This and with every new chipset released the gap with only grow larger i used to be a pc head but over the years got fed up off the cost and upgrading
How big is the difference in visuals/performance between PC and PS4/Xbox really?
- Thread starter MrOogieBoogie
- Start date
Simple answer: the difference is noticeable. The question isn't really about which is better, or by how much, but rather if you care.
I ditched my pc which was in desperate need of an upgrade after 5 years for a PS4 and I've not looked back. Steam is great, but there's nothing more frustrating than something going wrong and not knowing exactly why.
I'll probably go back to PC gaming at some point, but it can wait until I need a new PC for work.
I ditched my pc which was in desperate need of an upgrade after 5 years for a PS4 and I've not looked back. Steam is great, but there's nothing more frustrating than something going wrong and not knowing exactly why.
I'll probably go back to PC gaming at some point, but it can wait until I need a new PC for work.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Am I the only one who thinks prices are a little out of hand?! The next step up is a $500 card! That's technically mid range as well.
It's merely semantics and not something worth thinking too hard on. It IS mid-end when we're talking specifically about gaming-grade hardware available for PC. A 750 TI is $100 and that's probably the minimum you want in a GPU today because it can be competitive with the PS4 in most games. The lowest-end current gen Nvidia GPU is the 950 at $150. Any lower and you're talking about legacy hardware or non-gaming PC's. You also have to consider what "high-end" tails. The 980 and 980 TI start at $470 and $620 respectively. Given this range of gaming-grade hardware, I believe calling the $300 970 "mid-end" hardware is completely accurate.
Prices are not really at all out of hand. If you don't need a $500 card, buy something cheaper. It's pretty simple...
JailDesigner
Member
I have an Alienware Alpha and bought Project Cars and I'm not very happy now
That and Arkham Knight are probably the biggest stand-outs where games don't perform well on that hardware. I don't know of any other games, though.
PC is CPU-bottlenecked while AK is VRAM-capped. You need a 3GB card to run medium textures without stuttering.
Try this, when you are loaded into the world map, go into settings, switch a setting like postprocessing effects to low and hit apply. Now switch it back up to high or whatever you had it on. You should get an increase in performance. I have a similar setup and I can run the game with textures on high (not highest), and most everything else cranked all the way up, but there is some weird issue with the game where everytime I boot it up, it runs like crap until I change and apply a setting and then change it back. I go from like 45 frames to near 60.
Also, stay away from high grass settings and super high draw distance settings. Those seem to be framerate killers. 1 notch above the lowest for grass settings seems to be best.
Got an X51 with a 970 in it, wired up to my TV with controller and PS4.. seem to have best of both worlds. Cheap PC games that look great, better multi plats on PC and exclusive PS4 games.
Should get what appeals to you most, cheaper better looking games (PC dependant) or exclusives... or if you can get both!
Should get what appeals to you most, cheaper better looking games (PC dependant) or exclusives... or if you can get both!
alexandros
Banned
Eh, these cards are certainly not cheap but on the other hand even the lowest-end gaming card on the market provides console-like performance so it's not like we are forced to buy the $300+ cards. That, plus the fact that many older cards are still quite capable of holding their own today, means that most people can wait it out until they can get exactly what they want. I do agree with you that a $300 card can't be considered mid-range. Anything above $200-250 is high end territory. Personally, I'm holding on to my gtx 660 until I can get a 8800gt-like jump with a $200 card.
CaptainZombie
Member
Yeah actually the 970 is mid tier unfortunately according to what NVIDIA has done with their goofy pricing. Some even considered the 980 mid tier and then the 980Ti and Titan would be your High end. As long as you're enjoying the card I wouldn't care.
For even a middling PC I would say is fairly high. However, I do own a display that can make use of the higher framerate, resolutions and synchronizable refresh rates.
But I have to say that I'm very sensible to artifacts like screen tearing, other imperfections like frame stutter and scaling artifacts also bother me. While many people still can't tell the difference between 30 and 60fps, DVD and Bluray on their 1080p sets and can't see tearing or frame stutter.
