a bit cheaper than I expected. Pretty similarly spec'd to my roommate's rig as well which can run pretty much every at max settings at 1080p.
cgoodno  +   672d ago
The only difference is that it won't be prioritized and optimized usage. So, I'd say closer to $800 at this time to equal up exactly while taking into account OS and similar apps always running on PC.
Pandamobile  +   672d ago
Obviously. I know it's not a 1:1 representation of how the systems will actually compare when it comes to the software running on it. I was talking solely about the hardware.
GameNameFame  +   672d ago
Doesnt really full cost of Case, PSU, Blu Ray, Controller
You can't get a case and PSU for 50 bucks that wont break in few months.

Also, its GDDR3 ram. Huge price difference between GDDR5.

I mean Epics developer was talking about having to build a very expensive computer to run that demo. and to him, expensive was like 3500 rig(on another topic)

It's all about optimization... and author is trying to make a buzz by purposely picking a lower number
#1.1.2 (Edited 672d ago ) | Agree(33) | Disagree(9) | Report
Computersaysno  +   672d ago
The key being 'at this time'.

When the current range of PC GPUs are due to be refreshed before PS4/Next box come out, end of this year for PS4 (hoiday 2013).

By the time PS4 arrives PC already moves on a little bit more with better bang for buck every generation.

PS4 has something like a Radeon 7850 in it, which costs maybe $200. It is about as fast as a GTX570 was 18 months ago, which cost like $350. GTX295 was comparable to GTX570, 18 months before that too. But that cost like $700....

Expect GTX680/7970 performance which would still outstrip PS4 even considering the overheads for windows to cost maybe $200 by this time next year.

I don't see a lot of point in the article.

Consoles launch, get as close as they are gonna get to PC hardware, then fall behind quicker and quicker. Such is life.

The difference is this time when 360 launched its GPU was nearly on par with the very best single GPU on PC around at the same time (like 7800GTX, X1800XT).

Even what is inside PS4 is no match for a 7970 gigahertz or Titan- which are out....right now. Already.
#1.1.3 (Edited 672d ago ) | Agree(26) | Disagree(26) | Report
MikeMyers  +   672d ago | Well said

Why have a comparison if you're not going to do a proper comparison? Who cares if it's overkill, some people have over 16GB of RAM on their PC.
jimbobwahey  +   672d ago
The most expensive PC graphics card costs $1000 and only has 6gb of GDDR5 memory.

The PS4 will have 8gb of GDDR5 memory.

For those that don't know, GDDR5 is much faster than the GDDR3 ram that you find in PCs since its use primarily on graphics cards, and the absolute latest and most cutting edge PC tech only offers 6gb of it at most, for the price of $1000.

To get a PC that offers comparable performance to the PS4 will cost a lot of money, especially since you need to take into account that games running on a PC with identical specs will never run as well as their PS4 counterparts, given the OS bloat and lack of optimization on the PC platform.
Halochampian  +   672d ago

ShinMaster  +   672d ago
PC fanboy insecurity
Always with the spec and price comparisons.

It'll be cheaper than $800 that's for sure. Not to mention its advantage of being optimized 1:1 because it's a console.
Optimization biyatch!
vulcanproject  +   672d ago
Citing all this memory for PS4 is interesting, then talking about PC overheads as if none exist on console and PC is this awful ancient badly optimised mess, when it isn't.


You think that automatic recording of gameplay is free? The compression is free? Even with some extra dedicated hardware it costs memory and CPU/GPU cycles. The dedicated hardware eases up on processing time, but doesn't suddenly make all that HD video evaporate into thin air. Needs memory. A lot of it.

PS4's OS will be fairly decently sized, if you want all this instant streaming up and down, saving, uploading, fast UI overlay that was emphasised, constant controller tracking via camera, people jumping into your game and connecting, background junk etc etc.

Please don't start yammering on about overheads and optimisations when you haven't thought for a second about how these consoles plan to accomplish all they said as if it costs absolutely no extra memory or reserved CPU/GPU performance.

It costs performance.

Wii U doesn't currently do half what sony plan their machine to do concurrently and 1GB of the main memory is reserved for the OS! Think about that for a second, Wii U reserves 1GB and you can run Windows 8 in that amount no sweat. http://images.anandtech.com... Piece of cake as they say.

Sony could and almost certainly will ring fence a couple of gigabytes and a CPU core or two before the devs even start in on making their games.
#1.1.8 (Edited 672d ago ) | Agree(12) | Disagree(10) | Report
starchild  +   672d ago
This is stupid. I'm a PC gamer and I can tell you that my PC with HD 7950 and i5 will not be able to perform nearly as good as a PS4 with upcoming next generation games.

It's not about specs, it's about the very different way the hardware is utilized.

I know I'll be upgrading my PC for next generation, but I think I will probably end up playing even more games on PS4 this generation.

It really depends on the developers and if they do away with things like screen tearing and if they improve anti-aliasing. I can handle 30fps and a few jaggies, but I can't stand screen tearing.
#1.1.9 (Edited 672d ago ) | Agree(25) | Disagree(8) | Report
ninjahunter  +   672d ago
Yea, but Nvidia Releases optimizations every month for their cards, so that argument is kinda moot, my graphics card runs 50% faster with new drivers than it did with the drivers that were out when i bout it. Not to mention things like overclocking and general system optimization.

And try not to take that as a fanboy rant, but im really sick of console gamers completely overlooking big factors of PC gaming.
Army_of_Darkness  +   672d ago
PC gamers can keep building their pc's, while I'll get almost the same high quality level graphics and performance right out of the box for a cheaper price:-D
ChrisW  +   672d ago
The main difference between GDDR3 and GDDR5 is the bandwidth. Of course having 8Gbs of each is very nice, but what is more important is the amount of "bit memory interface".

Essentially, the bandwidth of 128-bit GDDR5 memory is equal to about 448-bit GDDR3 memory. (*rough numbers*)

Now, what's even more important is that GDDR3 memory cost much less, even with a higher bit memory interface.
#1.1.12 (Edited 672d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(5) | Report
Autodidactdystopia  +   672d ago
yo, i know you guys dont care about what i have to say, but here it is anyway.

I was impressed with the kz4 video.

lets remember all u pc guys, we're dealing with amd parts here.

