NextGen Console Graphics And Effects on PC (E3 Coverage!)

[Fallen Kell]

The skyrim mods are nice but again, its like putting lipstick on a pig. Main thing those images need more than anything else is higher poly counts.

You are saying this needs more poly counts?

And by the way, all that grass moves in the wind, it isn't static. It is tens of thousands of poly count...

 

[RampantAndroid]

The skyrim mods are nice but again, its like putting lipstick on a pig. Main thing those images need more than anything else is higher poly counts.

Skyrim mods are *anything* but lipstick on a pig. They can take stock skyrim - which doesn't look bad by any stretch of the imagination, and makes it look amazing (well, CAN make it look amazing.)

 

[Imouto]

Skyrim has one of the worst looking art I've seen. Chars are ugly, same goes for everything in the world with that fake looking stuff everywhere you look at. Everything looks brand new and super straight like just ordered from a medieval Ikea. Buildings look out a 3D printer and painted with a thick off tone color. And then there are the guys that think an HDR filter paired with super saturated colors on top of all that is the pinnacle of gaming graphics.

 

[Red Hawk]

Skyrim has one of the worst looking art I've seen. Chars are ugly, same goes for everything in the world with that fake looking stuff everywhere you look at. Everything looks brand new and super straight like just ordered from a medieval Ikea. Buildings look out a 3D printer and painted with a thick off tone color. And then there are the guys that think an HDR filter paired with super saturated colors on top of all that is the pinnacle of gaming graphics.

And yet, it's still a huge leap from Oblivion.

 

[RampantAndroid]

And yet, it's still a huge leap from Oblivion.

Anything is a huge step from oblivion :sneaky:

 

[VulgarDisplay]

Anything is a huge step from oblivion :sneaky:

Oblivion was like a cartoon. Skyrim was much better.

 

[mikegg]

You are saying this needs more poly counts?

And by the way, all that grass moves in the wind, it isn't static. It is tens of thousands of poly count...

The main argument is whether or not current/previous PC games ever looked as good as PS4/Xbox One games.

My answer was a no. Some PS4/Xbox One games look better than any PC games released so far.

Nuff said:

Now that's jaw dropping graphics. First time I been wowed since original Crysis DX 10 demo.

 

[Carfax83]

The main argument is whether or not current/previous PC games ever looked as good as PS4/Xbox One games.

My answer was a no. Some PS4/Xbox One games look better than any PC games released so far

That game will be released on PC as well. And the reason it looks better than most PC games is because most PC games are ports from the previous console generation.

 

[RussianSensation]

Using a tech demo as a barometer for upcoming PS4 games is ridiculous, and so is comparing it to actual real games; particularly when said games are consolized..

Look at the first wave of games on PS4. Most of them already look very good, if not better than 95% of PC games out today. When PS3/360 came out, for the first 2-3 years the games on those consoles looked like garbage. Launch games on Xbox360/PS3 looked terrible compared to the best PC games at the time. It's obvious developers are having a lot less trouble learning how to code for x86 CPU and GCN GPU right off the bat. Also, the 8GB of RAM/VRAM has lifted a huge 512MB bottleneck that hampered previous generation consoles.

This has never worked for PCs, and it won't work for the PS4. By even mentioning Titan in the same breath as the PS4, you've crossed into crazy territory a la galego..

I obviously understand that the Titan is more powerful than PS4. But you clearly missed my point entirely. If the games on PS4 are already looking this good right away that to have comparable performance on the PC you probably need at least HD7950/660Ti already for that level of graphics. Those 7950/660Ti cards will be paperweight in 4-5 years. By the time 2nd and 3rd wave of 1st party titles on PS4 launch, their graphics will be spectacular. When we are in 2016-2017, it would have been 100x better to upgrade to Maxwell then to Volta than to buy a $1000 Titan in 2013 and keep it to 2017 in hopes of playing PS4 console ports. This is why when people talk about Titan's 6GB of VRAM as more futureproof for PS4 games, it's a waste of time. The best way to futureproof for PS4 games is to upgrade GPUs more frequently.

Also, VRAM capacity isn't as important as computational power or memory bandwidth when it comes to GPU performance, and there, the PS4 is outmatched by even last generation cards.

I hope you are joking. You are comparing hardware only and ignoring specific optimizations of fixed hardware. By the time PS4 is mid-way in its life and games on it use 2-3GB of VRAM, a GTX580 1.5GB will be a slideshow and have no chance to match the level of graphics of PS4's best games in 2016-2017.

