PS4 performance on a ~£300 PC. Can it be done? (spoiler: yes)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't understand why we can't talk about PS4's exclusives here.

A difference of performance between exclusive and multiplatform games exist on the platform, this fact already proves the benefits of developing around one platform architecture (PS4's exclusives) over multiplatform development.

This is in fact the real argument to have here (the effect of simultaneously developing for multiple platforms while talking about performance), because it is the main difference between PS4 and PCs.
 
I can do my taxes on my pc how much do I have to pay for a ps4 where I can do that?

tumblr_nl42avcZU21uq52j7o1_400.gif
 
As someone with a modest PC, I stil like it. (AMD Phenom X4 955, 8GB DDR2, AMD 7770 1GB, 128 SSD for OS, 1TB HDD for games)
The CPU is from 2009 and the GPU is a 100$ one from 2012. Only have problems with BF4 really. Titanfall, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, FC3 even Shadow of Mordor runs great. Older stuff like TF2, LoL, Skyrim, GW2, Bioshock runs amazeing

PS4 can probably get me better graphics, but I dont feel like there are any must play games on it yet that I cant get on PC or PS3 (that I already have.)

What I really like is the sales(Steam, Origin GoG), and the fact that I can build a brand new PC and 99% of the games I have will still work. Only one I cant get running on Windows 8.1 is Homeworld 2, thats it.

PSN is also having real good sales on PS3 games so Ill keep that for a good long while.
 
The purpose is as clear as day on a forum where consoles are constantly downplayed, PC parts picker lists showing how inexpensive you can build a PC for are constantly displayed, as well as charts showing how PS4 compares to $100 GPUs. Oh, and of course there's the "no games" argument, because multiplatform games don't count. No reason to buy one! Many times have we seen that?

This is just another in a long line of been there seen that on GAF. Perhaps if weren't so inundated with all the other shit this article could be seen differently, but in the GAF climate no, it serves a purpose.

You're on a forum and in a thread that is filled to the brim with inane dribble from the console crowd but PCGAF is stifling reasonable discussion?
 
Please people, if you plan on building a PC for gaming etc, PLEASE don't use a PSU that comes free with a £40 PC case - the PSU of a gaming PC is the last thing you want to cheap out on.

I do agree with some of the posts pointing out to the lack of a Blu-ray drive, if they are going to compare the PC to the PS4, then they need to have included this.

Building a PC is IMO a good thing to do if you like gaming, but just don't cheap out on things that may seem trivial - eg: no cheap power supplies.
 
I don't understand why we can't talk about PS4's exclusives here.

A difference of performance between exclusive and multiplatform games exist on the platform, this fact already proves the benefits of developing around one platform architecture (PS4's exclusives) over multiplatform development.

This is in fact the real argument to have here (the effect of simultaneously developing for multiple platforms while talking about performance), because it is the main difference between PS4 and PCs.
No, it doesnt exist. The most technologically high end titles on past gens are multiplatforms.

-----
Yeah, things relevant for You exist in every household, things relevant to PC gaming exist only in selected ones ...
PC can't be operated with purely a gamepad. You also need a PC compatible.
Who actually has an extra Windows install lying around the house? 90%? Really dude? You have to be joking.
PC compatible? What? I'm using Sixaxis on my PC for years!
Tons of people have lying around Win7, after they upgrade to 8 or bought some laptop with it. With free update to 10 it will be even easier to get.
 
Nobody would use a PC for Blu Rays because it is not exactly streamlined at all. It requires pay ware (although usually bundled with the drive) to play them too.
The PS3 or dedicated Blu Ray player are still the best options.
 
You're on a forum and in a thread that is filled to the brim with inane dribble from the console crowd but PCGAF is stifling reasonable discussion?
Inane dribble from the console crowd. Wow... Okay. More ridiculous bias clearing clouding your judgement please
 
The point wasn't which system can do more, but to create a PC that has the same performance as a PS4 for ~£300. Can it be done? (spoiler: no)

watching blu rays is a non gaming related feature and so is me doing my taxes so I thought I might as well bring that up
 

Isn't the PC in the OP running MGS: Ground Zeroes? I say that was fairly impressive myself.

Then again tinkering with PC stuff all the time. My perspective is skewered.

But I digress. I have become increasingly indifferent to performance metrics. I just like playing games.
 
I don't understand why we can't talk about PS4's exclusives here.

A difference of performance between exclusive and multiplatform games exist on the platform, this fact already proves the benefits of developing around one platform architecture (PS4's exclusives) over multiplatform development.