8 cores from amd is nothing to 4 cores from intel.

that being said. an 8 core amd chip despite what they have to say about performance, will not compare to a recently released intel chip. if it could compare, amd would launch some new architecture and rape intel, but those of you who have been following hardware as long as i have know that amd is posting billion dollar quarter losses due to their inability to beat intels bread and butter.

in short amd's chips are cheap today, very cheap, very affordable.

amds gpu's tell a similar story in regards to their battle with nvidia.

Meaning they are very cheap. very affordable.

Heres probably where you guys get mad. The difference between gddr3 and gddr5 is negligible. In all my years as a system builder/tester/graphics/perfor mance/whore/motiongraphicsdesig ner/overaltechspeedwhore/etc, benchmarks and general use applications and games, have failed to show more than a paltry 2-5% increase in overall throughput since the ddr revolution itself. It is more dependent on the clock of the ram itself. not the type of ram.
just as 7.0 ghz ddr would outright smoke some 1000mhz gddr5, only problem is ddr is not known to be stable at that clock speed.

another note is that cas latencys, have dramatically taken a shit as ddr numbers have risen. ddr2 cas latency 7 ddr 3 same price range cas latency 12.

they dont tell you about cas latency though cause its just one of the 100 factors that make the ram, not just the fact that it is gddr5.

remember usb 3.0 claims 300 megabytes per second, but never actually reaches it's "theorhetical" maximum it is only generally faster than usb 2.0 due to other hardware components or the fact that a pure stream of data is actually quite rare, and often is broken in to many differently sized "packets"


This price is reasonable and whether or not you want to talk about optimization is up to you.

I wouldnt expect much more as the company cannot take "TOO" much of an initial loss regardless of how much they intend to make up on game/peripheral sales.
Athonline  +   672d ago

You know that AMD has a long history of embedded systems chipsets, right? Or back in 2004-05 Intel was the one playing the "catch-up" game for gamers' rigs?

Before you start moaning for AMD vs Intel remember two things:
-The PS4 AMD CPU is x86, but the configuration in the mobo, etc is designed to eliminate bottlenecks such as connection to Northbridge and from there to RAM...
-Games usually perform better on Intel as they are optimised to do so. If they allow programmers to go all the way down to CPU level with Assembly... *fun times*

As for the DDR3 vs GDDR5:
G stands for Graphics. They using a shared pool of GDDR not so much to have a faster bus speed, but to enable developers share textures and data between RAM and Graphics card by simply changing a reference/ pointer (as they are called in C and OpenGl/Cl). The idea behind it is eliminate the need to load texture packs, vectors or other data packs from and to the main memory and then to/from graphics memory. They are eliminate what I personally call the "limbo" state of data in the memory... The reason it is GDDR is in order not to bottleneck the graphics card by having it access a DDR RAM...

I agree on the CAS however.

I am programming for years now. Not in the gaming industry, but the principles remain the same. Instead of comparing specs between a PC and a just announce console, let it come out first and then moan. Optimisation both in hardware and software are important. PCs suffer from bottlenecks and how we (the developers) program on it. We are lazy, we are using for and while loops resulting unnecessary O(N) and O(NlogN) algorithms everywhere...
Consoles do not as they always got less resources to work on and thus "force" you to program right.

I hope I make sense to you.
Autodidactdystopia  +   672d ago

Literally everything you just told me i already knew, is technical which is why i didnt post it and yet somehow it doesnt negate my point.

it seems we are on the same page bro and i dont disagree with you on anything except for the fact that you think i was moaning. :) lol
awi5951  +   672d ago
My Pc now kicks the PS4 backside. My games running on my 3 gpu rig will still look better than anything on PS4.
GameNameFame  +   671d ago
@vulcanproject You are wrong.
According to many leaks and Digital Foundary who analyzed the details from their sources.

no hit to performance. apparently.
vulcanproject  +   671d ago
I'm not wrong GameNameFame. You are talking about the recording aspects, not actually any of the other tasks and features that ALSO use resources. You aren't very specific at all, so I'll have to correct you on what I assume you are attempting (and failing) to understand.

Any dedicated compression hardware takes the task away from the CPU, but it doesn't remove the fact you STILL need to use some system memory to do it, some HDD bandwidth etc

You might not call it a performance hit as such, but it takes memory away that could be used for running the game. This is a stone cold fact. Unless you think that moving HD video around the system to be compressed and saved means storing that in thin air while its worked on and not in system memory somewhere? Do you?

Never mind the rest of the features sony are attempting to do, just look at the list of things they want to do with it online for example, the netcode.

All this other multitasking costs memory, it costs CPU cycles.

PS3 and 360 reserve process threads and in the case of PS3 a whole SPE core. What Sony want to do will mean they are guaranteed to reserve at least one core on PS4 the devs cant touch for their game code.

Wii U fences off half the system's entire memory....1GB for the OS and various other processes.

Do you think Sony and Microsoft won't reserve a big chunk of their system memory as well for their pretty busy looking OS and UI overlays?

Remember how they emphasised that gamers now want things fast, they want games on and off fast, background downloading and installing, they want fast responding content and menus.

That means having a bunch of resources held in reserve. Just how it is.
#1.1.18 (Edited 671d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report
john2  +   672d ago
Gotta agree with cgoodno on this (in fact, I'd raise it to $1000). Developers can take advantage of console's closed environment easier and exploit it
Megaton  +   672d ago
Agreed, probably $1000. Mark Rein was excited about the PS4 running things that he said were extremely expensive to accomplish on PC not too long ago.
#1.2.1 (Edited 672d ago ) | Agree(13) | Disagree(6) | Report
john2  +   672d ago
@Megaton: It's also the question of what resolution they were using and what was the average framerate. If it was running with 30fps at 720p, then it cannot come close to the PC version (which ran at 1080p and 60fps)
#1.2.2 (Edited 672d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(6) | Report
dirthurts  +   672d ago
I have to disagree.
It's grossly overstated how much an OS will actually impact a piece of hardware's performance.
My OS usually uses about 1-3% of my cpu, and maybe 600 megs of ram.
This was true in the days that a pc barely had enough ram to run the OS, but these days have long since passed.
Computersaysno  +   672d ago
Whatever PS4 can do, PC can probably already do it. It just needs to devs to step it up for most PC versions.

