GTA V PS4: 1080@30, Core i3/750Ti: 1080@60. How is this possible?
- Thread starter alexandros
- Start date
Sigh, you played the game 5 months ago and you think your opinion on how it performs now is relevant.
Cute.
Beerman462
Member
I wouldn't touch the G3528, but the i3 did really well there.
Yeah the Alienware was a great deal at $400. I just wish you could upgrade the GPU.
An i3/i5 paired with a 750Ti only needs a 250-280 watt power supply, so you could almost definitely add to an existing home PC. Granted it would need a PCI express slot.
Yeah, You basically have an i7 Alienware Alpha. The i3 base model has been very competitive with the PS4.
Free online also. Over 5 years you can save a lot of money
Beerman462
Member
True, but I feel like the free games from PS+ more then offset that.
Basically I think arguing over the little details of Steam Sales vs Used games, PS+ vs free online, ease of use... these arguments are all deflective.
There are a million ways to offset costs on consoles and PC. People generally find a way to afford the things they really want. Value is just to subjective to argue over paid online vs the cost of an OS for example.
I was ready to buy a PS4, just for Bloodborne currently, but when the good bundles dried up and the hype passed. I got over it. I would rather wait for a real price drop. In the mean time I paid $20 for the DS2 SotFS upgrade(totally worth it) and I'm going to pick up GTAV.
I've used MSI after burner and don't see any performance loss. The new cards have built in video encoding/decoding same as the new consoles. That's how Nvidia Shadow play and Steam in home streaming works.
I can't vouch for the i3, but with my 750 ti + i5 4440, with Shadowplay recording the FPS hit seems nearly non-existent. 1-2 FPS at worst, in my experience.
mutatedwombat
Member
If you compare low end PCs (PS4, XBox One) with a low end PC, you should get similar results - which I'm pretty sure would be the case if you uncapped the frame rate on each.
The whole point of having a PC is power and flexibility, and the price you pay for that is cost and complexity. I see little point in having a low end PC. The advantages do not outweigh the convenience provided by a console.
PCs are ideal for people who want to play their games on 2K or 4K monitors at 60 fps, and can afford the cost.
The whole point of having a PC is power and flexibility, and the price you pay for that is cost and complexity. I see little point in having a low end PC. The advantages do not outweigh the convenience provided by a console.
PCs are ideal for people who want to play their games on 2K or 4K monitors at 60 fps, and can afford the cost.
I've got a decent pc with G Sync monitor and I play my PS4 more at the moment.
I think now I am aging that I prefer the slower pace of playing online with confidence that everyone has the same controllers and no hax.
Gold_Loot
Member
Nobody's talking ram here.
Joke post right?
Shaqiri1987
Banned
You get what you pay for.
lyrick
Member
???
I've got a ton of friends who play on PC because games like Rome Total War, and Civ V, and Cities SKylines, and Star Craft 2, and Pillars of Eternity, and a myriad other games don't ever show up on consoles. Also mods. I guess I gotta let them know that their doing it wrong?
This whole thing about PC gaming only being about graphics is hilarious, when the fact is that PC has the largest library of highly rated exclusives of any platform. There are a ton of reasons to play games on PC in ADDITION to the fact that you can get better performance and graphics with better hardware.
Those games aren't free, you're paying 50$ a year to rent them.
Humble bundles at the 1$ tier will net you many more games for way cheaper
And you'll get to keep them.
mutatedwombat
Member
You are right. I forgot about these two in particular, which you can probably play on a potato:
Dota 2 (peak players online today: 833,202)
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (peak players online today: 542,031)
And probably a good 1,001 others, yes.
BByougotme.jif
Saucycarpdog
Member
I thought this thread was about PC and PS4 hardware specs. Why are you and others derailing it with talk of how much you like online features of the PS4?
Along with spreading false info?
Caayn
Member
Fair enough. But that does makes me wonder, if you don't own a PS4 why are you so sure that DF isn't using the correct settings?Dude, I don't know how to tell you this, but I don't have a PS4..... yet
On a more serious note, some of the settings may be on high while others on very high on the PS4 version IMO.
Anyway here are two examples. Using only high settings + FXAA + 16xAF + tessellation on normal and all advanced graphic options disabled. I didn't bother with the two garbage bins/bags examples, as the map is simply way to large to find a similar spot.
PS4 said:
PC High said:
PS4 said:
PC High said:
PC High + Very High textures + Very High post processing said:
Textures seem to be a mix between normal, high and very high on the PS4. For the rest I think DF pretty much nailed their high settings estimate.
People saying the consoles should be more powerful to reach 60fps, just listen to me for a second.
If the PS4 had a quantum processor able to render an entire pixar film in 2 nanoseconds, your games would still be optimised for 30fps in many cases.
