How big is the difference in visuals/performance between PC and PS4/Xbox really?

PC can do 60+fps on games that would otherwise run 30fps on PS4/Xbox. That's the biggest deal to me. I bought MGS5 on PS4 because it runs at 60fps. If it ran at 30, you can bet I would've got it on PC instead. For me it doesn't even matter if the game looks worse running it on my PC than if it were on console, as long as it has a good framerate, that's all that matters to me, and until consoles sort that out, most of my multiplats will be on PC.
 
As someone once said to me (and correct me if I'm wrong), the industries graphical ability hovers around what the console duo of Sony and Microsoft are able to produce at a given time, and PC just builds upon that (sometimes with very little and sometimes by a large amount). You see the "tech demos" every time Nvidia release a new flagship of what's possible, but it's always just a concept. That's the reason why I'm of the opinion that the difference between PC and consoles isn't enough to decry consoles as having rubbish graphics.
 
jmga said:
PC exclusives already outnumber both PS4+ONE exclusives.
Click to expand...

When playing the exclusive list game people really should remember it comes down to what one likes or is drawn to. If a person doesn't give a damn about certain genres or smaller games or large open world games, etc then it doesn't matter if one side has more games compared to the other.
 
Lingitiz said:
As always, these threads devolve into misconceptions about PC gaming.
Click to expand...

2000 dollars, no exclusives, high framerate is practically invisible.
eizarus said:
As someone once said to me (and correct me if I'm wrong), the industries graphical ability hovers around what the console duo of Sony and Microsoft are able to produce at a given time, and PC just builds upon that (sometimes with very little and sometimes by a large amount). You see the "tech demos" every time Nvidia release a new flagship of what's possible, but it's always just a concept. That's the reason why I'm of the opinion that the difference between PC and consoles isn't enough to decry consoles as having rubbish graphics.
Click to expand...
You are viewing "graphics" or "graphical abilities" too one dimensionally.
There are PC games with graphical options and simulation options that would never run on the current batch of consoles.
 
Frankly I'm not sure it's worth it to jump on the PC bandwagon just yet if consoles are enough for you. Maybe next year with the new round of 16nm GPUs.

For now while there is a gap it might not be substantial enough to convince some on the fence, and most importantly those who value consoles for their streamlined experiences. 60fps may not be worth it if you are unexperienced with the PC environment, it's not a platform for everyone.

I think consoles visuals are enough for the majority of gamers out there, I would not say the gap between PC (even at max settings) and consoles is in any way generational but it's what I'd call "significant", I lost count on the number of multiplats with higher-than-consoles render settings offered on option and in my opinion they make a tangible difference but they don't come for free.

Differents strokes for different folks.
 
Adam_Roman said:
PC can do 60+fps on games that would otherwise run 30fps on PS4/Xbox. That's the biggest deal to me. I bought MGS5 on PS4 because it runs at 60fps. If it ran at 30, you can bet I would've got it on PC instead. For me it doesn't even matter if the game looks worse running it on my PC than if it were on console, as long as it has a good framerate, that's all that matters to me, and until consoles sort that out, most of my multiplats will be on PC.
Click to expand...

It would be less of a big deal if the consoles were doing 30 FPS with ease. The problem is a lot of next-gen only games are struggling to even maintain that baseline, and it's only going to get worse as we get further into the generation and move away from cross-gen.

Like I was saying earlier, Witcher 3 is miserable on consoles. It's really not that bad early on but the performance degrades over time. Combat encounters slow to crawl and anytime fog is introduced into a scene the framerate tanks. You can get Fallout 4 is going to be even worse in that regard, especially when you have them saying we're going to be able to bolt on some mods from the PC onto it. Knowing From Software you can bet Dark Souls 3 will have those issues as well.
 
It doesn't seem like too sizable a leap forward in graphics while playing Bloodborne, MGSV, and Until Dawn... until you go back to PS3 and try playing Dark Souls, MGS4, and Heavy Rain.
 
