Muddy
Member
Thats all I was trying to say.
Can You Build a GAMING PC with PS5 Specs?
- Thread starter IbizaPocholo
- Start date
- Clickbait Trailer Hardware
Thats all I was trying to say.
DoctaThompson
Banned
I'm unsure what point you are trying to make? I doubt a tablet or phone can run full fledged photoshop, AutoCAD, 3D modeling software, running physics engines, editing 4K content, etc.
I don't get what you are arguing here? A topend PC would have cost more than a next gen console. You started that you own one...
diffusionx
Gold Member
Okay. Yea, and my point is that its fine to spend $1000 on a PS5 type machine if you want to do stuff that you can't on console.
This whole "can you build a PC blah blah" is just the wrong question as I said before.
LazyParrot
Member
Then you just lower the settings until it does run at 144 FPS. Can't do that on a console either, even if it's theoretically powerful enough.
Last edited:
Muddy
Member
I have yet to see a PC with the same specs as a console perform better.
I have a PC superior to the PS4 pro yet the PS4 provides better performance and higher resolutions on the same games.
blastprocessor
The Amiga Brotherhood
I didn't realise most steam players are peasants with their cheap ass GPUs.
Muddy
Member
On your average game? What resolution do you play at?
DoctaThompson
Banned
What are your specs, and what games are you comparing? Did you lower the settings to match the ps4 pro equivalent settings? There are plenty of videos that show what the equivalent settings are to consoles in games like RDR2, AC: Odyssey, etc.
Most popular GPU on steam survey outclasses the ps4 pro and x1x though...
Muddy
Member
So true.
"Why buy a PS5 when you can build a Gaming only PC equivalent for twice the cost". Ridiculous.
MoreJRPG
Suffers from extreme PDS
What in the world is a "premium gamepad?"
I've been playing "next-gen" games for years. RDR2 at 4K 60fps is pretty next gen to me. Destiny 2 at 4K/60fps I've been playing for a couple years now as well and that's just coming to console at launch.
Last edited:
PaintTinJr
Member
But (IMHO) the bigger issue for PC is whether the games you get - that are ports of AAA console developed games - actually get the same AI as the PlayStation or Xbox console certified tested versions.
Accommodating a plethora of slider setting changes on PC doesn't come without potentially untested side effect issues - like desyncing AI and breaking the difficulty of a game.
Back in the day I remember playing HL2, Batman and Lost planet on PS3, 360, PC - demos of some on the platforms - and realising that the PC AI wasn't as difficult at 60fps(capped) as the console counterparts., and because of that I did try different difficulties in case they were just set differently, but that wasn't the issue. The AI on consoles definitely seemed more intricate., balanced and challenging - which I then assumed was because higher AI processing on unknown PC specs is costly to test with no upside, and only likely to result in raising the min specs that limit possible PC game sales, and makes things even harder when PC gamers want to run everything at 60fps or above - which then further limits CPU time to dedicate to AI.
LazyParrot
Member
1080p, since that's all my monitor can handle. I'm willing to go below that if I want a game to hit a certain frame rate. I played OW at 720p upscaled before my last upgrade.
I've never heard of this happening in any game. Has someone actually tested and documented this?
diffusionx
Gold Member
Uhh what? I've literally never heard of this, ever.
Are you sure the game wasn't easier because you were using a mouse and keyboard, and the game was smoother and more responsive at the higher frame rate? Doom 2016, for example, was a far "easier" game with mouse and keyboard just because it was so much better to play.
Last edited:
PaintTinJr
Member
Just think about the problem a developer has in balancing game difficulty, and what information they need to know in advance to achieve that objective. With so many unknowns - particularly frame rendering time if people want to go from 30fps up to 144fps, and then how much time does that give the AI process- 1/144 sec? Or does it still run AI at 30fps? And if so what are the implications?
Whether PC gamers like it or not, the fixed specs of consoles provide devs with zero unknows for such tasks - other than their own time/resources/ability to do the job. Consoles are the core customer that pays for most AAA games getting made(IMO), and the bigger the gulf between low and high PC hardware specs, the harder it is for devs to provide the same quality of product for PC gamers; especially as PlayStation/Xbox games have to be tested by the publisher and then pass submission testing at platform holder testing before going gold. The wild west of the PC is great on one hand, but is there money being spent on certification/quality control on Steam, etc, anymore so than App store or google play store?
diffusionx
Gold Member
Most game logic these days is written to be independent of frame rate. I don't exactly know what implications you are talking about, other than theoretically the AI would "update" at a slower rate than you can, which could give the perception that the game is easier, or make it easier. But it is the same routines.
