R9 270x vs "Consoles" in hard to run games

[ZeeTech]

Ive researched that the graphics card of the Ps4 (which is slightly better than Xbox1)
is equivalent to a Amd radeon 7850. And I have a R9 270x which is a rebranded
7870. So my question is: if my graphics card is a little better than the consoles',
then games like Assassins creed unity, far cry 4, watch dogs and shadow of mordor
will run better on my pc with similar low settings with the console, RIGHT?

 

[futurefields]

yep

 

[el-Capitan]

There is no apples to apples comp. possible like that. Too many variables. Why would you even want to?

 

[cbrunny]

In your case I'd opt for the PS4 version. It will get better patch support and the game was designed to work on that hardware rather than PC.

IMO, if you are in a position to choose between console and PC, PC is only better in cases where you have hardware that makes the experience notably better. In all other cases, games were designed first for consoles, and more often than not with no regard to PC at all. Unity is a prime example of this. Because your GPU is so similar to that of the PS4, I'd opt for the advantages of a console.

 

[darkewaffle]

Ive researched that the graphics card of the Ps4 (which is slightly better than Xbox1)

At first I read this as though the statement was "The graphics card of the PS4 is slightly better than the graphics card of the original Xbox" lol.

 

[bystander36]

In your case I'd opt for the PS4 version. It will get better patch support and the game was designed to work on that hardware rather than PC.

IMO, if you are in a position to choose between console and PC, PC is only better in cases where you have hardware that makes the experience notably better. In all other cases, games were designed first for consoles, and more often than not with no regard to PC at all. Unity is a prime example of this. Because your GPU is so similar to that of the PS4, I'd opt for the advantages of a console.

There is a lot more to the purchase than that. If you prefer playing games with a mouse, then a PC is the only way to go. If you like to mod, PC's are also the way to go. And in a few years, you can upgrade that card, and be far beyond a console. The x270 is also less expensive.

If you prefer a controller, or playing on the couch with friends, the console makes more sense, but there are lots of reasons to choose one way or another.

 

[cbrunny]

There is a lot more to the purchase than that. If you prefer playing games with a mouse, then a PC is the only way to go. If you like to mod, PC's are also the way to go. And in a few years, you can upgrade that card, and be far beyond a console. The x270 is also less expensive.

If you prefer a controller, or playing on the couch with friends, the console makes more sense, but there are lots of reasons to choose one way or another.

Unity with Mouse&KB? Unity with Mods?

I'm assuming OP has both a PS4 and a PC. Obviously if the decision is what to purchase - a PS4 or a PC - my answer is in no way accurate. I'm speaking specifically to Unity in the case where OP has both a PC as he described and a PS4.

 

[bystander36]

Unity with Mouse&KB? Unity with Mods?

I'm assuming OP has both a PS4 and a PC. Obviously if the decision is what to purchase - a PS4 or a PC - my answer is in no way accurate. I'm speaking specifically to Unity in the case where OP has both a PC as he described and a PS4.

He wrote:

then games like Assassins creed unity, far cry 4, watch dogs and shadow of mordor
will run better on my pc with similar low settings with the console, RIGHT?

He's just giving a general list. Not specifically AC Unity.

 

[pontifex]

CPU and memory have to be taken into account as well.

 

[SlitheryDee]

In my experience you lose a bit of performance vs consoles dues to the overhead incurred by the os, drivers, concessions necessary for compatibility with a wider range of hardware, etc. If all you've got is about the same amount of graphical horsepower as a PS4, you're probably ending up with less performance than a PS4 on the screen.

 

[dougp]

CPU and memory have to be taken into account as well.

And vram, which everyone seriously overlooks when comparing specs to a console. Oh, and the APU, which really changes around the interface and how it interacts with the system.

PC specs and console specs are not apples to apples.