Depends on how much you spend. I can say that my PC, the difference isn't massive with current gen games, but last gen stuff runs beautifully. Better than the current console remasters.

Is it worth it? Hell yeah! Personally I'm barely interested in the new stuff. I love playing last gen games in all of their high settings/frame rate. They're cheap as shit, and take little HDD room.
 
I have a PC and Xbox One, most Xbox games cant even manage 1080/60 or any kind of decent AA.
My PC plays most recent games at >60FPS, and it's a few years old.
 
As someone who got a high end PC earlier this year I can tell you that the biggest advantage at the moment is the framerate. That IQ is naturally better as well since you can use AA and such.

But from the pure graphical point of view there is not much difference tbh. Not like back a decade ago when you switched from PS2 to PC and then got something to play something like Doom 3 or HL². Now that was a huge difference.

Today it's more like.... same games, better framerate and clearer picture. That's about it. It was wroth for me though. I mean, I REALLY like a clear picture. Can't stand the jaggies.
 
Bought my PC about 6 years ago. Having it and my PS3 has basically been the perfect setup. Most of the Xbox exclusives eventually came to PC, and the ones that didn't I didn't care about anyway. Maybe I can't run things at max these days, but they still run well enough. MGSV looks great. I'm only just now starting to run into games I can't play on my PC (Arkham Knight).
 
Dictator93 said:
2000 dollars, no exclusives, high framerate is practically invisible.

You are viewing "graphics" or "graphical abilities" too one dimensionally.
There are PC games with graphical options and simulation options that would never run on the current batch of consoles.
Click to expand...
DigitalGloomyFrenchbulldog.gif
 
It's big enough to skip Xbone and PS4 if you don't care for exclusives and the simplicity of console gaming.

Personally, I've found I prefer gaming on a console even when I've got a decent PC due to the smoother user experience. And there's no way I'm missing out on exclusives, as many of my favorite games are.
 
Randomizer said:
The difference is very noticeable for most games. Games like Alien, Evil Within, GTAV, Witcher 3, MGSV etc. not only run with better performance but also at higher resolutions with much better IQ. The difference is only going to get bigger as each year passes.
Click to expand...

Yup. I couldn't imagine having to play Evil Within with the black bars and awful performance of the consoles (sub 30fps). It would've ruined the game for me and it makes me wonder if the lukewarm reception is down to that, because I think TEW is a classic. OP, if you can afford it, get a decent PC, you won't regret it.
 
Brerlappin said:
Yup. I couldn't imagine having to play Evil Within with the black bars and awful performance of the consoles (sub 30fps). It would've ruined the game for me and it makes me wonder if the lukewarm reception is down to that, because I think TEW is a classic. OP, if you can afford it, get a decent PC, you won't regret it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, because that 60 fps mode in TEW is anything but good....
 
i think it would be worth it if you have a pc that can run games like batman, witcher 3, and evil within 60fps on high settings, other wise i'm pretty happy with owning a ps4.
 
eizarus said:
As someone once said to me (and correct me if I'm wrong), the industries graphical ability hovers around what the console duo of Sony and Microsoft are able to produce at a given time, and PC just builds upon that (sometimes with very little and sometimes by a large amount). You see the "tech demos" every time Nvidia release a new flagship of what's possible, but it's always just a concept. That's the reason why I'm of the opinion that the difference between PC and consoles isn't enough to decry consoles as having rubbish graphics.
Click to expand...

This is my view as well. There is no Uncharted 4 for PC even though if someone tried to make one on PC hardware, it would look noticeably better. The problem is that no one tries (to my knowledge). The last time anyone did try, that I know of, is Crysis. However, PC always has goodies like larger draw distances, more NPCs on screen, better resolution/framerate, etc. But those are all modifications to console games. It would be nice if there were a developer who pushed PCs to the limit and made PC exclusives.
 
