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

[Red Hawk]

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.

And he was talking about consoles with greater hardware differences to contemporary PC hardware. There was no "similar hardware in a PC" to compare the 360 and PS3 to (especially the PS3), not like how the PS4 and XB1 are verging on being made from off-the-shelf parts.

 

[bystander36]

Not to mention that he can exaggerate for effect.

 

[aigomorla]

But really, 2500K level performance shouldn't be that hard to come by. That CPU is 4 years old at this point...

i dont think any console has the performance level of a 2500K

 

[bystander36]

i dont think any console has the performance level of a 2500K

Yet they can do some things faster due to their Unified memory and lower overhead API.

 

[aigomorla]

Yet they can do some things faster due to their Unified memory and lower overhead API.

i think that really depends on the PC machine's spec.

If you bring out an enthusiast gamers machine, it would completely blow away a console in every angle you look at it.

Assume you SLI 970GTX's thats 8GB of unified VRAM, on a GPU Set which is very fast, and blows the 7850 out of the water...

I have a few friends who even have tri sli 980, and Quad SLI 980's... Quad SLI 980 has a total of 16GB of VRAM, thats more then what most people have in there entire machine thats just dedicated to the GPU's.
However such a machine would probably cost 10x as much as a console.

I think a member said it best, you cant compare apples to apples here when you look at a console vs. PC.
Its like saying a compact SUV is the best... no a station wagon is ownage!
Just pray someone in a hummer doesnt roll next to you and gives you a smirk...

 

[bystander36]

i think that really depends on the PC machine's spec.

If you bring out an enthusiast gamers machine, it would completely blow away a console in every angle you look at it.

Assume you SLI 970GTX's thats 8GB of unified VRAM, on a GPU Set which is very fast, and blows the 7850 out of the water...

I have a few friends who even have tri sli 980, and Quad SLI 980's... Quad SLI 980 has a total of 16GB of VRAM, thats more then what most people have in there entire machine thats just dedicated to the GPU's.
However such a machine would probably cost 10x as much as a console.

I think a member said it best, you cant compare apples to apples here when you look at a console vs. PC.
Its like saying a compact SUV is the best... no a station wagon is ownage!
Just pray someone in a hummer doesnt roll next to you and gives you a smirk...

A couple notes here:
980 x4, still behaves like having 4GB of Vram.
Having unified memory removes some bottlenecks that PC's currently live with. While on a whole it won't over take what is available to a PC, it can do some things better than a PC.

And there is no disagreement here about it not being an Apples to Apples comparison.

 

[aigomorla]

A couple notes here:
980 x4, still behaves like having 4GB of Vram..

well thats really dependent on how sli is rendering.
True its behaves like that, but sli can either render frame by frame, where each gpu is doing 1 frame and swaps off the next frame to another, or it can partition the frame and each gpu can render portions of the frame simultaneously.

In the first section, yes you are limited to the 4gb.
In the second part, since its 4 gpu's rendering the same frame but in different sections id say its a collective of 16GB.

 

[bystander36]

well thats really dependent on how sli is rendering.
True its behaves like that, but sli can either render frame by frame, where each gpu is doing 1 frame and swaps off the next frame to another, or it can partition the frame and each gpu can render portions of the frame simultaneously.

In the first section, yes you are limited to the 4gb.
In the second part, since its 4 gpu's rendering the same frame but in different sections id say its a collective of 16GB.

For a very long time now, no game does anything but AFR (1st type). AMD and Nvidia both asked and have almost forced all dev's to stick with AFR for many years now.

 

[aigomorla]

For a very long time now, no game does anything but AFR (1st type). AMD and Nvidia both asked and have almost forced all dev's to stick with AFR for many years now.

i dont disagree with you on that...

which is why a lot of us suffer from micro shuttering.

 

[Blitzvogel]

I think a member said it best, you cant compare apples to apples here when you look at a console vs. PC.

I think between a PC with AMD GCN graphics and a PS4, you really can when it comes to graphics performance, which is what I've been emphasizing this whole time.

