Support NeoGAF

[Kataploom]

Hello.

I just wanted to share a very useful GPU comparison between current gen consoles and the equivalent PC GPU.

It doesn't only show us where are the consoles actually in terms of PC performance but may also be useful for those that want at least console performance with all the benefits of using PC like freedom, multi-task, almost infinite BC, modding, etc. without having to spend thousands. The card being compared is the 6700 non-XT model (hate this AMD naming convention...) and use to be around $300 or a little above these days.

This can also be useful to understand why are 3070 ti and 3080 users mad at Nvidia and devs since their cards are more than capable of running console ports if it wasn't for the VRAM.

It's mostly focused on PS5 but there are some Xbox games being compared too.

 

[SeraphJan]

Not surprised, this is what most people assumed, either a 5700XT or 6700 Non-XT in terms of rasterization, 6700 in terms of RT.

However consider it was released at the end of 2020, its a very powerful console and a bargain for its price.

 

[feynoob]

It's useless to use these comparison.

It depends on how much devs can extract from each system. Pc suffers badly, because devs don't utilize them very well.

 

[Kataploom]

It's useless to use these comparison.

It depends on how much devs can extract from each system. Pc suffers badly, because devs don't utilize them very well.

I actually think most PC versions perform around the same than consoles given similar PC specs, as the video show.

Actually, PCs with similar GPU than consoles will most probably perform better due to better CPU, most gaming PCs have better CPU, it's one of the cheapest parts to get better than consoles, curreny any mid range CPU (Ryzen 5 and i5) is way above consoles CPU.

But yeah, some PC stinkers can give the wrong idea of consoles "punching above their weights" more than they actually do...

 

[RookX22]

I dont trust the fps numbers anymore. I have been doing my own comparison with Jedi Fallen Order. I started to play it in anticipation of the sequel on my pc 3070ti ryzen 7700x and noticed alot of stutters and micro freezing. I tried so many settings but it still does it (I read online it is a unreal4 assest streaming thing) but then I tried it on my PS5 performance mode and was very surprised it just felt better in the same locations.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Rally interesting field test. The PC does hang extremely close. Quite surprising.

A bit more tuning and not horrendous PC ports and they would more or less be identical, they are pretty damn close.

 

[Kataploom]

Rally interesting field test. The PC does hang extremely close. Quite surprising.

A bit more tuning and not horrendous PC ports and they would more or less be identical, they are pretty damn close.

Yeah, the magic console optimization is not as magic as some believe, it's not like can they pull 30% to 50% more performance out of nowhere LOL and on PC devs can do great optimizations too, not even counting on brute force. I remember playing Doom 2016 on a Ryzen 2200g with its Vegas 8 GPU at around 45-60 fps Medium-High settings at 720p. That GPU is like 25% less powerful than Xbox One so it scaled more linear than expected.

 

[fran.fernandez]

too many gpus every year to make games optimized for them. Is getting harder to make good pc port .

 

[sachos]

This is the type of video Digital Foundry should have made a long time ago. Its really interesting and they would do it better showing proper side to side comparison. I know they've done per game comparisons but im talking about a full focus video. Same with CPU and finally a full PC Equivalent vs 9th Gen.

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

Yeah, the magic console optimization is not as magic as some believe, it's not like can they pull 30% to 50% more performance out of nowhere LOL and on PC devs can do great optimizations too, not even counting on brute force. I remember playing Doom 2016 on a Ryzen 2200g with its Vegas 8 GPU at around 45-60 fps Medium-High settings at 720p. That GPU is like 25% less powerful than Xbox One so it scaled more linear than expected.

Ok, try build an equivalently specced PC for $400 in 2020 and come say this again.

Hell, try building one now for $399, and let's talk about magic. No matter how thin you slice it, what you pay to get a brand-new PS5, starts at $399.

I am sorry, just can't really stand when people make this whole PC and console argument then just somehow ignore the most important part of the conversation. Because doing that would usually mean it is the only way to even have this conversation.

 

[ReBurn]

It's useless to use these comparison.

It depends on how much devs can extract from each system. Pc suffers badly, because devs don't utilize them very well.

Most devs don't have the ability to extract from systems these days like in the older generations. The best they can do is what the engine they buy or the hardware API's give them. Modern hardware is too complex for most developers to be able to write their own interfaces for.

 

[Lasha]

Ok, try build an equivalently specced PC for $400 in 2020 and come say this again.

Hell, try building one now for $399, and let's talk about magic. No matter how thin you slice it, what you pay to get a brand-new PS5, starts at $399.

I am sorry, just can't really stand when people make this whole PC and console argument then just somehow ignore the most important part of the conversation. Because doing that would usually mean it is the only way to even have this conversation.

Your PoV is equally reductive and fails to capture the full cost of using console. Consoles have a lower entry price that is subsidized through more expensive games and paid online subscriptions. Peripheral support can be another issue. My old beater PS3 fight stick works on every modern fighter but isn't supported on newer consoles for "reasons". My hitbox controller works on PS5 when playing a PS4 version of a game but not on the PS5 version for similar "reasons".

Consoles are also specialty devices which have no utility other than gaming. A gaming PC is still a PC. The real comparision is the incremental difference in cost between a regular PC and and the parts needed for gaming. The cost for a console comparable graphics card and maybe ram are usually comparable to the cost of a console itself. The decision comes down to preference and performance more than cost.

 

[Kataploom]

too many gpus every year to make games optimized for them. Is getting harder to make good pc port .

I don't get this argument, AFAIK you don't code for different GPUs, you code for a single API (DirectX) and Windows and the drivers to the rest of the job. I haven't programmed at such low level but I do mobile and Unity programming and it's far from "coding to the metal for each GPU".

Ok, try build an equivalently specced PC for $400 in 2020 and come say this again.

