Support NeoGAF

[Javin98]

It's not confirmation, but it's the most likely and obvious answer.

Hell, even with desktop CPU's, it takes a highly overclocked AMD 8350 just to match Intel's bottom end Haswell i3 with the game. And it's pretty clear that the game is very heavy on CPU's in general. Combined, there's your answer.

You say you're not involving yourself in the PC vs console stuff, yet you've already tried to call out PC gamers and you've continually been poking at ways of suggesting the PS4 version is actually running higher than DF has suggested. It feels an awful like you're very much in the PC vs console thing, trying to find a way to get some small, salvageable victory for the PS4 version so you can point to it and say, "Ha! Look, it's not actually that much better, it's just the settings are not equal!" I mean, that's very much what it looks like to me.

Wow, now who sounds like they need some sort of victory? So, say the PS4 version may have all settings on high as DF said, so what? What do I lose? I don't even have a PS4 yet and when I do, I'm not even getting this game which I have completed the campaign twice on PS3 with more than 180 hours of playing time. I'm just interested in finding the exact same settings on PC because I'm enthusiastic in visual fidelity and all that. In the meantime, IF some settings were on very high, that could explain why the 750 Ti runs it better. To clarify, I'm not wanting this, just speculating, which may be completely false. Talk about jumping to conclusions....

There's no way to measure that other than subjectively and aesthetically. And for the ones that were actually ported over to PC later (like Dead Rising 3 and Ryse) the 750 TI beats out the XB1's performance handily.

This should be no surprise, really. The 750 Ti is stronger than the XB1's GPU.

 

[SparkTR]

The console optimisation thing always seemed like an iffy kind of fact to me, at least for multiplatform games. Especially last generation, regardless of what optimizations there were the fact that by around 2011 many multiplatform games on consoles were not only running in 720p ( or sub) with absolutely atrocious IQ, but they ran at graphics settings below the minimum available on PC versions. I think that accounted for more of that optimisation than anything else.

Now at the start of this generation I don't think I've seen a multiplatform game that demonstrates that optimisation, but was surprising to me.

 

[Alej]

How do you know GTA 5 isn't tapping into the PS4's compute capabilities ?
I'd like you to shed light on this, if you can.

I don't know at all! But we already know that PS4 CPU's compares badly with anything out on PC market right now, per thread. But then, we don't know if GTAV on PS4 is properly multi threaded in order to lessen the performance impact, per core. We don't know if they are using compute to lessen it even more.

And then, I just wanted to say that an engine not properly multi threaded for those 8 jaguar cores while not transferring some CPU tasks to the GPU will likely be heavily bottlenecked on a PS4 in a comparison with a PC setup.

I don't know if it's the case here, but then who can say?

The console optimisation thing always seemed like an iffy kind of fact to me, at least for multiplatform games. Especially last generation, regardless of what optimizations there were the fact that by around 2011 many multiplatform games on consoles were not only running in 720p ( or sub) with absolutely atrocious IQ, but they ran at graphics settings below the minimum available on PC versions. I think that accounted for more of that optimisation than anything else.

Now at the start of this generation I don't think I've seen a multiplatform game that demonstrates that optimisation, but was surprising to me.

Is it financially viable for a multiplatform game to spend time creating an engine around specs of every platform? Or is it more viable to make an engine which is scaling well across the common denominators of targeted platforms?

Food for thoughts. That's why I always said that benchs and direct comparisons don't tell the whole story, there is other factors. Using software to prove anything hardware related is not scientifically correct.

 

[lyrick]

I don't know at all! But we already know that PS4 CPU's compares badly with anything out on PC market right now, per thread. But then, we don't know if GTAV on PS4 is properly multi threaded in order to lessen the performance impact, per core. We don't know if they are using compute to lessen it even more.

And then, I just wanted to say that an engine not properly multi threaded for those 8 jaguar cores while not transferring some CPU tasks to the GPU will likely be heavily bottlenecked on a PS4 in a comparison with a PC setup.

I don't know if it's the case here, but then who can say?

How many of those 8 low performance cores could the software actually access? We can already see the bottleneck that a 4 core Phenom (965) with over double the frequency of each PS4 core places on this game.