This is in fact the real argument to have here (the effect of simultaneously developing for multiple platforms while talking about performance), because it is the main difference between PS4 and PCs.

You can't know how much difference there is between games on a single platform and games on multiple platforms because there isn't anything you can compare the games on a single platform to.

You say that they perform better, but compared to what? Do you know whether they would perform less if it was released on multiple platforms? Would Bloodborne look worse if it would also have released on PC and Xbox One? I doubt so.

The big exclusive games are ones that have more effort put into them. Considering they are usually first party studios they might have bigger budgets, get more time and more help from the company that creates the hardware. It doesn't have to be that there is a sudden performance difference because you are targeting one platform instead of multiple platforms.
 
Minimum System Requirements

Intel CPU Core i5-2500K 3.3GHz

AMD CPU Phenom II X4 940

Nvidia GPU GeForce GTX 660

AMD GPU Radeon HD 7870

RAM 6GB



How?

Why not, it's not going to stop you playing with 4GB ram installed, it'll likely not have any issue with RAM.

As for the CPU, compare a Haswell i3 against a Phenom X4 and come back.

GPU is the only real setback but I can imagine it running 720p at low settings.
 
This is off-topic, but since some of the PC-only crowd seem to be congregating here I have a question: how is the current state of laptop gaming? Are you still locked into the hardware you originally purchased (save for RAM) or has future proofing been improved?

It's really going to depend on the laptop you buy and how savvy you are with the pieces. You can buy mobile parts for the most part and put them in your laptop if you're willing to open it all up and the laptop itself doesn't have the pieces soldered in. A GPU I'm not sure about. From what I understand, it's difficult to buy mobile GPUs as a consumer. But there are a lot of other factors to consider, like how new parts are going to affect the heat and power usage of your laptop. It's probably not worth it, honestly.

The idea of a gaming laptop I think is very similar to why people get consoles over desktops: there's a particular set of features you want, so you buy the hardware that matches that.
 
Yeah, things relevant for You exist in every household, things relevant to PC gaming exist only in selected ones ...
The stupidity ensues

How many people do you know who don't have some sort of compatible TV in their household?

Now, compare that to the fact that everything you listed off has to be removed from their current role to dedicate to the PC, when console are designed so you don't do that. How many people have an extra windows copy, mouse, keyboard, or TV lying around just to dedicate to it?

Your bias is so sickenly strong it's making a fool of yourself

Do I need to quote some posts from the first few pages?
Do I need to post some posts from this page alone?

All the fanboys are wearing their bias on their sleeves. You're just deluded enough to pretend your bias is somehow exempt from their statements. Quoting posts from well before don't make other posts disappear
 
The stupidity ensues

How many people do you know who don't have some sort of compatible TV in their household?

Now, compare that to the fact that everything you listed off has to be removed from their current role to dedicate to the PC, when console are designed so you don't do that. How many people have an extra windows copy, mouse, keyboard, or TV lying around just to dedicate to it?

Your bias is so sickenly strong it's making a fool of yourself

Why do you keep saying extra TV? Do you have a TV for each device? You know most TVs accept 4 inputs?

You only need a KM to setup, from there use a 360 pad or DS3, or hell even a Wii mote. I'm sure 90% of Gaf has one of those.

We've already shown windows can be had for $15.
 
Some console fans are the equivalent of car fans who insist that their stock Ford Mustang is definitely faster than someone else's Bugatti Veyron. They're just not comfortable accepting that their platform of choice is in a lower tier.

Or we just feel we don't need a Bugatti to commute to work everyday, our Mustang gets the job done just fine. Besides, there's no raceways to take advantage of all that extra horsepower.
 
Wow miracle. You can build a pc without a blu ray disc drive a year later that is close to the ps4 performance.
 
Or we just feel we don't need a Bugatti to commute to work everyday, our Mustang gets the job done just fine. Besides, there's no raceways to take advantage of all that extra horsepower.

4K/1440p and high-framerates are pretty mind blowing.

Keep in mind we've been playing at 1080p since 2008/2009, some even earlier than that. Things that may impress you, have become increasingly antiquated.

I haven't tried it, but VR gaming is another option for those looking for new experiences. Sony does have Morpheus, but the PS4 doesn't have the power to push mainstream titles in VR.
 
Minimum System Requirements

Intel CPU Core i5-2500K 3.3GHz

AMD CPU Phenom II X4 940

Nvidia GPU GeForce GTX 660

AMD GPU Radeon HD 7870

RAM 6GB



How?

