DF x IGN closest GPU to PS5 pro is an RTX 4070
- Thread starter Bernoulli
- Start date
GHG
Gold Member
I touched on the 4090 example above, but you're lacking fundamental reasoning here - in order for a CPU bottleneck to be created the GPU first needs to be capable of pushing more frames than the CPU is able to process within a given period of time. To use your Helldivers 2 example (more on this later in the post), this is what that looks like for the 3700x when paied with a 4080 super vs being paired with a 4070:
As you can see, only the 4080 super is able to produce the required number of frames at 1080p in order to create CPU limited scenarios (hence the ladder effect across the chart as we move up through various generations of CPU's), with the 4070 it is GPU limited across the board, even at 1080p.
please watch this:
If short on time watch the section from around 4 minutes to 7 and a half minutes in. No dips to the 40's at 1440p or 4k with a 3700x paired with a 4090, the same with the 3080ti. All of that despite being CPU bound. This is how it scales at 1440p with a 4090:
So unless the PS5 pro were to undergo a complete architectural change (meaning it would no longer be a mid-gen refresh) which would enable a jump to a 7700X or above, then any CPU upgrade they were to slap on the PS5 motherboard would result in insignificant gains. The dips to the 40's on the base PS5 are indicative of a GPU bottleneck rather than a CPU bottleneck based on the following:
Which brings me to my next point:
Consoles are about trade-offs, always have and always will be (in fact the same goes for most people building a PC, particularly those not fortunate enough to just be able to purchase top of the line parts across the board). The increase in performance gained at resolutions of 1440p and above is far greater going from a 2070 super (equivalent) to a 4070 than it is going from a 3700x to a 7700x on the CPU side. Even if you were to attempt to "balance" things by upgrading the 3700x to a 5700x (or equivalent) and only upgrading the GPU to one which is of similar capability to a 4060 (for example) then you are not gaining anything overall and you are using any upgrade budget you have sub-optimally from a performance capability standpoint.
For the CPU to be a major factor (to use the helldivers 2 example again) then you would need to be jumping up to a card that is of similar capability to the 4080 (which just isn't going to happen at sub $1000 prices). See the charts below which illustrate this.
3700x:
5900x:
7700x:
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
I think the next few days would have still been about the price
Plus, if I am being honest, I really don't know Sony has that ace up their sleeve where we all go "Ok I get it now"
Topher
Identifies as young
Sticker shock in a post-subsidized console world was always going to be met with some fierce pushback. Think Sony may have just ripped off the band-aid with this. Probably knew very well what was coming.
Topher
Identifies as young
I touched on the 4090 example above, but you're lacking fundamental reasoning here - in order for a CPU bottleneck to be created the GPU first needs to be capable of pushing more frames than the CPU is able to process within a given period of time. To use your Helldivers 2 example (more on this later in the post), this is what that looks like for the 3700x when paied with a 4080 super vs being paired with a 4070:
As you can see, only the 4080 super is able to produce the required number of frames at 1080p in order to create CPU limited scenarios (hence the ladder effect across the chart as we move up through various generations of CPU's), with the 4070 it is GPU limited across the board, even at 1080p.
please watch this:
If short on time watch the section from around 4 minutes to 7 and a half minutes in. No dips to the 40's at 1440p or 4k with a 3700x paired with a 4090, the same with the 3080ti. All of that despite being CPU bound. This is how it scales at 1440p with a 4090:
So unless the PS5 pro were to undergo a complete architectural change (meaning it would no longer be a mid-gen refresh) which would enable a jump to a 7700X or above, then any CPU upgrade they were to slap on the PS5 motherboard would result in insignificant gains. The dips to the 40's on the base PS5 are indicative of a GPU bottleneck rather than a CPU bottleneck based on the following:
Which brings me to my next point:
Consoles are about trade-offs, always have and always will be (in fact the same goes for most people building a PC, particularly those not fortunate enough to just be able to purchase top of the line parts across the board). The increase in performance gained at resolutions of 1440p and above is far greater going from a 2070 super (equivalent) to a 4070 than it is going from a 3700x to a 7700x on the CPU side. Even if you were to attempt to "balance" things by upgrading the 3700x to a 5700x (or equivalent) and only upgrading the GPU to one which is of similar capability to a 4060 (for example) then you are not gaining anything overall and you are using any upgrade budget you have sub-optimally from a performance capability standpoint.
