This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Next gen console graphics already can't compare to PC

#11ShebeskiiPosted 8/25/2013 8:13:19 AM
godplaysSNES posted...
Shebeskii posted...
godplaysSNES posted...
Launch games have never been particularly impressive. Look back at how the 360's launch games compared to the PC versions, they were often meh


Not really. The PS4 is not going to be a 360 in terms of power.

Oblivion required a very high end PC to run at around the same frames, resolution and settings.

This time around I think people with 1-2 year old graphics cards will be matching the PS4 for quite awhile and stuff like the 780 and above will never, ever be surpassed in any way for the entire life of the PS4.


Oblivion on the 360 was still worse than on the high-end PCs of that time. The PCs that Dice has used to demonstrate BF4 are also probably far from mid-range.

I think both the next-gen consoles and PCs will be hamstrung by the 360/PS3 for yet a while. Until those consoles "die", the core of the engines will still be based on their DX9-ish features

It will take time until the engines's workloads get optimal for the next-gen consoles, and we'll continue seeing improvements due to low level optimizations.

I don't think Nvidia's Kepler cards are as future proof as you believe. They lack full support for DX11.1/11.2, if games for example start using partially resident textures, Kepler may easily be surpassed by the PS4


Regarding being "future proof", the PC is a victim of companies doing PR stunts. Crysis 3 won't start on quad-Sli GTX 280, but is running on the eight year old 360.


There are DX10 hacks, but that has nothing to do with power and everything to do with developers.

Crysis 3 on 360 looks worse than low, but I understand your point, but it's not what I'm talking about.

I didn't even mention Keplar. The only graphics card I mentioned was AMD's 7970GHz edition.

You really overestimate "low level optimizations". You talk a lot about this sort of thing but the previous console generation didn't demonstrate them much. Excluding the PS3 from the discussion because of its incredibly incomparable and expensive (for its time) Cell processor, the 360 was surpassed by the 8800GT.

You keep acting like the 360 version of a title is actually comparable to the PC versions. It's an illusion of optimization. Look at the COD series. Black Ops II was so far from 720p on 360 it was ridiculous. How do you think BLOPS 2 would run at sub 720p on an 8800GT? What about an 8800GTS 640MB? It'd be perfectly playable because that resolution is ridiculously low and the game settings are dialed way down.

You can't take the PC version of Crysis 3 running in DX11 and compare it to the 360 version. They aren't the same. They neither look the same, nor are the two titles running on the same engine capable of the same things.

Even "ports" progress significantly. It gives an illusion of optimization. Go PLAY the 360 versions of these games, they don't look like their PC counterparts in resolution or framerate. You're using two completely different measuring sticks, but don't realize it.
---
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. - Christopher Hitchens
#12AlexJ1991Posted 8/25/2013 8:17:38 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAI_2QNQ-Ck

They cut back graphical features in PC version to match up with the 360 version.
---
http://steamcard.com/do/original/ivjonesyvi.png
#13ShebeskiiPosted 8/25/2013 8:23:56 AM(edited)
godplaysSNES posted...
1337toothbrush posted...
godplaysSNES posted...
Launch games have never been particularly impressive. Look back at how the 360's launch games compared to the PC versions, they were often meh


Incorrect. The Xbox 360 was actually quite powerful for the time. Also, this time neither the PS4 nor the X1 are using exotic architectures. Xbox 360 had a tri-core when multi-core CPUs were not widely available on PC for the consumer. PS3 was even more funky. Now the X1 and PS4 both use an x86 architecture CPU and a common GPU with some small modifications. Unless the development kits are not up to snuff and unless those small modifications make some magical huge difference, don't expect developers to "unlock" amazing power. Any "unlocking" of amazing power that I could imagine will be done through GPGPU functionality (available to PCs since 2006) and through effective use of all eight CPU cores (though this CPU is already much weaker than most, if not all, gaming CPUs available for the PC).


The Xbox 360's CPU may have been a triple core(3 cores, 6 threads), but its single threaded performance was very bad.
Capcom once compared the whole 360 CPU to be comparable to a Pentium D. Compared to high-end PCs of that time, the 512MB total RAM was also on the low side.