Games sell if they look good during the promo, they look good-er that way. End of story.
If the PS4 had a quantum processor able to render an entire pixar film in 2 nanoseconds, your games would still be optimised for 30fps in many cases.
Games sell if they look good during the promo, they look good-er that way. End of story.
Beerman462
Member
I know how PS+ works. Either way you're getting something for your $50 a year. In the rest of my post I said I dont think arguing about the misc expenses of console vs PC is worth it. The value proposition is too subjective.
Example: PS4 comes with a controller so you have to pay extra for that in PC....well most people have a controller already. You have to pay $10O windows...alot of people have a license, school discount or buy from reddit. PS+ is $50 a year to play online...comes with games.
Just to many differnt subjective values to consider, because it's different from person to person.
All this is so close to the $60 you pay for a single game...who cares.
Enter the Dragon Punch
Banned
I want a good-er quantum processor able to render an entire pixar film in 2 nanoseconds
Thanks, I really appreciate this. So your findings are similar to UnrealEcK's. He found textures to be somewhere around high to very high and Post FX at very high. But I doubt normal textures are in the PS4 version. It looks absolutely horrible and from what I've seen, the textures on PS4 generally look much better. Anyway, I'm not sure about anything, I'm just speculating. Also, how does the foliage and shading compare? How about water?
Caayn
Member
I'm saying that I agree with DF. I only found textures to sit between normal, high and very high. AF also seems to be at 2x, I tried 4x, 8x and 16x but they all produce better results. 2x is the only AF settings that seems to match the PS4 screenshots.
Anyway here are a few more comparisons. All with high settings same as the last time, only this time with 2x AF instead of 16x.
PS4 said:
PC High said:
PS4 said:
PC High said:
PS4 said:
PC High said:
Well this thread it's full too of derails posts about the good deal to buy of low budget PC over a console, to be honest.
Well, if you agree with DF, that's good for you. But I'm still wondering what settings water, shading and foliage are on. If you think the other settings are all on high, can you please provide screenshots? And we all know GTA 5 on PS4 had bad AF anyway. Nobody was denying that.
Caayn
Member
I've shown you screenshot that show the PC high settings compared to the PS4 version. Yet you still refuse to accept that the PS4 version might be running at high settings. If you still feel that way feel to prove me wrong. Why does it bother you so much?
I mentioned AF because in my previous post I used 16xAF. I corrected myself and explained why.
that would require installing some 90s multimedia windows wrapper in order to disable 95% of PC functionality.
SneakyStephan
Banned
heyoo
anyhow the last few pages are ugly
talk about exclusives, 'haxxors on pc' and 'even ground with everyone ghaving a controller'
These threads always end up the exact same way, and always go through the exact same cycle.
Hardcore gamer have made a comparison between PC and PS4 :
http://www.hardcoregamer.com/2015/04/18/grand-theft-auto-v-face-off-pc-vs-ps4/144886/
http://www.hardcoregamer.com/2015/04/18/grand-theft-auto-v-face-off-pc-vs-ps4/144886/
n0razi
Member
most people prefer renting now... just look at the stats of people who switched to services like netflix and spotify over buying it on itunes, etc...
as for the OP's post, i believe that on consoles, the devs are going to a framerate target... ie shoot for a steady 30fps and have the quality dynamically scale (killzone on vita dynamically changed resolution for example). 30fps gives you more breathing room over 60fps which might only hit 15% of the time. on a PC, you dial in a specific graphical setting and the game can vary in framerate from 30-100fps...
CharmingCharlie
Member
Easy Peasy just install either Windows Vista or Windows Millennium and bingo you wipe 98% of the PC's functionality away
Primarily PC gamer here but even I am sceptical about all this. Unless we discover what the console equivalent settings are we will never know and there is a real danger of underestimating the console version of GTA 5.
I remember when GTA 4 came out, it was all bravado in that everyone thought the console settings = low settings on the PC. When Rockstar eventually revealed the settings it turned out that most console settings were Medium. A few smiles were wiped off faces that day I can tell ya
Easy Peasy just install either Windows Vista or Windows Millennium and bingo you wipe 98% of the PC's functionality away
Primarily PC gamer here but even I am sceptical about all this. Unless we discover what the console equivalent settings are we will never know and there is a real danger of underestimating the console version of GTA 5.
I remember when GTA 4 came out, it was all bravado in that everyone thought the console settings = low settings on the PC. When Rockstar eventually revealed the settings it turned out that most console settings were Medium. A few smiles were wiped off faces that day I can tell ya
I don't remember them ever revealing what settings were used on consoles, do you mind giving your source ?
I'm not disputing that the PC version had much better visuals of course than the blurry mess on display on 360/PS3.
Or
- Want to be content creators (3d, machinema, lets play etc..)
- Want to play mod games
- Want to made their own mods, or even their own game
- Want to play exclusive PC titles like DF, Prison Architect, SC2, Dota2, LOL, FTL, and on and on..
- Don't want a gatekeeper store, closed ecosystem
- Want the option to choose a wide arrange of input devices
- Prefer the flexibility of modular hardware
- Want to play all time classics like SC2000, Dungeon Keeper, Planetscape etc..
The way I see it, having decent performance is probably not the biggest PC selling point, at least not for me.
CharmingCharlie
Member
If memory serves it was actually in a readme file on rockstars support website. I can't find it now but there was a topic about it in GTAforums at the time :-
http://gtaforums.com/topic/378730-graphical-performance-readme/
Rockstar said:
They didn't reveal "all the settings" but they did tell us some of them. I doubt we will get so lucky this time with GTA 5 though.
Console uses the standard FXAA solution i think. PC has the option of FXAA, TXAA or MSAA.
So yeah, console is gonna look a bit blurry by comparison depending on which one you have on.
That being said, 1080p with FXAA on PS4 is a way better alternative to 720p FXAA on PS3, so i can't complain too much about it(wished they had used SMAA though, even the weakest iteration would have been better than FXAA)
So yeah, console is gonna look a bit blurry by comparison depending on which one you have on.
That being said, 1080p with FXAA on PS4 is a way better alternative to 720p FXAA on PS3, so i can't complain too much about it(wished they had used SMAA though, even the weakest iteration would have been better than FXAA)
Dictator93
Member
I think antoher reason is that the PS4 is using gaussian like depth of field in every scene (that is rather shallow in depth) while the PC version is using Bokeh. You can see for example the artficats from the specific bokeh implementation around peoples faces (the bloom like halo).
lyrick
Member
From Rockstar's file it reads that the GTAIV console version ran below Medium rendering settings, less than the 22 view distance setting and equal to a 10 in detail distance.
UnrealEck
Member
When I was trying to do my own comparison, I thought the same but I never brought it up. Yes, I even thought the PS4 version ran a bit lower than 1920x1080 and was output to 1080p.
I chalked it up to possibly just being image compression but I guess FXAA could be a part of it.
I'm waiting on my card back from MSI so I can't really do a proper 'high end PC experience' comparison with DSR and the distance sliders turned up. Those sliders make a pretty big difference in some areas but you need good hardware for it.
Just read this and added it to my post to say that when I was comparing, I was using FXAA on the PC version.
Thanks a lot for this. My mind is actually blown, I had no idea about any of this.
Like for instance Rockstar advising to use the medium settings.
What was obvious at the time was that GTA 4 was a very, very impressive game. I'm replaying it and the physics was amazing for the time.
Easy Peasy just install either Windows Vista or Windows Millennium and bingo you wipe 98% of the PC's functionality away
Primarily PC gamer here but even I am sceptical about all this. Unless we discover what the console equivalent settings are we will never know and there is a real danger of underestimating the console version of GTA 5.
I remember when GTA 4 came out, it was all bravado in that everyone thought the console settings = low settings on the PC. When Rockstar eventually revealed the settings it turned out that most console settings were Medium. A few smiles were wiped off faces that day I can tell ya
With winme you have a point. Vista got well deserved slack for its release state, but post SP2 you'd find a lot more similarities than differences between it and win 7, 8, 8.1 and even 10. They're all the same fork of NT (v6), with obvious performance improvements as time went on. Vista in its current state is orders of magnitude better and more useful than XP (nt5).
You can prefer renting all you'd like, but people who use the term "free games" to describe their justification for being fleeced yearly are being disingenuous in that terminology.
Caayn
Member
Noticed that as well. Maybe a bad implementation of FXAA is the cause combined with the DOF filter on the PS4. The shots I took and posted here all include FXAA as well but none look as blurry as the PS4 shots.
SneakyStephan
Banned
Easy Peasy just install either Windows Vista or Windows Millennium and bingo you wipe 98% of the PC's functionality away
Primarily PC gamer here but even I am sceptical about all this. Unless we discover what the console equivalent settings are we will never know and there is a real danger of underestimating the console version of GTA 5.
I remember when GTA 4 came out, it was all bravado in that everyone thought the console settings = low settings on the PC. When Rockstar eventually revealed the settings it turned out that most console settings were Medium. A few smiles were wiped off faces that day I can tell ya
Your post is a salty strawman + bad reading comprehension
the only settings that rockstar revealed for the console versions was what the sliders were set at for the console version (10 21 and 20 out of a 100 maximum for the 3 sliders)
Which is exactly in line with what people were seeing with their own eyes before.
Similar threads
- Locked