Hell, try building one now for $399, and let's talk about magic. No matter how thin you slice it, what you pay to get a brand-new PS5, starts at $399.

I am sorry, just can't really stand when people make this whole PC and console argument then just somehow ignore the most important part of the conversation. Because doing that would usually mean it is the only way to even have this conversation.

Talk me about PC advantages on consoles... there are non, literally... PC is not "the best", it's the most powerful but the advantages are more than that.

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

Your PoV is equally reductive and fails to capture the full cost of using console. Consoles have a lower entry price that is subsidized through more expensive games and paid online subscriptions. Peripheral support can be another issue. My old beater PS3 fight stick works on every modern fighter but isn't supported on newer consoles for "reasons". My hitbox controller works on PS5 when playing a PS4 version of a game but not on the PS5 version for similar "reasons".

Consoles are also specialty devices which have no utility other than gaming. A gaming PC is still a PC. The real comparision is the incremental difference in cost between a regular PC and and the parts needed for gaming. The cost for a console comparable graphics card and maybe ram are usually comparable to the cost of a console itself. The decision comes down to preference and performance more than cost.

I don't get this argument, AFAIK you don't code for different GPUs, you code for a single API (DirectX) and Windows and the drivers to the rest of the job. I haven't programmed at such low level but I do mobile and Unity programming and it's far from "coding to the metal for each GPU".


Talk me about PC advantages on consoles... there are non, literally... PC is not "the best", it's the most powerful but the advantages are more than that.

Here we go again. And I am not going to get into this nonsense again.

The facts are simple, and this happens in every single one of such debates. The only way to validate PC is to attempt to de-validate the consoles. That right off the bat is a biased argument. If we are talking about hardware, then let's talk about hardware. Not how it's used or the buying habits of the user because if you never want to actually buy a brand new $70 game? You can... I mean in 5 years I buy only like 1 game at the full price per year.. It's a simple thing. How much does a console cost? And then how much does an equally specced PC cost? Why should it be anything more than that? And lets not even forget that outside enthusiast forums such as these, a lot of people do not even want to build a PC.

If someone is in the market for a gaming device, their options are consoles and PC. If that person has only like $400/$500 to spend, that pretty much puts building a PC out of the discussion. This nonsense about how PC can do this and that, well... if the only thing you want is something to game on, then those extra things a PC can do, you do not need.

like this thing is really old at this point.

 

[Lasha]

Here we go again. And I am not going to get into this nonsense again.

The facts are simple, and this happens in every single one of such debates. The only way to validate PC is to attempt to de-validate the consoles. That right off the bat is a biased argument. If we are talking about hardware, then let's talk about hardware. Not how it's used or the buying habits of the user because if you never want to actually buy a brand new $70 game? You can... I mean in 5 years I buy only like 1 game at the full price per year.. It's a simple thing. How much does a console cost? And then how much does an equally specced PC cost? Why should it be anything more than that? And lets not even forget that outside enthusiast forums such as these, a lot of people do not even want to build a PC.

If someone is in the market for a gaming device, their options are consoles and PC. If that person has only like $400/$500 to spend, that pretty much puts building a PC out of the discussion. This nonsense about how PC can do this and that, well... if the only thing you want is something to game on, then those extra things a PC can do, you do not need.

like this thing is really old at this point.

If you go to a village in the Philippines you will find essentials like toothpaste and shaving cream are sold in single use portions. The price for the commodity can be effictively double to triple what westerners pay for the same goods but they still sell because it's seen as "cheaper" by people living paycheck to paycheck. Xbox and Playstation work on the same principle. The lower price point is to lock people into an ecosystem where the console manufacturer can harvest revenue over time.

PC have a higher upfront costs because manufacturers lack an ecosystem. The profit is made up front. Total cost of ownership is lower over time because there are no secondary costs like paid online, games are cheaper, and your library and peripherals follow you forever. That's why your cost argument is too simple. I fully agree that getting up and running costs less with a console than PC by design. Using that cost to make a budgetary decision is like buying a single unit of toothpaste because you only have enough money now instead of saving up for a full tube.

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

If you go to a village in the Philippines you will find essentials like toothpaste and shaving cream are sold in single use portions. The price for the commodity can be effictively double to triple what westerners pay for the same goods but they still sell because it's seen as "cheaper" by people living paycheck to paycheck. Xbox and Playstation work on the same principle. The lower price point is to lock people into an ecosystem where the console manufacturer can harvest revenue over time.

PC have a higher upfront costs because manufacturers lack an ecosystem. The profit is made up front. Total cost of ownership is lower over time because there are no secondary costs like paid online, games are cheaper, and your library and peripherals follow you forever. That's why your cost argument is too simple. I fully agree that getting up and running costs less with a console than PC by design. Using that cost to make a budgetary decision is like buying a single unit of toothpaste because you only have enough money now instead of saving up for a full tube.

Ok.

Say I buy a console for $399 in 2020. You buid a similar specced PC for $899. Now I'm not big on online gaming, but I pay for it regardless, and I don't just pay for the $60/year base pack, I pay $100/year.

Now the go-to argument here is always, over time the console costs you more. Cause you are paying for an online service and games cost more. Cool... but what they don't say is, that it would take me 5 years paying for that sub in addition to my console price to match what you spent when you bought that PC. Or that online sub-service gives me access to hundreds of games. Or that it's possible to buy used games on consoles.

I get it. I get why consoles cost what they do and why PCs cost what they do. As I type I have a very capable gaming PC, so I get it. It just doesn't change the fact, that to me, we have console gaming and PC gaming. And when talking about hardware, consoles would always give you more bang for your buck than PC. Why, how, if its right or if it's not, what you can or can't do.. is irrelevant if the argument being had is what kinda gaming performance can you get for console money?