But I have to say that I'm very sensible to artifacts like screen tearing, other imperfections like frame stutter and scaling artifacts also bother me. While many people still can't tell the difference between 30 and 60fps, DVD and Bluray on their 1080p sets and can't see tearing or frame stutter.
alexandros
Banned
I have an Alienware Alpha and bought Project Cars and I'm not very happy now
There will always be outliers. Project Cars is the exception to the rule by running worse than the PS4 version on the Alpha, as is Alien Isolation by running better than the PS4 version. Even on console there are a few ganes that run better on xb1 compared to the ps4 for whatever reason.
JimmyRustler
Member
How in e world s the 970 mid range when you can max out almost every single available game?
Yeah you'd have to spend $1000 imo to get the real benefits of PC gaming. It's nice to buy a PC for similar money to the PS4/Xbox One but I don't see much point. You're better off saving extra until you have enough to build a proper PC that can get you at least 1080p/60fps on ultra which is very doable.
alexandros
Banned
Threre are many benefits to gaming on PC regardless of the level of performance.
Quoting myself.
Unless of course Nvidia ranges from mid-tier, high end, super high end, enthusiast. Changes nothing other than semantics.
Dick Justice
Banned
I'm fairly sure that the "change setting back and forth" thing sorts out the VRAM usage. When I use MSI Afterburner, I notice that upon booting up the game, it shows around 1900-2000MB of VRAM usage (using a 2GB 770). When I change shadow quality back and forth, the usage drops to about 1700-1800MB, and the game runs a bit more smoothly. But I think that VRAM usage naturally drops anyway, it's just upon loading up that it's abnormally high.
Framerate for many people changes the end user experience.
Technically the GM204 is a mid-range chip as well.
All depends on how much value you place on the high end. Your AAA games will look even more AAA, but I'd rather play on the couch with a mid-priced console/living room media hub where all the games are optimized for that specific hardware.
I don't play TOO many AAA games, but I was happy with how Witcher 3 performed on the XB1, I'm sure Fallout 4 and FF15 will be adequate too. It's not like we're talking about an old school Gameboy port vs its SNES equivalent or something.
IMO. this console gen looks "good enough" but there will always be an enthusiast subset that places more value on keeping up with the Joneses or maybe its that FPS drops bother them enough so that they spend more on a good system. All the people who say that PC + Wii U is the way to go have it right in that its all about the games, it shows that you don't necessarily need a powerhouse in order to have fun playing video games.
I don't play TOO many AAA games, but I was happy with how Witcher 3 performed on the XB1, I'm sure Fallout 4 and FF15 will be adequate too. It's not like we're talking about an old school Gameboy port vs its SNES equivalent or something.
IMO. this console gen looks "good enough" but there will always be an enthusiast subset that places more value on keeping up with the Joneses or maybe its that FPS drops bother them enough so that they spend more on a good system. All the people who say that PC + Wii U is the way to go have it right in that its all about the games, it shows that you don't necessarily need a powerhouse in order to have fun playing video games.
Kudo
Member
Games look so great nowadays you don't really see much difference unless you start to compare them next to each other.
I just got new Skylake PC that is more than capable of high-end gaming and use 2560x1440, yet I still find myself using PS4 more for games. I didn't buy it for games though so that explains.
Is the difference big enough to skip all the exclusives completely? No, not at all in my opinion, but there is difference in multiplats of course if you spend more on your PC.
If you can only have one of them I'd go for the console just because of so many exclusives, but if you're in gaming solely for graphics you may want PC that is capable of 4k and such.
I just got new Skylake PC that is more than capable of high-end gaming and use 2560x1440, yet I still find myself using PS4 more for games. I didn't buy it for games though so that explains.
Is the difference big enough to skip all the exclusives completely? No, not at all in my opinion, but there is difference in multiplats of course if you spend more on your PC.
If you can only have one of them I'd go for the console just because of so many exclusives, but if you're in gaming solely for graphics you may want PC that is capable of 4k and such.
I know right. Like when people couldn't play MCC online, or when AC:Unity was just totlaly breaking for people. Or how Witcher 3 becomes unplayable when it rains or in swamps, or when using bombs.
Sucks.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
I'm enjoying my PC immensely, but my fear is falling behind if I'm not upgrading things every few years. I'm probably being paranoid.
As mentioned, this is a relative term. It's always been a relative term, and it's always in the context of other PC hardware. It's never been in the context of gaming consoles.
Right now that card sit sint he middle of the pack in terms of performance and price - hence's mid-range - but that's in the middle of PC hardware.
