wut, AMDs gpus are generally much better. Unless you want to save power I guess.
GTA V PS4: 1080@30, Core i3/750Ti: 1080@60. How is this possible?
- Thread starter alexandros
- Start date
wut, AMDs gpus are generally much better. Unless you want to save power I guess.
Are sure about that? Pretty sure the opposite is true, but I wouldn't go so far as to actually call them budget crap.
IIRC the launch of the 290X was the best GPU out at the time including the Titan at a way better price. AMD's current problem isn't bad GPUs isn't not releasing new GPUs.
Edit: releases are staggered between the manufacturers which is why you'll have a 290X smashing NV offerings at the time and a 970/980 killing current AMD offerings. AMD's problem right now is not releasing new GPUs after 18 months where they'll more likely than not beat NV offerings and the cycle of life will continue.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
It's never a good idea to gloat when people get juniored.
I also think the OP could have saved himself it the OP wasn't so inflammatory. It's really interesting to see how well budget PC hardware is holding up this generation.
Although troll-ish, the directness of the title and content of the OP should educate a few people around here that otherwise choose to remain willfully ignorant or have their reading comprehension magically deteriorate whenever they read something they don't like hearing. I think that's a good thing because in a lot of discussions I see people wasting time saying bringing up useless points like the PC "performance tax" which hasn't been a thing for years.
This isn't some isolated case. That i3+750ti duo has been matching or exceeding console performance in most tested multi-platform games this gen. This comes as no surprise to people who follow hardware benchmarks.
This isn't some isolated case. That i3+750ti duo has been matching or exceeding console performance in most tested multi-platform games this gen. This comes as no surprise to people who follow hardware benchmarks.
icecold1983
Member
no, theres still drops below 30.
3GHz Core i3 is way faster than what is found in a PS4, they consistently outperform higher end AMD 6 cores, 1,6GHz Jaguar is nothing, AMD lags way behind Intel in IPC also. The GPU has a more modern architecture, at 1080p 16 ROPs are good enough and it has the bandwidth to carry it. It's not really surprising. With DX12 games it can only perform better, if Intel benchmark is anything to go by, Core i3s benefit quite a bit from it. It will have problems with ultra textures in some games but I don't believe console textures are ultra in Watch_Dogs or Mordor either.
I sincerely hope this is a short generation. I would prefer if technology is constantly progressing rather than stagnating.
Make no mistake, Rockstar has some of the best people in the industry working for them, yet the blind belief in some secret sauce and untapped potential is astounding. Hell, GTA V remaster looks better than any other open world game on ps4/bone by far, if they can't figure out the hardware then who can? The hardware is super simple this time around, it's not like CELL at all, and even CELL didn't take that long to figure out, we started seeing the results in 2009 with KZ2 and Unch2, 3 years after launch.
Consoles are for sure not running on an A10 APU, but actually better than an A10 by a bit.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
If it lasts longer than five years I will be pretty disappointed. If they're not going to give us top of the line hardware, then the least they could do is not drag it out to be another eight year monstrosity
while that may be, I first want to see some more games coming out since we are on the second year they've been out. Also some games are delayed to year 3.
The consoles are a little disappointing this gen, but they have saved me from upgrading my 670s for another few months. I hope I can hold out til 2016 for a pascal gpu.
I'm currious how morpheus is going to fair with ps4 hardware, and the comparisons between vr cross platforms next year.
I'm currious how morpheus is going to fair with ps4 hardware, and the comparisons between vr cross platforms next year.
Seems like if Alexandros can get juniored for this thread which seems to me to be pretty interesting and worthy of conversation at the least, perhaps some of the commenters that spout off about how you can't play Sony or MS exclusives in every PC thread should get juniored as well?
PC has entire genres that are exclusive - not just a handful of (albeit generally well-regarded) games, but in every PC-focused thread in existence including this one, I have to see someone tell me that the PC is a second rate platform due to lack of "exclusives"...
PC has entire genres that are exclusive - not just a handful of (albeit generally well-regarded) games, but in every PC-focused thread in existence including this one, I have to see someone tell me that the PC is a second rate platform due to lack of "exclusives"...
Napalm_Frank
Member
I think we have a pretty good chance of shorter gens this time round if they can go for similar architecture and profit from hardware much faster. MS especially is probably eager to start the new generation sooner rather than later. But at the same time the graphical jumps between generations will be smaller, they need to keep the entry price low if we are to get shorter generations.
He more than likely got juniored not just because of this thread... Just look at the threads he has made in the past.
boredandlazy
Member
I doubt he got juniored just for this thread. It's highly probable it's a response to a culmination of things over a period of time.
