icecold1983
Member
On PC I can have this kind of image quality:
The console version of the same game is 1080p with hazy FXAA. Just an example.
probably not the best road to go down if you want to display the pcs superiority.
How big is the difference in visuals/performance between PC and PS4/Xbox really?
- Thread starter MrOogieBoogie
- Start date
probably not the best road to go down if you want to display the pcs superiority.
TheAdmiester
Member
Well IQ is the best road to go down because it applies to every single multiplat. I don't see what's wrong there.
icecold1983
Member
because even on pc gta v IQ is rather bad, even if it is better than consoles. poor msaa implementation, broken txaa, odd texture aliasing, texture shimmering when using ingame AF, and texture glitching when using ctrl panel AF.
TheAdmiester
Member
I'm using CP AF and having no issues with it. I'm not using AA to eliminate jaggies but downsampling.
And that proves my point further. AA shouldn't look bad in a game, but if it does, on PC I have the option to remove it and downsample instead (or downsample "over" it to clean it up). Running GTA V with no AA at 4K (or 7K in that Ferrari pic) on a 1080p screen is the best IQ I've ever seen.
Here's another one just for the hell of it.
That's also with no AA whatsoever. The point is that on PC, I have the option to clean up the image however I want.
icecold1983
Member
4k with no msaa is still very noisy, but yeah 7k would be pretty clean. specs to get it playable at 7k? let me get some media of the af issue im referring to
TheAdmiester
Member
It's not playable at 7k, I get around 15-20fps. But that's really no different to a console photomode where it takes a few seconds to fully render and smoothen out a very nice looking frame, and in a sense that's seconds per frame, not frames per second.
At 4k, I get around 35-50fps. I leave it uncapped because my GSync monitor helps smoothen out the variations. This is on a i5 3570/GTX980Ti PC.
icecold1983
Member
im not an advocate of using console photomode to show off graphics when they enhance IQ beyond gameplay.
TheAdmiester
Member
Then here's a screenshot of it running at 4k in gameplay. Fully playable as opposed to the 7k shots, still pretty much perfectly clean (2xMSAA in this pic), still running at a higher framerate than the console version.
No edits to this screenshot whatsoever besides resizing from 4k to 1080p. Fully representative of how it looks on my machine in terms of IQ, nothing enhanced beyond gameplay as you say.
The motion blur is a mod that I feel enhances the sense of speed, so don't take that into account if you want to dispute the IQ. I'm talking in terms of hard edges like the middle car, the cliff edges, and distant detail such as the trees on the right.
This is just not (universally) true anymore.
You could build a pc with faster components than a ps4 for 400 @ the ps4 launch in germany.
Add the cost for 6 years of PS+ and you get a pc miles ahead of the ps4.
The games are also cheaper.
Depending on your old pc you likely also don't need a to buy a hdd, optical drive, case or nt if you upgrade.
I have the same graphics card but I'm downsampling at 1.75x instead of using their AA solutions(except for the FXAA), it looks much better, and runs 60fps most of the time.
JRW
Member
My main gripe with X1 / PS4 is how many games are capped at 30fps.. Even Alien Isolation, PC version of Isolation ran 60fps / 1080p with the Ultra preset on a GTX 480.
Or another recent example, Soma is capped 30fps on consoles yet runs 1080p / 60 on PC with average hardware, in fact the Minimum GPU requirement is a GTX 260 and the Recommended GPU is (drum roll)... a GTX 480.
Or another recent example, Soma is capped 30fps on consoles yet runs 1080p / 60 on PC with average hardware, in fact the Minimum GPU requirement is a GTX 260 and the Recommended GPU is (drum roll)... a GTX 480.
My main gripe with X1 / PS4 is how many games are capped at 30fps.. Even Alien Isolation, PC version of Isolation ran 60fps / 1080p with the Ultra preset on a GTX 480.
Or another recent example, Soma is capped 30fps on consoles yet runs 1080p / 60 on PC with average hardware, in fact the Minimum GPU requirement is a GTX 260 and the Recommended GPU is (drum roll)... a GTX 480.
This!
OldAsUrSock
Banned
My main gripe with X1 / PS4 is how many games are capped at 30fps.. Even Alien Isolation, PC version of Isolation ran 60fps / 1080p with the Ultra preset on a GTX 480.
Or another recent example, Soma is capped 30fps on consoles yet runs 1080p / 60 on PC with average hardware, in fact the Minimum GPU requirement is a GTX 260 and the Recommended GPU is (drum roll)... a GTX 480.
But how well does a 480 run The Witcher 3?
TheAdmiester
Member
It really depends on the PC. The more money you throw at PC components (especially the GPU) the better the resulting visuals will be. You can say that the average household PC (HPs, Dells, etc..) will barely be able to outperform consoles. Build a PC yourself and you can rather easily outperform a console. The price difference between such a PC and a console will be small (or non-existent) in the US (and maybe Canada), but quite a bit bigger in the rest of the world.