 

[Marlenus]

It has been the last few years. 8350 is almost 3 years old now, and that's their top dog.

It usually hangs around the i5 2500k give or take yet here the 2500k is 27% faster so it is a bit of an outlier.

Well the game clearly scales well with cores, with threads and with clock speeds. It really uses the most of these CPU's, which is why I think the difference is bigger. Typically, when a game becomes CPU limited, it's because Core #0(first core) hits full usage well before other cores. This game provides very level usage across the cores and threads, meaning that Intel's superior cores are used to an even greater degree because all cores are getting fully utilized before any bottleneck occurs.

I think you are correct here regarding the per core performance giving intel a bigger advantage than normal. It scales well upto 4 cores then clockspeed is king for Intel CPUs.

AMD is strange though, even the worst CPUs do not tank like the 2c/2t Intels but their averages are a touch lower. Increasing core count or clockspeed does not seem to scale quite the same as it does on Intel either. Going from the FX-4300 to the FX 8350 yields only a 21.5% performance increase, going from the i3 4330 to the i7 4770 yields a 45.6% performance increase. That suggests a bottleneck somewhere with the AMD architecture so probably to do with FPU performance.

 

[Seanspeed]

Wow, now who sounds like they need some sort of victory? So, say the PS4 version may have all settings on high as DF said, so what? What do I lose? I don't even have a PS4 yet and when I do, I'm not even getting this game which I have completed the campaign twice on PS3 with more than 180 hours of playing time. I'm just interested in finding the exact same settings on PC because I'm enthusiastic in visual fidelity and all that. In the meantime, IF some settings were on very high, that could explain why the 750 Ti runs it better. To clarify, I'm not wanting this, just speculating, which may be completely false. Talk about jumping to conclusions....

You don't have to buy this game to still be involved in defending the console side of things, particularly the PS4, which you do root for and plan on getting soon. Plus you repeatedly make comments about PC gamers. Here in this thread, today in the PCars thread(calling people PC elitists) and even in the £300 PC thread just a few days ago where you said something about 'the problem with PC gamers'. I like your comments usually, you're obviously a smart guy who generally knows his stuff, but I don't buy for a second that you're just an impartial observer and this chip on your shoulder with PC gamers is pretty apparent. Anyways, yes, IF some PS4 settings were Very High/Ultra equivalents, it would *potentially* explain why the 750Ti runs it better(at least in part), which is why I suspect you aren't giving up on it instead of just accepting the more obvious and likely CPU-limited explanation. One makes the PS4 look better, while the other makes it look worse. I don't think that's a coincidence.

 

[Javin98]

UnrealECK, I decided to aid you on your quest, so here are some PS4 shots from the console screenshot thread. They aren't the best quality, but you can still make a comparison.

 

[Seanspeed]

It usually hangs around the i5 2500k give or take yet here the 2500k is 27% faster so it is a bit of an outlier.

It does not usually hang around the 2500k at all. Far from it.

 

[V_Arnold]

A 750 Ti is equivalent to an R9 270x, right? That's what I got. My processor is also Core i3 4130. I can manage 60, you think?

Uhm, nope. It is an equivalent of a slightly stronger HD7770.
R9 270x is a category or two above that.

 

[Javin98]

You don't have to buy this game to still be involved in defending the console side of things, particularly the PS4, which you do root for and plan on getting soon. Plus you repeatedly make comments about PC gamers. Here in this thread, today in the PCars thread(calling people PC elitists) and even in the £300 PC thread just a few days ago where you said something about 'the problem with PC gamers'. I like your comments usually, you're obviously a smart guy who generally knows his stuff, but I don't buy for a second that you're just an impartial observer and this chip on your shoulder with PC gamers is pretty apparent. Anyways, yes, IF some PS4 settings were Very High/Ultra equivalents, it would *potentially* explain why the 750Ti runs it better(at least in part), which is why I suspect you aren't giving up on it instead of just accepting the more obvious and likely CPU-limited explanation. One makes the PS4 look better, while the other makes it look worse. I don't think that's a coincidence.