 

[Kataploom]

Ok.

Say I buy a console for $399 in 2020. You buid a similar specced PC for $899. Now I'm not big on online gaming, but I pay for it regardless, and I don't just pay for the $60/year base pack, I pay $100/year.

Now the go-to argument here is always, over time the console costs you more. Cause you are paying for an online service and games cost more. Cool... but what they don't say is, that it would take me 5 years paying for that sub in addition to my console price to match what you spent when you bought that PC. Or that online sub-service gives me access to hundreds of games. Or that it's possible to buy used games on consoles.

I get it. I get why consoles cost what they do and why PCs cost what they do. As I type I have a very capable gaming PC, so I get it. It just doesn't change the fact, that to me, we have console gaming and PC gaming. And when talking about hardware, consoles would always give you more bang for your buck than PC. Why, how, if its right or if it's not, what you can or can't do.. is irrelevant if the argument being had is what kinda gaming performance can you get for console money?

Again, different products for different purposes, even when talking about playing the ability to customize the experience of PC is something valuable for some of us... And we don't have to spend thousands to get a console-like experience right now as shown in the video I put in the OP.

But for me it's not only that, my main reason to stay PC and probably other's too is the library, I've built a huge library over the years including games in my backlog, I'm currently on a 6700 XT which is a little more powerful than current consoles GPU and seeing these comparisons helped me know I was getting a good bang for the buck.

 

[fran.fernandez]

I don't get this argument, AFAIK you don't code for different GPUs, you code for a single API (DirectX) and Windows and the drivers to the rest of the job. I haven't programmed at such low level but I do mobile and Unity programming and it's far from "coding to the metal for each GPU".


Talk me about PC advantages on consoles... there are non, literally... PC is not "the best", it's the most powerful but the advantages are more than that.

u do code for gpu if optimizie is needed, i did mobile as well and talks about gpu optimization (unity unite and did support for many companies / famous mobile games) if you do mobile u must be coding for metal , exynos, snapdragon.... all of them have diferent gpu cycles and buffers,. If you are not doing that u must be working on small games or narrow target, or not doing optmization at all, getting depth texture from iphone and android are very different methods and code (sure, u can use unity get depth texture... thats awful). I had to code shader for one specific chinese phone as well. Other simple example, we had different bloom, depth of field code for each gpu.

simple test, get arm offline shader compile and check the speed for each gpu (u need to provide the gpu vender and version to profile as each one is different). Console is similar now, devs using rtx with rtx tools, console using amd tools, shaders auto optimize for last version...


btw, this is one of talks i did thats is sharable (even filtering is different for each gpu). u can find more in unity support forum (the paid support version) . i hate my voice.


btw, some URP documentation out there came from me yay!

 

[Imtjnotu]

his PC footage has alot of screen tearing and texture pops. not sure is this is the best comparison

 

[Gaiff]

Ok, try build an equivalently specced PC for $400 in 2020 and come say this again.

Hell, try building one now for $399, and let's talk about magic. No matter how thin you slice it, what you pay to get a brand-new PS5, starts at $399.

I am sorry, just can't really stand when people make this whole PC and console argument then just somehow ignore the most important part of the conversation. Because doing that would usually mean it is the only way to even have this conversation.

Didn't bother watching the video? The guy states clearly in the first few minutes that the objective isn't to compare consoles and PCs but to compare the GPU performance of the card closest to the PS5. He even has a 5600X, a significantly faster CPU than what the PS5 has, to avoid CPU bottlenecks in addition to locking the clocks of the 6700 to closely match the PS5. He also has the price of the entire PC listed at 650 pounds.

Instead of getting offended and feeling attacked your system is being dragged in the mud, watch the video. It would avoid making silly comments like these that were already answered. Of course, the console provides better value. There's a giant multi-billion company backing it that order parts in the millions in terms of volume and they're in a partnership with the manufacturers and as such, get their parts at a reduced cost compared to customers. Furthermore, having a console as expensive as a PC for the same performance would enormously reduce the appeal of the console so that's completely normal.

The video is purely academic. Comment on the methodology and results instead of getting mad over a non-issue that's been clearly addressed.

Edit: His very first comparison isn't admissible. Spider-Man in Performance Mode on the PS5 with an unlocked frame runs at 60-80fps and from memory, the lowest recorded frame rate is like 58 during a cutscene. The 6700 can't maintain 60fps and even with a dynamic res still dips to like 48fps. I'm not sure if the PS5 drops to below 1440p in those tests (I doubt it, although it's not impossible) but this comparisons HEAVILY favors the PS5. The 80MB Infinity Cache of the 6700 won't make up for the massive bandwidth deficit. 448GBs vs 320GBs, a ridiculous 40% advantage in favor of the PS5 and the dude even locks the clocks of the card to match the PS5 so it would presumably perform worse than usual. In Playstation exclusives, the PS5 tends to perform much, much better than the 6700 and in fact is closest to something like a 6750 XT.



As for TLOU Part I, he sets the game at medium settings, 1440p and averages around 55fps but the PS5 with an unlocked frame rate in performance mode gets like 70-80fps and I'm almost certain runs quite a bit higher than medium settings. I will state however that the area full of foliage he tests on the PC version is more demanding. With a 90% resolution scaling at 1440p, the PC averages 64fps with lows of 54fps, still much slower than the PS5.



I'm sorry but this video is straight up terrible. The maker commits a bunch of cardinal sins; he doesn't even match settings (just goes, this looks like this to me when he doesn't have DF to go by), doesn't match scenes which makes the comparisons utterly meaningless, and most importantly, he compares it to the PS5 locked fps which 9/10, is significantly below what it can achieve with unlocked frame rates.

Bad video.

 

[bbeach123]

Here the DF video with the ps4 .

