GTA V PS4: 1080@30, Core i3/750Ti: 1080@60. How is this possible?
- Thread starter alexandros
- Start date
Enter the Dragon Punch
Banned
Even if you perform the EXACT same as the PS4 or XBO the extra features like director mode and the potential for mods once the file system for it is cracked is worth it for sure.
Windom Earle
Member
No. The game is very CPU hungry and loves many threads. (Unless you completely butcher certain settings)
Enter the Dragon Punch
Banned
You'll have to mix settings between medium and high to get a more stable 60fps thanks to your CPU but yeah
Won't require butchering, just needs to lower some settings to medium
I see that. You're not wrong but it's so minor it could be anything. It's the type of thing you see on the PC as well. I didn't encounter that in my own 1.11 test but I'm not using the stock HDD (maybe a difference?) right now. Hard to say.
I'd still argue it's 99% locked and any dips are anomalies. It's very consistent.
UnrealEck
Member
You said 'if you say so' in reply to me saying it dropped below 30 FPS with the performance patch 1.09.
I said you don't need to take my word for it, there's a video demonstrating it.
I provided a screen cap of it showing it dropping to 28.
I'm not sure what you mean by the unlocked thing though. People were discussing averages and thus speculating on what the uncapped framerate could be, so I mentioned it's useful then to consider that it does drop below 30 too.
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
It's a conspiracy.
lightchris
Member
Or it's simply not as big as it is purported to be in general
Yeah, it really depends. Mantle and DX12 benchmarks show that it can potentially make a huge difference, but that's not a usual case. Certainly not in GTA 5 as those benchmarks prove.
And a PC can do infinitely more than what a PS4 can do and still be upgraded when needed.
SSD was sent from the Gods.
Windom Earle
Member
And 30fps...
This is all irrelevant to this thread.
GhostTrick
Banned
As for an answer to the thread, it's likely the CPU is at fault again.
More cores are difficult to exploit efficiently... and it's even more hard when these cores are slow, and 2 of them being taken away by the system OS.
GTA5 runs at 1080p/30fps on Xbox One, and nearly same settings as PS4, save for the grass thing. So, PS4 GPU is unlikely to be at fault here.
More cores are difficult to exploit efficiently... and it's even more hard when these cores are slow, and 2 of them being taken away by the system OS.
GTA5 runs at 1080p/30fps on Xbox One, and nearly same settings as PS4, save for the grass thing. So, PS4 GPU is unlikely to be at fault here.
If you think that's strange alex, wait until DX12 
Being a console gamer in this day and age, there are some things you have to come to expect. The CPU's in the consoles are not very strong. This is known. And i3's are pound for pound stronger per core than Jaguar. Nobody should expect miracles from the HW.
Being primarily a PS4 user, i'm glad we have stable performance with great visuals. That's all i really want out of my gameplay experiences
Being a console gamer in this day and age, there are some things you have to come to expect. The CPU's in the consoles are not very strong. This is known. And i3's are pound for pound stronger per core than Jaguar. Nobody should expect miracles from the HW.
Being primarily a PS4 user, i'm glad we have stable performance with great visuals. That's all i really want out of my gameplay experiences
sammyCYBORG
Member
I have a high end PC which I primarily play on.
But the PC doesn't get every game. Plus, consoles with higher specs = even better PC ports, so it's a win/win.
It's quite irrelevant this drop that's what I said to you what's the point to discuss of a single drop of 28 fps.
Yeah price-wise though, we're not talking about a $800 PC outperforming the consoles.
I know, but that's what I assume the reason the thread was started in the first place. Not just a blunt "this game can run better on the PC! Shocking!"
Corpsepyre
Banned
Can you tell me some processor intensive settings that I can lower?
SniperHunter
Banned
hope sony and ms go with intel and nvidia next time around
Lol. Especially nvidia.
What the hell are you talking about? This thread is a comparison about the performance not the philosophy behind the production of games. Jesus some people can't even read these days.
Philtastic
Member
For the purpose of determining average framerate, I agree that the benchmark tool will not reflect the gameplay experience at a particular point of time playing the game. The benchmark is pretty accurate for determining whether you will experience frame rate drops, however, except that you have to consider that it's cycling very quickly through time of day settings. What people need to realize is that, if their frame rate dips AT ALL AT ANY POINT during the benchmark, they need to lower some settings because, what happens for a fraction of a second in the benchmark, is minutes of actual gameplay during a particular time of day.
wolfhowwl
Banned
Thanks for the update?
UnrealEck
Member
It's very relevant in a topic discussing framerate and performance. A drop is a drop. Especially since the point in bringing it up was of relevance to people talking about maximums and saying it doesn't go below 30.
I don't get why you would just disregard it.
No you dont if you want BC.
Especially considering how bad Nvidia fucked over MS and Sony at the time they did use their parts. Also, i don't think Nvidia would want to work with them anymore anyway. They have their own stake in the industry at this point to care about the what the consoles are doing.
Dictator93
Member
What would happen to all the Nvidia salt posts in such an apocalyptic event?
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
It can do infinitely more than a Wii U to. Your point is?
Windom Earle
Member
Yeah, pretty much this. The benchmark is not completely useless, it's just that DF is not interpreting the results correctly.