Watchdogs for example- nothing I saw there couldn't be done on EXISTING pc hardware. Hell when it was first shown last year people were impressed, but their heads weren't exploding like omggg how is this possible! We know it is possible on PC already.

If I am truthful, same goes for any game you care to point out.

Look at the car models of Project CARS and tell me that Driveclub's are much better. Clearly they aren't. http://www.gamepur.com/file... This isn't a photo BTW. Thats Project CARS in realtime, which you can play in beta form. Right now. On PC.

Look at Killzone and tell me it is better than Crysis 3 on a quality PC. http://images7.gry-online.p... Yes, the game actually looks like this on a good PC! http://www.abload.de/img/cr...

Really, it wasn't. Crysis 3 looks ridiculous on a PC, and that game is out, RIGHT NOW! Not in a year or whenever Killzone might launch.

Don't get me wrong many of the games were impressive, and exciting. But just don't tell me that I haven't seen the capability or the quality already. I am a PC gamer. I have.

Just look at the two pictures provided...
#1.2.4 (Edited 672d ago ) | Agree(12) | Disagree(13) | Report
gtr_loh  +   672d ago
@computersaysno. The PC can most definitely run those games. The most high-end PC hardware from 2010 can even run the games from the PS meeting today. But what we're comparing to right now is the longevity and cost of owning a console compared to a PC. As a side note, I AM IN NO WAY trying to thrash the PC in any form. I was once a PC gamer and my rig from 2006 still stands. The reason why the PS4 or any console for that matter makes the news compared to the PC is simply because they can do it for cheaper. As an allusion, take for example the ownership of a 90s high end luxury vehicle compared to a modern econocar. The luxury vehicle would likely have had many of the things the econocar had ages before. But the cost of maintaining yields high. I would be flattered to own a PC that can run games such as Watchdogs at 60+ FPS on a PC costing less than $500(The maximum rumoured price of the PS4). But that just isn't possible because the PC has so much more potential than to just play games.

TL;DR: It's great to be a PC gamer if you have the sufficient funds. But if you don't, the console is a great way to be a part of "next-gen".
#1.2.5 (Edited 672d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(1) | Report
vulcanproject  +   672d ago
You'll pay more now to get top end visuals on a PC, but that is the point made. You can have them. Now. As long as you wanna pay.

But also as pointed out above, the hardware gets cheaper for the same performance over time. It will certainly be cheaper by the time PS4 arrives to get the visuals seen.

Titan costs stupid amount now but in a year that kind of performance chances are will be half that cost. The cards a bit slower than it half their costs as well.

Neverending cycle. Year after ps4 launches pc hardware will proper muller the new consoles and not be ludicrously expensive to achieve that.
#1.2.6 (Edited 672d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(2) | Report
NaiNaiNai  +   672d ago
Really? where you getting this from, cause consoles sure didn't use the mighty cell to keep up with PC games that are 6+ years old.

heck they couldn't even Run ARMA II, not to mention games like Dirt 1 still look better on PC then most new console games.

The problem here is you are all idiots who don't understand basic computing.
wsoutlaw87  +   672d ago
its been shown over and over that a similarly speced pc will not get the results that the console gets.
ninjahunter  +   672d ago
I dont think i can agree with that, hardware that is considered similarly spec'ed to an xbox 360 is still viable for gaming at similarly quality (settings) and resolution as an xbox 360 for multiplats released.

For example, a nvidia 8800gt is extrememly comparable to an xbox 360 in horsepower, were talkin at max a 10% difference in power. Yet an 8800gt will still run any multiplat as well or better than an xbox at 720p.

I think that the misconception comes from the fact that PC standards keep going up and Console standards stay the same, like 1080p is PC standard these days, Consoles generally are at Sub HD. Or settings in games are getting higher and high in quality, 6-7 years ago maxing out a game was equal to an xbox version, now the console version is equal to medium or low settings.

You are expecting more out of PC hardware than you are out of console hardware and claiming that consoles are more optimize, Oh, an xbox right now is better than an 8800gt? Maby if you expect the 8800gt to max out BF3 and run its at 1080p the console will be better. But if you run it at 720p with a mix of medium and low settings, you will see that an 8800gt is still very comparable to an xbox.
wsoutlaw87  +   672d ago
yes the 8800 is the minimum requirement to even run battle field and youll get a comparable experience on low with frame rate drops. The 8800gt is definitely an upgraded hardware but cant out preform the 360. Battlefield was a game made and heavily optimized for pc also, were not talking halo 4. plus your just bringing up gpus. Its impossible to compare with out taking into consideration cpu, ram, and power usage. When a game is optimized like halo gears killzone or uncharted then they will easily look better than comparable hardware on a pc game. Just ask any developer. The system can be optimized and doesn't have to run windows. Not to mention, the ps4 will be cheaper than a comparable setup when it comes out and will be able to play every game perfectly for the next 8-10 years.
awi5951  +   668d ago
The problem is its hard to find a pc dumbed down enough to match the consoles at the time they launch. You may get a crappy dell your mom may buy but even a crap low end gamimg pc will match or pull ahead of any console game. Take any pc put a 100 dollar graphics card in it and it will beat a console period.

People said the power of the cell all last gen. But the PC i built my little sister with a ATI 4870 1G in it had way more performance than any ps3 or xbox game. That little card would max any game she put in it untill BF3 came out. Any other game would be on ultra settings i cant believe that card lasted like 5 years and it kicked ass. When the price of 4870's dropped down to like 20 dollars i bought sis a second one and those 2 ran BF3 beta on ultra at 30 fps. It would chug on metro but metro is a mess of a game.
Sarcasm  +   672d ago
It can't be directly compared because it uses GDDR5, the GPU is pretty much still unknown at this point, and other unseen costs on the board. So no, a $600 PC isn't quite the same.

For a guy who's big on PC gaming, I thought you'd factor that in at least.
SilentNegotiator  +   672d ago
That wouldn't be convenient enough to "pshaw" off a new "peasant" console.
Pandamobile  +   672d ago
I'm well aware of that, I was only talking about the hardware.
Sarcasm  +   672d ago
Yeah don't get me wrong, I know the specs aren't going to blow any PC rigs out of the water or anything. But I didn't expect it to.

