How the PlayStation 4 is better than a PC

[BallaTheFeared]

It is simple to understand. The point is/was:



You pretended (and still pretend) to invalidate this fact by comparing an ancient console to a PC with much much more memory, among other improvements.

Run the game using only 512MB of total memory in your PC and says us how your GPU beats that in a Xbox 360...

Unlike you I am comparing console to "equal PC hardware". When I used the 2x factor to compare the PS4 to a GTX-680 I assumed games limited to 2 GB VRAM, albeit I know that the PS4 has much more memory.

Future games will be using more memory and then a GTX-680 will be outperformed by the PS4. That is evident.

I didn't see the point, they're different by design. All we're trying to do is compare graphics cards, I couldn't care less if due to no OS and lower overhead a console can do more with 512mb of ram or 8GB of it since my PC now already has 19GB of total ram anyways. We're not even discussing textures here, we're talking directly about the gpu processing power. Get it?

You're the one linking draw calls and random posts with absolutely no semblance of professionalism as fact. Not only as a fact, but as if it was actually a professional in the industry acting like a 13 year old console fan.

Probably if it doesn't run out of bandwidth, but you're simply trying to move the goalposts in the discussion to something else. We're discussing graphics processing power, not frame buffers.

The fact is, as everyone is saying (including the eurogamer article) that that demo was not running on the PS4 but in an early dev. kit with unfinished APIs, which does not reflect the real performance of the PS4.

Magic drivers, updated microcode, new bios

 

[galego]

Totaly agree. SVOGI was a hog in PC demo.
http://playstationgang.com/epic-gam...ck-of-global-illumination-in-unreal-engine-4/


SVOGI was just a bad design and hardware has nothing to it.

Yes. To put things in context, they couldn't do SVOGI work on a high-end PC. The original elemental demo was utilising an i7 CPU matched with a GTX 680 and 16GB of DDR3 RAM. And the demo (under totally controlled conditions) only could run at 30 fps when resolution was lowered to the sub-1080p.

Steam does not give detailed GPU statistics, but they give VRAM usage. Only an 4.5% of gaming PCs have 2 GB installed, I assume that only a fraction of those cards are GTX-680. No developer is going to buy an game engine that cannot run smoothly even in the 4.5% of the top PCs.

Epic has said that they are introducing IES profiles for "ultrarealistic lighting"

http://www.cgarena.com/freestuff/tutorials/max/ieslights/

 

[galego]

Perhaps, all lighting effects are hard on gpus.

From Epic:

The dynamic lights are not our current performance limit.

 

[galego]

I didn't see the point, they're different by design. All we're trying to do is compare graphics cards

Exactly. Now run the game using only 512MB of total memory in your PC and say us how your GPU beats that in a Xbox 360... still waiting.

 

[toyota]

Exactly. Now run the game using only 512MB of total memory in your PC and say us how your GPU beats that in a Xbox 360... still waiting.

yeah because all a pc does is run games. now try doing the stuff on the 360 that a pc can do other than game...still waiting

and i hate to break it to you but even a wimpy 8600gt 256mb can come close and will even match the settings that the consoles run in some games.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

yeah because all a pc does is run games. now try doing the stuff on the 360 that a pc can do other than game...still waiting

and i hate to break it to you but even a wimpy 8600gt 256mb can come close and will even match the settings that the consoles run in some games.

Yeah but can it do that while running a full fledged os with one stick of 256 ddr?

 

[Sleepingforest]

Exactly. Now run the game using only 512MB of total memory in your PC and say us how your GPU beats that in a Xbox 360... still waiting.

Exactly how does limiting memory artificially matter? If it's a GPU limited test, memory shouldn't matter.

 

[futurefields]

its about what the total box can pull off

xbox 360 only barely manages 720p @ barely 30fps with ery low res textures, low res shader fx, etc...

same thing can be done with a nvidia 6600gt, 8800gt easily surpasses it and its not even close, people were using 8800gt to push 1680x1050, thats waaay more pixels than a xbox 360 ever pushed, and the 8800gt did it with much better image quality and framerates to boot.