 

[DenchDeckard]

too many gpus every year to make games optimized for them. Is getting harder to make good pc port .

Nah, not really. If the devs actually do a good job the drivers by the gpu manufacturer will do the rest. Devs don't have to prioritise for every single gpu they just have to know what they are doing with their settings.

Ok, try build an equivalently specced PC for $400 in 2020 and come say this again.

Hell, try building one now for $399, and let's talk about magic. No matter how thin you slice it, what you pay to get a brand-new PS5, starts at $399.

I am sorry, just can't really stand when people make this whole PC and console argument then just somehow ignore the most important part of the conversation. Because doing that would usually mean it is the only way to even have this conversation.

Ok.

Say I buy a console for $399 in 2020. You buid a similar specced PC for $899. Now I'm not big on online gaming, but I pay for it regardless, and I don't just pay for the $60/year base pack, I pay $100/year.

Now the go-to argument here is always, over time the console costs you more. Cause you are paying for an online service and games cost more. Cool... but what they don't say is, that it would take me 5 years paying for that sub in addition to my console price to match what you spent when you bought that PC. Or that online sub-service gives me access to hundreds of games. Or that it's possible to buy used games on consoles.

I get it. I get why consoles cost what they do and why PCs cost what they do. As I type I have a very capable gaming PC, so I get it. It just doesn't change the fact, that to me, we have console gaming and PC gaming. And when talking about hardware, consoles would always give you more bang for your buck than PC. Why, how, if its right or if it's not, what you can or can't do.. is irrelevant if the argument being had is what kinda gaming performance can you get for console money?

This argument seems to really bother you but it's the truth, you can't just deny pc like you are trying to do.

OK so I buy a 499 ps5 or xbox series x knowing that they are subsidised in some way. You know fine well that most ps5 owners on this site have purcahsed an extra ssd. Extra cost. You ain't the same experience as pc, you are paying a yearly fee for for your online gaming. You are also paying 70 dollars a game on launch day.

Pc you buy an 999 pc now if you shop around or build it yourself your going to get a pretty damn decent pc that's going to easily perform as well as the current consoles, If games are developed properly.

Or you can shop on a sale and get something like this in the UK

AWD-IT Mesh 5, AMD Ryzen 5, 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD, NVIDIA GeF...

Delivering Game Changing Performance Crank up the settings and resolution for an even better visual experience - High FPS. High Quality. Powered by AI. AMD Ryzen 5 4500 - The Essential 6-Core Powerhouse Processor Lose yourself in immersive, smooth gaming – with powerful Zen 2 architecture, the...

www.costco.co.uk

This would smoke it but sold out in like a week or so.

Costco

www.costco.co.uk

That's like 150 pounds more than a ps5 and is going to deliver an pretty damn good experience. Probably higher frames than ps5 with tweaks to the settings.

So basically, shopping around you will get a great deal on a prebuilt pc that has so many benefits over a ps5 that you want to ignore.

Open platform, do what you want. Emulation. Web search. Various vr headsets. Switch emulation with your own original games. The best playstation games. The best xbox games. The best pc games.

And the beauty...slap a new gpu inside that bad boy in 4 to 5 years and you are probably good for the first few years of next gen.

PC is based and that's why more and more are moving to it. Especially the younger demographic.

Oh and cheaper games and free online. Free games for no cost thanks to epic...

Banger!

 

[Daneel Elijah]

If games are developed properly

First problem.

You are also paying 70 dollars a game on launch day.

VS

Oh and cheaper games and free online. Free games for no cost thanks to epic...

This is dishonest. You can do the same with consoles. Epic has a small part of the PC market. That you did use their offer does not mean that it is admissible as a PC advantage.

Open platform, do what you want.

This is a true advantage of PC. But it does not depend of the hardware. A shit PC from 2010 can do it too.
I do not disagree with both of you. But PC and console are there for different reasons. Consoles are there for gaming first and offer a great deal of fun and are easy to use and cheap compared to most PC that are comparable to them. It is true that since the PS4 generation, the consoles are getting closer to PCs and losing some of their advantages. But you have to understand that what you do with your console and PC is not what everybody is doing with it. A lot of people buy a console for playing a few games like GTA, FIFA... games that are sometimes better on consoles. And do not play as much as you do. A lot of people do not use their PCs to play at all too. That is why people often said that this is different market for different people. If your profile is more of a PC type of gamer, good for you. I found myself more into Sony games in the AAA space. And the PS5 is one of the cheapest way to play next gen AAA games. My PC is mostly for gaming, but I use it for indies like FTL, The binding of Isaac, Hades, Rogue Legacy 2, Vampire Survivors... Once again, different people, different uses and opinion. PC is great for gaming. But a console is rally cheap and offer exclusives that make it worth it too. That is why I use both, but more my PS5.

 

[HerjansEagleFeeder]

I love these kinds of videos, thanks for sharing OP

 

[Mr Moose]

Didn't bother watching the video? The guy states clearly in the first few minutes that the objective isn't to compare consoles and PCs but to compare the GPU performance of the card closest to the PS5. He even has a 5600X, a significantly faster CPU than what the PS5 has, to avoid CPU bottlenecks in addition to locking the clocks of the 6700 to closely match the PS5. He also has the price of the entire PC listed at 650 pounds.

That's the part I think makes this a bit pointless for me. Does the PS5 not have CPU bottlenecks? Also compared a BC game (God of War).

Their PC also costs a bit more than £650, it's missing a case, storage and PSU.

https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mDN7mr

 

[DenchDeckard]

First problem.

VS

This is dishonest. You can do the same with consoles. Epic has a small part of the PC market. That you did use their offer does not mean that it is admissible as a PC advantage.