Firstly, thanks for calling me a smart guy. I don't think I'll even call myself that on a tech forum. Secondly, I'm sorry if I sound a bit fanboyish. I try to be neutral, but my bias does slip out occasionally. Thirdly, I don't like calling people names on a forum, but when I do call people PC elitists, I do so when they make extremely ridiculous comments, like the one in the PCars thread. And in the thread a few days ago, I listed the problems of both PC and console gamers alike. Anyway, for now, I'm just curious to see the exact settings.

 

[Kezen]

I don't know at all! But we already know that PS4 CPU's compares badly with anything out on PC market right now, per thread. But then, we don't know if GTAV on PS4 is properly multi threaded in order to lessen the performance impact, per core. We don't know if they are using compute to lessen it even more.

And then, I just wanted to say that an engine not properly multi threaded for those 8 jaguar cores while not transferring some CPU tasks to the GPU will likely be heavily bottlenecked on a PS4 in a comparison with a PC setup.

I don't know if it's the case here, but then who can say?

Well you made it sound like you knew, or you wanted to believe. In regards to multithreading we do have evidence on PC, and it scales very well with the number of cores in most situations, see the Gamegpu.ru CPU scaling benchmark for instance.
I would be surprised if it did not make the most of Jaguar cores on a platform where multithreading is made easier and I have no reason to believe it does not use GPU compute. Rockstar are not amateurs and they had one full year to bring the game to modern consoles.

Food for thoughts. That's why I always said that benchs and direct comparisons don't tell the whole story, there is other factors. Using software to prove anything hardware related is not scientifically correct.

Maybe, but that's the best comparisons we've got. There is no way to know how X or Y exclusive would run in a PC Directx environment, multiplatform games allow for direct comparisons once settings for each skus have been defined.
I have the feeling you don't really like the results so you try to find ways to downplay them, at least that's how you come across as.

 

[Alej]

You don't have to buy this game to still be involved in defending the console side of things, particularly the PS4, which you do root for and plan on getting soon. Plus you repeatedly make comments about PC gamers. Here in this thread, today in the PCars thread(calling people PC elitists) and even in the £300 PC thread just a few days ago where you said something about 'the problem with PC gamers'. I like your comments usually, you're obviously a smart guy who generally knows his stuff, but I don't buy for a second that you're just an impartial observer and this chip on your shoulder with PC gamers is pretty apparent. Anyways, yes, IF some PS4 settings were Very High/Ultra equivalents, it would *potentially* explain why the 750Ti runs it better(at least in part), which is why I suspect you aren't giving up on it instead of just accepting the more obvious and likely CPU-limited explanation. One makes the PS4 look better, while the other makes it look worse. I don't think that's a coincidence.

This isn't about making PS4 better or worse, please. There is already a lot of games on the market that demonstrate what the PS4 can do in a good way.

As usual with those tech threads, the problem is: we don't know. We don't have any proof GTAV isn't doing some things under the hood better (and expensively better) than that PC config. So he has a point. And you obviously have a point about the difference being CPU related, even if CPU related can be: power related or efficiency related.

But then, no one here knows the whole story. This is garbage talking as usual.

I have the feeling you don't really like the results so you try to find ways to downplay them, at least that's how you come across as.

I'm taking a Kant-oriented approach. When someone is saying a thing thinking is objectively correct, I always want to address his point by saying it's an opinion if not scientifically approved.

My eyes aren't scientifically approving things nor is my mind. I'm okay with guys of every opinions stating things as opinions.

Facts are another story and it's indeed a fact here than a comparable (in terms of power and budget) PC config is outperforming PS4 here by a consumer viewpoint. The whys are then opinions without the whole story.

 

[Boombox On]

Uhm, nope. It is an equivalent of a slightly stronger HD7770.
R9 270x is a category or two above that.

A 750ti is way more powerful than a 7770 is.
More like 7850.

 

[martino]

I don't know at all! But we already know that PS4 CPU's compares badly with anything out on PC market right now, per thread. But then, we don't know if GTAV on PS4 is properly multi threaded in order to lessen the performance impact, per core. We don't know if they are using compute to lessen it even more.