OS differences aside, at least for these first couple years, I do not expect the PS4 to be able to run anything better than my R9 270. Anyone running a modern CPU like an FX 8 core or i5 quad is going to get at least as good draw performance, and will still have plenty extra CPU muscle to boot for other game needs.

 

[BSim500]

Modern x86 consoles are just low-end x86 PC's and the supposed "direct to metal, less bloat" advantage is virtually non-existent so far. Example:-

Watch Dogs:-
XB1 - 792p @ 30fps on "medium" equivalent
PS4 - 900p @ 30fps on "medium" equivalent
PC - 1080p @ 35-40fps on "high" on an XB1 equivalent 7790 / 260X / 750 Ti graphics card.

Then again, who needs more than 30fps for that "unrivaled cinematic experience"... :whiste:

 

[Puppies04]

I'm just going to LOL at anyone who thinks that a PS4 is going to give similar or even better performance than a PC with a 270X.

Anandtechs bench shows a 270X averaging 116FPS on BF4 on MEDIUM settings, you can guarantee no console is running higher settings than that and most will be on LOW.

Compare that to a console that have noticible frame drops below 30FPS and you should hopefully see why I think you are insane.

I mean come on a 270X probably draws more power than an entire PS4 and the cooling solution on an aftermarket card shifts way more heat than any console ever has.

Consoles are good for sticking under your TV and being able to go to a store and buy any game knowing it will just work. The trade off for that simplicity is them being mediocre at launch and massively underpowered 3 years later when they are still the "new console".

I remember a friend showing me how "good" BF3 looked on his 360 when it came out. I couldn't believe what a grainy mess I was looking at. His eyes nearly popped out his head when he saw my modest GTX560TI/2500K PC running the game with almost all settings turned up to ultra at about 3 times the frame rate.

 

[Puppies04]

Yet they can do some things faster due to their Unified memory and lower overhead API.

Like what?

Load games? No

Better graphics than a mid range GPU/CPU released 12 months ago? No

What exactly are they doing faster other than emptying your wallet every time you want a new game???

 

[bystander36]

Like what?

Load games? No

Better graphics than a mid range GPU/CPU released 12 months ago? No

What exactly are they doing faster other than emptying your wallet every time you want a new game???

I forget the name of the game, but one of the first new console game had a few things that was never given to the PC, because the PC was not capable of doing it. The game had all sorts of awesome physics in what looked like a wheat field, where when you moved, it all moves out of the way swaying and what not. The PC version did not get it, siting the performance was not good enough.

 

[Puppies04]

I forget the name of the game, but one of the first new console game had a few things that was never given to the PC, because the PC was not capable of doing it. The game had all sorts of awesome physics in what looked like a wheat field, where when you moved, it all moves out of the way swaying and what not. The PC version did not get it, siting the performance was not good enough.

You might want to go find a link to that because it sounds like utter rubbish.

As for the bolded part of your quote, who's PC? Mine? Yours? a guy with quad GTX980s?

I have a 2 1/2 your old mid/high end GPU and a 4 year old CPU that makes the "new" consoles look like the toys that they are. At some point soon i am going to get bored of what I have sell the CPU and GPU and spend £400 on new ones that will most likely be faster than the PS5 that will be released in 5 or so years.

Fair play if that is what you want but every console gamer I have ever met who thinks that the graphics are amazing has never actually seen a proper gaming PC.....

 

[Red Hawk]

I forget the name of the game, but one of the first new console game had a few things that was never given to the PC, because the PC was not capable of doing it. The game had all sorts of awesome physics in what looked like a wheat field, where when you moved, it all moves out of the way swaying and what not. The PC version did not get it, siting the performance was not good enough.

What game was this? Just about every game on consoles are brought to PC nowadays. The only games that don't are Sony and Nintendo exclusives, which wouldn't come to PC no matter what the "performance" was.

 

[bystander36]

You might want to go find a link to that because it sounds like utter rubbish.

As for the bolded part of your quote, who's PC? Mine? Yours? a guy with quad GTX980s?