Lingitiz said:
It would be less of a big deal if the consoles were doing 30 FPS with ease. The problem is a lot of next-gen only games are struggling to even maintain that baseline, and it's only going to get worse as we get further into the generation and move away from cross-gen.

Like I was saying earlier, Witcher 3 is miserable on consoles. It's really not that bad early on but the performance degrades over time. Combat encounters slow to crawl and anytime fog is introduced into a scene the framerate tanks. You can get Fallout 4 is going to be even worse in that regard, especially when you have them saying we're going to be able to bolt on some mods from the PC onto it. Knowing From Software you can bet Dark Souls 3 will have those issues as well.
Click to expand...

It helps to turn off motion blur. I've spent many hours in The Witcher 3 on PS4, and I've only ever felt miserable when I've got to use the witcher-senses for a prolonged period. But that's because of the lowered field of view and blurring when you do it.

Sure there's some framerate issues, but it's nowhere near as bad as what was commonplace last gen. The main issue I've got (apart from the sensing bollocks) is the pop-in on foliage and rooftops.
 
MrOogieBoogie said:
For those who've played any of today's multiplatform games on PC and consoles, is the difference as noticeable as it was during the later stages of last-gen's games, where PC games were VASTLY preferable for both performance and visual flair?
Click to expand...

Define 'vastly'. Some games are noticeably nicer looking and running already and offer you options to tweak everything to your liking which for me is becoming more important than ever with stuff like CA or excessive motion blur everywhere (shout out to Rocket League PS4 which has a nice options menu too). But overall it's obviously much better than it was when few console games came close to 30fps anymore and basically none used 1080p. Also those horrendous load times, still a major win for PCs but it's kinda bearable on nowgen. Will it devolve as far as last time? Who knows, you already have quite a few games with framerate issues, even exclusives like Until Dawn or Rapture run janky and old stuff like Dishonored is still not at 60fps. In that case certainly not the console's fault but that doesn't change what you get for your money. So right now if you are fine with ~30fps, lower detail levels, pop ins, less AA/AF and so on I guess no, playing on consoles isn't a pain in the butt like it was three years ago (yet).
 
alienator said:
Almost 4 pages of how much better pc is regarding multiplatform titles or exclusives, but no mentioning of the horrendous Batman arkham knight launch, MK X, PES 2016 or Denuvo DRM infested titles like dragon age and more. These are incidents, right?

(no they are not, not to mention nvidia/amd need to issue (beta) drivers for about every time a game that gets released on pc)

And no, console games just have had just as horrible launches on certain games, im fully aware of that. But these rose tinted glass some of the posters here are wearing, man ;)

I also fully understand a 1000$ pc performs (or well, should perform) way better than a 399 ps4 , but its not worth my money to invest in that. and thats a personal choice.

Besides i work in IT and spend 5 days a week 8-9 hours a day behind pc's, and dont want to be bothered with them when im at home and relax.

my monster pc gets used for some mame emulation and pixeling , i dont care for the latest moba or strategy games. again, all personal.

besides some better graphics, the games are the same, gameplay wise , and im a gameplay man. i know 240p games in 50hrz that are better than some nowadays 4k 120fps quadruple titan powered games.

the moral of this story? game on whatever u prefer, and dont worry so much about graphics.
Click to expand...

We should have a checklist macro for stuff like this lol.

Way too many multiplats don't run well on PC - Check

You need to spend at least $1000 for the PC to be better - Check

Playing on PC is like being back at work, you can't just sit in a couch and relax - Check

Only exclusive games are strategy and MOBA's - Check

Has the same games as on consoles - Check
 
DeVeAn said:
Frame rate is almost always better on PC, although anything under 60 usually fluctuates so much you have to find ways to lock it down. I tried to get away from console games but its in my blood. TV and controller all the time.
Click to expand...
I love the TV + controller setup too and so I'm grateful for Steam Streaming and Nvidia streaming with my Shield Portable.
 