The PS4 is decidedly in the low-end or entry point range of Pc hardware today.
Gipsy Danger
Member
IIRC you have 970? You'll be fine for at least 3-4 years. Probably longer if you don't mind moving some settings here and there. Don't worry about it.
But... that's the same thing people were syaing into year 2 of LAST gen. And that certinaly wasn't true mid gen and late gen.
You relaly don't think the same is goingto happen this time around? Seems silly to assume not.
This time around PC gaming is larger, and continues to grow, this time around the consoles started as lower to mid range, vs high end like last gen.
I guess we'll have to wait and see, but my guess is that, just like last gen, the difference will be night and day come mid gen - say 2 years from now or so, and ever larger by the end of the generation in 4-6 years.
Kudo
Member
I still think The Last of Us on PS3 looked better than anything on PC back then, it was kinda overwhelming how beautiful the game was, but that's just my opinion.
Definitely the difference will get bigger, no doubt about that, by the end of this gen PCs should handle 4k with mid-range GPUs easily.
No way lol.
Hence why I used "imo".
Consoles and PC of that price range both having their benefits and their drawbacks. To get the real benefit of gaming on a PC compared to a console, you'd need to spend extra. It's worth it though.
To me the implication is a pre-built or custom PC of comparable price to a console, which should have fairly predictable performance windows any given quarter.
CyberPunked
Member
Really? Better than Crysis 3, or even Crysis 2? How about Metro Last Light?
It looks much better cleaned-up in the Ps4 version, though.
Oh hells yeah... but that sort of proves the point.
Kudo
Member
That's a upscaled picture though, it did look very nice back then on my TV, heh. I'm sure the PS3 version would look pretty bad on my 1440p monitor now.
I haven't played Crysis but Metro LL was really nice, but I did say "in my opinion", I was really hyped for TLoU so could be something to do with that too.
A lot of times "in my opinion" also means "in my not-fully-informed opinion" tho. There was definitely stuff out at the time that was at the very least technically far ahead from TLoU, and since TLoU aims at a realistic aesthetic it makes sense that technical proficiency could mean it looks a lot better. If you're just saying aesthetically you find the art style more appealing sure, but it really wasn't ahead in a technical respect in comparison.
BruceLeeRoy
Banned
W3 is a great example. I think the devs did an admirable job squeezing all that goodness into a console but I've been playing it on my PC and though visually it's pretty close to the PS4 the performance is a god send. Playing above 30fps at all times makes that game sing
But it's not a matter of opinion. This is why we have stuff like Digital Foundry which quantifies in an objective manner how some games or versions of cross-platform games look better than others. Many PC games at the time and even before were superior in visuals than TLoU.
I think the overall difference is pretty big and the gulf between PC and console will grow even larger than last generation.
BruceLeeRoy
Banned
On a side note people need to stop citing Metro as being a good example of any visual superiority. I played both games at launch almost maxed on my system and they are so inconsistent they can hardly be declared the best at anything. They have great "moments" but by and large I think they are unimpressive looking games.
The whole remaster craze do, actually.
TLOU, like all past-gen console exclusives, look worse than most games on PC with high end graphics options since 2011. Thats just a fact if You dont disclude tech from any comparison.
---
PS4 version also shows that its technically inferior to other games from its time.It looks much better cleaned-up in the Ps4 version, though
Dictator93
Member
Are you talking about chracter faces? Because that is the only thing at the time which the metro games did not excell at.
Otherwise they were and still are doing things most other games do not.
JimmyRustler
Member
Sorry, but I still don't get it. The 970 may be "in the middle" of what Nvidia has to offer at the moment but the difference we are talking about there are merely single digit frames. You wanna tell me that a single digit frame difference separates graphics cards between mid and high range? That is very strange man...
The Red Wizard
Member
How much did that cost you?
Krappadizzle
Member
Sir yes sir!
With all this talk of the visual difference not being great, that just seems like more of a reason to do a cheap PC upgrade than get a console if you're interested in that level of visuals. Most of the games I'd play are multi-plat anyway, so only the additional price of a modest GPU for the desktop I needed anyway was necessary for "next-gen" graphics. If that's not visually much of a difference from what a $400 gaming box can do, upgrading a current PC for over $200 less for similar visuals doesn't seem all that bad; can even buy a controller with the spare money.