For the CPU to be a major factor (to use the helldivers 2 example again) then you would need to be jumping up to a card that is of similar capability to the 4080 (which just isn't going to happen at sub $1000 prices). See the charts below which illustrate this.
3700x:
5900x:
7700x:
What site is generating those benchmark graphs?
Little Mac
Gold Member
Let’s see what Gaf thinks when Nintendo announces a $400 console that has graphics on par with a PS4.
The more info that comes out, the more I think that the Pro isn’t expensive … videogaming in general is expensive.
IllegalLemon
Member
Tbh, PC and consoles can't really be compared in terms of how much performance you can squeeze out of each. API's are much lower level compared to PC, even the Xbox has less overhead than the PC despite both utilising the same API.
What results from this is less overhead and lower level access to the metal(which is the actual hardware). That's also factoring in the dedicated decompression blocks these consoles have, which pushes decompression to those areas, freeing up the cpu to do other things.
That's not to say that PC is a slouch, absolutely not. RtxIO and DirectStorage are there for a reason, it just requires the devs to use it and to be honest, not many games use those on the PC. There's better hardware utilisation on the console side still, as a result of the lower level Api's and the single(non upgradeable) hardware configs. We can't compare the utilisation of console CPUs to PC ones.
GermanZepp
Member
ChiefDada
Member
4070 is better comparison overall.
It's OK to use 3070 ti in the case of BMW since it's light on memory requirements.
Consoles don't have large l2 cache those lovelace cards have or the l3 cache the 7800xt has, it's why they get away with the smaller memory bus and on top of that the cpu isn't going need to use it.This is so dumb. A 4060 is faster than a ps5 at 1080p and slower at high res. Because the crippled bit bus and low memory bandwidth and lower amount of cache since its a low end ada chip.
Same applies to the 4070 with its measly 192 bit bus. The 7800xt stomps it in 4k 95% of the time because of this.
Ffs a 4080 super only has 256 bit bus a 4 figure cardsame as the consoles
Ultimately comparing consoles with pcs is stupid, nonsense snd bullshit. But easy click farm.
GHG
Gold Member
Тесты видеокарт и игр, обзоры , новости мира игр и IT технологий.
Тесты видеокарт и игр, обзоры , новости мира игр и IT технологий.
They are really good for getting benchmarks for new releases since they do testing across the most hardware configurations I've seen. Maybe only hardware unboxed come close for this.
Mr.Phoenix
Member
You see... the second you start saying stuff like, price competitions, options, paying more for other stuff and whatnot... to me, you lose your argument. Because now you are talking about habits and deals and subjective use cases.
No.
Keep it consistent, How much does a PS5pro cost? And how much does an equivalently specced PC cost? The end.
Cause take someone like me, I have not bought any physical software, be it on my PC or my PS consoles, since 2012. I am perfectly fine buying everything digitally, and in cases where I am not willing to pay the asking price, I am perfectly fine waiting for a price drop. And there are others like me out there. Not everyone is deal scraping and hunting for bargains. Not everyone wants to game on a PC or deal with the hassle. Not everyone comes to forums like GAF.
Its simple things like these that the likes of you can't seem to accept. Some people, A LOT of people, just prefer gaming on consoles. And their reason for doing so,. is not even that its "cheaper" than PC.
Think about that please, then now ask yourself if your argument is even relevant. Or honest.
CyberChulo
Member
We should wait and see how the games perform.
Fabieter
Member
That's 100 bucks more expensive than the switch 1 and it will get better results than ps4. It will have ai upscaling like the ps5 pro. So they will probably have 100% third party support this time. No one will care about this. It won't have a 100% price increase like the pro has in Europe.
Fabieter
Member
You can support whatever you like but there is a point to be made that consoles are loosing the value game more and more. If you like the ease of use you are probably even pay 1000$ for the next console. You won't switch no matter what. But consoles definitely loosing the value game.