That said, you will mostly see difference in terms of resolution and framerate due to the fact that multiplatform games are often tailored to and optimized for the consoles. Consoles are still the bigger market after all. Not all developers will put in the effort of creating additional quality options for the PC version.
So even though the PC is capable of better visuals, some games will not directly show much difference from the console versions. I personally wouldn't base the choice between a console and a PC on the visual differences of multiplats, but rather on the exclusives the platform has to offer.
The argument that PC is cheaper on the long term is not necessarily true either. If you wait for a good deal, don't preorder games, and buy games secondhand, the price difference between PC and console games will be $5 at most. Sure, you have to pay for online gaming on the console while it is free on the PC, but the instant game collection program does make up for it imo. It will grant you 12 games for 40 bucks (if you wait for black friday deals on the one year subscription) per year every year. The Playstation store also offers reasonably good deals nowadays.
That said, you will mostly see difference in terms of resolution and framerate due to the fact that multiplatform games are often tailored to and optimized for the consoles. Consoles are still the bigger market after all. Not all developers will put in the effort of creating additional quality options for the PC version.
So even though the PC is capable of better visuals, some games will not directly show much difference from the console versions. I personally wouldn't base the choice between a console and a PC on the visual differences of multiplats, but rather on the exclusives the platform has to offer.
The argument that PC is cheaper on the long term is not necessarily true either. If you wait for a good deal, don't preorder games, and buy games secondhand, the price difference between PC and console games will be $5 at most. Sure, you have to pay for online gaming on the console while it is free on the PC, but the instant game collection program does make up for it imo. It will grant you 12 games for 40 bucks (if you wait for black friday deals on the one year subscription) per year every year. The Playstation store also offers reasonably good deals nowadays.
That's good and all, but what if none of those games are ones I want? You seem to be paying for a chance to get a game you might want. I'd rather invest my money specifically in the games and whatnot I actually do want.
About as well as a PS4.
TheAdmiester
Member
I'm a UK resident, difference is rather small.
I got a laptop with a 1080p screen that outperforms both consoles by far, while at native res, for "only" £750 or so. Now that is a big difference, but if you consider the extra cost of a laptop, I have no doubts that you could beat a PS4 for a similar price to a PS4 itself.
That hasn't been my experience at all. PSN speed is ridiculously slow compared to Steam practically every time I download something.
That depends on how much you care about this stuff. A last gen game being remastered was also made to be playable on console hardware and still many people prefer the next gen version. I've heard more than once that owners of both versions of The Last of Us have difficulty going back to the PS3 version after playing it on PS4, because it's hard going from 1080p/60fps to the 720p/sub-30fps the PS3 edition was.
And basically that's what PC versions of console games often feel like: Remasters with better framerate and image quality, often of such a high quality that when the games are actually remastered in the following generation by next gen console hardware, in many cases the original PC release still remain superior in a lot of ways.
If your speeds between PS4 and Steam are comparable, something is very wrong
JRW
Member
I was able to run it surprisingly well with the framerate capped at 30fps using slightly higher gfx settings than X1/PS4, it was one of the last games I played on the GTX 480 before upgrading.
The biggest drawback for the 480 nowadays is it's limited VRAM (1.5GB) but Witcher 3 somehow never used over 1.3GB in my tests (GPU-Z) even with High texture quality enabled.
Newer games are starting to want more and more VRAM which was one of the main reasons I (finally) decided to upgrade.
I'd have to say that card held its ground and served me well for a long time tho lol.
Couldn't someone just have very low speed internet?
In that case you wouldn't see the differences.
Ricerocket
Member
Saw this from B3d. PC users should be able to play this at 60fps without the retarded amount of shimmering and 16x AF, that alone is a huge difference.
lensoftruth
Member
Not a lot IMO, but then you should be wanting games for PC that aren't available on consoles.
That seems like a strange sentiment. I play tons of multiplats almost exclusively on PC and it almost always offers a significantly improved experience. You don't need to desire PC exclusives to play PC. There are tons of things that come to PC worth playing.
Finaika
Member
Saw this from B3d. PC users should be able to play this at 60fps without the retarded amount of shimmering and 16x AF, that alone is a huge difference.
Wow, this looks horrible, like a late 90's PC game.
The adage "you get what you pay for" still holds true to this day
PHOENIXZERO
Member
And why would someone who built a PC in 2011, in 2015 throw the price of their four year old PC on top of the price of a video card?
People have been putting together PC parts list for a while now that can match what a PS4 can do or look better doing it for close to the same price. Stop with this...