 

[toyota]

its about what the total box can pull off

xbox 360 only barely manages 720p @ barely 30fps with ery low res textures, low res shader fx, etc...

same thing can be done with a nvidia 6600gt, 8800gt easily surpasses it and its not even close, people were using 8800gt to push 1680x1050, thats waaay more pixels than a xbox 360 ever pushed, and the 8800gt did it with much better image quality and framerates to boot.

ok now you are really stretching it. in no way shape or form can the 6600gt hang with either console. basically the 8600gt to 9600gt will cover any settings that the consoles could run during their cycle. by that I mean even the most optimized game that pushed the boudaries still did not really do more than what a 9600gt could do. most games were closer to the 8600gt level though for sure.

 

[futurefields]

At 720p? We're talking 1280 x 720. 25-30 frames per second on most games. A lot of games are even sub 720p.

Modern Warfare is 1024 x 600. That is shit. A 6600GT can do that with ease. An 8600GT can do it at 120 frames per second. It's 614,000 pixels bro, that is NOTHING.

 

[toyota]

At 720p? We're talking 1280 x 720. 25-30 frames per second on most games. A lot of games are even sub 720p.

Modern Warfare is 1024 x 600. That is shit. A 6600GT can do that with ease. An 8600GT can do it at 120 frames per second. It's 614,000 pixels bro, that is NOTHING.

you are acting like consoles run all low settings in every game when in reality they dont. most pc games on low are way worse looking. and you are out of your mind if you think a 6600gt is on par with either console. the PS3 technically had the gpu power of almost TWO 6800gt cards. that was even shown during the launch or some other press conference because I remember thinking damn that's pretty powerful to stick in a console. 6600gt? lol, Uncharted would run about 5-6 fps on a 6600gt.

 

[futurefields]

if the PS3 had the power of two 6800GT then why does it run COD4 at 1024 x 600?

You realize people using 6800GT were running games at atleast 1280x1024, right?

1024 x 600 is shit, so no the PS3 did not have the power of two 6800GT, and if it did, then shame on all the developers who pissed away all that power so they could run games at 1024 x 600 with the equivalent of the lowest possible settings on PC.

And yes I do mean the lowest. Look at the quality of the anisotropic filtering on Modern Warfare on PS3 or Xbox 360. Oh, thats right, there is NONE to see because it doesnt have ANY anisotropic filtering.

1024 x 600
No anisotropic filtering
2x cheap anti aliasing
the lowest res textures on earth
all static lighting

way to use the power of 2x 6800GT smh....

 

[2is]

They are certainly faster than a 6600gt, especially 360 which rivaled much more powerful (on paper) GPUs thanks to unified shaders, more efficient rendering techniques and up to 4xAA for essentially free.

 

[futurefields]

1024 x 600.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

It should be faster than a 7900GT, at least on paper.

That's the 360, PS3 was probably on par with the 7900GT.

Didn't matter that the 360 had the fastest gpu on the market, a year later it was blown out of the water by Core2 and G80.

 

[futurefields]

more efficient rendering techniques and up to 4xAA for essentially free.

Funny how a lot of games ended up with no AA

Call of Duty games are 1024 x 600 with only 2x AA, what happened there?

360 and PS3 I dont even consider HD gaming to be honest... more like medium def.

I was shocked when I got my first HDTV and COD4 actually looked worse than it did on my nice SDTV. That there is the difference between running an image that is higher res than the native panel (downscaling) versus one that is running lower res than the native panel (upscaling yuck!)

 

[2is]

Funny how a lot of games ended up with no AA

Call of Duty games are 1024 x 600 with only 2x AA, what happened there?

360 and PS3 I dont even consider HD gaming to be honest... more like medium def.

I was shocked when I got my first HDTV and COD4 actually looked worse than it did on my nice SDTV. That there is the difference between running an image that is higher res than the native panel (downscaling) versus one that is running lower res than the native panel (upscaling yuck!)

I said "up to" I've run my PS3 on standard and hdtvs and there's no way it looked better on standard def

 

[Cerb]

2 6800GT cards would only give you 256MB VRAM (just like 1 would ), so textures would be the same. The thing a 6800GT had, though, was memory bandwidth. Both used GDDR3. One 256-bit at 1000MHz, and one 128-bit at 700MHz. That's almost 2/3 less bandwidth.