As to your second point, that's not really true. Here is Ubisoft's earnings press release: https://ubistatic19-a.akamaihd.net/comsite_common/en-US/images/04ubisoft fy20 earnings pr english final_tcm99-361804_tcm99-196733-32.pdf
Look on page 8. They actually make as much on PC as they do on PS4, and Xbox is way behind. And actually, I've been tracking this for a few years for some reason, and the PC used to be well behind the PS4, which says that the PC is growing faster than console (but consoles always slow down towards the end of the gen). The PC is absolutely vital for publishers which is why they are putting everything on it. And it's true that console games have to be certified, but check out Steam boards if a publisher releases a shitty PC version. They get held accountable.
Last edited:
LazyParrot
Member
I don't wanna "just think" about this. I want some hard proof of this actually being a documented issue in any game, ever.
Last edited:
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
Why even do this now, or at launch day or whenever? Is it Sony trying to make the PS5 seem cheap or? People don't even know what the consoles include or cost yet. Moreover, if you wanna think about it with the mainstream budget friendly mindset, do it a couple years past launch when enough people actually have also bought into the consoles, not that many people get them at launch in the grand scheme of things. I imagine with $1000 or less you'll be able to get a way more capable system, with the bonus of not paying subscriptions for basic features, having near infinite backwards compatibility (and not even just PC but also consoles with emulation, at least the generations they actually had exclusives the PC could miss) and all kinds of truly free (not subscription enabled) games and mods and non gaming capabilities on top without locking yourself to a first party's own ecosystem (including hardware accessories, there's so much godness on PC for enthusiasts on this or that, not just a single brand/model of a flight stick or VR kit or whatever other crap but whatever you want and need tailored to yourself) they should be paying you to use as it benefits them so much they really should make the hardware way cheaper for the benefit. I mean, any household needs a nice computing device for other office type tasks (or other specific to the household tasks based on hobbies like development or video or image editing or even playing that one f2p dota or pubg clone, or streaming or whatever) so it's not that much extra to make it a decent gaming PC on top (I mean, if you weren't gonna buy some slow ass sorry pos PC or tablet from craigslist but a nice modern device with all that stuff such companies overcharge for when you can build better).
Last edited:
PaintTinJr
Member
My point is the AAA games aren't viable to make without the PlayStation and Xbox ecosystem, but are without PC.
Consoles are also the main visible source of marketing for PC AAA games that will generate a PC sale - in all likelihood - and I doubt PC costs take a third of that burden when factoring it as a revenue stream. PC being completely digital also makes them more, with less people taking a cut than console sales.
I believe that exclusive AAA on PC being unviable has been true for years, as HL2 was probably the last big game to target PC without parallel console development (AFAIK), and in the console space it was a AA game because it was sold with other games in a collection to add value for the asking price. Outside of console developed ports to PC I can't think of any AAA games, that aren't really just AA games with lots of GPU crippling fx settings.
As for the AI, in most cases I suspect it is the same routines - although with guaranteed CPU resources on console, that might be less true based on parallelism of that same code-, but the AI would still respond differently because the other inputs to the game have changed because of PC slider settings.
AI has a symbiotic relationship with the player's feedback loop, best shown in fighting games.. Change one, you change the other, and without thorough testing at those other settings, to ensure it is the same challenge, you are effectively beta-testing at higher frame-rates (IMHO).
RedVIper
Banned
Ryzen 3700 is significantly faster than the CPU on ps5, hell the 2700 is faster than the CPU on ps5 and it costs 150$.
PC can do way more things than the PS5 can.
This entire discussion is stupid.
PaintTinJr
Member
Thinking about the problem would be the "hard proof".
But I'm completely cool with it, if that isn't for you.
CrustyBritches
Gold Member
The PS5 equivalent GPU that Mark Cerny was talking about in the Road to PS5 reveal will probably release before PS5 and run $300-350.
RedVIper
Banned
The only devs still tying game logic to framerate are Japense devs, and even they have been moving way from that practice.
diffusionx
Gold Member
No, that's not true though. Look at the PDF I linked - PC makes up 1/4th of Ubi revenue, same as PS4. Xbox is only 15%. Ubisoft games would not be viable taking away 1/4th of sales. The truth is that these publishers/developers need ALL platforms these days to make their games viable. Which is why all the games launch on all platforms. Obviously this is different if you are a first party, or if you're an edge case like a niche JRPG developer, but even they are finding out that a lot of money is to be made on PC (Atlus - Persona 4 Golden).
As for whether or not a game can survive on just the PC, I dunno. What's the point? Like if I am making some fancy FPS or RPG, why wouldn't I put it on every platform? Consoles are so similar to PC these days by design. Just put them on everything. That said, PC gets some big time exclusives - I would consider something like Total War to be a AAA game - but there are other issues like interface and control that keep them off the console.