Edit: Booten.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
After the last gen being 8 years, we got a roughly normal 8x increase in GPU power, but a less-than-normal increase in CPU power. CPU and GPU tech has been stagnating to some extent over the last few years, AMD CPUs have been practically DOA half the time compared to intel's offerings. 2011 Intel CPUs are outperforming 2013-14 AMD CPUs, which is depressing as fuck. But what's also depressing is that 2011 Intel CPUs are competitive with 2014 Intel CPUs too, getting <10% yearly gains in performance with new chips.
At 10% annual gains, five years of tech progression gives us... a 1.6x increase in power compared to 5 years ago. Now, it's possible Skylake will be a meaningful jump, and that whatever AMD comes out with next will finally make some real gains. But it's also possible that we'll have CPUs five years down the line that are merely 2-2.5x more powerful for a given TDP.
In the GPU space things are less depressing, yet still a far cry from the glory days of GPU progress when we were getting crazy increases every year or two. To get an 8 fold increase in power over an 8 year period (the last generation's length), we need 30% annual performance gains. And suffice it to say, we haven't been getting that. If we generously assume 25% annual gains, after five years on the market, the PS4 could be replaced by a new console that is roughly.... 3x more powerful.
Oh dear.
Now I'm very interested to see comparisons between i3-750Ti versus PS4 on Witcher 3.
This is taking a tenuous assumption as fact that Rockstar are already PS4X1 gurus and did the absolute best with the hardware.
I'm more optimistic that Rockstar is using the remaster as a profitable way to get to grips with the consoles and SDKs.
FairXchange
Member
I like the way PS4 games look so far, so I'm not disappointed in the slightest.
John Carmack was saying in late 2013 that 360 and PS3 still had so much to offer technically, and were "far from tapped out". I wonder if that mentality will apply to these current consoles, considering they have a much more respectable amount of RAM, which was certainly a big limitation of last gen. I think PS4 and Xbox One are adequately powerful and will perhaps "surprise" many of us with how good games consistently end up looking into the future.
Regret Upon Approval
Member
Consider the losses and R&D expenditures with prior gen and compare them to this gen. We may not have all the numbers but it seems like this gen is less trying to bleed yourself out.
In which case, it was only natural to drag out prior gen as much as possible and why next gen could possibly arrive more timely.
Are you angry? Now the consoles have standard hardware that they could be compared to nearly one-to-one and those comparisons end in the consoles being considered weak.
Their CPUs are a variant of notebook CPUs that exist elsewhere and the same goes for their GPUs.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
The PS3 had a pretty unique architecture and as devs acclimatised to it, they learned to do more cool tricks and squeeze graphical performance out of the processor. This time it's opposite land, the PS4 and XBO have a very conventional processor and graphics chip, and the GPU will be offloading some work from the CPU, rather than the other way around, because the GPU is just so much more powerful in comparison to the CPU.
Unlike last gen, where the consoles were cutting edge on release, these systems were like 1.5 years behind graphically and ~4 years behind in CPU power. They're going to need optimisations to keep pace with 2013 era PC hardware, it's not going to be remotely competitive by 2017. That's not to say that Uncharted 7 won't look great when it comes out; they have an advantage in that AAA games on PC are limited by the consoles they're primarily targeted at, specs-wise. Kinda like how 2013 PC hardware was doing X360 games with great IQ, then the next gen systems launch and new games on the same hardware all suddenly look tons better, since devs were now taking advantage of all that hardware.
Personally I'm expecting late-gen games to not look substantially better than, say, The Order or Uncharted 4. Late gen multiplats probably won't even look that good on average.
What? Why is it not a good thing?
They also weren't using AMDs game ready beta drivers, which improves performance significantly.
viveks86
Member
Agreed. It'll probably be 2 years or more before we see any change on this front, if ever.
This is why I cannot comprehend this tremendous shift towards promoting AMD as such an amazing thing in the last 2 years. They've been second string in performance/quality ever since the their dual cores got dethroned a decade ago.
Though, I wonder why so little about the low performance of the PS4/XBone CPU's has been mentioned so far. Do most devs even use all 8 cores of the CPU's fully?
magnumpy
Member
PS4/XB1 were developed in what is now the pest, towards the end of 2013, whereas the latest PC GPUs are just that, the latest in technology developed in 2015. PCs will continue to innovate in hardware, while the PS4/XB1 have fixed hardware that will never change. it's a blessing and a curse.
Rogue_Ledr
Banned
Yeah, the hardware upgrade in past generations was MUCH greater.
In the past new hardware was DOZENS of times more powerful than previous hardware.
Here it is more lie 5 or 6 times more powerful.
their CPU's are shit. their GPU's are pretty good
So uh I'm a total idiot and my phone autocorrected CPU to GPU. Weeeelp
I meant to say that to the best of my knowledge, AMD's CPUs aren't on the same level as Intel's. And this is probably compounded by the fact that both consoles needed a lighter/mobile styled processor to begin with (if the whole "PS4 uses a laptop CPU" thing is true, anyway - back when shopping for a laptop awhile ago, every site I came to said AMD's mobile lineup was terrible). Sorry for the confusion, haha.