They either needed big caches, or more bandwidth, but had neither.

 

[futurefields]

I said "up to" I've run my PS3 on standard and hdtvs and there's no way it looked better on standard def

I absolutely hate upscaling. Id rather play on a SDTV then something upscaled on an HDTV. Im a weirdo. Scaling matters to me more than raw pixel count.

 

[galego]

xbox 360 only barely manages 720p @ barely 30fps with ery low res textures, low res shader fx, etc...

Do you mean the same 360 that could manage 60 fps, when a 10x more powerful PC couldn't?

It is extremely frustrating knowing that the hardware we've got on the PC is often ten times as powerful as the consoles but it has honestly been a struggle in many cases to get the game running at 60 frames per second on the PC like it does on a 360

[...]



A lot of it's driver overhead issues

I am only hearing anti-console clichés in this thread... as when someone pretended that the PS4 demo was running at 30 fps whereas the PC version was running at 64 fps or something as that, when that was clearly false (Epic confirms the PC only gives 30 fps).

 

[Cerb]

Do you mean the same 360 that could manage 60 fps, when a 10x more powerful PC couldn't?

No, here in reality. I'm not even going to bother asking what game it could do that in, because I know it doesn't exist. It only took hardware a few times more powerful to so overshadow it that comparisons weren't bothering with.

I am only hearing anti-console clichés in this thread... as when someone pretended that the PS4 demo was running at 30 fps whereas the PC version was running at 64 fps or something as that, when that was clearly false (Epic confirms the PC only gives 30 fps).

Then stop with the pro-console cliches, and accept that it's a $400 embedded content consumption box? Thus far, we don't have anything substantive from Epic, either way (IE, an approximately identical demo shown w/ a gaming PC, instead of one with slightly worse textures, and vastly better everything else), nor anyone else, for that matter (oh, and :thumbsdown: to fixed lighting).

 

[galego]

Exactly how does limiting memory artificially matter? If it's a GPU limited test, memory shouldn't matter.

What part of equal hardware do you not get in the next quote?

Consoles run 2x or so better than equal PC hardware, but it isn’t just API in the way, focus a single spec also matters.

If you believe memory doesn't matter just run crysis 2 using 256 of RAM and 256 VRAM on a PC and tell me how they perform compared to a seven years old console with only 512 MB total memory.

This is how the ancient console compares to a PC with much more powerful CPU, GPU, and tons of memory

 

[cmdrdredd]

What part of equal hardware do you not get in the next quote?



If you believe memory doesn't matter just run crysis 2 using 256 of RAM and 256 VRAM on a PC and tell me how they perform compared to a seven years old console with only 512 MB total memory.

This is how the ancient console compares to a PC with much more powerful CPU, GPU, and tons of memory

Yeah and the reflections, lighting, and textures all look terrible on the 360 so what are you trying to prove?

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

What part of equal hardware do you not get in the next quote?



If you believe memory doesn't matter just run crysis 2 using 256 of RAM and 256 VRAM on a PC and tell me how they perform compared to a seven years old console with only 512 MB total memory.

This is how the ancient console compares to a PC with much more powerful CPU, GPU, and tons of memory

So now you resort to Photoshopped pics? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a3eilZRlyk&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Here's an actual video

 

[Dribble]

It really is impressive that they can get it to run at all on an xbox 360, but tbh looking at stuff on one does feel dated now. In games I've played the aliasing is very obvious. Then you get very square buildings, low res repeated textures and much simpler lighting. The fact it's running at such a low res and upscaling just makes it all worse, The games themselves tend to have small maps, limited npc's/environmental interaction and smallish multi-player counts. A good PC really is a huge step up.

It's the step up I expect the PS4 will also provide, but time stops for no-one and pretty soon that'll be looking dated compared to future PC's too. It wasn't that long after the 360 came out that I got an 8800GT and that gave noticeably better graphics then the 360 (higher resolution, sharper textures, better lighting).