I have a 2 1/2 your old mid/high end GPU and a 4 year old CPU that makes the "new" consoles look like the toys that they are. At some point soon i am going to get bored of what I have sell the CPU and GPU and spend £400 on new ones that will most likely be faster than the PS5 that will be released in 5 or so years.

Fair play if that is what you want but every console gamer I have ever met who thinks that the graphics are amazing has never actually seen a proper gaming PC.....

This was several months ago, you can't expect me to remember the link, but due to the unified memory advantage, consoles have some advantages. It most certainly is possible.

 

[Red Hawk]

This was several months ago, you can't expect me to remember the link, but due to the unified memory advantage, consoles have some advantages. It most certainly is possible.

Sorry, but if you can't come up with the source, I'm just going to conclude that the developer was talking out of his ass, possibly to cover his own laziness. Unified memory helps with efficiency to a point, but it's moronic to claim that a game couldn't be brought to PC because "the performance wasn't good enough". Better efficiency doesn't magically make the consoles better than an R9 280 or a GTX 770. They support the same, if not better, graphics feature sets to boot.

 

[bystander36]

Sorry, but if you can't come up with the source, I'm just going to conclude that the developer was talking out of his ass, possibly to cover his own laziness. Unified memory helps with efficiency to a point, but it's moronic to claim that a game couldn't be brought to PC because "the performance wasn't good enough". Better efficiency doesn't magically make the consoles better than an R9 280 or a GTX 770. They support the same, if not better, graphics feature sets to boot.

I didn't say the game couldn't be brought to the PC. They simply cut a few physics features as a result of the limitations.

I also never said the console was better. I said it did some things better.

 

[Blitzvogel]

This was several months ago, you can't expect me to remember the link, but due to the unified memory advantage, consoles have some advantages. It most certainly is possible.

Unified memory advantage for swaying grass? That's more a compute issue as long as sufficient bandwidth is in play like any good GPU will have. If it has to do with being able to run a program through both the CPU and GPU with relative ease because of memory sharing, that's another thing......and we've seen the PC do extraordinary things with GPU physics. It's just never implemented in game due to hardware support and issues of "common denominator".

 

[bystander36]

Unified memory advantage for swaying grass? That's more a compute issue as long as sufficient bandwidth is in play like any good GPU will have.

The problem they sited included draw calls. It was quite a while ago, or I'd find the link for you.

 

[Spjut]

Well, Far Cry 4 on the PS4 and Xbox One uses "HRAA", which supposedly isn't possible on PC using DX11
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-far-cry-4-face-off

Using similar hardware to PCs is one thing, but there are still differences between their APIs. We normal users don't even know whether today's games are using the higher-level or lower-level APIs.

The 360 could also lose to modest PCs in the beginning. Quake 4 had bad performance on the 360.


Does anyone still remember what kind of PC you needed to outperform the original Xbox?

 

[Blitzvogel]

The problem they sited included draw calls. It was quite a while ago, or I'd find the link for you.

And was it DX9, 10, or 11? You also have to remember, the more CPU power, the more draw calls, so regardless of draw call efficiency, brute force can overcome issues on PC. Crysis 3 has some pretty nice "dynamic" grass effected by in game "wind", as well as that new game Kingdom Come using the latest version of CryEngine.

Also my arguments about graphics parity are exclusive to the GPU, which is assuming the PC CPU is delivering the draw calls and performance necessary to utilize said GPU. We already have plenty of evidence about inefficient CPU and RAM utilization. What the GPU does with the information fed to it and how fast it renders is another thing. GCN does not have the wavefront efficiency issues VLIW5 ATi cards did. And even still, PC GPUs still did a fantastic job against Xenos at 720p with it's eDRAM, virtually "free" z-buffering and 2x MSAA. Compare the console version of the original Crysis to the PC version and you'll see what I mean.

 

[bystander36]

My point was quite simple, and not much different than you just stated. Consoles have "some" advantages. I never said they were superior.

 

[futurefields]

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.

PS4 GPU is also only 800 mhz and has 1152 shaders

270x has 1280 shaders clocked at over a GHz and doesnt have to share memory and doesn't have to overcome a tablet cpu