Iacobellis
Junior Member
Wrong thread?
copelandmaster
Member
Just a few I could think of:
General technological stagnation. Not enough improvements in the manner in which games are made. Games continue to increase in size, but older tool chains can't support the weight, and they can't improve much because the hardware couldn't handle the tech improvements. Devs spend more time and money squeezing blood from the stone, and less time on the actual game.
Playerbase loses interest in the product, due to the platforms becoming old hat or too commonplace. Consumer interest moves on to newer, more exciting frontiers. This happened a bit last gen when some people got tired of PS3/360 being old and busted, so they moved to PC.
Some aspects of hardware could actually begin to cost manufacturers more to produce than newer alternatives. See stuff like DDR3/GDDR5 vs future DDR4 improvements and upcoming stacked/HBM chips.
Marketing deals and stuff start to dry up because those with the money won't see any potential growth in the platform they are being asked to invest in.
The pace has slowed tremendously for PC as well.
Till now owners of 2011 Sandy Bridge K have no reason to upgrade.
For GPUs, TSMC isn't going to have the next node for big die GPUs anytime soon. We are (willingly) getting overcharged by Nvidia for refreshes.
The pace has slowed because there isn't a tremendous demand for power. Part of that is multiplatform games being tethered to consoles that stay at a fixed spec for 5+ years. There are very few games pushing the envelope, regardless of platform. There's always the Gucci 4k stuff but that hasn't reached attainable critical mass for most gamers. Unless you do major editing or something of the sort, you're golden on any semi modern computer.
I'm still on a CPU from 2008 (i7 920) and I haven't needed to upgrade anything but my GPU. I bet that's still the bottleneck.
Maybe we'll see this generation of consoles as a half step to a more capable machine that can do 1080p+60+, and that will be 'good enough' for a long gen. PC being ahead out of the gate is really going to spur things along.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
Nvidia did something to their drivers that made their GPUs less reliant on the CPU. The 280 smokes the 750 ti on the high end CPU.
magnumpy
Member
right, for example the 980 cards are only a bit better than the older 780 cards. apparently all the 20nm production capacity is being allocated to apple, which leaves nvidia stuck at 28nm, which leads to the rather disappointing refreshes like the 780->980 refresh. maybe towards the end of 2015 we will see more production capacity become available?
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
I dunno in the end i3 is better than the CPU in the xbone and ps4 and the game they are testing is CPU intensive. It's not like the consoles are under performing it's just the PC has better hardware and a newer GPU of which is there proof the GPU is running games better than the bone and ps4 GPU. Multi platform games will not provide the best results. In the end though facts are facts and the budget build is providing similar performance which may bother some people who were hoping they would have top of the line hardware again which just isn't a good idea in today's market. I look at the games they produce and not worry about what a PC does as it's not a console. From what I have seen I am more than happy with the games we have been getting for looks and performance....for now.
Console gamers have to live with the reality that they will always be behind the tech curve. Always. There's no way a company is going to go ape shit crazy and try to lose buckets of money to future proof a console for at most 3 years at market. It's going to be an affordable PC with decent specs, basically what mid range PC gamers have been accustomed to.
If you want to be on the cutting edge of graphics, buy a PC. Otherwise just enjoy your exclusive games on the console and don't worry to much about it.
L.C.M. Taylon
Banned
Some guys do not give up
These topics are good to laugh.
These topics are good to laugh.
UnrealEck
Member
Quick comparison between PC and PS4. There's no AA in one of the PC screens though and the sliders for extra shadow and detail distance is at the minimum (non-advanced is maxed though)
Comparison #1
Comparison #2
This was on a GTX 460 so my framerate was like 10-15.
Comparison #1
Comparison #2
This was on a GTX 460 so my framerate was like 10-15.
texhnolyze
Banned
Indeed.
Even the i3 is already below the minimum requirements for Witcher 3. I believe the 750Ti is comparable to 660 which is the minimum gpu. I wonder how will the combo fare in Witcher 3. 1080p 30fps on high settings is my guess, about the same performance as PS4.
There's probably only a handful of posters that would really feel insecure by that. The cards are already laid on the table for this gen and everyone has accepted their places I think.
nkarafo
Member
All i can say after reading this thread is how right everyone was saying, a year ago, that this generation leap was hardly a "leap" and it's rather just a small step, compared to previous generation leaps. Non even "Infamous: Second Son shows a big graphical leap" posters can argue with this anymore.
i'm new to PC tech... so i admit i'm pretty ignorant to this sort of thing. but looking at benchmarks at the 700 and 900 series i'm wondering how consoles will even be able to run future games like elder scrolls 6, which i'm guessing would even give the 970 a run for its money at 60 fps 1080. i know console games are highly optimized, and i know they'll find a way, but it's hard not to imagine them running on fumes at that point
Similar threads
- Locked