 

[futurefields]

In my experience you lose a bit of performance vs consoles dues to the overhead incurred by the os, drivers, concessions necessary for compatibility with a wider range of hardware, etc. If all you've got is about the same amount of graphical horsepower as a PS4, you're probably ending up with less performance than a PS4 on the screen.

the console OS's are using 2 entire cpu cores and 3gb of RAM

Windows 7 on my PC uses 1% of one core and less than 200mb RAM

 

[mmntech]

With hardware being equal, the PC version would probably run worse than the console version. Embedded systems are more efficient for a couple reasons. Console games have more direct access to the hardware ("closer to the metal" is the industry's new favourite buzzword), and have unified RAM.

With PC, a more powerful CPU is probably going to compensate for that, since the ones in consoles now are weak sauce.

 

[tential]

The nice thing is you have the option of deciding what's important to you.

Do you want smooth gameplay? Turn down settings.
Do you think shadow quality is important? Turn it up/down.
Do you notice texture quality between medium vs high?
Do you want/need AA? If not, turn it off for higher frames.

You choose what you want. On a console, if you're getting 25 fps, you're stuck at that. On a PC if you're in a demanding area and low FPS is jarring you out of the experience, turn a setting down.

It's not a competition as to whether your PC can run a game faster than a PS4. You already own the PC, it's whether the experience is enjoyable.

 

[TeknoBug]

Example with Battlefield 4:
PC with R9 270X: 1080p with most settings medium with some high/ultra (like mesh and detail) and still get ~60fps
PS4: 900p (graphics equiv to medium) with 40-60fps and dips on some maps
XB1: 720p (graphics equiv to medium) with 40-50fps (rarely 60fps) and stutters on many maps.

I have all 3 versions.

 

[lord_emperor]

Without a doubt the PC is more capable, but it's not as wide a margin as expected and can't be compared directly.

The PS4's HD7850 and AMD A-series equivalent CPU share access to ~4.5GB of GDDR5 after what's reserved for the OS functions.

Your PC R9 270X is a stronger GPU but only has 2GB GDDR5, your CPU is also (probably) much stronger than the PS4 but only has access to the relatively slower DDR3 memory.

As a budget-conscious PC gamer I actually appreciate multi-platform development keeping system requirements down.

 

[clok1966]

To me it would get down to gamepad vs mouse keyboard (of course you can hook a gamepad up to a PC too). I don't like game pads for FP games, never will, so it would be easy for me, but having watched youtube there are some excellent gamepad players, so if you got the skill with a gamepad, you really cant go wrong with "pop it in and play" consoles. As so many have stated there is just no easy way to answer, and even less people who would answer without some bias. Take a look at your last months gameplay, was it on Pc or Console? there is your answer, sort of, since all the games you mentioned involve aiming, ME (not you, not everybody) couldn't stand a gamepad, so I would go PC. If it was Madden, I would go gamepad any day (console).

 

[Aikouka]

The nice thing is you have the option of deciding what's important to you.

Do you want smooth gameplay? Turn down settings.
Do you think shadow quality is important? Turn it up/down.
Do you notice texture quality between medium vs high?
Do you want/need AA? If not, turn it off for higher frames.

You choose what you want.

Unfortunately, while definitely a nice feature, I think it's largely a double-edged sword. The issue is that these options are typically poorly-presented to the user. For example, how many people here can explain Ambient Occlusion? Most people here can probably explain Anti-Aliasing, but can you explain the differences between things like MSAA, SSAA or TXAA. Also, in some games, you can't easily see what the difference is upon change.

That's one reason why I like NVIDIA's approach of setting all of that for you based upon real-world testing.

 

[SPBHM]

consoles run the games you mentioned with a 30FPS cap, some with lower res than 1080P, and details are normally not the same as the PC with max settings,
270 should run the ports as good or better than the PS4.

as a reference, even a GTX 750 Ti can match the PS4 for games like the latest COD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02Iie6d3WXo

 

[bystander36]

Unfortunately, while definitely a nice feature, I think it's largely a double-edged sword. The issue is that these options are typically poorly-presented to the user. For example, how many people here can explain Ambient Occlusion? Most people here can probably explain Anti-Aliasing, but can you explain the differences between things like MSAA, SSAA or TXAA. Also, in some games, you can't easily see what the difference is upon change.