Yes, deeper access to hardware will play a very important role in squeezing the performance out of the consoles, but it can't work magic..

Let me know if an 8-core Jaguar APU clocked at 1.6ghz paired with a GPU at best of 7870 performance can deliver the level of graphics on the PC the PS4 is belting out already without developers even having had the time to learn the hardware and code directly to the metal. If you look at the graphics in MMO like The Division and other games, it's very impressive for out of the gate games on a $400 device. To have this level of PC graphics today would likely require an $800-$1,000 PC today. Once PS4's games get better with time, a GPU like HD7970GE/GTX770 2GB won't keep up, requiring further GPU upgrades in the next 6-8 years.

The reason I stick to the PC is because I use it for other things, I like building PCs as a hobby and I like certain genres on the PC more. However, it's hard to deny that PS4 is offering a heck of a lot of value primarily for gaming for just $400. You can buy it and keep it for 8 years and your cost of hardware ownership per year is only $50! PC makes up for it in software costs over time via Steam, GOG, etc. but the initial investment cost for hardware parts for new PC games is 2-3x more.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Lol at people who think those skyrim screenshots look anywhere near as good as the some of the new console games (the Division screenshot right above this post blows away any current PC game)

And I thought video card fanboys were bad... Looks like PC fanboys are even worse, and this is coming from someone who has never had a console in his life
Its like you guys are afraid of being outpaced by a 399$ console, because you spend thousands on Titans or whatever, just lol

But I agree, it looks great, if you want that, buy a PC because the PS4 will never deliver that in a real game.

You realize youre setting yourself up for some huge self ownage right? I give it 2 years max before we see a game like that tech demo... And Im being generous, because some games already look damn close (like that new Capcom IP Deep Down or whatever it was called)

Also this:

Let me know if an 8-core Jaguar APU clocked at 1.6ghz paired with a GPU at best of 7870 performance can deliver the level of graphics on the PC the PS4 is belting out already without developers even having had the time to learn the hardware and code directly to the metal.

For those who still insist Crysis 3 compares to these new games (and you know you are full of it), tell me again how well it would run on the above system with maxed out settings at 1080p, lol

 

[RussianSensation]

That game will be released on PC as well. And the reason it looks better than most PC games is because most PC games are ports from the previous console generation.

And that's the point why investing a lot of $ into PC hardware before PS4/XB1 launched was not strategical imo unless $1000-2000 is pocket change for that individual. Even if a PC gamer threw $3,000-4,000 on Titan Tri-SLI/Quad-SLI, up to now we would have been playing mostly PS3/360 console ported games with higher resolutions/textures and some DX11 effects. Most of these titles can be played with ease on a single 7970GE OC/GTX680 OC, with some settings slightly turned down. Only few games like Metro 2033, Crysis 3, FC3, TR, Witcher 2 stood out but these came at the very end of PS3/360's life. For the last 3-4 years PC gaming graphics have been stagnant since Crysis 1 came out. Alright, there was BF3 too.

When early games on PS4 already look better than 95%+ of PC games and that device costs just $400, it made significant cash outlays during the 2nd half of 28nm generation into cards like the Titan largely a waste of money for most of us because the 30-40% performance increase these top flagship cards have over 7970GE/680 won't really matter once next gen PC games require GPUs 2-4x more powerful over the course of the next 3-4 years. This is why to overcome the next exponential increase in PC graphics, we'll need Maxwell (2014) --> Volta (2016) and their corresponding 2-3x increase in GPU speed. Same thing happened to me when I got 8800GTS. It was obviously more powerful than Xbox360/PS3 but by the time games like Dirt 2, etc. came out, I had to upgrade to HD4890 or it was a slideshow/VRAM bottleneck.

Of course most people who can afford $1000-$2000 GPUs don't care about these things but the point is for the rest of 99% PC gamers, it makes way more sense to skip Titan and invest into Maxwell $500 GPU and then Volta $500 GPU than buy a Titan for $1000 and keep it until 2016-2017. That's why the comparisons of Titan to PS4 and claims that Titan crushes PS4 are not really relevant since in practice no experienced PC gamer would be stupid enough to buy a Titan for $1000 and keep it until 2017 in the context of what performance and performance/watt increases Maxwell & Volta will bring.