Btw. I looked it up for 1.5k you are getting a significantly better cpu and a 4070 super so whatever.
Last edited:
Eszti
Banned
They dont test shit and never upgrade old numbers. Not reliable.Тесты видеокарт и игр, обзоры , новости мира игр и IT технологий.
Тесты видеокарт и игр, обзоры , новости мира игр и IT технологий.gamegpu.com
They are really good for getting benchmarks for new releases since they do testing across the most hardware configurations I've seen. Maybe only hardware unboxed come close for this.
GHG
Gold Member
Why do their numbers largely correlate with the youtube video I posted then?
If you've got a more reliable source for a similar set of data then please share.
Mr.Phoenix
Member
I touched on the 4090 example above, but you're lacking fundamental reasoning here - in order for a CPU bottleneck to be created the GPU first needs to be capable of pushing more frames than the CPU is able to process within a given period of time. To use your Helldivers 2 example (more on this later in the post), this is what that looks like for the 3700x when paied with a 4080 super vs being paired with a 4070:
As you can see, only the 4080 super is able to produce the required number of frames at 1080p in order to create CPU limited scenarios (hence the ladder effect across the chart as we move up through various generations of CPU's), with the 4070 it is GPU limited across the board, even at 1080p.
please watch this:
If short on time watch the section from around 4 minutes to 7 and a half minutes in. No dips to the 40's at 1440p or 4k with a 3700x paired with a 4090, the same with the 3080ti. All of that despite being CPU bound. This is how it scales at 1440p with a 4090:
So unless the PS5 pro were to undergo a complete architectural change (meaning it would no longer be a mid-gen refresh) which would enable a jump to a 7700X or above, then any CPU upgrade they were to slap on the PS5 motherboard would result in insignificant gains. The dips to the 40's on the base PS5 are indicative of a GPU bottleneck rather than a CPU bottleneck based on the following:
Which brings me to my next point:
Consoles are about trade-offs, always have and always will be (in fact the same goes for most people building a PC, particularly those not fortunate enough to just be able to purchase top of the line parts across the board). The increase in performance gained at resolutions of 1440p and above is far greater going from a 2070 super (equivalent) to a 4070 than it is going from a 3700x to a 7700x on the CPU side. Even if you were to attempt to "balance" things by upgrading the 3700x to a 5700x (or equivalent) and only upgrading the GPU to one which is of similar capability to a 4060 (for example) then you are not gaining anything overall and you are using any upgrade budget you have sub-optimally from a performance capability standpoint.
For the CPU to be a major factor (to use the helldivers 2 example again) then you would need to be jumping up to a card that is of similar capability to the 4080 (which just isn't going to happen at sub $1000 prices). See the charts below which illustrate this.
3700x:
5900x:
7700x:
Thank you. I appreciate that you have backed up what a lot of us have said with actual data.
But just watch him and people pushing the same agenda ignore it.
Hell, I wanted to do something similar and make a thread to show off CPU utilization and why these CPUs are seldom ever actually bottlenecked. Halfway through I just gave up, realized that the people I would be trying to teach, arent actually interested in facts.
Magic Carpet
Gold Member
It's difficult to compre, but I would like to know how my PC compares to the console. I spent a bunch of money on my PC (still paying on it, 0% interest for another year to go). And already saving up to upgrade.
mayham2199
Member
I think they show something at TGS. Seems a little to coincidental that preorders start on that day. Most likely GOT2 but maybe I'm wrong.
Topher
Identifies as young
Тесты видеокарт и игр, обзоры , новости мира игр и IT технологий.
Тесты видеокарт и игр, обзоры , новости мира игр и IT технологий.
They are really good for getting benchmarks for new releases since they do testing across the most hardware configurations I've seen. Maybe only hardware unboxed come close for this.
Thanks
Mr.Phoenix
Member
Nope for 1500 what i saw was more RAM and a better CPU. That's why I said that I would agree with your 1200 pricing. Or did you miss that?