This is a true advantage of PC. But it does not depend of the hardware. A shit PC from 2010 can do it too.
I do not disagree with both of you. But PC and console are there for different reasons. Consoles are there for gaming first and offer a great deal of fun and are easy to use and cheap compared to most PC that are comparable to them. It is true that since the PS4 generation, the consoles are getting closer to PCs and losing some of their advantages. But you have to understand that what you do with your console and PC is not what everybody is doing with it. A lot of people buy a console for playing a few games like GTA, FIFA... games that are sometimes better on consoles. And do not play as much as you do. A lot of people do not use their PCs to play at all too. That is why people often said that this is different market for different people. If your profile is more of a PC type of gamer, good for you. I found myself more into Sony games in the AAA space. And the PS5 is one of the cheapest way to play next gen AAA games. My PC is mostly for gaming, but I use it for indies like FTL, The binding of Isaac, Hades, Rogue Legacy 2, Vampire Survivors... Once again, different people, different uses and opinion. PC is great for gaming. But a console is rally cheap and offer exclusives that make it worth it too. That is why I use both, but more my PS5.

All fair points that's why I buy everything. I was just trying to combat the points out forward on why someone may choose a pc and the reality of the cost differences. I think at the end of a generation if you added it up it wouldn't be too far off and you also have a work station. A streaming station and much more. Also like I touched on, the ability to upgrade once you have the key components is invaluable.

To be clear. I have my ps5, my series x, switch, steam deck and pc as I see the benefits of them all.

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

Didn't bother watching the video? The guy states clearly in the first few minutes that the objective isn't to compare consoles and PCs but to compare the GPU performance of the card closest to the PS5. He even has a 5600X, a significantly faster CPU than what the PS5 has, to avoid CPU bottlenecks in addition to locking the clocks of the 6700 to closely match the PS5. He also has the price of the entire PC listed at 650 pounds.

Instead of getting offended and feeling attacked your system is being dragged in the mud, watch the video. It would avoid making silly comments like these that were already answered. Of course, the console provides better value. There's a giant multi-billion company backing it that order parts in the millions in terms of volume and they're in a partnership with the manufacturers and as such, get their parts at a reduced cost compared to customers. Furthermore, having a console as expensive as a PC for the same performance would enormously reduce the appeal of the console so that's completely normal.

The video is purely academic. Comment on the methodology and results instead of getting mad over a non-issue that's been clearly addressed.

Have no issue with the video whatsoever. Actuayikedit, albeit its not saying anything I don't already know.

If you notice, I responded to a specific type of comment. One that made this about PC vs console.

This argument seems to really bother you but it's the truth, you can't just deny pc like you are trying to do.

OK so I buy a 499 ps5 or xbox series x knowing that they are subsidised in some way. You know fine well that most ps5 owners on this site have purcahsed an extra ssd. Extra cost. You ain't the same experience as pc, you are paying a yearly fee for for your online gaming. You are also paying 70 dollars a game on launch day.

Pc you buy an 999 pc now if you shop around or build it yourself your going to get a pretty damn decent pc that's going to easily perform as well as the current consoles, If games are developed properly.

Or you can shop on a sale and get something like this in the UK

Yes this argument does bother me. Cause I see it too often. I have an over $2K PC, a PS5 and a switch. You don't see going around telling anyone that this platform is better than that one because as far as I am concerned, they all cater to different markets or use-case scenarios. This is the reason why they can all co-exist.

But why this really gets to me, is that I like threads like these, something that s a flat-out academic comparison in what kinda hardware are in these consoles and their equivalent PC hardware. But instead, they always become yet another console vs PC nonsense and it's always started by our fine nice PC folk. Every single time.

 

[rofif]

I dont trust the fps numbers anymore. I have been doing my own comparison with Jedi Fallen Order. I started to play it in anticipation of the sequel on my pc 3070ti ryzen 7700x and noticed alot of stutters and micro freezing. I tried so many settings but it still does it (I read online it is a unreal4 assest streaming thing) but then I tried it on my PS5 performance mode and was very surprised it just felt better in the same locations.

Yeah that’s because directx sucks assss

 

[DenchDeckard]

Have no issue with the video whatsoever. Actuayikedit, albeit its not saying anything I don't already know.

If you notice, I responded to a specific type of comment. One that made this about PC vs console.

Yes this argument does bother me. Cause I see it too often. I have an over $2K PC, a PS5 and a switch. You don't see going around telling anyone that this platform is better than that one because as far as I am concerned, they all cater to different markets or use-case scenarios. This is the reason why they can all co-exist.

But why this really gets to me, is that I like threads like these, something that s a flat-out academic comparison in what kinda hardware are in these consoles and their equivalent PC hardware. But instead, they always become yet another console vs PC nonsense and it's always started by our fine nice PC folk. Every single time.

Fair play dude. I completely agree with you on that point. I will always buy everything and I see the benefits of owning them all.

I love a good console!

 

[yamaci17]

it was 2 gb gtx 770/750ti + eueqivalent amd cards that made most people think console had magic. most of those gpus were under immense vram pressure and lost a lot of average fps.