The consoles are somewhat exotic this time around, although obviously not as much as the 360. APUs have inherent efficiency advantages for GPGPU compared to a discrete GPU + CPU(APUs are available for PCs, but aren't taken advantage of in that way yet)

There are still efficiency gains to be had through low-level access. GCN has alot of features not currently being exposed in DirectX.

The Xbox 1 was also pretty much like a PC, that didn't stop it from getting more impressive games year after year.


There's no doubt the PS4 has some advantages - compared to a slightly more powerful PC.

What I contest is that these advantages actually amount to some sort of edge over a solid PC with say an 3570K and a 7970GHz edition under the hood.

Are we really to expect the incredibly weak 6 (available) core processor to keep pace with i5s and i7s, or even a 8350? Yes, the GPU has some advantages in GPGPU, but that's only compared to a similarly powerful PC. What about a PC with a GPU MUCH more powerful, like the 7970GHz? What about a PC with a processor that runs circles around the 8 core Jaguar?

It'll amount to some cool effects that impress given the hardware, but will it go beyond that? I doubt it.
---
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. - Christopher Hitchens
#14ShebeskiiPosted 8/25/2013 8:40:36 AM(edited)
And Capcom were completely right about the 360s CPU:

GTAIV runs like garbage on the 360. Single digit frames in many scenarios with extremely low settings.

I beat the game on an E2200 OC'd perfectly fine. I never experienced single digit gameplay, and I was using an 8800GT.

My E2200 OC'd with an 8800GT completely crapped on the 360.

Sure, I ran settings maybe 25-35% higher, at a higher resolution, but my framerate was also twice that of the 360 when the action kicked up.

A 360 equivalent PC would run GTAIV like TRASH, but that's not the point.

The advantages the 360 had in feature sets were offset by pure power, and not even that much more.

Point being, the PS4 has some tricks up its sleeve, but a PC with even 30-40% more power in the GPU department will be running into no problems.

This time around the processor speed difference is incredible. Multithreading was new when the 360 was released, but this time around we have incredibly powerful, high core count processors.
---
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. - Christopher Hitchens
#15ShebeskiiPosted 8/25/2013 8:35:58 AM
Advantages the 360 had over high-ish end PCs of the time:

Processor speed (debatable but still a reasonable assumption)
More threads
High GPU memory
Unified Shader architecture (this is huge)

Disadvantages:

Poor single threaded performance
???

Advantages the PS4 will have over a high-ish end PC:

High GPU memory
GPGPU

Disadvantages:

Poor single threaded performance
Poor CPU performance overall

Unified Shader tech beyond DX9 >>>>>> GPGPU in my opinion. The 360 had more advantages and less disadvantages, and it was still completely trumped shortly after release.
---
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. - Christopher Hitchens
#16godplaysSNESPosted 8/25/2013 8:40:58 AM
The Geforce 8 series was released almost a year after the Xbox 360, and brought unified shaders and other new features to the PC. When the 360 came, it had the first GPU featuring unified shaders.

I do expect Volcanic Islands and Maxwell to take away lots of the advantages the the PS4 has.
I just think people overestimate the longevity of the current PC cards.

I've been trying to find some benchmarks for the X1900/7900GT series for somewhat modern games(like BC2), but haven't been able to find any.

You are right that the 360 versions nowadays are below even low on the PC(which they shall be considering its age).

There are some benchmarks for the 8800GT in black ops 2. Pretty respectable for that old card. The HD 3870 is also there, but it's using 4x MSAA.
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Call-of-Duty-Black-Ops-2-PC-237127/Tests/CoD-Black-Ops-2-im-Test-mit-20-Grafikkarten-1035541/

Assassins Creed 1 was a game made first for the consoles and later ported to the PC. I don't really know how the 360 stacked up to the PC version's high quality, but as you can see, the DX9 cards comparable to the 360's GPU struggled with those settings, not even averaging 30 FPS.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Assassins-Creed-PC-133800/Tests/Assassins-Creed-im-PCGH-Test-DX10-schneller-als-DX9-aber-nur-mit-minimalen-Details-637474/2/


The current PC APIs have a huge overhead when it comes to the CPU. The CPU overhead is said to be the biggest riddance by using low level APIs on the consoles.