And then, I just wanted to say that an engine not properly multi threaded for those 8 jaguar cores while not transferring some CPU tasks to the GPU will likely be heavily bottlenecked on a PS4 in a comparison with a PC setup.

I don't know if it's the case here, but then who can say?



Is it financially viable for a multiplatform game to spend time creating an engine around specs of every platform? Or is it more viable to make an engine which is scaling well across the common denominators of targeted platforms?

Food for thoughts. That's why I always said that benchs and direct comparisons don't tell the whole story, there is other factors. Using software to prove anything hardware related is not scientifically correct.

Don't think over it a lot because nobody really care how powerfull an hardware can be if there is near nothing to tell the story he can

 

[driver116]

What about a desk? A house to put the desk in?

Copy o Windows.

 

[Muzicfreq]

A 750ti is way more powerful than a 7770 is.
More like 7850.

Have to agree here. I had a 7790OC and my 750ti is better.
Though maybe no a 7850 but if AMD did a 7830 it would be around there.

 

[Swarna]

750 TI is slightly under a 7850. The best comparison is the older 6950.

 

[Alej]

Don't think over it a lot because nobody really care how powerfull an hardware can be if there is near nothing to tell the story he can

Yep. That's why nobody should care. Consoles aren't directly comparable to PCs.

But from a consumer viewpoint, one can say an evenly priced PC is better value than a PS4 to play GTAV if only performance of this particular game is interesting you. /thread

 

[Kezen]

I'm taking a Kant-oriented approach. When someone is saying a thing thinking is objectively correct, I always want to address his point by saying it's an opinion if not scientifically approved.

My eyes aren't scientifically approving things nor is my mind. I'm okay with guys of every opinions stating things as opinions.

Facts are another story and it's indeed a fact here than a comparable (in terms of power and budget) PC config is outperforming PS4 here by a consumer viewpoint. The whys are then opinions without the whole story.

Seems reasonable enough. I don't mind playing GTA 5 at 60fps.
Fantastic performance and many improvements over the console versions from what I've seen. PCSS, better draw distance, shadows, and LOD.

 

[Marlenus]

It does not usually hang around the 2500k at all. Far from it.

Looking at it you are correct, it does sometimes but there are enough cases where the 2500k is 20% + faster that the statement does not hold true. It does tend to for Frostbite 3 and Cryengine 3 games but others are a lot more variable.

 

[Swarna]

Yep. That's why nobody should care. Consoles aren't directly comparable to PCs.

But from a consumer viewpoint, one can say an evenly priced PC is better value than a PS4 to play GTAV if only performance of this particular game is interesting you. /thread

If by value you mean better performance then there are a few other games that see remarkable boosts like DBZ Xenoverse which gets double the frame rate and locked. The bulk of multi-plats even without considering GTA (Mordor, Dying Light, MGS:GZ, etc.) also perform on-par or slightly better than the PS4. So in a way, for the purpose of generalizing real-world multi-plat software performance on the PS4, we can equate it to an i3/750 TI.

 

[Aizu_Itsuko]

PC and console fans claiming moral superiority over each other in these kind of threads should realize that they just make themselves look equally childish.

As for the question, the game is quite CPU bound and performs better on Intel CPUs. Running at a locked 30fps (meaning it runs higher on average) on a 6 core jaguar is actually pretty good. Games don't run on GPUs alone.

 

[alexandros]

Yep. That's why nobody should care. Consoles aren't directly comparable to PCs.

I disagree. They are more directly comparable now than ever before.

 

[Alej]

If by value you mean better performance then there are a few other games that see remarkable boosts like DBZ Xenoverse which gets double the frame rate and locked. The bulk of multi-plats even without considering GTA (Mordor, Dying Light, MGS:GZ, etc.) also perform on-par or slightly better than the PS4. So in a way, for the purpose of generalizing real-world multi-plat software performance on the PS4, we can equate it to an i3/750 TI.

Yep we can. But that doesn't say PS4's hardware isn't capable of doing more (or not) than an i3/750Ti.
Just right now, this config seems to be better value than a PS4 on those games if you are just interested about performance.