Last edited:
Mobilemofo
Member
The ability for devs to code to the metal is what appeals console wise. You know they will push the machines hard as the years go by.
Kerotan
Member
More like a better value version of a pc
Muddy
Member
PS5 has a 7nm Zen 2 8 core cpu equivalent to the Ryzen 3700x.
2700 is 12nm Zen+ is inferior.
You cannot get a 3700x with a motherboard for anything less than 300-350 pounds. Which is around 350-400 dollars converted.
You say PC can do way more things than PS5 can.
What PC?
RedVIper
Banned
The CPU max speed is 3.5GHz, the 3700x is way faster than that.
My 10 year old pc can do more things than the PS5.
Muddy
Member
It is an underclocked 3700x.
7nm Zen 2.
What specs does your 10 year old PC have?
You have a CPU and GPU superior to a 3700x and 5700xt from 10 years back? Are you serious?
Last edited:
RedVIper
Banned
I don't think you understand what "more" means.
My 10 year old PC has more uses than just gaming, it can do more stuff than the PS5 will.
ScaryBrandon
Banned
Its ironic because without console wars this forum would be pretty much dead.
Muddy
Member
I dont think you can read. Read the thread title.
It says 'Can you build a Gaming PC with PS5 specs'.
PaintTinJr
Member
I believe I said "frame time", because as you decrease frame time, you decrease AI processing time, while also increasing the user input rate - more user inputs that might change what the AI routine returns, as its result compared to a different frame time on a system with a different number of cores at a different clock-rate - unless you under utilise the console cycles for AI and cap the updates to the minimum specs of the PC version.
I believe you either have to let the AI processing results diverge (as I believe they do), or lock input rate and AI updates to the lowest common denominator - which makes no sense to limit AI processing on fixed console hardware (IMO).
RedVIper
Banned
Yes, yes I can.
RedVIper
Banned
I mean, talking about one or the other here is pretty irrelevant, frame time is tied to framerate, as one goes up the other goes down.
Again do you have any actual examples of this on modern games? Because the ones are know are either old games that were meant to be played on fixed hardware (And you can break them on emulators if you unlock the framerate) or Japanese devs like Fromsoftware.
LazyParrot
Member
Dude, you haven't even demonstrated that this little "problem" of yours even exists. What sort of world do you live in where thinking up hypothetical explanations for hypothetical problems counts as hard proof?
Last edited:
PaintTinJr
Member
Sorry, it is a basic sample theory and computation problem.
Surely people that can research the latest and greatest PC parts and build gaming PCs on Neogaf are technical enough to understand a cornerstone technology topic like sample theory, no? hence why I said "think about the problem".
Why would science fact with two conflicting sets of constraints need any more proof than itself? To diverge into specific games weakens the scientific point to something anecdotal that could easily be disagreed with by opinion. I'm not trying to be awkward about it, but usually if someone doesn't understand a subject that someone else does(or claims to), they would maybe at least say: "your point sounds interesting, but I'm going to look into that myself to check that is correct".
DoctaThompson
Banned
Legitimate question. Do you get mad when people have a different opinion than you? Or if they like things that you don't like?
It's pretty obvious PC will remain the more powerful hardware, and that's due to the nature of the platform. Consoles are just cut down PC's, sold at a subsidized price, with limited feature set. And there's nothing wrong with that either. PC's and consoles serve different purposes, and can even interlap with one another in some areas. And consoles wouldn't exist without modern day PC's.
With that being said, I'm unsure why you seem to pick scuffles with people who prefer to play on PC. I don't care if you prefer consoles, but at least try to respect others personal opinions/preferences.
RedVIper
Banned
Demonstrate that this a real world problem.
Again, all examples I know are either older games on fixed hardware or Japanese developers that are still using outdated methods.
Show us that this is an issue devolopers face now.
LazyParrot
Member
I couldn't even if I wanted to. I don't own any of the games you mentioned on more than one system, so there's no way for me to actually test this.
But let's assume an inverse relationship between higher frame rates and AI competence not only exists, but affects games with such frequency that you, a single person, were able to observe its effects in multiple big budget titles. Wouldn't you expect other people to have noticed something like that? Other players? Reviewers? Tech nuts? Developers? Wouldn't people be talking about that stuff online? It would make perfect platform war fodder for console fanboys. There's no way it would get ignored.
And yet, I can't find anyone talking about this anywhere else on the internet. The closest thing I've been able to find is that crazy system Payday 2 had where AI decisions had a per-frame limit and higher frame rates resulted in more (not less!) competent enemies, i.e. the exact opposite of what you're describing.