Are you sure about GTA IV running acceptable on your overclocked E2200?
This benchmark shows even an E8400 at 4 ghz barely averaging above 30 FPS
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,669595/GTA-4-PC-CPU-benchmark-review-with-13-processors/Reviews/?page=2
---
Super Mario Kart is the single best Mario Kart ever!
#17ShebeskiiPosted 8/25/2013 8:57:34 AM(edited)
The Geforce 8 series was released almost a year after the Xbox 360, and brought unified shaders and other new features to the PC. When the 360 came, it had the first GPU featuring unified shaders.

Exactly my point. A massive advantage. Doesn't exist this time.

I do expect Volcanic Islands and Maxwell to take away lots of the advantages the the PS4 has.
I just think people overestimate the longevity of the current PC cards.

I've been trying to find some benchmarks for the X1900/7900GT series for somewhat modern games(like BC2), but haven't been able to find any.


Again, this is my point. Those GPUs use dedicated pixel and vertex shading. That's ARCHAIC. They didn't stand the test of time because the 360 stomped them out the gate. This situation doesn't exist. Our GPUs have roughly the same feature sets and much more horsepower. The 360 had similar horsepower and vastly superior feature sets in every way. No wonder contemporary PC GPUs didn't keep pace. That isn't the current situation.

You are right that the 360 versions nowadays are below even low on the PC(which they shall be considering its age).

There are some benchmarks for the 8800GT in black ops 2. Pretty respectable for that old card. The HD 3870 is also there, but it's using 4x MSAA.
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Call-of-Duty-Black-Ops-2-PC-237127/Tests/CoD-Black-Ops-2-im-Test-mit-20-Grafikkarten-1035541/


You do realize that's at 1080p along with 4xMSAA, right? This illustrates just how much PC jumped ahead, even after being significantly behind.

Assassins Creed 1 was a game made first for the consoles and later ported to the PC. I don't really know how the 360 stacked up to the PC version's high quality, but as you can see, the DX9 cards comparable to the 360's GPU struggled with those settings, not even averaging 30 FPS.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Assassins-Creed-PC-133800/Tests/Assassins-Creed-im-PCGH-Test-DX10-schneller-als-DX9-aber-nur-mit-minimalen-Details-637474/2/


Again, those GPUs were archaic the second the 360 was for sale.

This isn't the case with the release of the PS4.

The current PC APIs have a huge overhead when it comes to the CPU. The CPU overhead is said to be the biggest riddance by using low level APIs on the consoles.

And the processors on PC are more than powerful enough to make up for this and then some.

Are you sure about GTA IV running acceptable on your overclocked E2200?
This benchmark shows even an E8400 at 4 ghz barely averaging above 30 FPS
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,669595/GTA-4-PC-CPU-benchmark-review-with-13-processors/Reviews/?page=2


Yes, because I wasn't running MAX DETAILS with 50% draw distance. The 360 was running sliders between 10-20 and medium to low details.

My PC was running sliders 15 to 30 with medium details. I was also running 1280 by 1024, and not 1280 by 720.

This is the perfect scenario to point out the measuring stick I think you miss often in your posts.

The 360 wasn't running those settings at all. Rockstar released a comparable config to the 360, and it's LOW, much lower than that bench. You can't look at PC bench numbers and then point to how the 360 is running it just fine. They aren't comparable because the numbers say so.
---
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. - Christopher Hitchens
#18ShebeskiiPosted 8/25/2013 9:13:29 AM(edited)
Also remember that the 360 runs GTAIV at sub 5FPS when the action kicks up. The game will literally come to a halt if you have enough police cars chasing you/blowing up.

So is the 360 running the game just fine? No. Is it even acceptable? Not really. So let's not measure with two different yard sticks.

GTAIV isn't a perfect port, but it's much better than people think. At the time you could run the game at superior than console settings with superior performance with a modest system.

Yeah, you had to run the game at like 1/8th its potential, but the 360 was running at 1/10th. The 360 still ran the game like ****, your PC just ran it kind of poorly.

I have a feeling most PC gamers here didn't even play GTAIV on 360. It's not one of the worst ports ever, it's a port of one of the worst performing console games since Perfect Dark. It was just ahead of its time on an engine that couldn't handle it well, regardless of platform.