However, I still pleasantly surprised on how good things looked anyway.

Yes we're going to have our gaming PCs, but now we don't have to shake the feeling of "ugh I wish this was on PC instead."

I'll probably end up doing the same thing, play mostly PS4 exclusives and everything else on my PC.

Might be skipping the Xbox this generation.
ABizzel1  +   672d ago
This is not 100% true, you can build that PC significantly less than that.

First off the CPU, being Jaguar based means it's an APU capable of graphics processing as well. $130 is possible, but it could be more or less. The AMD A10-5800k is more comparable component and it's currently priced at $130, but we need to know the integrated GPU to determine if the PS4's CPU will be less or more.

CPU: $130 (for now)

Motherboard, again no way of knowing, but considering it's a console it doesn't need nearly as many ports and slots as a standard PC motherboard does so it should be less.

Motherboard: $50

8GB of DDR3 can be found for $40, but using GDDR5 is going to up the price by an undisclosed amount.

RAM: $60 (it'll cost more than DDR3, how much?)

GPU should have stuck with AMD since the console is AMD based, and looking at the TFLOPS it's closer to an HD 7850.

GPU: $160 (and should be even lower with the introduction of the 8000 series)

HDD: $50 (500GB - 1TB)

Everything Else: $50 - $150

Final Price: $450 - $600, and that's retail price, not bulk pricing. The console will be $400 - $500.
#1.5 (Edited 672d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(3) | Report | Reply
ThatXboxGuy  +   672d ago

How can any console gamer overlook anything related to PC, when there is ALWAYS a PC gamer standing by to point out what we all know, that PC specs can always be upgraded.

We get it, trust me.
#1.6 (Edited 672d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(3) | Report | Reply
ninjahunter  +   672d ago
Tell you what, round up all the console gamers and tell them to stop being wrong, and ile round up all the PC gamers and tell them to stop correcting you when your wrong.

Then wele swap the roles and do it again!
ThatXboxGuy  +   672d ago
You miss the point entirely.It isn't about "being wrong" It's about console gamers having to deal with the massive insecurity's of PC guys.

We all know PC's are better.It's not even debatable.So why feel the need to chime in at every single moment about how console specs are obsolete every year or so? It doesn't matter, as specs don't make games, Developers do.And the quality, creativity, imagination and passion of console developers outshines PC developers 9 times out of 10.

I've had more fun this gen alone on my PS360 than the last 15 years of PC gaming.Specs had nothing to do with it.

I truly hope you PC guys find something else to harp on, besides what we all know, that specs can be upgraded on PC.That o'l bit is getting very tiring.
Jason143  +   672d ago
crossfire 2 550tis and its way faster and half the cost. Ram can be gotten cheaper as well from frys so in the end even with a tower it is $480 for a diy kit. Not to mention that amd fx is twice as fast as ps4's. ama nerd
ABizzel1  +   672d ago
I don't think Xfire is really an option unless you want the PS4 to be a PC tower.

At best they can do a single GPU card, but even that's too much considering the size of the console.

FOrm factor is important to Japan, and Sony doesn't want to lose that easy 10 million in sales over there, because of a huge console.

Mobile GPU's were the way to go, and Sony did good my using a 7950m / 7970m hybrid, which are currently the best AMD has to offer.
bayport  +   672d ago
There sure seem to be a lot of people around here that don't understand the difference between RAM and VRAM.

8GB of RAM in the PS4 does not mean 8GB of RAM dedicated to the video card..
ABizzel1  +   672d ago
The original breakdown was 4GB of RAM (3.5 games, 512MB for the OS), and 2GB dedicated to the GPU.

So I'm guessing it's now 8GB of RAM (7GB for games, 1GB for the OS) and still 2GB dedicated to the GPU.

It's possible they've included the GPU's dedicated RAM, but even then that's 6GB of GDDR5 for the console and OS.
jmc8888  +   672d ago
Actually you don't need that expensive of a CPU. Though you can get that CPU for $30 less than what is quoted in the article (both Amazon and Newegg), at $133, and I bet a Phenom II X6 1045T would do the trick and only set you back $99 (amazon).

Ram for $44.99

Also what people don't understand is that many people just need to upgrade their video card. If you have a decent CPU from the last 5-7 years and have PCI Express 2.0 all you really need to buy to beat a PS4 or 720 is to upgrade your graphics card.

So for many PC gamers, less than $300 will get you a PS4 now. You can get a 660ti for $269. Or you can wait until later this year to get a GTX 700 series card for $250-400 and not just have something with more raw power, but 2-3x the raw power depending on which 700 version you buy.

Though when people say 'PC's are always ahead' they forget where things started last generation.

People need to ask this question. What did a console have when it launched versus a PC last generation? Then we'll revisit the specs.

When the 360 came out it basically had a slightly stripped top end GPU, same with the PS3. PS3 had a Geforce 7800 inside stripped of 1/2 it's ram.

That would be like saying it had a GTX 690 with it's ram cut down. Except really it would have to be GTX 790 since that will be out when the PS4/720 hit.

So if a PS4 DOESN'T have a GTX 790 level performance (with lower ram), then by sheer relationship to last year, it's behind where consoles were versus PC to the last cycle. (we're not even talking about SLI).

You see the difference to realize is that instead of a console launching the generation with a GTX 790, you're getting a GTX 580.

Hell here is the difference just between a GTX 580 and a GTX 690. Then realize there will be a 790 that hits that raises this difference by another 50+ percent.


So let's put it another way. The PS3 was based on a 7800. So in comparison if the PS3 instead of having a GeForce 7800 had a Geforce 5500, hell probably worse.

If people say well the GTX 690 and 790 are dual GPU's...true, but in one card. Meanwhile you can SLI this. You can tri sli the 670 or 680.

So instead of being on par minus ram with PC gamers (thus basically being equal), this is what PC's will have ahead of a PS4

GTX 790
GTX Titan
GTX 690
GTX 780
GTX 770
GTX 760 ti
GTX 680
GTX 670
GTX 660ti
GTX 660 or GTX 560ti --This is a PS4 basically

Note: if you add in all the variations of 2x and 3x parts, then you can literally triple the length down the list the PS4 now is instead of...