Yeah, the magic console optimization is not as magic as some believe, it's not like can they pull 30% to 50% more performance out of nowhere LOL and on PC devs can do great optimizations too, not even counting on brute force. I remember playing Doom 2016 on a Ryzen 2200g with its Vegas 8 GPU at around 45-60 fps Medium-High settings at 720p. That GPU is like 25% less powerful than Xbox One so it scaled more linear than expected.

its usually the other way around that console people abused for years

most ps4 equivalent gpus had 2 gb vram, and most of them were crushed under vram pressure after 2017, often losing %30-80 performance depending on the title. this is proveable in ertain gpus that had both 2 gb and 4 gb variants(such as 960). they naturally take such situations as "console punching above its weight!11"

same now kind of happens with 6-8 gig gpus. thankfully we have 12 gb rx 6700 that will shut down any absurd claim that console punches %50 above its weight until the end of the generation thanks to it being literally the same rdna2 gpu found on the consoles

there are tens if not hundreds people here who abused the vram pressurized gtx 770/960/hd7790/hd 7870/hd 7850's performance to prove their non sensical "magical optimization" claims. even if you present them where a 4 tflops 4 gb gpu pushes almost exactly 2x fps over a ps4 with similar architecture, they will deny it and instead will focus on the 2 gig gpus instead. I'm sure they will do the same with 2070s/3070s. but what can I say, DF kept parroting about 750ti, now they parroted about how console is a 2070 for years ,naturally people will focus on 2070, and the damn gpu is already vram pressurized and drops frames. you can literally show people how 3060 passes or ties 3070 in vram pressurized scenarios and situations (such as spiderman at 4k/dlss with rt enabled), they will still instead look at the situation from "ps5 annihilates 2070 and performs like a 3070!1 3060 is irrevelant!!1"

sad state of affairs.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Yeah that’s because directx sucks assss

I love how you blame direct x and not unreal engine four or it's developers lmao...

Man,..cmonc...don't talk about things you are clueless about.

 

[rofif]

I love how you blame direct x and not unreal engine four or it's developers lmao...

Man,..cmonc...don't talk about things you are clueless about.

You got the same games on ps5 and on xbox and they can stutter on xbox because directx.
Directx is only part of the problem. There are also lazy devs, Unreal Engine crap and so on. Pc gaming sucks for many reasons

 

[Buggy Loop]

It's useless to use these comparison.

It depends on how much devs can extract from each system. Pc suffers badly, because devs don't utilize them very well.

That happens on consoles right now too

Media is just focusing on PC but do you really think consoles are that shiny?

Dead Space had image degradation issues on PS5, Resident Evil 4 Remake had image quality issues on PS5, Jedi Survivor runs AWFUL on consoles right now, and Redfall looks AWFUL on Xbox Series X (with traversal stutters, a 30fps lock and major bugs).

When the fundamentals of the engine has issues and devs are incompetent and don’t know what they are doing



Then it’s not about devs not utilizing PC very well, it’s about publishers/developers giving the port to an intern with no peer review from a senior to push code forward. It showcases they have no fucking clue what they are doing. It’s also leaking to consoles.

But

There’s also many many good ports thankfully. So mid range GPU should be ok for console parity.

 

[Buggy Loop]

You got the same games on ps5 and on xbox and they can stutter on xbox because directx.
Directx is only part of the problem. There are also lazy devs, Unreal Engine crap and so on. Pc gaming sucks for many reasons

It stutters on PS5 too

I swear, most console users must be oblivious to performances when you remove them the frame time graphs available on PC

 

[rofif]

It stutters on PS5 too

I swear, most console users must be oblivious to performances when you remove them the frame time graphs available on PC

I wasn't talking about this game. I know nothing about jedi crap. i dont play star wars games.
I think Dead Space stuttered more on xbox and few other games when I was watching DF videos.

Don't pull my tongue. who gives a crap

 

[Buggy Loop]

I wasn't talking about this game. I know nothing about jedi crap. i dont play star wars games.
I think Dead Space stuttered more on xbox and few other games when I was watching DF videos.

Don't pull my tongue. who gives a crap

You replied to someone playing fallen order on consoles and you went for directX..

Did you take your coffee?

 

[rofif]

You replied to someone playing fallen order on consoles and you went for directX..

Did you take your coffee?

ah maybe. I already forgot.
But yeah, fallen order stutters on ps5 too? I thought the new game stutters

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

It stutters on PS5 too

I swear, most console users must be oblivious to performances when you remove them the frame time graphs available on PC

Why must this become a console vs PC thing?

I think the basis of any technical discussion should be facts. If you want to take about stuff stuttering or whatever, here are the facts. 9/10 times, a game across all platforms runs better on consoles. That is not the same as saying you can get better overall performance/features on consoles, that is saying they just run better. Why? There can be 20 different reasons, but I am going to just pick one.... easier to optimize on consoles. This doesn't just mean it's easier to build a very specific platform profile, it's also easier to fix bugs.

Now wouldn't it be better we are talking about why that is the case, or what can or should be done, than to be taking jabs at the other platform because you don't use it?

 

[Buggy Loop]

Why must this become a console vs PC thing?

I think the basis of any technical discussion should be facts. If you want to take about stuff stuttering or whatever, here are the facts. 9/10 times, a game across all platforms runs better on consoles. That is not the same as saying you can get better overall performance/features on consoles, that is saying they just run better. Why? There can be 20 different reasons, but I am going to just pick one.... easier to optimize on consoles. This doesn't just mean it's easier to build a very specific platform profile, it's also easier to fix bugs.

Now wouldn't it be better we are talking about why that is the case, or what can or should be done, than to be taking jabs at the other platform because you don't use it?

I don’t agree with your « facts » that 9/10 are bad

Like I have other things to do for a good part of the day, but you’re full of it.

Surely, don’t go into console vs PC warring, and then you bring things like this in the conversation, lol

 

[ChiefDada]

I actually think most PC versions perform around the same than consoles given similar PC specs, as the video show.

Actually, PCs with similar GPU than consoles will most probably perform better due to better CPU, most gaming PCs have better CPU, it's one of the cheapest parts to get better than consoles, curreny any mid range CPU (Ryzen 5 and i5) is way above consoles CPU.

But yeah, some PC stinkers can give the wrong idea of consoles "punching above their weights" more than they actually do...

This video actually disproves what you're saying. The guy is running the game vsync and is apparently unaware that the PS5 can run games like Spiderman, Uncharted, and TLOU Remake uncapped. His results across these games suggests PS5 is actually outperforming the 6700 anywhere from 33-50% faster. Even though his methodology is off, causing him to misinterpret the results, I HIGHLY commend him for selecting a the closest possible GPU to compare to the console. Something DF and NX should be doing in their analysis.