That's one reason why I like NVIDIA's approach of setting all of that for you based upon real-world testing.

That is why they usually have preset low, medium, high, and Ultra, or some other such labels. Not everyone knows what is what, but they can still adjust the settings. The problem is that many people seem to assume that since consoles have no settings to choose from, that it means they are at maxed settings compared to a PC at maxed settings. That leaves some people unwilling to adjust their settings on the PC, but that is a personal fault, not a game fault. It also means that people should be self optimizing their games with the proper settings, which can take some time.

 

[Blitzvogel]

Unfortunately, while definitely a nice feature, I think it's largely a double-edged sword. The issue is that these options are typically poorly-presented to the user. For example, how many people here can explain Ambient Occlusion? Most people here can probably explain Anti-Aliasing, but can you explain the differences between things like MSAA, SSAA or TXAA. Also, in some games, you can't easily see what the difference is upon change.

That's one reason why I like NVIDIA's approach of setting all of that for you based upon real-world testing.

I like it when games actually give you some kind of idea of what to expect, or how the game will effect graphics performance. GTA4, regardless of how you feel did let you know how much VRAM your settings will use, and Shadow of Mordor informs and recommends certain settings and how much VRAM you should expect to be used. While VRAM isn't an indicator of performance, it can effect it of course.

I've also noticed that recent PC versions of multiplatform games tend to over estimate minimum requirements, which means that worse hardware still has a chance to play it. Shadow of Mordor and CoD Advanced Warfare can in fact run on Intel HD 4000 just fine with the settings way down.

As for the PS4's Pitcairn derived GPU versus R9 270X, I think you'll be a-ok. Maybe in a couple years, PS4 exclusive devs will have some tricks, but multiplatform games I do not see running better on either console. PC overheads in my experience affect CPU and RAM more than they do the GPU. However that still could mean your VRAM won't be enough and a 4 GB or even 6 GB card may be needed in the near future.

Also we can make an almost apples to apples comparison here when considering console versus AMD PC graphics. This isn't Xenos vs late DX9 GPUs vs RSX+Cell, or even Xenos versus ATi/AMD's VLIW5 GPUs where we never saw full SIMD utilization. It's currently GCN vs GCN. We can then infer Nvidia performance based on benchmarks to said PC GCN GPUs.

 

[Red Hawk]

I have a 270X and I run Dragon Age Inquisition at BETTER settings than the PS4 version. The 270X has a good deal more raw power than the PS4.

 

[Arkaign]

I have a 270X and I run Dragon Age Inquisition at BETTER settings than the PS4 version. The 270X has a good deal more raw power than the PS4.

That's because your CPU is an order of magnitude more powerful than the potato CPU cores in the PS4 and X1.

The 270X is relatively close to the PS4 GPU, but the PS4 is hampered by terrible CPU performance, which is why things like BF4 will always run better on a PC even with a nearly equal GPU.

 

[Red Hawk]

That's because your CPU is an order of magnitude more powerful than the potato CPU cores in the PS4 and X1.

The 270X is relatively close to the PS4 GPU, but the PS4 is hampered by terrible CPU performance, which is why things like BF4 will always run better on a PC even with a nearly equal GPU.

Either way, that means the 270X is well enough to match the PS4's graphics chip. As for if your PC can run the game better than a PS4? That depends on the rest of your system specs. But really, 2500K level performance shouldn't be that hard to come by. That CPU is 4 years old at this point...

 

[Blanky]

In 2011 john carmack tweeted that a console is 2x as fast as similar hardware in a PC.

The point being a PC has a great deal more overhead.