I mean what devs claim to be minimum requirements and what they actually end up being in real life are two different things. The setup in the OP is overclocked for one thing. There's really no way of telling whether it'll run (and it wildly depends on the definition of that) before the actual game is out. So I guess the correct answer is "we'll see soon enough".

4K/1440p and high-framerates are pretty mind blowing.

Keep in mind we've been playing at 1080p since 2008/2009, some even earlier than that. Things that may impress you, feel antiquated.

21:9 aspect ratio is another example how that extra power on PC could be utilized.
 
No, it doesnt exist. The most technologically high end titles on past gens are multiplatforms.

He said "on the plattform".
Not entirely sure what you mean by "technologically advanced" but the best looking games on console have usually been exclusives and not multiplats.
Especially last gen we saw a pretty significant visual gap between exclusives and multiplats.
This trend is continuing this gen.
I haven't been impressed by any multiplat game this gen(except maybe Ryse, but at the time it was still an exclusive). Exclusives on the other hand have done a pretty good job so far.
I'd argue that the visual gap between multipats and exclusives this gen is bigger than it has ever been in previous gens.
 
No, it doesnt exist. The most technologically high end titles on past gens are multiplatforms.

/dead

Technologically high end, the fuck is this?

Seriously, compare KZ2 from 2009 with any other FPS on PS3, Uncharted 2 or The Last of Us to any other adventure/action games... Gran Turismo... even on 360 most exclusives perform and look better than their multiplatform counterparts.

And then you can look at the XBO/PS4 situation where games like Ryse (at first developed around X1 architecture), KZ:SF, Infamous:SS, DriveClub or even The Order looks a generation ahead of everything else on those platforms.

You know even without any proof it is totally logical just when talking about time/money that developing for only one platform is more efficient. Even when we exclude hardware from the conversation. You will potentially achieve more with less when developing just for one platform at a time.
 
Why do you keep saying extra TV? Do you have a TV for each device? You know most TVs accept 4 inputs?

You only need a KM to setup, from there use a 360 pad or DS3, or hell even a Wii mote. I'm sure 90% of Gaf has one of those.

We've already shown windows can be had for $15.
Find me someone who, upon buying their first desktop PC, would want to dedicate it to a TV input in the same way they do to a console. A different screen is required. Already having a TV doesn't work like it does for a console.

KM is not likely at all? And gamepads are common on GAF but not people in general

It doesn't matter what prices you put in them atm when the argument is over whether they should be considered part of the
 
Or we just feel we don't need a Bugatti to commute to work everyday, our Mustang gets the job done just fine. Besides, there's no raceways to take advantage of all that extra horsepower.

There was literally a thread a couple of days back about gta v running at 4k and 60fps.
 
Threads like this really bring out the worst of many posters on NeoGaf....

unfortunately they do...

with that said, are there any PC games that look as good as

The Order
Driveclub
MLB The Show 15?

I mean it's obvious that these games won't be on PC anytime soon...but tech wise, are there PC games in those genres that we can test on these PC console machines?
 
The point wasn't which system can do more, but to create a PC that has the same performance as a PS4 for ~£300. Can it be done? (spoiler: no)

Seems it has the same performance to me, even when they don't have the same features. Performance in gaming is usually talking about how well it runs games. And even in the article itself it is only talking about graphical performance in games.

It is very clear what the article is talking about.
 
Consoles beeing used more effectively the more experience developers have with it.
I don't see the same development on a random PC rig.

There is no Cell, Xenos, or PowerPC's being used on this consoles you have a common x86 Bulldozer PC's on this consoles there no iceberg to discover or multiple SPU to learn how do they work.

You wont see the same jump on quality as the past gen.
 
4K/1440p and high-framerates are pretty mind blowing.

Keep in mind we've been playing at 1080p since 2008/2009, some even earlier than that. Things that may impress you, have become increasingly antiquated.

Maybe in that case we should focus on the games and not the technical facts. Everyone is impressed by different things. For some it is graphical findelity, others like novely indie games, other like to have the fastes pc components available and some people get their "highs" in retro gaming and gunting antiques. To each its own.