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

I don’t agree with your « facts » that 9/10 are bad

Like I have other things to do for a good part of the day, but you’re full of it.

Surely, don’t go into console vs PC warring, and then you bring things like this in the conversation, lol

Maybe because you only work or see in extremes or argue in bad faith? Why else would you take what I said and put in the word bad.

I never said bad....

I said run better. And even went as far as elaborate on exactly what I meant by run better. And I am not bringing anything into any conversation.... simply addressing an ongoing topic in this thread that I personally feis just derailing the thread.

And hey, its o to not agree with what I said, but I think you would be fighting a losing battle if trying to make an argument that the majority of multiplatform games are not better optimize on consoles.

This time boded what I actually said so you won't try and misconstrue my words again.

 

[Fabieter]

it was 2 gb gtx 770/750ti + eueqivalent amd cards that made most people think console had magic. most of those gpus were under immense vram pressure and lost a lot of average fps.

its usually the other way around that console people abused for years

most ps4 equivalent gpus had 2 gb vram, and most of them were crushed under vram pressure after 2017, often losing %30-80 performance depending on the title. this is proveable in ertain gpus that had both 2 gb and 4 gb variants(such as 960). they naturally take such situations as "console punching above its weight!11"

same now kind of happens with 6-8 gig gpus. thankfully we have 12 gb rx 6700 that will shut down any absurd claim that console punches %50 above its weight until the end of the generation thanks to it being literally the same rdna2 gpu found on the consoles

there are tens if not hundreds people here who abused the vram pressurized gtx 770/960/hd7790/hd 7870/hd 7850's performance to prove their non sensical "magical optimization" claims. even if you present them where a 4 tflops 4 gb gpu pushes almost exactly 2x fps over a ps4 with similar architecture, they will deny it and instead will focus on the 2 gig gpus instead. I'm sure they will do the same with 2070s/3070s. but what can I say, DF kept parroting about 750ti, now they parroted about how console is a 2070 for years ,naturally people will focus on 2070, and the damn gpu is already vram pressurized and drops frames. you can literally show people how 3060 passes or ties 3070 in vram pressurized scenarios and situations (such as spiderman at 4k/dlss with rt enabled), they will still instead look at the situation from "ps5 annihilates 2070 and performs like a 3070!1 3060 is irrevelant!!1"

sad state of affairs.

Well I dont know about amd but there were reports were nivida did manipulate the performance of their older cards to make their newer cards look better. You have to keep in mind that on pc alot of optimization is done through gpu driver and those guys want to sell new gpus while console tech teams doing api optimizations throughout the gen. So to say punch above its weight isn't there is just wrong, the ammount tho is debatable.

 

[yamaci17]

Well I dont know about amd but there were reports were nivida did manipulate the performance of their older cards to make their newer cards look better. You have to keep in mind that on pc alot of optimization is done through gpu driver and those guys want to sell new gpus while console tech teams doing api optimizations throughout the gen. So to say punch above its weight isn't there is just wrong, the ammount tho is debatable.

kepler was rigged from the get go, not later on.

1) kepler needed specific codepath optimizations to get the best performanceo out of them
2) kepler was gimped for dx12, no proper support, only compatible with it. most dx12 features actively hurt kepler performance

the days where gpus needed driver optimizations to perform well is over. dx12 is a different beast, its now up to devs to code for architectures instead of the other way around. this is why Pascal, still after 7 years, is performant. this is why a 1080ti still can beat a brand new 3060 even in recent titles, because devs cant simply choose to ignore them. they must actively test their game so that pascal is performant for their title. this is why even in 2022, games like spiderman runs perfect on Pascal

1) it has proper dx12 capabilities
2) it does not need or depend on code optimizations from NV

the card just works. same for turing and ampere. its been 5 years since turing released, and 2080ti still performs the same or sometimes outperforms 3070 (due to vram problems sometimes but generally they're on par). same goes for other cards in the stack.

so days of kepler/fermi and where NVIDIA had full control over how their card going to perform are over. it had to be over; dx12 is not built like that. nvidia probably had to design their cards so that they are not strangled by specific driver codepaths. this shows. it is best for business interests, as a myriad of Pascal users are what drives AAA game sales on Steam. without famous 1060s 2060s and 3060s performing as expected, the game sales would be jank (as if they're not already) outside of popular multiplayer titles.

turing and ampere is even two three step further than pascal, they're actually futureproofed as long as you have enough vram with extra dx12.2 capabilities that are yet to be explored.

practically, a 12 gb 3060 is the exact opposite of what a 2 gb gtx 770 was. one was gimped from the start, never intended for future console ports (dx 12), and equipped with hilarious vram. the other is equipped with features that future console ports will use (dx12.2), and equiped with plenty of VRAM.

cards like 3060ti/2070 at 1080p will be okay. but 3070 is already gaining so much attention, 8 gb being problematic at 1440p target.

another perspective if you're not convinced: it took only 2-2.5 years for a gxt 970 to decimate a 780ti. a gtx 970 was supposed to be between a 780 and 780ti, but situation went so sour that it ended up destroying it certain dx12 titles and even in some dx11.1 titles (because kepler was so gimped that they literally did not even support dx11.1 features).

if such a thing were to happen in an era where PC gaming is much more popular and cards like 1060 and 2060 are populating steam surveys, it would be a PR nightmare+disaster. it simply cant happen anymore. PC gaming got too big for any dev or NVIDIA to purposefully gimp the performance of cards. its not even beneficial for any parties involved.

 

[Fabieter]

kepler was rigged from the get go, not later on.