 

[omonimo]

Still could be interesting to see how perform on ps4 with fps unlocked. Because it shouldn't be that distant to this PC rig. Keep in mind someone here has reported in the opened area it's far beyond away to be steady 60 fps in such PC.

 

[flaxknuckles]

It's not confirmation, but it's the most likely and obvious answer.

Hell, even with desktop CPU's, it takes a highly overclocked AMD 8350 just to match Intel's bottom end Haswell i3 with the game. And it's pretty clear that the game is very heavy on CPU's in general. Combined, there's your answer.

You say you're not involving yourself in the PC vs console stuff, yet you've already tried to call out PC gamers and you've continually been poking at ways of suggesting the PS4 version is actually running higher than DF has suggested. It feels an awful like you're very much in the PC vs console thing, trying to find a way to get some small, salvageable victory for the PS4 version so you can point to it and say, "Ha! Look, it's not actually that much better, it's just the settings are not equal!" I mean, that's very much what it looks like to me.

Man I'm glad I bought a 4790k. Hurt the shit out of my wallet and didn't seem like a worthy upgrade from a 3570k at first, but now I feel peace.

 

[Dr. Kaos]

This is what happens when a publisher doesn't give a fuck about a release date and is willing to polish their game until it's actually ready. (you hear that Ubisoft/EA ?)

I'm also guessing AMD and nvidia were falling over in their haste to orally pleasure Rockstar's gigantic, gpu-selling phallus, which doesn't hurt. But mostly it's the first thing.

 

[Alej]

I disagree. They are more directly comparable now than ever before.

Great, good for you. We don't have any idea about what we are talking about in terms of actual hardware performance in a not-so-finite numbers of situations that we don't have access to, the amount of time and money invested equally or not among the different targeted platforms, the amount of fps capped versions of the same game actually are, the difficulty to code the same things in order to achieve the same effects across every platforms, etc.

But yeah every NeoGAF poster is a multiplatform dev and as consoles are x86 this time around they are part of the same scale PCs live on.

 

[alexandros]

Just right now, this config seems to be better value than a PS4 on those games if you are just interested about performance.

I'd say that, in that specific comparison, performance between the two platforms is close enough to disqualify it as a deciding factor for most gamers. Ecosystem, games library and general functionality seem like much more meaningful focus points.

 

[Alej]

I'd say that, in that specific comparison, performance between the two platforms is close enough to disqualify it as a deciding factor for most gamers. Ecosystem, games library and general functionality seem like much more meaningful focus points.

And as you already know those things are highly subjective.

To answer your thread: "because Rockstar didn't make PS4 version 60fps for reasons we don't know."

Case solved for me. Goodbye everyone.

 

[phyrlord]

haha friend just sent me this.

 

[UnrealEck]

What about shaders and textures? I get the feeling that textures are set to very high at least. I know this is even harder to judge, but what about population density? Is it also at 50%?

From what I can tell, texture quality is similar to PC's 'Very High', although some textures on PC have been redone (I think mainly vehicles). So I guess it's sort of in between 'High' and 'Very High'.
Not sure about shading.
Pop density seems about the same on PS4 and PC (at max on the slider) but it's hard to tell really.
I'll check the Vinewood Walk of Fame area out front the Chinese Theatre. That area is easy to compare with.

 

[FGMPR]

And as you already know those things are highly subjective.

To answer your thread: "because Rockstar didn't make PS4 version 60fps for reasons we don't know."

Case solved for me. Goodbye everyone.

Calling all of those things highly subjective is a bit rich. Can you honestly tell me the PS4 library stacks up well against the PC's? or that the PS4 compares in any way whatsoever in regards to usability, considering anything that is able to be done on a PS4 can be done so on PC, without getting into the many other significant advantages the PC holds (eg: mods).

I'm not saying consoles don't have some advantages, but when it comes to things like thier respective games library, there's just no competition.

 

[Muzicfreq]

haha friend just sent me this.

LOL
Sometimes it seems that way

 

[Javin98]

From what I can tell, texture quality is similar to PC's 'Very High', although some textures on PC have been redone (I think mainly vehicles). So I guess it's sort of in between 'High' and 'Very High'.
Not sure about shading.
Pop density seems about the same on PS4 and PC (at max on the slider) but it's hard to tell really.
I'll check the Vinewood Walk of Fame area out front the Chinese Theatre. That area is easy to compare with.