Depends.


I play on a 4K 65 inch display.



So playing a game on my PS4 vs my PC is an enormous difference, even if all else is the same, the jump to 4K is unbelievable.


That said, when playing on a 1080p monitor, the difference is admittedly smaller.
 
If you care even a little about performance, image quality and new graphical features you really should invest your money in a good PC. Consoles have already fallen significantly behind current PC tech in terms of performance and the gap will get wider and wider as time goes by. The difference in graphics between a gaming console and a gaming PC depends on the PC hardware and it can range from rather small (for Alienware Alpha-like systems) to quite big (for a mid-range gaming rig). It goes without saying of course that high-end PCs will destroy any gaming console in terms of quality and performance, as one would expect from expensive PCs.

In the end, it's all in the eye of the beholder. I know for a fact that some (casual gamer) people can't tell the difference between the 360 version of MGS V and the PS4 version, in the same way that I as a casual music listener can't tell the difference between a 120 kbps mp3 file and a lossless audio one. Casuals may think the differences between versions are small or even nonexistent, but most core gamers can absolutely tell the difference. Even if some times they prefer to pretend they can't.
 
Not a big difference at all, People have to post gifs or screenshots then circle out the the difference.

Is it really worth getting a new PC just to play multi-plat games slightly better? You will also get gimped versions of games aswell( Batman, PES, FIFA, MKX)

Just get a PS4 with the price drop and not worry about a thing until the next cycle.
 
There is one thing that really shouldn't be happening but is because consoles are where most of the cash is. Consoles hold back graphics development far more than they should.

Why did we have to wait for graphics like Batman Arkham Knight's, which in my opinion is the most graphically impressive title that I've played across XBO, PS4, and 2500K/680, to come out on consoles before we were able to get that level of visuals (regardless that it's broken on PC)? This level of graphics really should have been on PC years ago, especially since they are using UE3, and the consoles are using HD7790/7850, where even a GTX 480 would have outdone either of those.

There are fewer-than-should-be instances where the PC makes big jumps in visuals, like Crysis/Star Citizen. More often than not, you got games where the PC version has extra everything, which I admit, it does make a pretty big difference, but not nearly as big as Arkham City -> Arkham Knight levels.
 
ShaunButter said:
GTX 980 club here, runs all games at 60fps+, bought it after I sold my PS4 and XB1.
Click to expand...

As another 980 owner, that's a little disingenuous. A 980 will run all games at 60FPS+ as long as they're at 1920x1080 and not necessarily maxed out (The Witcher needs one or two settings dropped to get a locked 60, not including hairworks).

Not saying it's not great - just that there are caveats and one of the reasons I'm considerign G-sync. Apparently dropped frames are far less apparent whereas a game going from 60-58 right now has me glancing at the FPS counter because I notice the judder.
 
etta said:
There is one thing that really shouldn't be happening but is because consoles are where most of the cash is. Consoles hold back graphics development far more than they should.

Why did we have to wait for graphics like Batman Arkham Knight's, which in my opinion is the most graphically impressive title that I've played across XBO, PS4, and 2500K/680, to come out on consoles before we were able to get that level of visuals (regardless that it's broken on PC)? This level of graphics really should have been on PC years ago, especially since they are using UE3, and the consoles are using HD7790/7850, where even a GTX 480 would have outdone either of those.

There are fewer-than-should-be instances where the PC makes big jumps in visuals, like Crysis/Star Citizen. More often than not, you got games where the PC version has extra everything, which I admit, it does make a pretty big difference, but not nearly as big as Arkham City -> Arkham Knight levels.
Click to expand...

The jump from PS2 to PS3 era has been the biggest so far. Forget about AC --> AK.
 
As someone who invested $1,000 in a system in 2013 with a 4670k and a 2GB 760, honestly, better looking games and higher framerates aren't even the main reason I prefer PC gaming right now. That's just console gaming with sprinkles.