Now that's jaw dropping graphics. First time I been wowed since original Crysis DX 10 demo.

I am going to buy a PS4 since I love playing games in general, regardless of the whole PC vs. console argument that PC gamers love to engage in. There will likely be amazing exclusives on PS4 that I can't play on the PC. For $400 the console is a bargain since it'll last 7-8 years and I bet there will be 10+ games high quality games that I won't be able to play on the PC even if I have $5,000 of GPUs. People who skipped out on consoles over their entire lives have missed out on so many amazing quality games, it's not even funny. Someone who loves videogames is platform agnostic imo. People who keep dissing consoles and comparing their PC hardware to PS4 are just insecure that a $400 PS4 is already making their $1000 PC look questionable with titles like the Division.

And I thought video card fanboys were bad... Looks like PC fanboys are even worse, and this is coming from someone who has never had a console in his life

Pretty much. PC fanboys will skip out on Metal Gear Solid, Forza, Gran Turismo, Zelda, Mario, God of War, Uncharted, The Last of Us, etc. etc. just to keep claiming how a $4,000 Quad-SLI Titan craps all over [insert any console ever made].

And it seems most of them apparently do not play sports games at all with their friends. It's either they do not have real life friends or hate sports games because playing American football, soccer, basketball, baseball on a PC with your friends is not comparable. Many people who own consoles love getting together with their friends and playing sports games over beers before watching the sport on TV. For certain gaming genres, for those who prefer social gaming, the console completely trashes the PC experience just like if your favourite genres are RTS/strategy games and flight sims, consoles are a waste of time.

 

[Carfax83]

Look at the first wave of games on PS4. Most of them already look very good, if not better than 95% of PC games out today. When PS3/360 came out, for the first 2-3 years the games on those consoles looked like garbage. Launch games on Xbox360/PS3 looked terrible compared to the best PC games at the time. It's obvious developers are having a lot less trouble learning how to code for x86 CPU and GCN GPU right off the bat. Also, the 8GB of RAM/VRAM has lifted a huge 512MB bottleneck that hampered previous generation consoles.

Yes, they look very good undoubtedly, but that's to be expected. It's a huge jump from the previous craptastic generation of consoles..

That's not a reflection of PC gaming however, because PC games have been artificially held back over the years due to consolization.

Also, I would caution being too impressed by these demos because that's just what they are....demos, designed to awe and impress..

Lots of games end up being downgraded from their overly ambitious demos.

I obviously understand that the Titan is more powerful than PS4. But you clearly missed my point entirely. If the games on PS4 are already looking this good right away that to have comparable performance on the PC you probably need at least HD7950/660Ti already for that level of graphics. Those 7950/660Ti cards will be paperweight in 4-5 years. By the time 2nd and 3rd wave of 1st party titles on PS4 launch, their graphics will be spectacular. When we are in 2016-2017, it would have been 100x better to upgrade to Maxwell then to Volta than to buy a $1000 Titan in 2013 and keep it to 2017 in hopes of playing PS4 console ports. This is why when people talk about Titan's 6GB of VRAM as more futureproof for PS4 games, it's a waste of time. The best way to futureproof for PS4 games is to upgrade GPUs more frequently.

This is kind of a moot point, because most people that are willing to spend 1K on a single GPU typically have frequent upgrade cycles and won't hold onto their card(s) for 4 or 5 years.

The PC platform changes so quickly, in 4 or 5 years, hardware will be FAR more powerful than what we currently have and for a cheaper price so it would be nonsensical to hold on to a video card that long.

The only reason I've held on to my GTX 580s so long is because of the effect of consolization on PC games that has allowed me to play even the latest games at max, or nearly max detail and high resolution so there's no immediate need for me to upgrade.

I hope you are joking. You are comparing hardware only and ignoring specific optimizations of fixed hardware. By the time PS4 is mid-way in its life and games on it use 2-3GB of VRAM, a GTX580 1.5GB will be a slideshow and have no chance to match the level of graphics of PS4's best games in 2016-2017.

I was merely stating that bandwidth and shader array are more important for performance than VRAM capacity. You see a helluva lot of low end cards with gobs of VRAM, but you never see any low end cards with 200 Gb/s bandwidth.

But of course, if a PS4 game actually uses 3 GB of VRAM, then yes, it will be an important factor in performance. A game would have to be absolutely huge with tremendous graphical detail to use that much VRAM though..