1) kepler needed specific codepath optimizations to get the best performanceo out of them
2) kepler was gimped for dx12, no proper support, only compatible with it. most dx12 features actively hurt kepler performance

the days where gpus needed driver optimizations to perform well is over. dx12 is a different beast, its now up to devs to code for architectures instead of the other way around. this is why Pascal, still after 7 years, is performant. this is why a 1080ti still can beat a brand new 3060 even in recent titles, because devs cant simply choose to ignore them. they must actively test their game so that pascal is performant for their title. this is why even in 2022, games like spiderman runs perfect on Pascal

1) it has proper dx12 capabilities
2) it does not need or depend on code optimizations from NV

the card just works. same for turing and ampere. its been 5 years since turing released, and 2080ti still performs the same or sometimes outperforms 3070 (due to vram problems sometimes but generally they're on par). same goes for other cards in the stack.

so days of kepler/fermi and where NVIDIA had full control over how their card going to perform are over. it had to be over; dx12 is not built like that. nvidia probably had to design their cards so that they are not strangled by specific driver codepaths. this shows. it is best for business interests, as a myriad of Pascal users are what drives AAA game sales on Steam. without famous 1060s 2060s and 3060s performing as expected, the game sales would be jank (as if they're not already) outside of popular multiplayer titles.

turing and ampere is even two three step further than pascal, they're actually futureproofed as long as you have enough vram with extra dx12.2 capabilities that are yet to be explored.

practically, a 12 gb 3060 is the exact opposite of what a 2 gb gtx 770 was. one was gimped from the start, never intended for future console ports (dx 12), and equipped with hilarious vram. the other is equipped with features that future console ports will use (dx12.2), and equiped with plenty of VRAM.

cards like 3060ti/2070 at 1080p will be okay. but 3070 is already gaining so much attention, 8 gb being problematic at 1440p target.

another perspective if you're not convinced: it took only 2-2.5 years for a gxt 970 to decimate a 780ti. a gtx 970 was supposed to be between a 780 and 780ti, but situation went so sour that it ended up destroying it certain dx12 titles and even in some dx11.1 titles (because kepler was so gimped that they literally did not even support dx11.1 features).

if such a thing were to happen in an era where PC gaming is much more popular and cards like 1060 and 2060 are populating steam surveys, it would be a PR nightmare+disaster. it simply cant happen anymore. PC gaming got too big for any dev or NVIDIA to purposefully gimp the performance of cards. its not even beneficial for any parties involved.

Oh okay, alot of my knowledge is ancient it seems.

Well we will have a nice proving point starting this gen how much a console can punch above its weight with sony releasing all games on pc. Where do you think it will land?

 

[hlm666]

Oh okay, alot of my knowledge is ancient it seems.

Well we will have a nice proving point starting this gen how much a console can punch above its weight with sony releasing all games on pc. Where do you think it will land?

does it matter, it will just come down to arguments for and against using an acceptable sony port like say returnal vs and unacceptable one like tlou and round and round in circles it will go.

 

[yamaci17]

Oh okay, alot of my knowledge is ancient it seems.

Well we will have a nice proving point starting this gen how much a console can punch above its weight with sony releasing all games on pc. Where do you think it will land?

i'd say %25-30 tops

its also important that they release console equivalent settings under a preset like they did with god of war / horizon zero dawn. but they did not do that for last of us remake. a lot of medium high and ultra settings are super similar to each other while having performance costs. this makes it very hard to properly compare hardware...

more problematic part is the CPU side of things. that's where consoles can actually do punch waay above their weight. and that's a big problem too, because if your CPU cannot feed your GPU as well as a PSS feeds its GPU, then you will still have perf. problems

a 6700xt can match or barely outperform a ps5 in last of us remake, but unless you have a 5800x as a minimum, you won't be able to get a 60 FPS average across the game, and funny thing is, game will stil drop to 50s with that beast of a CPU whereas ps5 simply has a puny zen 2 cpu with 8 mb cache clocked at 3.6 GHz. now mind you, it is said that they use CPU decompression where they rely on hardware compression on the PS5 hardware, but that's a problem PCs will have to solve. directstorage can help with that, but that will have its own toll on GPU if you use it for decompression on the fly. we don't know how much that cost can be yet. Forspoken only utilizes GPU decompression for loading/level loading/fast travel. it does not do much of a decompression while actually playing the game

even without any compression problems; PCs still have more overhead with CPU sides of things.

 

[Fabieter]

i'd say %25-30 tops

its also important that they release console equivalent settings under a preset like they did with god of war / horizon zero dawn. but they did not do that for last of us remake. a lot of medium high and ultra settings are super similar to each other while having performance costs. this makes it very hard to properly compare hardware...

more problematic part is the CPU side of things. that's where consoles can actually do punch waay above their weight. and that's a big problem too, because if your CPU cannot feed your GPU as well as a PSS feeds its GPU, then you will still have perf. problems

a 6700xt can match or barely outperform a ps5 in last of us remake, but unless you have a 5800x as a minimum, you won't be able to get a 60 FPS average across the game, and funny thing is, game will stil drop to 50s with that beast of a CPU whereas ps5 simply has a puny zen 2 cpu with 8 mb cache clocked at 3.6 GHz. now mind you, it is said that they use CPU decompression where they rely on hardware compression on the PS5 hardware, but that's a problem PCs will have to solve. directstorage can help with that, but that will have its own toll on GPU if you use it for decompression on the fly. we don't know how much that cost can be yet. Forspoken only utilizes GPU decompression for loading/level loading/fast travel. it does not do much of a decompression while actually playing the game

even without any compression problems; PCs still have more overhead with CPU sides of things.

Yea its generally pretty hard to compare I agree. Different engines, games do different things that perform differently across different cpus, gpus and platforms in general. So no comparison is absolut.