I really dont see a point in getting rilled up over a an article like that. Well i do see the point ...... i made a similar post a few minutes ago.....but come on people. No ones gains anything if we get all "emotional" in here :)
 
I agree....not our proudest moments.
To be honest, both sides are in fault here. I'm mostly a console gamer but I'll try my best to summarize what's going on in this thread. The problem with PC gamers is that they sometimes sound like they're trying to make everyone turn into PC gamers and tend to downplay the advantages of consoles. On the other hand, PS4 gamers claim that PS4 exclusives will never make it to PC and tend to downplay advantages of PC, albeit to a lesser degree. I understand it when people say a GTX 750 Ti will not run Driveclub and The Order as well as the PS4 and they're right, but why say ridiculous things like "it will never be on PC"? Anyway, both sides are pretty embarrassing in this thread.
 
He said "on the plattform".
Not entirely sure what you mean by "technologically advanced" but the best looking games on console have usually been exclusives and not multiplats.
Especially last gen we saw a pretty significant visual gap between exclusives and multiplats.
No, we didnt. We saw better art to tech ratio/balance in exclusives.

---
/dead

Technologically high end, the fuck is this?

Seriously, compare KZ2 from 2009 with any other FPS on PS3, Uncharted 2 or The Last of Us to any other adventure/action games... Gran Turismo... even on 360 most exclusives perform and look better than their multiplatform counterparts.

And then you can look at the XBO/PS4 situation where games like Ryse (at first developed around X1 architecture), KZ:SF, Infamous:SS, DriveClub or even The Order looks a generation ahead of everything else on those platforms.

You know even without any proof it is totally logical just when talking about time/money that developing for only one platform is more efficient. Even when we exclude hardware from the conversation. You will potentially achieve more with less when developing just for one platform at a time.

Ryse runs better on comparable PC hardware than on Xbone.

Technologically high end, means pushing the most tech features (graphics or physics) within the game. Like for example particles casting shadows and being lit by all sources in Battlefield 3 and 4, which any PS3 exclusive hasnt done, like having proper Bokeh DoF in Crysis 2 and 3, which any PS3 exclusive hasnt done etc.
 
with that said, are there any PC games that look as good as

The Order
Driveclub
MLB The Show 15?

I mean it's obvious that these games won't be on PC anytime soon...but tech wise, are there PC games in those genres that we can test on these PC console machines?

How would that ever work? The article is only interesting because they try to compare same games running on similiar settings.
 
Visuals are subjective. Performance and technology utilized by the hardware is not.

Ryse can run on a rig like the one in the article at settings equivalent to or greater than on X1. Any "graphical boost" Ryse got on X1 for being an exclusive is apparently not there when you directly compare to how it runs on a similar-spec'd PC. We have no performance comparisons for titles that don't have a PC version.
 
Minimum System Requirements

Intel CPU Core i5-2500K 3.3GHz

AMD CPU Phenom II X4 940

Nvidia GPU GeForce GTX 660

AMD GPU Radeon HD 7870

RAM 6GB



How?

So from what I can tell the CPU is the only point of contention - however I thought this was odd, since the Phenom II X4 940 is a lot worse than the i5-2500k. Hardly a good comparison but CPUbenchmark indicated that the 2 processor choices in the OP are indeed better than the Phenom II X4 940, but worse than the i5-2500k. Not to mention on top of that, the OP config has the processor overclocked

It should still run fine. The 750ti is competitive with the 660, it has 8gb ram as well, so no problems there. Furthermore though, using a very low end laptop currently - minimum specs are often wrong. My laptop is far below the minimum spec for both Wolfenstein, MGSV GZ, and runs them both above the lowest settings and at stable framerates above 30fps
 
/dead

Technologically high end, the fuck is this?

Seriously, compare KZ2 from 2009 with any other FPS on PS3, Uncharted 2 or The Last of Us to any other adventure/action games... Gran Turismo... even on 360 most exclusives perform and look better than their multiplatform counterparts.

And then you can look at the XBO/PS4 situation where games like Ryse (at first developed around X1 architecture), KZ:SF, Infamous:SS, DriveClub or even The Order looks a generation ahead of everything else on those platforms.

You know even without any proof it is totally logical just when talking about time/money that developing for only one platform is more efficient. Even when we exclude hardware from the conversation. You will potentially achieve more with less when developing just for one platform at a time.

Crysis 3, Metro, Witcher 3, Assassins Creed, Alien Isolation, Far Cry, Battlefield, Tomb Raider.

There are plenty of third party games and series that are among the best graphical looking games.
 
Look, I can see their point. If you would be fine with playing multiplatform games at the exact same settings as a PS4, a PC is not actually much more expensive. For me, this is something not actually useful to do in the real world, but ok.