Let me know if an 8-core Jaguar APU clocked at 1.6ghz paired with a GPU at best of 7870 performance can deliver the level of graphics on the PC the PS4 is belting out already without developers even having had the time to learn the hardware and code directly to the metal.

I think you already know that it's useless extrapolating PC and console performance. However I will say that the PC has been marginalized over the years in terms of optimization. Few developers really take the time necessary to optimize their PC games, relying on the brute power of the PC to run the games instead.

Even worse, developers optimize so aggressively for the 360 and PS3 that it actually hurts PC performance. Far Cry 3 is a perfect example of that, because of how it minimizes RAM usage.

With the advent of the PS4 and Xbox One, both of which are essentially PCs, we should see a lot more optimization and thus more performance for PC titles.

If you look at the graphics in MMO like The Division and other games, it's very impressive for out of the gate games on a $400 device. To have this level of PC graphics today would likely require an $800-$1,000 PC today. Once PS4's games get better with time, a GPU like HD7970GE/GTX770 2GB won't keep up, requiring further GPU upgrades in the next 6-8 years.

Recalling what I said about demos being designed to impress and awe, I don't think you need to spend 1K to get those graphics. The PS4 and Xbox One will both be targeting 30 FPS if I'm not mistaken, and 1080p.

A core i5/i7 processor paired with a 660 Ti should handle that easily I'd wager.

But if you want to see a PC exclusive that mirrors those graphics, have a look at Star Citizen

The reason I stick to the PC is because I use it for other things, I like building PCs as a hobby and I like certain genres on the PC more. However, it's hard to deny that PS4 is offering a heck of a lot of value primarily for gaming for just $400. You can buy it and keep it for 8 years and your cost of hardware ownership per year is only $50! PC makes up for it in software costs over time via Steam, GOG, etc. but the initial investment cost for hardware parts for new PC games is 2-3x more.

I agree with you here 100% :thumbsup:

 

[Carfax83]

Lol at people who think those skyrim screenshots look anywhere near as good as the some of the new console games (the Division screenshot right above this post blows away any current PC game)

This is a foolish statement precisely because nearly every single PC game in the last 5 or 6 years was developed with the meager resources of the Xbox 360 and PS3 in mind.

So basically, we don't even know what a current high end PC is capable of when it comes to gaming because there are no games that target such a platform.

The last game to target the high end PC was Crysis and that was putatively regarded as the best looking game ever at that time, and for years afterwards even.

 

[Imouto]

But if you want to see a PC exclusive that mirrors those graphics, have a look at Star Citizen

You serious? Looks like some unused take offs from the first Star Wars trilogy.

 

[Carfax83]

You serious? Looks like some unused take offs from the first Star Wars trilogy.

You must be blind. The amount of detail and texture clarity in the Star Citizen trailer destroys the Division. Star Citizen runs on the CryEngine 3, and makes great use of tessellation, just like Crysis 3.

The screenshot senttoschool posted of the Division may have come from the PC version, as it looks significantly sharper compared to the video footage which you can see here that was played on a PS4:

Video footage

 

[toyota]

sorry but that Star Citizen looked like crap. it was like plastic models with the strings edited out.

 

[beginner99]

Glad he took the time to find the stuff so I didn't have to lol. The holy grail of pc graphics is being able to render ray tracing in real time at high enough FPS for smooth motion. That will be when we pretty much can't distinguish games from reality. Imagine that on an Occulus Rift!

True. But we are very far away from that. Assuming blender is not very crappy/inefficient rendering just 1 image like that takes forever. Eg. it requires orders of magnitude more GPU power than we have now.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Can someone tell me why this magical coding to metal hasnt been used on the ps3 or Xbox 360? I bought a ps3 and the games ran so slow and looked like garbage so I sold it after 2 months of owning it. Is coding to metal something new because it sure didn't work for the current consoles.

Also could someone show me one benchmark where an 8 core amd desktop cpu at 1.6ghz can beat a haswell 4 core cpu. Don't give me the coding to metal bs because you can choose any benchmark known to man and also I'm letting you use a desktop cpu when it's clearly superior to the tablet cpu in the ps4.

 

[Carfax83]

sorry but that Star Citizen looked like crap. it was like plastic models with the strings edited out.