You can make an argument for consoles "losing" the value game... but the simple fact of the matter is that it would never be a realistic one. With you extrapolating costs over a period of years. And people just don't buy things like that. Hell, even people who build PCs seldom ever just get up and build an entire new system from scratch.
Consoles, as hardware and cost of admission, will always pose a better upfront value than PC, it will always cost more to get a PC of the same specs. That's just the nature of things when an OEM can get 2TB of storage in a bulk order for a quarter of what you would be paying for it yourself.
My issue is that I just find this argument that other PC gamers make (cause shocker, I am a PC gamer too) trying to dissuade/insult/ridicule...etc other perfectly fine and normal gamers from gaming on their own system of choice. You don't see console gamers telling PC gamers they are idiots for spending $1500 on a GPU for sharper graphics and higher framerates when they could have just bought a PS5 for $400 and spend the remaining $1100 on games do you? So why do PC gamers have this compulsion to keep doing this shit?
I just don't get it, how can a PC gamer ever talk about the cost of a console when it can cost us more than the entire cost of a PS5pro to just buy a GPU... and that's just one in like 7 things we need to buy in a PC.
I think the lesson here is that (especially with things like RT) you will see a GPU bottleneck long before you see a CPU bottleneck.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
iHaunter
Member
The GPU in the PS5 Pro is around $600 on average. That's just the GPU alone. Let alone all the other components.
Fabieter
Member
To me, it feels incredibly greedy to charge almost €200 extra for a stand and a disc drive. Pricing the full package at €799 would have been much more reasonable.
As someone who enjoys gaming on both PC and consoles, it's becoming increasingly hard to justify owning both. With most games now available on PC and the price difference shrinking, it’s not as clear-cut a decision anymore. Back in 2020, you needed a PC four times the price of a PS5 to match its performance, partly due to the mining craze driving up hardware costs. But now, a PC that’s only 50% more expensive can rival the PS5 Pro. This has significantly weakened the value proposition of the PS5 Pro compared to a PC.
I understand that companies want to maximize profits, and the days of subsidized consoles are behind us. But it’s only fair to question this shift in pricing strategy.
I don't think it's as easy in ray tracing as as in normal games but we will see. We won't see a full fledged ray tracing game on console like cyperpunk77 or wukong.
Last edited:
GHG
Gold Member
It's actually a topic that comes up disproportionately often in the PC building space. People will dish out poor building advice based on "CPU bottlenecks" while not taking in to account what resolution and framerate is being targeted by the person who is due to build the PC.
The reality is that unless you have a 4080 or above and/or you are targeting resolutions below 1440p with framerates over 120fps then pretty much any midrange or above CPU from the last ~4 years will do a great job in the vast majority of games. There will always be edge case examples of a game or two that come along being disproportionately CPU limited, but that's more often than not down to poor optimisation on the developers side, especially so when you see even the x3d processors on their knees.
Depends on the game and what type of ray tracing we are looking at.
This is a good video covering the topic:
TLDR: the GPU matters more in the vast majority of games and scenarios. Invest more in the GPU than the CPU.
Last edited:
yurinka
Member
Why do you talk as if you couldn't attach the disc drive to the PS5 Pro?
You can buy a PS5 Pro with a disc drive if you want as with the base PS5. The only difference is that they don't sell a bundle with both, now the disc drive is only being sold separatedly.
Also, to get a somewhat similar PC that pretty likely will offer a bit less performance costs over twice the price of the PS5 Pro and in a way bulkier and noisier box. The price is not bad for what it offers.
If the PS5 Pro pricing is unacceptable to you, then the PC pricings must be like a almost like a genocyde for you.
Last edited:
Fabieter
Member
That full experience depending on your setup will bring it to 950 euro which is insane.
Throttle
Member
To really match the Pro you need machine learning upscalers, so no existing AMD GPUs, and at least 12 GB of VRAM. Something like the 3070 Ti only has 8GB; enough for Wukong, but many other games will suffer. It's a really bad recommendation in 2024.
The 4070 is the only good answer.
The 4070 is the only good answer.
yurinka
Member
Yes, and to get a somewhat equivalent one in PC -withoud disc- drive goes to over 1600€, more than doubling the 800€ of the PS5 Pro.