Muddy
Member
My apologies to you and others if I came across as disrespectful.
My posts in this thread weren't about whether Consoles or PCs are superior but about what makes more sense to buy.
Yes the top spec pcs are far superior to consoles for gaming purposes in every sense of the word so if you want the best graphics go for a PC.
If you want to use a PC for more than just gaming then PC again is a better option.
If theres exclusive games on the PC you want to play then fair enough.
I stick by my original point in this thread though. Building a PC purely for gaming purposes with console level specs simply isn't worth it.
You are better off getting a console in my opinion since it will cost you half the price.
I'm talking purely for gaming purposes with console level specs.
Last edited:
Mister Wolf
Member
Yes, but wait for the RTX 3060 or the AMD equivalent to release so its cheaper.
Last edited:
Goro Majima
Kitty Genovese Member
I have a 1080ti, an 8700k, I install games on a regular SATA 1TB SSD, and I try to target 100 FPS at 3440x1440 for G-Sync.
I'm not extremely worried about being too far off in terms of real world performance and I think my rig will be fine for the first couple years of next gen. An upgrade to a 3080ti or whatever might get me the rest of the way without too much issue.
But I have to say that it's really weird that Intel is just fucking around and not supporting PCIE 4.0 just yet.
I'm not extremely worried about being too far off in terms of real world performance and I think my rig will be fine for the first couple years of next gen. An upgrade to a 3080ti or whatever might get me the rest of the way without too much issue.
But I have to say that it's really weird that Intel is just fucking around and not supporting PCIE 4.0 just yet.
Azurro
Banned
A little more? That 2080Ti is like what? 1000 dollars? You are talking about 3 times the cost of the PS5, and you will still need to upgrade the motherboard and ssd later on to account for the efficiencies lacking in PC that are found in their I/O subsystems.
DoctaThompson
Banned
Ps5 is $333.33 confirmed? Where did you get that information from? Do we need a mod in here to get you vetted status?
It's interesting to know that everyone who is not directly affiliated with Xbox and PS, aren't spreading FUD about PC and next gen games. No devs are saying they won't release x,y,z game on PC because of its supposed "lacking i/o subsystems". A matter a fact, how are all games going to run on PC from Microsoft? Aren't all exclusives coming to PC via MS themselves? Weren't some of the most impressive showcases from Sony's conference, also confirmed to be on PC? I wonder how that would be possible without these motherboard upgrades. Makes you wonder, huh?
Now tell me how you can run Photoshop, video editors, 3D modeling software, audio production tools, or even a basic internet browser from your ps5? Or will you be limited to strictly games, Netflix, and Spotify? There's a reason why PC is an open platform.
rnlval
Member
PlayStation 5 uncovered: the Mark Cerny tech deep dive
On March 18th, Sony finally broke cover with in-depth information on the technical make-up of PlayStation 5. Expanding …
www.eurogamer.net
Cerny also stresses that power consumption and clock speeds don't have a linear relationship. Dropping frequency by 10 percent reduces power consumption by around 27 percent. "In general, a 10 percent power reduction is just a few percent reduction in frequency," Cerny emphasises.
----------------
Incidentally, 10% drop in frequency from 2230 Mhz lands on 2007 Mhz which is 9.248 TFLOPS GPU and Mark Cerny himself has revealed it.
Mark Cerny also revealed the power curve from 2Ghz to 2.23 Ghz with 27% power consumption jump with 10% frequency increase.
Last edited:
Elog
Member
Vpance's post in the general thread is under appreciated. The key take away is that during attempts to port current PS5 games in development it required a 4th gen SSD, 16 GB of VRAM on the graphics card and 32 GB of RAM and there was still serious performance issues.
Assuming they did not down-grade the textures (unknown) the practical VRAM budget that the PS5 runs with for the game they tried to port was 16-48 GB and the PC could not swap assets fast enough between RAM and the VRAM to utilise it correctly with a 16GB card.
In other words, you cannot get the VRAM budget of the PS5 today on PC which was the point I tried to make earlier in the thread. In the video they hypothesized that it might be possible within the next 3 years (sounds reasonable).
Assuming they did not down-grade the textures (unknown) the practical VRAM budget that the PS5 runs with for the game they tried to port was 16-48 GB and the PC could not swap assets fast enough between RAM and the VRAM to utilise it correctly with a 16GB card.
In other words, you cannot get the VRAM budget of the PS5 today on PC which was the point I tried to make earlier in the thread. In the video they hypothesized that it might be possible within the next 3 years (sounds reasonable).