Using the same chip, run at almost the same clock speed, and almost the same special chip features, just with chopped ram. Hell the 360 even had some stuff that didn't make it's way into GPU's for a couple more years.

Optimization and console latency advantages gain a bit, but let's face it, the PS4/Wii U/720 OS with always on capability and streaming and all that stuff is more advanced the Windows XP in terms of resource cost. Thus no, in terms of OS cost, the consoles are about on par with PC's these days. Optimization isn't nearly a big thing.
jmc8888  +   672d ago
Really the only advantage worth noting is console latency, in that the data doesn't have to travel as far from part to part to process. But that's not going to gain a huge amount. 50 percent? Maybe. But everything has to be coded properly to take advantage of GPGPU and stuff like that, which will take some time to achieve.
AzaziL  +   671d ago
As a PC gamer, I already know that the next gen consoles will kill for performance per dollar for at least a few years, it's not the first time it's happened. About the only time I choose consoles over PCs is the first couple years, after that it gets more affordable to play better quality graphics on a computer.
#1.10 (Edited 671d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Gamer1982  +   671d ago
The problem is you cannot get GDDR5 as primary memory for PC right now as CPU architecture does not support it. Intels new CPU next year will do however. I like how they say oh its okay its overkill anyway we will use GDDR3. They obviously know nothing about memory and the differences between GDDR3 and GDDR5. GDD5 is 5X faster than DGDDR3 thats a huge differnce. On top of that X86 architecture on a PC is limited by windows to a measly 3GB. See windows is a massive drawback in PC gaming in fact its so bad you would need double the PS3 specs to get almost the same output as what the ps4 can output.

You need proof? Look at Crysis 3 on consoles it ran on DX9 sure but it ran on 512mb RAM. YEP 360 and PS3 only had 512MB RAM. You try running it on a PC with anything less than 2GB and get it to look even nearly as good as the PS3 and 360 versions. You cannot. You need to spend £400 to beat PS3 and 360 you need to spend £1000 MINIMUM to beat PS4 right now and I don't even think that will be enough if they manage to get 80% of its power out day 1.

People really need to learn how hardware works and how badly windows holds back your hardware.

Games are optimized for consoles where as on PC's they cannot be.
fatstarr  +   671d ago
Not doing the full math

Assuming the ps4 is 400$
+ Move $100
+ a Vita $300
+ a controller $50 ( http://www.joystiq.com/2013...
+ games $200

vs $1000
a specced out computer with an I7 (which is better than that amd bulldozer 8 core) 16gb of ram and 2x gpus Around 1000$

and then steam and tons of indie free games and cheap pc games.
Orpheus  +   672d ago
Technically as we speak the PS4 is officially outdated.

-- Joshua Garrett ( random users comment on the original article)
Pandamobile  +   672d ago
That's typically how it goes. Sony can't exactly reach into 2016 and bring a CPU and GPU back from the future. They work with what is available in the PC space from the year before.
clearelite  +   672d ago
My PC has 1GB GDDR5, 4GB system RAM, and I can run anything. PS4 has 8GB GDDR5 and is a beast.
#2.1.1 (Edited 672d ago ) | Agree(28) | Disagree(6) | Report
jmc8888  +   672d ago
Not really. The PS3/360 used basically a top of the PC GPU minus the 1/2 the ram from the year they launched.

Hell I had a 6800 Ultra in my PC, top of the line from 2004, and the 360 was more powerful in 2005. Oh and it's processor was tri core compared to my FX-53 single core ($1000 chip).

Now you have in 2013, a PS4 that is 50 percent more powerful than a 720, which will have a CPU poorer than an i7 920 midrange CPU from 2008 and a GPU that compares to a GTX 560ti or a GTX 660. Hell the GTX 750ti when it comes out will probably be more powerful than a PS4, yet be a $150-$200 part.


The GTX 650ti is basically just about in between the raw power of a PS4 and a 720. The 750ti should no doubt surpass the PS4.

The price?

Even has a $15 rebate.

$140 before rebate, $125 after, and it beats a 720 and is close to a PS4.

Are people ignoring the difference between the start of last gen and this gen based on memes?

The consoles are starting from near uber PC, to absolutely below mid range 2013 PC.
jon1234  +   672d ago
true, but you wont get the games we love on a pc...
Pandamobile  +   672d ago
Speak for yourself. 95% of all major releases that have my eye are released on PC. And for the rest, well that's why most PC gamers have a PS3 or Xbox in their living rooms.
ylwzx3  +   672d ago
Titan pretty much confirms that one..
#2.3 (Edited 672d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
meetajhu  +   672d ago
Agreed. If the Ps4 gpu is 1.84Tflop as they say. Then they used AMD 5830HD or AMD 7970M.
yewles1  +   672d ago
More likely 7850 downgraded...
zebramocha  +   672d ago
@yewles when is your next vid going up? Yewles going by amd's website an hd 7850 only has 1.7 tflops of computation.
#2.4.2 (Edited 672d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report
ABizzel1  +   672d ago

I believe it's a 7950m / 7970m hybrid. Either way it's around the 7850's performance level which is a solid GPU.
wsoutlaw87  +   672d ago
o so your pc isn't? Technically very pc is outdated computers, so what.
Ashunderfire86  +   672d ago
PC Gamers need to stop with their BS about consoles outdated. Let me tell you guys something, the majority of PC games are multiplatform games, so PC has to follow the bandwagon. All of these multiplatform games for PC, don't look all that different from their console counterparts. Take Skyrim for example, yeah it is high res, better lighting, tessellation, Direct X 11, and etc, but the console versions are not too far away from the PC Version. Many game developers make these games look identical to each other anyway. What I am saying is consoles lead the way for the new games that comes out, so the PC version will always look identical even if its better looking. This is coming from a Console and PC Gamer(I have Nvidia Geforce GTX 690). This footage from Capcom is the best I have ever seen, from a game call Deep Down:


That sure don't look outdated to me. PS4 and Killzone Shadowfall day one for me.
mandf  +   672d ago
Well said man. I like your laid back approach. It's really all about the games. Certain developers are just better no matter the hardware. I just happen to believe Sony has the best all around set of capable developers that will push graphics forward.
aquamala  +   672d ago
If you think skyrim, far cry 3, crysis 3 don't look "all that different" between pc and consoles, Ps4 and ps3 games must also don't look "all that different" to you, why do you want a ps4?
#2.6.2 (Edited 672d ago ) | Agree(8) | Disagree(7) | Report
Ashunderfire86  +   672d ago
Respond to #aquamala

I am a console collector like many gamers in here. Plus PS4 has exclusives that is not on PC, like Killzone: ShadowFall for example. Consoles lead the way for next gen graphics, gameplay, and physics. You PC gamers should realize that. No matter how much time you upgrade your rig, PC versions of almost every game will be identical to consoles. To answer your question watch this video:


Now does that PS4 footage look like something done by PS3? Nope!!
#2.6.3 (Edited 672d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(4) | Report
aquamala  +   672d ago
^^^. You have a $1000 gtx 690 card, and you think games on it look identical to consoles? Why did you spend the $1000?
Ashunderfire86  +   672d ago
Responded to aquamala

I got it for half the price on the dell website. Plus I am a college student who gets discounts like the military, and etc. Now does that answer your question?

You are not understating game design, cause many developers never truly take full advantage of the PC. I realize this when I first got into PC gaming. I wanted to see what is the hype about PC games, so I join the bandwagon. Plus I not only use this card for games, but to also learn how to design games. I'm learning Unity, photoshop and etc. I am a game design student. Now does that also answer your question?
#2.6.5 (Edited 672d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(5) | Report
superterabyte  +   671d ago
@Ashunderfire Why all the disagrees you answered @aquamala's question with a legitimate reason
Dark_Overlord  +   672d ago
I don't see how he can compare off the shelf pc parts to custom parts in consoles.

Firstly - none of us know what customisations have been made to the chips

Secondly - Console OS's have much lower overheads than say windows 8 (Meaning they have more to work with)

Thirdly - The Nvidia engineer clearly stated that with consoles they are allowed to program at the lowest on the GPU, with PC's they have to use the APU's which are somewhat restrictive and require anything from 10 to 100x the overheads.

Fourth - Optimisation, due to everyone having the same hardware this is relatively easy on consoles, whereas on PC's due to the wide variety of set ups, optimisations for specific hardware is much harder to make

In summary, you cannot compare the off the shelf PC parts to the consoles. Only devs and engineers who know what the console is fully capable of are qualified to make that statement.

Orpheus  +   672d ago
When you have 6 core Intel processors, the overhead the Windows gives doesnt even tax a single core and the power left is much more than those weak AMD chips.

Secondly, that 10X , 1000X overhead you are talking about goes for certain tasks only , like texture update, and with all those optimizations, a Console can run at most twice as fast compared to its PC counterpart (stated by John Carmack). And that type of efficiency generally comes at the end of the lifecycle of the consoles.

PCs with twice the computational power are common already.
#3.1 (Edited 672d ago ) | Agree(8) | Disagree(11) | Report | Reply
Dark_Overlord  +   672d ago
All I'm saying is that it is an apples to oranges situation :)

If any of the consoles used off the shelf parts, then it would be a good comparison, but as they're either customised or completely different, then you can't do an equal comparison :)
Pandamobile  +   672d ago
We can compare parts all we want.


Not really, most consoles have at least one core dedicated solely to the OS which takes potential power away from developers.


API's, not APU's (just clearing that up for you). The overhead bit you're talking about is mostly affected by the number of draw calls. One advantage consoles have over PCs in terms of speed is that the CPU and GPU are much closer to each other. PC Draw calls have been sped up significantly since DX10 and DX11 came around due being able to batch the draw calls and requiring less GPU context switches. Obviously it's still not quite as quick as consoles are, but this doesn't have a huge impact on overall performance.


Again, this is sort of related to #3. OpenGL and DirectX are always getting faster in PC space, and while it's true you can't get into the nitty-gritty on a PC GPU the same way an engineer can on a console GPU, this difference is usually negated quite quickly in the console cycle with a large increase in raw performance in PC GPU's.

For example, I own a GTX 680, which is probably around 30% faster than the GPU that powers the PS4, but 5 years from now, PS4 GPU will probably get pushed further than what my GPU can do at this present time.
#3.2 (Edited 672d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(12) | Report | Reply
frjoethesecond  +   672d ago
He meant to say API's and he's right. In practical terms consoles are around 60% more efficient than PC's for gaming.
ylwzx3  +   672d ago
Whatever the price may be I am sure Sony will be taking a loss on the hardware.
#4 (Edited 672d ago ) | Agree(8) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
SAE  +   672d ago
Not again -.-
Stop talking about sales ! we want powerful console to get great games and people care about how much money these companies get. It's annoying. It's just like politics..
admiralvic  +   672d ago
A) That isn't their point, it's just that the system will sell for less than it's worth.
B) Power has nothing to do with making great games. Like Legend of Zelda OoT released on inferior hardware for the time and is regarded as one of the best games ever. The same can be said of Final Fantasy VII, which many would agree got WORSE as hardware power increased.
C) Most people don't care about how much money these companies make, they just make debates with factual data. Like in reference to this article, Sony will charge less than the console is actually worth, so it would most likely cost a little more to make an equally good PC at this point in time. In the future this will no longer be true, plus Sony will make a profit, but for now it's not.
D) A lot of things are annoying, but financial data is FAR better than baseless hate or doom articles.
superterabyte  +   671d ago
@SAE If the companies are not making money they will go out of business so there will be no games comprende?