And this is building a PC with the raw numbers we have now (so choosing a 4070 Super). Very likely, once we see the PS5 Pro patched games performance, the PC required to get an equivalent performance will be higher because very likely as happened with base PS5 the performance will be higher than the supposed PC equivalent hardware due to multiple things (mostly I/O stuff related to how SSD reading, clocks boost and memory management is handled.
Fabieter
Member
You think a 4070 super will get less impressive results than the pro. That's delulu land. The biggest shift for the pro is ai which is already super mature in the nvidia line up.
gooner4life_uk
Member
Guess what all the people saying a $1500 USD PC is better value, that still doesn't come with a disc drive.
gooner4life_uk
Member
No, but i'd say around the same settings/perf wise as a 4070 super, the 4070 ti super will be 5% better than PS5 Pro i'd say in realworld terms.
The problem is that it isn't a $300-400 upgrade to most of us lol.
PaintTinJr
Member
Completely disagree for the vast major of PC gamers that don't live on news of top tier graphics card releases and typically want a PC to exceed the life of a 7year console with two mid GPUs spaced 5years apart.
The reason to invest in the CPU, isn't so much for the CPU at any one moment but for the longevity of the system...because very few cross over gamers from console really want to swap a CPU cooler and CPU. It is the type of upgrade that us PC build lifers do, and anything but mid to top tier CPU and chipset means PC gaming isn't their bag for more than 5years without going back to console or buy new again because they neither have the skill or inclination to recycle from a defunct but working system in the way lifers do.
So anyone needing this advice is clearly not a lifer and in need of a better base system to get +10years out of their PC with easy GPU, RAM and storage upgrades IMHO.
Fabieter
Member
Mr.Phoenix
Member
Maybe I don't see that as greedy because I saw it coming. I was singing it in the speculation thread that it would likely come without the disc drive, and cited that the disc drive has been peripheralized for a reason. And I feel this is it, to Sony, it's now a peripheral, and to them, those who want it should pay more for it. As they provide a perfectly fine way to play your games without the disc drive.
Not saying I agree with it, just saying I understand where they are coming from.
I do agree that cheaper is always more reasonable, but you should al;so understand that for sony, this is a halo product. Its their Premium Playstation. And by premium, I mean that in the literal sense, it's the product they would upsell to their customers. They have a base PS5... the PS5pro, is not just about offering the best Playstation gaming experience, is their way of actually making money from the hardware. Nothing wrong with that is there? It's optional at the end of the day.
Its not about how much a PS5 costs, in this case, it's about how much more on top of the cost of the base PS5 are you willing to spend to get the best PS5 gaming experience. But again.... its optional.
I can relate to what you are saying. And to this, I can only say that I hope that as that value proposition shrinks, PlayStation can hopefully take some cues from the PC market... and not the other way around.
Agreed here too. Nothing wrong with questioning it. Hell, nothing wrong with challenging it. I don't like it. I don't for one second say to myself that I am happy paying $700 when I can be paying $600. Hell, I ate crow over saying that the PS5pro digital will not cost a dollar over $550 ($100 more than the base PS5 digital) and then maybe $600 for the PS5 pro with a bundled disc drive.
So I was as disappointed as anyone. But was I surprised? No. Can I understand why? yes. Hell, there are posters on this forum that have been saying this thing would cost $700+ for months, and they backed their claims with a sound argument.
Agreed.
However, When it comes to the PS5pro, I don't look at the PC and then try and look down to the Pro and what it can do. I instead look at the base PS5 and then look up to the Pro. I think that is how you should be looking at all this.