However, if I take it at face value, I would still have some comments though:

Does that PC have wireless, Bluetooth?
Should also have a great gaming input device (and not the cheapest kb&m they could find?)
GDDR5 vs DDR3. But whatever, they seem to get almost the same performance in their tested games?
They omitted the costs of an OS but that they mentioned (and that's kinda fine because you can also do much more stuff with a PC OS)
However, can it play any Blu-rays or at the bare minimum DVDs? (also for physical game releases)

low power mode chips for downloading&Installing in standby?
dedicated hardware for automatic video recording/streaming?
USB 3.0?

Very important, what about audio? Any loss-less 7.1 capabilities or at least some optical 5.1 DD/DTS thingy? Don't make the common mistake and cheap out on having great sound in games/movies etc. It's not only about graphics.

The man-hours needed to built, tweak and overclock all this stuff?

They built it NOW for £320 but the PS4 is already 1.5 years old (was £350 at launch I think?), so could you have built it for 350 in 2013? Would you still be able to play the same games at the same settings with their machine in 5 years from now?

Oh and btw I'm in the camp that misses the PS3 days when I paid at launch a price far cheaper than even the raw production costs for Sony. I also wish the PS4 was a tad more powerful but oh well. The mass market doesn't think much about the actual value of the product vs. the profit margin of the company. (See also Apple)

The build in OP doesnt have wifi or blutooth. Again its just a build with the bare basics to play games. A wifi card is about $15 and maybe $10 for a USB blutooth dongle. Options is the key, some may not need these items. Similarly with DVDs, a drive would set you back about $15, a blu ray reader about $40. Again most PC users have dropped optical media altogethor. PCs make for horrible Blu Ray movie players, just very inconvenient.
Nobody really buys games physically on PC, so it wasnt included, but like i said, basics and the options are available.

GDD5-DDR3 no point discussing.

Can pick up Windows 7 for $15 if you look for it.

There is no dedicated HW for updates in standby, all updates have to be done when the PC is on. Steam downloads updates when you are not playing. A PC like this would idle at about 30-40W.

Recording software is now built into GPU Control Centers, there is no need for dedicated HW since its not very intensive on modern hardware.

Audio - There is 7.1 PCM. PC games are not in Dolby Digital/DTS/DD-HD/DTS HD since they are just in PCM. You can use a sound card to encode the PCM to Dolby Digital if your TV/Receiver only supports that. HDMI from the GPU can transmit 2.0 PCM to 7.1 PCM.

Well the first PC may take 1-2hours, but after your first build it may only take 30 minutes. Overclocking can take as long as you like, the more on the edge your overclock, the more time it will take to stabilise. Generally a modest overclock can be setup in an hour.

Future is hard to tell, but since you will be saving a lot of money on games and online subs, that can be put towards better parts for the PC. Selling the CPU and GPU and upgrading is easily possible.
 
unfortunately they do...

with that said, are there any PC games that look as good as

The Order
Driveclub
MLB The Show 15?

I mean it's obvious that these games won't be on PC anytime soon...but tech wise, are there PC games in those genres that we can test on these PC console machines?
What do you mean tech wise? Pure gfx or huge world?
BF4, Crysis 3, The Witcher 2, Metro Last Light, Modded Skyrim?
Then you have huge MMOs like TERA, WoW, GW2
Neverwinter runs on XOne though witch is cool.
 
As a mostly PC gamer myself, these article do really nothing and as soon as you look beyond the surface they're borderline dishonest.
"We'll leave the OS to you", no wifi, no bluetooth, no optical drive, no controller (aside from m/ kb), heavily relying on one time deals or in some cases used/ refurb parts even.
On top of that, these kind of articles really miss the point of pc gaming.

For a few hundreds more, you can get a vastly more capable rig, that has a ton of options for further upgrades, and that will be mostly future proof.

Or you can go with something like the Syber Vapor K if you want a small form.
Yes it's $700 more, but you get what you pay for (pre built with i5 4690 and GTX 970).

http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/system/SYBER_VAPOR_K

This article? Useless.
 
How would that ever work? The article is only interesting because they try to compare same games running on similiar settings.

well for example I believe Crytech's RYSE looks amazing on PC...and maybe that could be compared to say The Order....so then they can try to run RYSE on these types of PCs.

Are there any Racing games that exclusive to the PC that can match DriveClub? if so, again I'd like to see how they would run on these PCs.

I really am curious. I don't feel multiplat games are the best examples of what a system can output.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom