Exactly what I was talking about earlier. There are *so* many options in the game that the chart is not representative of what you can achieve in-game with a given CPU/GPU. People are running the game at 1080p/60fps with some pretty modest rigs.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Face-Off: Grand Theft Auto 5 on PC
- Thread starter mocoworm
- Start date
Isn't PS4 more powerful than the XB1? Why then do we have massive Face-off threads whenever we see those comparisons?
What makes you think this? What makes you even think it will be a port? Given the series and studio's history, I think it's more than reasonable to expect an excellent PC version. This is the first time the series is even going to be available at launch on consoles.
Why would they suddenly go into regression from The Witcher 2? I'm curious as to what signs you've seen that makes you think this because it seems so completely out of left field to me.
What's exactly your point?
Glad I don't have your eyes... oO
That differences only matter between the ps4 and xbone however small they might be. But when the PC version comes along it all of a sudden no longer matters.
Journey
Banned
Stereogatari
Banned
I've created a visual aid.
Thank you.
The fanboyism has gone too far when you have people arguing a fully fledged PC port is the same as a PS4 game.
I hope for the sake of those posters that they're teenagers, because otherwise it's quite embarrassing behaviour.
I don't think if someone said something of stupid it become the flag of a community if it's clear what I mean. Difference could count. Why count more the opinion of people who said otherwise?
You just seemed dismissive that the PC shot was on ultra and not comparable to a PS4. I don't see how it's much different than comparing PS4 and Xb1, seeing how one is more powerful than the other.
No I said it's perfectly normal a respectable PC can put in the shame a ps4. I was surprised we need to prove it with a shot. I admit I though it was a comparison with a comparable rig because I believed it wasn't even in discussion the difference with a powerful PC.
It's painful to watch but honestly, its not going anywhere. A video game system is a 5-7 year, $1000+ (games included) investment. Some people will do anything/say anything to convince themselves they made the right decision.
Sadly sometimes that turns into a campaign to prove that everyone else made the wrong decision
So you can take time in each shot to look at the technical differences between each system. Shadows, jaggies, polygon count, etc.
Air Zombie Meat
Member
Thats funny considering all you do is whine about console gamers.
DirgeExtinction
Member
So wait, do the consoles use ultra presets?
I'm never tired of providing proof regarding this :
As you can see AMD cards perform abnormaly badly, signs of clear CPU bottlenecks that do not seem to impact Geforce cards nearly as much.
But how crazy am I to even suggest that Nvidia drivers may be slightly better than AMD's.
It's one of the biggest PC release of the year and it's a showcase for Nvidia. Rockstar demoed the game on Geforce hardware for a reason.
I'm a huge AMD GPU fan and I completely agree. They completely dropped the ball when it comes to DX11 CPU utilization.
However, with the latest drivers, I get a stable 30 fps in 4k and 50-70 fps in 1080p with a 4670K and a single 290, so that graph isn't completely accurate for me.
I think this completely wrong way to look at it. Console settings are extremely flexible, each parameter of each setting will be finely adjusted such that it is a balanced experience. Just like a PC gamer can go into the XML files and adjust on a decimal basis. It looks like some settings are close or equal to PC Ultra settings, buts its possible that there are small differences that are hard to distinguish, those that can eat up a lot of resources.
IMACOMPUTA
Member
Maybe they had msaa off?
viveks86
Member
You don't need MSAA at 4k. I used FXAA too. A Titan X can comfortably pull off 1080p60. With some tradeoffs, it can do 1440p60. There's no way it will touch 4k60 without significant compromises. Not on the countryside at least
IMACOMPUTA
Member
Well if I remember correctly, smokey was able to do 4x msaa at over 60fps maxed with his titans at 4k. It would wound about right for a single titan without msaa to be able to get around 60.. Weird
I've created a visual aid.
I would of thought being a PC guy who, assumably, knows how graphic performance work, you would know most of the missing grass on consoles comes from LOD. The grass and other foliage is actually there when you get closer. "grassgate" between PS4 and XB1 had actual missing foliage.
People tried to do the same thing using those, perfect for a fashion magazine, enhanced PC screens from RS to show that PS4 had completely missing foliage. That's not actually the case.
Marketing shot from RS
PS4 screen taken further away and not even at the correct angle
Correct PS4 screen
You PC guys are something else.
Nobody even said the word and considering I own a 7950 and 970 as two of my main gpus don't even get your paranoia.
When nvidia stops overcharging for cards in certain spec ranges I will give them a call but I only get their power when it matters. I saw no point in a 660/670/680 considering I got it 160$ after rebate and oced it to 7970 stock spec or more whereas going with any card that performs similar would cost me 100$+ at the time of purchase. Even now it pulls its own and isn't that far behind cards of similar spec.
Comparing amd laptops to their gpus show even more lack of awareness. Those laptop gpus can't even touch certain desktop radeon 5xxx and 6xxx variants stock or oced.
You're sick of seeing amd compared but not everysite that does benchmarks talk about the arrogance of your opinion.
It's painful to watch but honestly, its not going anywhere. A video game system is a 5-7 year, $1000+ (games included) investment. Some people will do anything/say anything to convince themselves they made the right decision.
Sadly sometimes that turns into a campaign to prove that everyone else made the wrong decision
Because this only comes from one side right? Or is the master race too proper for this?
Both sides are equally bad.
viveks86
Member
His initial numbers were off because precisionX doesn't report correct numbers with this game. After fixing that, he managed to pull off 60 average (still not locked) on 1600p. And I believe this includes over clocking as well.
Got a solid 60fps (i have the 59Hz issue) average at 2560x1600 (hooked up my Dell U3011). GPU usage on my cards remained in the 70% range during my latest session:
I moved Grass down to Very High from Ultra, but kept everything else at max. Using 4x MSAA + FXAA. In NVCP I went to the GTA V profile and enabled 16x AF, Prefer Maximum Performance, and forced Vsync and Triple buffering. The 60fps was in the desert or city it didn't matter. I flew a bit, completed some Trevor missions, and drove from through the country side all through LS.
I've now tried and test the game in with 3 different monitors and resolutions. My preferences:
1. 4k
2. Dell U3011
3. ROG Swift
4k is first because the game looks damn amazing when running at that resolution. I put the Dell second because the colors and the size of this monitor really make GTA V pop. Swift last just because it's not as "in your face" as the other two options in terms of wow, but it is still great. GSYNC makes things nice and smooth.
I stopped using Precision X and went to Afterburner for my overclock software and OSD. Since then and the patch, I have not had any crashes. I've read of others having crashes will aiming out of windows of vehicles or heists, but thankfully I've experienced none of that.
And that's with 2 cards in SLI. No way DF got solid 4k60 with just 1 card and minor cutbacks.
@ On Demand.
No the grass differences are not due to LOD, the grass is simply never there on consoles and never was/will be. The camera is literally 1 meter away from the grass right there. The PC both has more grass, and more distant LOD on the maximum setting, and probably the one under max too.
And as for the second screenshot, the differences in shadowing, self-shadowing on grass, resolution, lighting, and general sharpness/aliasing are so obvious that I have no idea if you honestly cannot see a difference or not or are simply trolling.
No the grass differences are not due to LOD, the grass is simply never there on consoles and never was/will be. The camera is literally 1 meter away from the grass right there. The PC both has more grass, and more distant LOD on the maximum setting, and probably the one under max too.
And as for the second screenshot, the differences in shadowing, self-shadowing on grass, resolution, lighting, and general sharpness/aliasing are so obvious that I have no idea if you honestly cannot see a difference or not or are simply trolling.
As far as I'm concerned, if the foliage isn't there when you're 10ft away, it's missing foliage as this game is not about close up visuals. Just because it pops into existence when you get close doesn't make it better. That makes it *worse*.
More poignant
WOW. Their is a stark difference between PC, PS4 and Xbox One (besides the framerate).
EDIT: The hill in the background is completely covered in foliage on the PC and barren on the consoles.
The difference comes mainly from LOD. Therefore it doesn't matter because the grass is still there on consoles.
I just provided screens showing that's not really true. People are acting like there's no foliage at all compared to the PC version.
I already mentioned LOD. You say it's not that then go to say the PC has better LOD?
We're talking about foilage here. Don't know why you're bringing up other graphic effects.
Teletraan1
Banned
I am not sure how PC gamers can't understand that when console gamers are comparing PS4 and XB1 they are comparing 2 fairly similar boxes that were released almost simultaneously and at a similar price point. The base hardware is mostly the same outside of a different memory setup and a slightly stronger GPU. It makes natural sense to compare these two devices since we have almost never in the console space had two pieces of similar hardware launch pretty much simultaneously.
Showing a comparison screen with ultra foliage that won't run well on a box that is comparable to either console is about as impactful as showing a comparison with a Civic a Camry and a Mclaren F1. Has anyone ever seriously say there is no difference between PS4 and PC, why are trolls and the uninformed the face of console gaming? So Tom Penny drops a troll in every console vs PC thread ever and that is what console gamers think. Its Nonsense. Especially when the performance impact of this particular setting is so high that I reasonably wouldn't expect it to run on a mass market consumer device like a console. You won't be playing with those foliage settings and LOD on the mythical $400 budget PC, you paid to use those settings so enjoy them without the false narrative.
Showing a comparison screen with ultra foliage that won't run well on a box that is comparable to either console is about as impactful as showing a comparison with a Civic a Camry and a Mclaren F1. Has anyone ever seriously say there is no difference between PS4 and PC, why are trolls and the uninformed the face of console gaming? So Tom Penny drops a troll in every console vs PC thread ever and that is what console gamers think. Its Nonsense. Especially when the performance impact of this particular setting is so high that I reasonably wouldn't expect it to run on a mass market consumer device like a console. You won't be playing with those foliage settings and LOD on the mythical $400 budget PC, you paid to use those settings so enjoy them without the false narrative.
And what is the point of that?
Any screenshot you compare there is gonna be that difference of foliage in the distance.
So the difference is there.
Why does it not matter? Yet clearly does matter when LOD distance is effected in consoles?
If I am stood in the same position, it is effectively not there on one version of the game - until I walk further, but is there immediately for the other version. In movement, this effect continues due to a larger LOD distance on one versus the other.
This is the same issue for other effects and suddenly doesn't matter to some people, but in a console version it does matter. Make up your minds!
To me it matters per game version rather than hardware. If I own GTA5 and play it on a laptop, but can then go to a high spec machine that scales it well to match the extra power, that seems important to that version. To say it doesn't matter is ridiculous for a PC game
Lys Skygge
Member
Damn the LOD on the PC version looks great! I would take a resolution decrease for an LOD increase for the PS4 version.
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
I think you're really underselling how many people who are completely unfamiliar with PC gaming pop into threads like this and spout nonsense.
Personally, I just ignore it but I can understand why people want to correct them.
If you're not interested in the comparison, feel free to not enter these threads. I don't know what your point is otherwise. That a PS4 vs XB1 comparison is valid, but a PC vs PS4 comparison isn't?
Perhaps you find the PS4 vs XB1 comparisons more interesting, but I find it all interesting. We all know the PS4 is more powerful and will get the better version of the game the vast majority of the time, so it's not like the whole, "Well of course the PC version will be better" line of reasoning stands up as to why it shouldn't be discussed as I can apply the same reasoning for XB1 vs PS4. Far from the platform war shit that a lot of people treat this as, I simply find it interesting to see what sort of choices and options developers have made for different platforms given their strengths/weaknesses. Many developers do not put a whole lot of effort into 'fully utilizing' PC's, so it's always nice to see when a dev like Rockstar here have put in the man hours and done some really worthwhile and substantial improvements for those who play on PC.
That's the thing about PC gaming...people compare this extremely performance consuming settings and then compare it to consoles.
Well no shit it looks better. You need to have a PC that costs around 2k$ or so to have the game run like that with a decent performance. But of course this doesn't matter and it's an invalid argument, because the game CAN look like that no matter what.
It's bullshit.
Most PC gamers will be playing the game similarly to the PS4 version ( which is great ) so it doesn't even fucking matter.
By the end of last gen the differences were actually interesting. Something like Crysis 3 or Metro on consoles was very much behind a budget PC. There were ton of differences between the versions.
This game has little differences to the point where you can only notice if you put a 2k$ PC against a 400$ console.
But of course, this is just us console gamers justifying out choice, right?
Do you really think this game "fully utilizes PC's" ?
This is basically a last gen game with some improvements. It doesn't fully utilize PC's. It would have to be built for PC's from the ground up for that ( which will never happen with Rockstar ).
That's why the diminishing returns are so obvious. The improvements that exist ( IQ, LOD, shadow resolution and so forth ) take such a toll on performance that you need a very expensive PC to brute force through it. They won't be worth the performance trade for most people.
I feel like these improvements are just "diminishing-returns-settings" being "brute-forced" by beastly PC's, which just shows that these PC ports do NOT actually utilize the "power of the PC".
If the game was build to truly utilize today's high-end hardware you could probably have a game that looked as good as Unity with the expansiveness and detail of GTA and have it run better than what this currently does.
That was a flawe attempt at sarcasm
My fault, it is difficult to identify sarcasm between all this nonsense talking.
Other than price, I can't agree with this.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=562401
It is generally expected that the PS4 version of a multiplat will either outperform or look better than the XB1 version. And when it isn't, people will (every time) bitch about "parity".
Downplaying the improvements of another version and saying it doesn't matter definitely sounds like somebody trying to justify their own choice to me.That's the thing about PC gaming...people compare this extremely performance consuming settings and then compare it to consoles.
Well no shit it looks better. You need to have a PC that costs around 2k$ or so to have the game run like that with a decent performance. But of course this doesn't matter and it's an invalid argument, because the game CAN look like that no matter what.
It's bullshit.
Most PC gamers will be playing the game similarly to the PS4 version ( which is great ) so it doesn't even fucking matter.
By the end of last gen the differences were actually interesting. Something like Crysis 3 or Metro on consoles was very much behind a budget PC. There were ton of differences between the versions.
This game has little differences to the point where you can only notice if you put a 2k$ PC against a 400$ console.
But of course, this is just us console gamers justifying out choice, right?
And here we see the old "You need a $2000 PC" nonsense stuff again. lol
Honestly, anybody with a half decent PC(that doesn't cost a fortune) can run this at more or less console settings PLUS 60fps. You say that doesn't matter, but it does. It does and you know it, but you are downplaying it 'for some reason'. Frankly I can play this game at 4k and console framerate(which looks glorious), but I choose to play at 1440p and 60fps instead because the 60fps really does make the game look and feel sooo much better.
So go be happy with your version if you're ok with it. But don't come in here trying to say these improvements don't matter or that nobody should care about them. You come across as totally bitter in doing so.
Not saying that they don't matter.
I'm just saying that they are very far from what they could be if the developers actually utilized the power of todays high-end graphics cards. ( see my edit to your response above)
But this never happens because todays AAA games are built with consoles in mind since that's where the money is.
My point is, and this is obviously a personal opinion, the graphical improvements that we are getting on PC ports are very dissatisfying compared to the power that these PCs have and the money that they cost.
Within the confines of the same engine and general practicality, yes, this version does mostly fully utilize PC's. Obviously if you're going to take that phrase ultra literally, you could argue they could do more, but I think you know what I mean. Rockstar did very well to give the PC version some very good improvements and the optimization looks to be fantastic, with even CPU loading and all(allowing for an easier time to hit higher framerates).
As far as all the graphical goodies go, of course some of them are expensive, power-wise. But they are nice to have. The game allows tremendous scalability from lower end PC's to extremely high end ones.
Lol. This console gen is pushing me to considering building a PC sometime.I've created a visual aid.
IMACOMPUTA
Member
Ah, thanks for the clarification.
You are asking for waaaaaaay too much from the Mustard Race...