How is that a very dishonest comparison? The PS4 is a complete package with no choice in hardware. You don't have to completely replace your PC hardware for a new video card and if all you need to do is upgrade your video card to get on par or better performance than what a PS4 is capable of then adding in the cost of a PC you paid for four or five years ago is some ridiculous attempt at mental gymnastics to still make the PS4 look to be a better value. If you want a GPU that's close to the PS4 GPU's BOM? I'm sure a GTX 950 is somewhere around there but of course the excuse there will be that it's newer. >_>
Someone building a PC today (or 2013 for that matter) for gaming probably isn't going to do it just to meet what the PS4 can do but they can and get damn close to $400 today but that doesn't mean they have to spend a kidney's worth of money for it. Like I already said, a PS4 is a good value upfront (though its due for a price drop) and simplicity is its greatest asset but in the long term a good gaming PC is a better one and on top of that you can get a lot more out of it from greater versatility on top of still being able to play games from years ago.
This is the first generation where I haven't felt at all compelled to buy a new console, Sony's first party games don't sell their consoles to me and it looks like many of MS's first party games are going to end up on PC too and the era of third party exclusives be it platform or just console is all but over. If I don't feel the need to do so by the end of next year it'll be the longest I've gone without one since I was a child and the NES. The current gen not pushing technology forward as it has in the past has also played a role in this. Instead I spent $315 on a GTX970 and got three games with it that I had actual (but admittedly varying) interest in, granted one was a shit show in terms of performance but I still got what would've been $150-$180 worth of games on consoles with my card. How is that not a good or great value?
I've been disappointed with the current generation's hardware specs since around a year before they were even officially announced. I get why Sony and Microsoft went the way the did and it's good they build consoles they could make money off of at launch since trying to go the old loss leader route would've required them to repeat the excessive length of the last generation. At least on the PS4 end they ended up being a bit better than initially expected.
This made me audibly chuckle
Yeah, it makes no sense. In fact, the opposite is basically common sense to most people (buying consoles for exclusives and PC for everything else).
This forum is weird.
I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or confused by my post because of how you've quoted it.
Agreeing, sorry.
Consoles are your low-entry pass for the new generation. You don't have to build it and it's much easier and cheaper than building a PC. You also have access to first party titles and other exclusives, which is a great thing.
PC, you have to spend more cash at once buying a machine and have access to, in the most cases, better builds of the games on release. Some games can change the framerate, others you can go up to 4K and so on. The more flair you put, the more expensive it will get.
The performance gap between console and PC will always be big, but we will rarely see games that will ignore that gap. First and foremost, the games will be developed for consoles and then a few features will be scaled up for PC.
PC, you have to spend more cash at once buying a machine and have access to, in the most cases, better builds of the games on release. Some games can change the framerate, others you can go up to 4K and so on. The more flair you put, the more expensive it will get.
The performance gap between console and PC will always be big, but we will rarely see games that will ignore that gap. First and foremost, the games will be developed for consoles and then a few features will be scaled up for PC.
As per the usual argument, there's more to life than console games that generally run orders of magnitude better
Isn't that what we think (or hope) every gen though?
As per the usual argument, there's more to life than console games that generally run orders of magnitude better
You got PC exclusives and the best machine regarding backwards compatibility.
Though, most of the high profile exclusives tend to be consoles. It's late here and I wanted to do a short post instead of a complete breakdown of each DX
alexandros
Banned
What a bullshit. Fps this generation seems quite more stable compared the past. Jeez someone really trying hard here.It is rare. Few games manage a locked 30 fps experience
Windom Earle
Member
Then here's a screenshot of it running at 4k in gameplay. Fully playable as opposed to the 7k shots, still pretty much perfectly clean (2xMSAA in this pic), still running at a higher framerate than the console version.
No edits to this screenshot whatsoever besides resizing from 4k to 1080p. Fully representative of how it looks on my machine in terms of IQ, nothing enhanced beyond gameplay as you say.
The motion blur is a mod that I feel enhances the sense of speed, so don't take that into account if you want to dispute the IQ. I'm talking in terms of hard edges like the middle car, the cliff edges, and distant detail such as the trees on the right.
What mod is that? Looks nice. And is it safe? Got paranoid over gta mods after what happened.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
Larger than the difference between the two competing consoles
alexandros
Banned
Right. Well, lucky for you there is an easy way to disprove me. Take a look at the Face-Offs of the last two years and tell me the percentage of games that hold a true 30 fps lock.
OldAsUrSock
Banned
TheAdmiester
Member
Get all of your mods from GTA5-Mods, then. Two positive things to note:
1. Only mods that are .asi scripts have the potential to be malware. Anything that replaces a game file is impossible since it's not executable code. You might get tricked into a shitty broken mod, but if it's not .asi it's totally safe, lol.
2. GTA5-Mods has heavy screening for mod submission. You'll see that it doesn't update very frequently but when it does it has a big update. As far as I'm aware, they personally test any script mods before approving them. Therefore, regardless of its type, if it's on that site, it's probably safe.
As for the mod, it's a combination of the latest VisualV, ENB v0.275, my own motion blur mod, and the car itself is the spoilerless Comet.