People need to acknowledge when the console version runs poorly at low settings and framerate. People ASSUME a rough 30FPS, but sometimes it's not even close to that.
---
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. - Christopher Hitchens
#19godplaysSNESPosted 8/25/2013 9:31:18 AM
"Again, this is my point. Those GPUs use dedicated pixel and vertex shading. That's ARCHAIC. They didn't stand the test of time because the 360 stomped them out the gate. This situation doesn't exist. Our GPUs have roughly the same feature sets and much more horsepower. The 360 had similar horsepower and vastly superior feature sets in every way. No wonder contemporary PC GPUs didn't keep pace. That isn't the current situation."

The features are there on GCN, but all aren't exposed via DirectX. If games start utilizing the extra ACEs in the PS4's APU, that could make the current iteration of GCN cards fall behind

"You do realize that's at 1080p along with 4xMSAA, right? This illustrates just how much PC jumped ahead, even after being significantly behind."

Nope, the 8800GT doesn't support MSAA in that game, only DX10.1 and DX11 GPUs do. The 8800GT uses FXAA. Anyway, I wasn't trying to downplay the 8800GT, I wanted to show how good the 8800GT, which mitigated lots of advantages on the 360, aged compared to the DX9 cards.

"And the processors on PC are more than powerful enough to make up for this and then some."

Currently yes, But the Jaguar cores, despite how weak they are in comparison to Haswell, are much better than the ones in the 360.
The 360 currently dominates when it comes to draw calls, but it doesn't have the GPU power to show the advantage.
Draw calls on the PC are still primarily done on one thread with the current APIs. Will that be a problem for PC if it's stuck with DX11? Possibly, though who knows for sure.
When Dice made BF3, they were very disappointing about DirectX 11 multithreaded rendering not working correctly.


"This is the perfect scenario to point out the measuring stick I think you miss often in your posts."

Sure, but there are no benchmarks that directly try to compare 360 to PC versions anymore. Even back when the 360 was competetive with the PC and interesting tests could be done, all testers still preferred to take the PC version to the max on cards and CPUs that clearly were too weak for it

This measuring stick is also what shows how unreliable the PC market is however. Developers won't cry about not getting their games running on a HD 7970 Ghz five years from now, but they absolutely must make it run on the PS4/Xbone, no matter the amount of dumbing down
---
Super Mario Kart is the single best Mario Kart ever!
#20overkillwfo1978Posted 8/25/2013 9:37:03 AM(edited)
Shebeskii posted...
Also remember that the 360 runs GTAIV at sub 5FPS when the action kicks up. The game will literally come to a halt if you have enough police cars chasing you/blowing up.

So is the 360 running the game just fine? No. Is it even acceptable? Not really. So let's not measure with two different yard sticks.

GTAIV isn't a perfect port, but it's much better than people think. At the time you could run the game at superior than console settings with superior performance with a modest system.

Yeah, you had to run the game at like 1/8th its potential, but the 360 was running at 1/10th. The 360 still ran the game like ****, your PC just ran it kind of poorly.

I have a feeling most PC gamers here didn't even play GTAIV on 360. It's not one of the worst ports ever, it's a port of one of the worst performing console games since Perfect Dark. It was just ahead of its time on an engine that couldn't handle it well, regardless of platform.

People need to acknowledge when the console version runs poorly at low settings and framerate. People ASSUME a rough 30FPS, but sometimes it's not even close to that.


^^^All of this. 100%.

GTA 4 was a choppy, muddy mess on the 360. Even medium settings on PC @ 30fps blows the 360 version out of the water.

The only reason GTA5 is a PS3/360 exclusive right now is because of the huge install base on both of those systems. I think in the near future PC will see a release and further down the road, if R* sees that the new consoles are being supported and sell well enough, there will be upgraded ports to the PS4/Xbone, but that may take over a year.

It's sad that we GTA fans have to deal with crappy, 7 year old console performance on a game that could easily take full advantage of high end hardware. My 680 is like "wtf man, let's do this s***!"
---
"Even if you go by the cheapest price the game has ever been anywhere, psn+ would still be cheaper by at least 3 fold". DemonDog on psn+ vs. Steam