"It's just like politics"

I'm taking a politics degree and I can confirm that it bare's no resemblance.
SAE  +   671d ago
I'm living a political life. Talking with the people that compare sales is like talking with racists in politics.. lol
#4.1.3 (Edited 671d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(2) | Report
Megaton  +   672d ago
Probably, but not as big as PS3. Standalone BluRay players were $800+ when the PS3 launched, making the guts of the PS3 over $1000 to make at launch. They shouldn't have any new tech like that inside the PS4.
josephayal  +   672d ago
The PS4 is def %35 more powerful than PC and %70 cheaper
spektical  +   672d ago
still buying the ps4. I built my rig last month, a lot stronger, it ran me ~1000 excluding peripherals. I will be ready for awesome pc games and ps4. Possibly the best gaming combo out there.
clearelite  +   672d ago
You are probably correct about it being the best combo and remember that devs will actually be able to take full advantage of that 8GB DDR5.
#6.1 (Edited 672d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
CrimsonFox13  +   672d ago
They won't, not with a GPU like it has and especially not with the CPU it has. They should have went with cheaper RAM and put that money towards a better CPU.
Tr10wn  +   671d ago
Devs want more RAM and they are giving it to them, remember Bethesda and Epic when they asked MS to put more RAM on the 360? i bet they did the same this gen and finally Sony listen to them, Watch Dogs looks like it'll be using a lot of that RAM by far the most impressive next gen game and its a launch title just imagine what they will do 2 or 3 years in the console.
I_am_Batman  +   672d ago
Here we go again. You can't compare Console specs to PC specs. You'll have a much more optimized OS on the consoles. Or does anyone of you really believe that you can build a PC with specs similar to the PS3 that can run such high quality as Uncharted 3 or God of War 3? You can't compare cost as well since Sony won't be paying as much as we would since they get major discounts and produce some things themselves. The writer of the article didn't even include GDDR5 Ram or a Blu-ray drive. He also didn't include the cost of a Controller so what's the point of this article really?
jmc8888  +   672d ago
Actually yes you pretty much could.

The dirty little secret with 'minimum specs' are they aren't the minimum specs. Many times for YEARS I was playing games below minimum specs. Hell I remember one year I bought madden I think it was 04 and it needed a P3 850 MHZ minimum, and I had a P2 400mhz. Still was gaming and no not at the lowest resolution or settings.

Only consoles from PS2 and earlier can really claim an advantage due to low OS overhead. The OS'es now are bulky as hell.

P.S. PS3 games look good for PS3 games. I have a PS3, and can game and have fun on it. But you can tell it's a game with JUST the power of a PS3. That's why they're making a PS4. The PS4 is not revolutionary, it's how PC gamers have been gaming for years.

Most of the demos shown today were a notch below what I've seen on 1080p PC's (and there's higher) for a couple of years now.

The only thing that really pushed stuff that PC hasn't either played or built with PC in mind (Unreal 4) is the Capcom game, which may have been CGI. If not, then that will push the quality of comparable PC gaming up as well.

That's the point, if PS4/720 games ever looks better then PAST PC's games, the PC version of the same game will look even better, if the devs want it to and it's not a lazy port.

Oh for the well it's 8GB's people....to properly utilize 8GB's at high resolution and eye candy, you'd would need something massively more powerful than a PS4. Hell it doesn't even exist on a PC yet. You probably have 6gb's, 2gb reserved for social media and OS stuff, and even then no GPU in existence today, or even end of next year will fully utilize 6gb of GDDR5, so it's a bit of overkill, but will be enough towards the back end to be 'wasteful' in getting late generation games to work.

Thus that's what the 8gb's is about, not for using it to max out graphics, but to run more complex games then the system should otherwise be running six years from now.
#7.1 (Edited 672d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(3) | Report | Reply
TABSF  +   672d ago
My comment is #40 2nd Page

Although it is correct devs can get more out of a closed environment we're not gonna see 4K gaming on PS4 or Xbox Loop

4K is only for the Likes of HD 7990, GTX 690, GTX Titan and beyond so basically $1000 GPUs at the moment.

PS4 looks like it will have a Southern Island GPU which have been out now for almost a year (HD 7850) and by the time PS4 reaches the shelf's HD 8970 will be long out.

For comparison

PS4 GPU based on TFLOP/s will probably be HD 7850

HD 7850
* 1024 Unified Shaders * 64 Texture Mapping Units * 32 Render OutPut Units

HD 7970
* 2048 Unified Shaders * 128 Texture Mapping Units * 32 Render OutPut Units

HD 7990
* 4096 Unified Shaders * 256 Texture Mapping Units * 64 Render OutPut Units

HD 8970 (Rumoured)
* 2560 Unified Shaders * 160 Texture Mapping Units * 48 Render OutPut Units

GTX 680
* 1536 Unified Shaders * 128 Texture Mapping Units * 32 Render OutPut Units

GTX 690
* 3072 Unified Shaders * 256 Texture Mapping Units * 64 Render OutPut Units

GTX Titan
* 2688 Unified Shaders * 224 Texture Mapping Units * 48 Render OutPut Units
clearelite  +   672d ago
The PS3 has 8GB GDDR5 though.
InTheLab  +   672d ago
Would be a nice article if not for the attitude at the end and the bragging about playing with a $3k. Completely unnecessary...
NateCole  +   672d ago
What matters in the end are the games.

PC does not have uncharted and PS does not have StarCraft. It is why i have to have both.

We can compare and talk about specs and cost all day long but they are pointless in the end.

It's the games that matter.
Rageanitus  +   672d ago
MOOT point.... we don't even know what the price is for the PS4 is.
SKUD  +   672d ago
With all that was said in todays conference (hardware wise) I don't expect it to be below four hundred dollars. My guess, $450 (base model) and $550 (top model). Whatever money sony saves on sticking with BD and a traditional HD is reinvested in DDR5 memory. The initial purchase will be expensive but that's to be expected.
#11.1 (Edited 672d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Saryk  +   672d ago
The main difference between PC versus PS4, PC games are a ton cheaper. No one can deny that!

Oh and don't start that exclusive bullshit. PC wins hands down. However the type of exclusive series both have their pros and cons.

Edit: Can't wait for the Xbox to release their specs. I really don't care about each system, I love Strategy games, so the rest is a moot point!
#12 (Edited 672d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(8) | Report | Reply
Jdub895O  +   672d ago
Ill stick to my Sega Genesis that has BLAST PROCESSING!!!!
dcbronco  +   672d ago
They are making a ton of assumptions about a CPU and GPU that hasn't been released yet. Both contain new architecture. He must be from the future.