No matter how good or whatever the Pro is... ist still a console. Or another way to look at this is that a Pro would be to a $1200-$1300 PC, the same way the base PS5 is to a $600- $700 PC.
demigod
Member
I touched on the 4090 example above, but you're lacking fundamental reasoning here - in order for a CPU bottleneck to be created the GPU first needs to be capable of pushing more frames than the CPU is able to process within a given period of time. To use your Helldivers 2 example (more on this later in the post), this is what that looks like for the 3700x when paied with a 4080 super vs being paired with a 4070:
As you can see, only the 4080 super is able to produce the required number of frames at 1080p in order to create CPU limited scenarios (hence the ladder effect across the chart as we move up through various generations of CPU's), with the 4070 it is GPU limited across the board, even at 1080p.
please watch this:
If short on time watch the section from around 4 minutes to 7 and a half minutes in. No dips to the 40's at 1440p or 4k with a 3700x paired with a 4090, the same with the 3080ti. All of that despite being CPU bound. This is how it scales at 1440p with a 4090:
So unless the PS5 pro were to undergo a complete architectural change (meaning it would no longer be a mid-gen refresh) which would enable a jump to a 7700X or above, then any CPU upgrade they were to slap on the PS5 motherboard would result in insignificant gains. The dips to the 40's on the base PS5 are indicative of a GPU bottleneck rather than a CPU bottleneck based on the following:
Which brings me to my next point:
Consoles are about trade-offs, always have and always will be (in fact the same goes for most people building a PC, particularly those not fortunate enough to just be able to purchase top of the line parts across the board). The increase in performance gained at resolutions of 1440p and above is far greater going from a 2070 super (equivalent) to a 4070 than it is going from a 3700x to a 7700x on the CPU side. Even if you were to attempt to "balance" things by upgrading the 3700x to a 5700x (or equivalent) and only upgrading the GPU to one which is of similar capability to a 4060 (for example) then you are not gaining anything overall and you are using any upgrade budget you have sub-optimally from a performance capability standpoint.
For the CPU to be a major factor (to use the helldivers 2 example again) then you would need to be jumping up to a card that is of similar capability to the 4080 (which just isn't going to happen at sub $1000 prices). See the charts below which illustrate this.
3700x:
5900x:
7700x:
GHG doing God’s work. The folks that keep claiming cpu bound are not OG pc gamers. You are more likely GPU bound than CPU, hence why when folks upgrade, it’s always the GPU that’s the first thing. Let’s see if those same folks are going to respond to GHG’s claims or will there be crickets instead.
The PS5’s cpu is more capable this round unlike the jaguar.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
No-one is actually buying a PC based on matching the PS5 Pro (I hope). This is just an exercise to try and figure out how much such a theoretical PC would cost.
GHG
Gold Member
Swapping out the CPU is one of the easiest things you can do on a PC. Remove cooler, clean paste, swap cpu, reapply fresh paste, put cooler back on, done.
But overall this is why it's important to invest in a socket that has life in it (often AMD) rather than one that will only get a single generation of CPU's (Intel, I'm looking at you here), or is at the end of its life. Get the core count and capability you need for the tasks you will be doing on the PC and be done with it for a couple of years. Then if you need a CPU upgrade at some point in the future, ideally you don't need to swap out the motherboard and ram in order to do so.
Last edited:
Gaiff
SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
Either I’m misremembering or mistaking you for someone else, but weren’t you saying $500?
Last edited:
PaintTinJr
Member
I know that, you know that as a lifer, but we also don't need any advice...others they'll swap a GPU, add storage - probably without cloning it as their primary - and add memory, even though they'll be scared they are going to crack the board with too much force, but unless they've got Apollo 13 command control guiding every step, they do not want to remove a cooler, especially the in box Intel crappy peg ones that increase the risk of failing to re-secure it or crack the board in the process, and that's without them freaking out about pins bending, getting the virtually invisible wedge for socket orientation correct or getting the pasting correct. It is the IT equivalent of open heart surgery or the incompetent bicycle owner's equivalent of fixing a puncher by sending it to the bicycle shop IMHO.
Last edited:
Fabieter
Member
It's gonna a be hard to compare. If you compare the ps5 with the 2070 super than the 4070 is close to 100% faster in alot of games than the 2070s. Let's be real here.
Del_X
Member
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
People keep lying to themselves about this. But they'll find out soon enough.
Mr.Phoenix
Member
Not talking about the price. And yes... I was definitely saying $500-$600.
I am talking about the disc drive not being included. I did say I expected them to sell it without a disc drive.
Gaiff
SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
Oh, true. At $500, I would haven't expected a drive either, but at fucking $700?