I posted a few pictures earlier. You can use those to compare textures, shading and shadows. Again, thanks. I appreciate this. So thus far you think Post FX and textures are on very high while population density is maxed out. What difference does shading make on high and very high anyway?

 

[LCGeek]

haha friend just sent me this.

That's ironic it's a situation that goes both ways considering history.

 

[StevieP]

PC and console fans claiming moral superiority over each other in these kind of threads should realize that they just make themselves look equally childish.

As for the question, the game is quite CPU bound and performs better on Intel CPUs. Running at a locked 30fps (meaning it runs higher on average) on a 6 core jaguar is actually pretty good. Games don't run on GPUs alone.

In what world is this a locked 30 on consoles? I regularly saw it dip into what seems like low 20s.

 

[Javin98]

In what world is this a locked 30 on consoles? I regularly saw it dip into what seems like low 20s.

Unless you're referring to the XB1 or pre-patched PS4 version, we're talking about planet Earth in 2015.

 

[Crisco]

Wow, very IPC and clock speed dependent, I can't think of another game where you need that much CPU to max out a single GPU. GTAVI is gonna need to heavily utilize cloud processing.

 

[omonimo]

In what world is this a locked 30 on consoles? I regularly saw it dip into what seems like low 20s.

This game it's pratically locked on ps4. 28 drops at the worst but very rare and short. But if you can prove it stay below 30 fps for a good amount of time, you are welcome.

 

[Meaty]

I wonder why all devs dont allow us to unlock framerate yet.

I think thats the only graphical option that should be mandatory for consoles.

 

[Nakazato]

haha friend just sent me this.

Lol

 

[Kinthalis]

That's ironic it's a situation that goes both ways considering history.

Yep, recall many a console warrior expressing the same sentiment with old PC indies that came to PS4 or re-releases like TombRaider.

 

[cjtiger300]

In what world is this a locked 30 on consoles? I regularly saw it dip into what seems like low 20s.

Earth as of the last patch.

 

[LCGeek]

I wonder why all devs dont allow us to unlock framerate yet.

I think thats the only graphical option that should be mandatory for consoles.

If you give mainstream consumers same graphical options as pc it will confuse or complicate things if they screw up their settings. I want the same but most devs still don't want to use menus that unlock or that have to be activated.

 

[StevieP]

This game it's pratically locked on ps4. 28 drops at the worst but very rare and short.

Since we all love digital foundry here

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-grand-theft-auto-5-performance-analysis

In certain areas: "Sustained drops to 24-26 fps on ps4"

Perhaps we shouldn't be talking about locked frametates on consoles in this regard when comparing to this budget gaming rig and calling it out for drops to 50 in denser areas.

 

[Javin98]

Since we all love digital foundry here

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-grand-theft-auto-5-performance-analysis

In certain areas: "Sustained drops to 24-26 fps on ps4"

Perhaps we shouldn't be talking about locked frametates on consoles in this regard when comparing to this budget gaming rig and calling it out for drops to 50 in denser areas.

So you're gonna just ignore the latest patch on purpose? Right....

 

[omonimo]

Since we all love digital foundry here

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-grand-theft-auto-5-performance-analysis

In certain areas: "Sustained drops to 24-26 fps on ps4"

Perhaps we shouldn't be talking about locked frametates on consoles in this regard when comparing to this budget gaming rig and calling it out for drops to 50 in denser areas.

This is before the patch. It's no more on ps4.

 

[Dictator93]

Wow, very IPC and clock speed dependent, I can't think of another game where you need that much CPU to max out a single GPU. GTAVI is gonna need to heavily utilize cloud processing.

Don't forget about ACEs, it needs to use the ACEs!

 

[StevieP]

So you're gonna just ignore the latest patch on purpose? Right....

This is before the patch. It's no more on ps4.

I mean, the last digital foundry article from April in regards to GTA 5 said there were actually lower frametates in some places. There was a giant pissing match thread on here over it iirc