Mostly I just prefer Steam and other stores to Xbox Live or PlayStation Network. Digital distribution on PC is just better, not only in terms of prices but also in terms of the actual distribution and social features. I like that I can relatively quickly get a game like Witcher 3 from GOG and it's not locked down to any one device. Even Steam itself is a pretty non-restrictive type of DRM. Going back to a console just makes me feel boxed in. Of course that depends on your internet connection (if you've got 50-100mbps you're good) and how much you care about discs.

The game selection is also obviously wider. PS4 and Xbox One are getting a lot more indie and other digital-only games, but they're still only really scratching the surface. I've been playing and otherwise looking at a massive number of good games that don't have console versions yet and might never have console versions. I know not everyone is interested in them, but I've also spent a ton of time catching up with classic PC games. The most appealing thing about a lot of them to me is they have a certain design philosophy most of today's western developers have lost.

When talking about "exclusives" people like to talk about how the big AAA PC exclusive with graphics and other tech that consoles can't do is dead. For the most part that's kind of correct. Outside indy developers that can't get console deals most PC exclusives these days are in genres that still don't work on a controller -- RTSs, MOBAs, and other simulator games. The only current PC exclusives I can think of that fit the old "Crysis" idea are Star Citizen and ArmA 3. SC is obviously not done yet but ArmA 3 alone has gotten hundreds of hours out of me and is a near endless military sandbox despite all its jank.

What I'm saying is, what originally attracted me to PC was indeed the difference I saw between how games ran on PC and on consoles, but that's not why I stayed. I ended up staying because of the increased freedom with distribution and with the selection of games.

All that said, I think the PS4 will finally be getting enough exclusives in 2016 to be worthwhile, even to someone who already owns a gaming PC.
 
FunkyDealer said:
It helps to turn off motion blur. I've spent many hours in The Witcher 3 on PS4, and I've only ever felt miserable when I've got to use the witcher-senses for a prolonged period. But that's because of the lowered field of view and blurring when you do it.

Sure there's some framerate issues, but it's nowhere near as bad as what was commonplace last gen. The main issue I've got (apart from the sensing bollocks) is the pop-in on foliage and rooftops.
Click to expand...

Turned off all those options, still feels damn awful to me. The swamps are truly terrible regarding framerate. Another problem is that using a bomb build feels like total garbage because the game drops to below 20 anytime one explodes. It's terrible to feel like the gameplay is being affected by it. I can't imagine how bad it gets in the later encounters of the game.

But even worse than that is the times where the game has to load to switch to a dialogue sequence, or often times it will hitch up in mid-transition. There's also the general slowness of the menus and really long initial loads times or upon death and fast travel.

None of those things are issues on PC. I think we're going to see this a lot with open world games, MGSV being the exception because the Fox Engine is made by wizards.
 
edit: ack, fuck the bait. So many shitty, ignorant opinions in these types of threads. I'm gonna get banned railing on people who shitpost about PC gaming someday and I'd rather today not be that day
 
Walpurgis said:
This is my view as well. There is no Uncharted 4 for PC even though if someone tried to make one on PC hardware, it would look noticeably better. The problem is that no one tries (to my knowledge). The last time anyone did try, that I know of, is Crysis. However, PC always has goodies like larger draw distances, more NPCs on screen, better resolution/framerate, etc. But those are all modifications to console games. It would be nice if there were a developer who pushed PCs to the limit and made PC exclusives.
Click to expand...

It's not like Star Citizen is a thing, right?
 
It depends of what you'd consider huge. Doubling the framerate is the biggest advantage IMO and to me that's very important. Try something like The Witcher 3 on both console and a capable PC and it just feels so much more polished on PC, because of how smoothly it runs. I wouldn't want to be without it and if you're only gonna invest in one platform, make it PC. Far too many advantages to miss out on it.