Plus add that these are modified parts.
#14 (Edited 672d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
barrelboyHD  +   672d ago
ps4 devs: Please build fps games to support KB + Mouse. Killzone with a controller is still just meh...
bucky1965  +   672d ago
You can build a pc for under $400 (unassembled), now in north America with significantly better specs than the ps4, from a online etailer.
2pacalypsenow  +   672d ago
Yeah but unlike the ps4 ,that $400 (unlikely that you can build a decent Pc with less than $400-CPU+GPU+Case+MEMORY+PSU+W indows (dont say download it illigally cuz that is crap))
it wont last you till 2019 hell it prob wont last you till 2015 and the games will not look as good as a ps4 games with those specs.

The cheapest quad core i found is a Athlon 2 for 80

Also when the ps3 was announced they didnt show the console it self either it was unveiled at e3 2006
#16.1 (Edited 672d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
BitbyDeath  +   672d ago
Crysis 3 needs 8GB GDDR3 to run at max settings so 8GB GDDR5 is a pretty big step up. Was not expecting that at all.
#17 (Edited 672d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(4) | Report | Reply
Bladesfist  +   672d ago
Crysis 3 does not need 8GB GDDR3... It requires 8GB system ram. DDR3. I have 8gb system ram and 2gb graphics ram.
DomceM  +   672d ago
hey. whatever ps4 is, its gonna be better than what we got now. so just ch ill./
landog  +   672d ago
i'm a pretty hard core pc gamer, my i-7 2600k, gtx 680 and 12gb ddr3 make me quite happy, and while i do not think the ps4 will beat my rig pound for pound in a graphics slugmatch, i do think, with the specs announced that it will produce some AMAZING visuals!

i am quite happy with the revealed specs of the ps4 and cannot wait to sink my eyes into the glorious worlds that sonys excellent first party devs dream up for me

what i really want to know next is;

what are the launch games
when is it coming out
how much is it
will ps3 games on the cloud be free if i own them (i doubt it:(
what is the gpu
what is the cpu clock speed

i am very, very excited for ps4!

please release it earlier than normal

august or spetember would be cool!
Prcko  +   671d ago
finaly someone normal over here :P
IK IR Y IP T  +   672d ago
I am a console gamer myself but the fact of the matter is no matter what consoles do they will always be behind spec wise when they ship until the day the make console's u can upgrade ! I dont see why sony or microsoft hasnt made a system like the x51 that is future proof !
mochachino  +   672d ago
Add another $150 for Windows, Mouse and Keyboard or controller, plus in order to play Blue Ray movies add that price too.

A benefit of consoles is that you get the benefit of economies of scale.
TotalHitman  +   672d ago
Lol, people moan about console games running at 30fps compared to 60fps on a PC, yet according to some comments here, they can't even tell the difference.
PurpHerbison  +   672d ago
I don't understand the negative comments. PS4 will drop but PC will always be ahead. That is the way it is. No need to fight.
cytricks  +   672d ago
okay i have a few bones about this that makes me angry.

one, yes it will cost $600 to make that rig but what about all the additional hardware the ps4 has for remote play, streaming, and downloading?

two, ps4 is fine tuned for gaming. from the OS to the hardware. there is no bulk that traditional PCs have. so when you play a game you will get the most out of it for the money. you have to buy next gen PC arch to get the power of the ps4.

three, console gaming makes for better games and better programmers. all the programming and design techniques that developers have to use for consoles help innovate games.

well thats my two cents about the situation...
DomceM  +   672d ago
guys are fighting over pointless stuff. Yes PS4 is a bit more cost efficient. Yes PCs can easily overtake it and will do so not only on launch, but will keep increasing the gap every year.

That is what fixed hardware is all about. Thats okay though. We can still enjoy our consoles. I think smart people enjoy both. (and even a handheld if you got enough dough).

Now that I have seen what ps4 is all about i am VERY impressed. The reason why is because i think that the features they announced (regarding sharing, and watching other people play), the controller with more inputs, the focus on devs etc... This is going to be one strong system.

Now compare that to the Wii U. Here is 10 year old hardware with a tablet controller. Get psyched!~. Lol wut? Shit Sony has Nintendo beat bigtime this time around. We will see what xbox brings. I dont expect much because MS tends to try to lock things down and charge for nothing (xbox live).

Looks like its PS4 again. I miss NES days and im nostalgic about playing MArio and all of that... But damn nintendo just doesnt give a shit about hardcore gamers and it shows.

Thank god there is 1 normal company out there that doesnt cheap out on specs, and doesnt try to squeeze every penny out of its consumer base.

PC + ps3 FTW.

There was one huge question left unanswered. WHERE CAN WE PREORDER THIS ASAP ?
#25 (Edited 672d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
MAULxx  +   672d ago
Some of us just want to game on console over a PC even if it's not comparable. We don't want to game on a PC for various reasons.

Me, I want to kick back with a controller & play... not sit in a chair & play which is pretty much what is required because a keyboard & mouse is.

Big Picture is getting closer but isn't there yet & what if you don't want to use Steam?
#26 (Edited 672d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
jalen247  +   672d ago
People are arguing specs...The proof is in the games.

Sony has already shown what they can achieve with 512 MB of shared memory...8 GB of GDDR5 is a quantum leap.

This is a closed system that will have heavily optimized engines especially from 1st party devs.
Dazel  +   672d ago
The PS4 is obviously better value for money, everyone and their dog knows consoles are usually sold at a loss at launch. Sony made a big mistake last time with the high price point, I don't see them doing that again.
Psychotica  +   672d ago
I wouldn't say it was the better value since PC's are used for so many other things..
black911  +   672d ago
Everyone's Forgetting Gaikia!!!
MartinB105  +   672d ago
Who pays just $50 for both a PSU and case? Sure, if you don't mind a shitty PSU that damages your components with a "dirty" supply and goes bang after six months inside a butt-ugly looking case that probably has inefficient airflow and cuts your fingers every time you try to tinker with it.

I paid about $120 for my PSU and Case, which are by no means top-of-the-line models either, and I'm not even much of a PC gamer.

Also, you're not going to get far as a PC gamer without a Windows licence, so you'd better factor that in too.

And since we're comparing this to a console, you might want to budget for a controller too.
« 1 2 »

Add comment

New stories

Fate/Stay Night Characters Make Cameos In Divine Gate




You Can Control This Guy's Real-Life Christmas Tree From Minecraft


A Bravely Default Game Is Headed To Smartphones In Japan


Are you bored?


A World of Keflings review for Wii U | Gaming Age