I can't think of any game off the top of my head that ever managed to get the metallic look right. Realistic sheen and texture of metals is very difficult to duplicate in a video game.

The Division is no different in that regard, and if you watched the demo footage, the texture quality is generally significantly lower than what was seen in the Star Citizen trailer.

 

[Enigmoid]

You are saying this needs more poly counts?

And by the way, all that grass moves in the wind, it isn't static. It is tens of thousands of poly count...

Yes it does, the rocks on the lower left corner look like crap.

(all the mountains in skyrim need a higher poly count as they are way too flat, not craggy or jagged at all

Also poor textures on the ground in that section.

And tons of identical grass blades isn't what I means when I said they needed more poly count. With poly count you also need attention to detail as well.

 

[Stuka87]

The main argument is whether or not current/previous PC games ever looked as good as PS4/Xbox One games.

My answer was a no. Some PS4/Xbox One games look better than any PC games released so far.

Nuff said:

Now that's jaw dropping graphics. First time I been wowed since original Crysis DX 10 demo.

The reason most PC games do not look as good as they could is because they are all console ports. Very few AAA games these days that are PC exclusives that are not a game purposely made to run on most PC's (MMO's, etc).

That game looks great, but is expected to come to PC as well. Same for many other games that were shown.

The issue with your comparisons is you are coming last gen console ports to next gen console games. Its not that PC's are not fast enough, its that old consoles held them back. Not to mention most games devs put next to zero optimizations in the PC ports, making them run worse than they should.

 

[UaVaj]

No way. Graphics definitely look better on the One than any PC games now.

I'm sorry.

when was the last time you had your eye checks. if recently. whatever you are on. we could use some of it from time to time.

xbox one graphic is equalivent to high on pc. to some of us. that is piss poor.

try ultra/extreme with max aa and report back.

as for the mgs5 video. gameplay footage is proof it is infact equalivent to high on pc.

 

[Fallen Kell]

I obviously understand that the Titan is more powerful than PS4. But you clearly missed my point entirely. If the games on PS4 are already looking this good right away that to have comparable performance on the PC you probably need at least HD7950/660Ti already for that level of graphics. Those 7950/660Ti cards will be paperweight in 4-5 years. By the time 2nd and 3rd wave of 1st party titles on PS4 launch, their graphics will be spectacular. When we are in 2016-2017, it would have been 100x better to upgrade to Maxwell then to Volta than to buy a $1000 Titan in 2013 and keep it to 2017 in hopes of playing PS4 console ports. This is why when people talk about Titan's 6GB of VRAM as more futureproof for PS4 games, it's a waste of time. The best way to futureproof for PS4 games is to upgrade GPUs more frequently.

Except you have a HUGE problem with that argument. The next-gen consoles are using the same hardware as current x86 PC's, the same video card API's, the same directx APIs, etc., etc... The reason past consoles take 1-3 generations of game titles to show the full benefits of the hardware is that it took that long for game developers to figure out that it was faster to do a "for loop" than to do a "while" loop based on how the hardware's compilers were optimized. It was also during that timeframe that Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo had tweaked their compilers, re-ordering operations or changing how to do an operation because the specific custom hardware took longer to do things one way than it did another way. These will not be issues with current hardware as they are all commodity PC hardware, running x86 instruction set, with standard API calls to the GPU. So what you are simply seeing is what is currently available from current and older PC hardware, hardware which has been severely underutilized (or simply mis-utilized) for the last 5-6 years since the major studio's have not used the PC as the main platform, and or if they did they targeted for being able to still run on embedded GPU's or extremely low end laptops so that their games would run on the most hardware, thus giving them the broadest market possible.

 

[Erenhardt]

running x86 instruction set, with standard API calls to the GPU.

PS4 runs win7, DX11.1, and catalyst 13.6?
That is news to me!

 

[njdevilsfan87]

After watching the 1080p video of The Division, I find it pretty much on par with : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUT6skIrvnI, which I've found to be the best looking game to date (especially at 1440p, just wow). Yes there are some flaws (trees), but the amount of detail and high resolution textures more than made up for it.

And that is what I'm seeing in The Division, is the amount of detail in the environment. 2GB of VRAM, imo, just won't cut it anymore on the PC soon. I've had Crysis 3 go as high as 3GB of usage on my Titan at 1440p. Whatever comes out for the PS4, is going to end up looking even better, and require even more power than we already have, on the PC.