That said, I'd still recommend the consoles. You'll miss out on titles if you don't own every platform, so if you can afford it, buy one of each :)
 
Kinthalis said:
Put it this way, last gen:

- New consoles came out and where cutting edge tech.
- PC's did not catch up in tech for a few months
- You needed a $1,000+ PC to beat consoles.

And yet as you said, PC ended up blowing past the performance of those systems by mid gen, and by late gen, well, many games where an entirely different experience on PC.
Click to expand...
I'd like to have some example because I have great doubt of this thing. I have the suspect this obsession to put in bad light this console generation at all costs, distorts some tech details of the past.
 
I really hope that the difference to a decent gaming rig is huge cause so far this console gen has been a huge disappointment when it comes to graphics. I can barely make out any difference to last gen tbh. I know people will call me crazy and blind for saying that but that's just how it is. Textures look a bit nicer but that's about it.
 
Probably biggest difference is the frame rate. Depending on the PC you can have better IQ than the consoles, but it is nice to be able to customize each game so you can get the frame rate/IQ you want.
 
Brerlappin said:
Yup. I couldn't imagine having to play Evil Within with the black bars and awful performance of the consoles (sub 30fps). It would've ruined the game for me and it makes me wonder if the lukewarm reception is down to that, because I think TEW is a classic. OP, if you can afford it, get a decent PC, you won't regret it.
Click to expand...

I agree. I just finished putting 30 hours into TEW last week, including the DLC (one of the first DLC's that added something considerable to the base game) and really enjoyed it. After playing through at 1080/60, I also feel the reception would have been better if it wasn't plagued with performance issues. The gameplay, pacing, and story was all quite nice. It also started to show off more of its visual flair in the last 5 chapters with a ton more lighting/shadows going on. Seeing the sub 30 choppy black barred version on the PS4 felt awful. Fortunately, TEW2 will be using Unreal so hopefully the problems from choosing idtech won't be present a second time.
 
Get a console, OP.

You'll have way more AAA exclusives on consoles that just aren't available on PC, whether they are 1st-party or 3rd-party.

You can always build a PC down the road for multiplats that do make their way to PC.

Holiday season coming up, you'll be able to find some killer bundles for the current batch of consoles; PS4 price-drop will be happening too!
 
papercan55 said:
http://i.imgur.com/7rw1Qwb.gifv
Click to expand...

And that's a load of the usual bullshit spouted when this happens. Let's take a look back at precisely where it starts in the thread - http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=179522602&postcount=58

Krisprolls said:
Outside of the handful of nerds on this forum, nobody cares really. The difference is barely noticable nowadays with diminishing returns.

I may be an old gamer but the difference between platforms nowadays are insignificant compared to differences of the past like Atari ST vs Amiga, and even then nobody really cared outside nerds.

Buy the platform where your friends are, or the one with the exclusives you love.
Click to expand...

Basically the usual post bait of insults some, followed by

viHuGi said:
Ps4 exclusives - best graphics and best exclusives.

Pc multis - best graphics, no AAA exclusives, most great games also come on Consoles, on PC you can't play Uncharted, God of War, Halo, Forza and usually some of the best games that will come this gen etc...

Xbox One - best online shooters that you won't be able to play anywhere else.

So my opinion :

Want F2P/cheap games? Pc

Want amazing exclusives and all the best games always available on day 1? Console
Click to expand...

Which isn't even on topic for the most part
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

WTF is the difference between the next “Xbox Console” and “Xbox PC”?!
Rumor Hardware  2 3 4
156
2K
Ozriel replied
Suikoden: The Anime main cast, and visuals
3
97
Davevil replied
A new patch for the Switch 2 version of Star Wars Outlaws is out (further improves performance and visual quality)
2
53
160
Deerock71 replied
The difference between 60 and 120 fps is... pretty massive
2 3
139
9K
rofif replied
Xbox PC store's biggest problem is its inconsistency
25
725
Generic replied
Top Bottom