But people who have actually played the PC version would know this.
Thread is simply based on a wrong premise. Bailing out too.
I'm not sure to understand why you continue to persist to discuss of things which clearly you don't get it all.
jim-jam bongs
Member
Going by the comparative benchmarks they posted, it's pretty clear that the game is severely CPU limited given the huge boost it gets on the i7. Console CPUs are relatively underpowered, so here we are.
On an unrelated note,
On an unrelated note,
Do the new patches get the game to a completely stable 30fps? The base game and early patches would net mid to upper 20's whenever you drove through an intersection at anything over a snails pace.
GhostTrick
Banned
His point was pretty clear:
For the price budget of a PS4, you can get a PC with slightly more performances... and still do more things. Even though, I think his point was irrelevant to the thread.
Also, I don't see your point either.
RenegadeXV8
Banned
That's not gonna happen anytime soon unless Intel can develop a SoC with a decent GPU.
Nvidia burned bridges with everyone in the business.
Also, Jaguar uses less than half the power of the Intel CPU linked here. That's a pretty big thing console manufacturers keep in mind when designing these systems.
IMACOMPUTA
Member
I tried this last night with my g3258 and 660. No matter what I did the game would stutter bad while driving. When I stopped it would be at 60fps. 4gb ram.
That issue is 99% fixed. It seems possible that a rare, tiny drop can be observed but it doesn't seem to consistently occur. It's much much better overall and basically completely locked. This is version 1.11 I believe.
Yes this issue it's definitely fixed. I have the game and quite sensitive to this stuff.
Enter the Dragon Punch
Banned
Any of the advanced settings about draw distance and streaming should be nixed
Just to be precise it's not 60 fps steady with this rig especially in the open area. Lower fps it's even worst compared the ps4 to be honest.
I think people needs to be a bit more objective on both sides eh .
Gold_Loot
Member
Pretty hyperbolic here. The game would lose 2 to 3 FPS for about second at about 3 differnt intersections only...
That being said, we have no idea where the ps4 version would be without the frame rate cap, as well as that huge delay the pc version had.
You're being too reasonable.
It's such an odd argument though. Why would anyone try and contort themselves to build a $350 PC that might or might not play games at an equivalent quality to a PS4? If you're going to do that, just buy a PS4. The value of a PC is being able to extend a performance advantage as much as you want.
SneakyStephan
Banned
This is not true, this discussion has been had many times.
A pc that outperforms a ps4 now will still do so in 3 years, 5 years, ten years
except for the consumer,well of PS4 mostly
It's the consumer who loses the most.
One of the big draws of consoles was the subsidised hardware. (I sure loved my original xbox for this reason) You'd pay a lower cost upfront than for a pc and get hardware sold at below production cost for your money.
It helped offset the higher prices for the games (due to platformholder royalties that don't exist on PC)
The new consoles are no longer subsidised, and with them much of the value appeal for them dissapeared. And this is not okay, people should ask for subsidised hardware again next gen. Because as it is now it's much better to simply buy a pc instead.
Here's what a console used to represent compared to a pc
+low entry cost
+subsidised hardware
+no patches
+heavy QA for software aimed at a fixed platform (less bugs, consistent framerates, no screentearing)
+no game installs (immediacy)
-long loading times
-royalties mean high game prices
-closed platform
-no modding and 0 control over savefiles and game settings
-limited input options (controller, fight stick and maybe a wheel in some games)
All the +es have been dissapearing between last gen and current gen, and now one of the last remaining ones (subsidised hardware) is gone too.
Meanwhile the - s have remained put and some new ones have been added (online fees being the main one)
Any rational consumer, any fan or loyal user of the platform should be balking at these benifits and that extra value going away.
Yet somehow a subset of people take great offense at any discussion about it, they'd rather stick their heads in the sand than deal with reality, vote with their wallets or try to do something about it.
And you'll find that most of the people who mainly game on pc also own consoles, and they are in fact on YOUR side (the side of the consumer and the side of the console gamer ) when they complain about these things.
But somehow you take this offer to unionise ('mericuns seeing red reading this word haha) and dismiss it as people pointing and laughing at YOU (as if the problems hardware/software/business models have somehow reflect on you as a person)
I'll never understand how people take personal offense to criticism of some corporation or product.
It wasn't true last gen either, an 8800 gt and core2duo kept outperforming the last gen consoles till the very end.
shadowsdarknes
Member
Yeah.
The whole "just go buy a 400 dollar PC" argument is really only useful for fanboy wars crap.
If I'm going to build a new gaming PC, I'm going to do it right and actually spend some substantial money.
Dictator93
Member
This is a deflective statement that does not have much to do with the thread to be honest. But to respond to it, the potential performance advantage is one of many reasons to "value the pc."
Netherscourge
Banned
To be fair...
Rockstar had well over a year of extra time to optimize the PC version.
The knowledge and bug-squashing from the Last/Next Gen versions combined with their previous experiences from GTA4 PC put them in an excellent position to go all-in on the PC development.
Rockstar had well over a year of extra time to optimize the PC version.
The knowledge and bug-squashing from the Last/Next Gen versions combined with their previous experiences from GTA4 PC put them in an excellent position to go all-in on the PC development.
Similar threads
- Locked