Support NeoGAF

[Kamill]

Steam Hardware & Software Survey

"Partially" indeed

 

[JimboJones]

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/the-making-of-god-of-war-iii

Actually good article linked to that video aswell

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

You might like there art style but technologically they weren't doing anything out of the ordinary.
The where both running at 720p and...well I'll let the video speak for its self it was not a smooth frame rate

That's not a slight against the game, it looks good for the hardware it's on but limitations are there.

Graphics not resolution.
You get nowhere when bringing resolution in.
Compare PC 720p games of that gen vs them and they lose.
You can spin art style bring up off point performance or whatever you want.
Bottom line those games bested the PC in VISUALS.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Proof? I'm only seeing comparisons which the pc version looks substantially better?

And it's common knowledge that Quadro gpu's are for creators, whether it be cgi, video editing, etc. I doubt people are creating games on the 2080 TI. It's possible, but I don't think you'll find any studio exclusively using those.

PC has Kameo?
Gears wasn't on the PC or matched right away.

 

[JimboJones]

Graphics not resolution.
You get nowhere when bringing resolution in.
Compare PC 720p games of that gen vs them and they lose.
You can spin art style bring up off point performance or whatever you want.
Bottom line those games bested the PC in VISUALS.

Resolution is graphics dude

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Resolution is graphics dude

Again I say... No PC game of the last gen put out better visuals 720p vs 720p.

Let me add unmodified PC 720p vs 720p.

 

[JimboJones]

Why would you restrict the pc to 720p?

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Why would you restrict the pc to 720p?

Because we are just comparing graphic assets.
Consoles many times outdo the PC in this area.

 

[JimboJones]

The graphics assets look better in higher resolution though and generally pc ports have higher quality assets.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

Why would you restrict the pc to 720p?

Makes sense to restrict pc resolution in current scenario.

Next gen consoles are firmly 4k machines. I doubt we will see checkerboarding or any such nonsense anymore. To outdo those, pc will need to beat those visuals at 4k only.

Untill the time comes when pc hardware is able to comfortably handle 8k. Which doesn't looks like will happen in next 5 yrs.

Next resolution jump won't come so easily.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

The graphics assets look better in higher resolution though and generally pc ports have higher quality assets.

Why wouldn't we?
If we are using resolution as the metric... Gears 5 in 720p is inferior to Gears Of War Ultimate in 4K.
Doesn't work.

 

[JimboJones]

Why wouldn't we?
If we are using resolution as the metric... Gears 5 in 720p is inferior to Gears Of War Ultimate in 4K.
Doesn't work.

It's like saying switch has better graphics than any pc game just because I happen to think breath of the wild looks fantastic.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

It's like saying switch has better graphics than any pc game just because I happen to think breath of the wild looks fantastic.

You said it.

I think that game is a example of a game that would greatly shine at a higher resolution with better AA.
Thank goodness for emulation.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

I agree with you up until the very last part. It's a preference to play the best version. It's the same thing as living in an apartment vs a house. Eating a steak vs McDonald's. Public transportation vs driving a car. Some people would prefer the finer things in life, and that's fine. As long as people enjoy their purchase, is what matters at the end of the day. As a pc gamer, I won't shit on a console player. Just don't make baseless claims that a console will have better graphics than a pc, and we're good to go.

Well, you can prefer any food you like... This time around the image quality of the PC version are the more demanding, it has more details, etc. Not really something you can argue about.

That being said, you don't have to think that this is the only deciding factor, quality of life, not having windows and steam between you and your games is a good start, never having to touch the keyboard, or troubleshooting a driver issue, etc. Are all things I can do, but I don't care for so much (they still happen).

The most recent game I played on PC was Doom 2016, I first got the PS4 version and I could not stand the game without mouse+kb... I also have a living room PC, it gets me backward compatibility from The Atari 2600 all the way to the PS3, including the arcade games! And play games like Sonic all star racing transformed at 4k (old I know, but it looks pretty good for a game its age, and the kids love it) and Zoo tycoon 2, so the kids don't annoy me to play on my workhorse PC.

I started playing Final Fantasy vii re recently, before that I replayed TLOU in preparation for TLoU 2... Etc. Most of my gaming is still on the console, almost 7 years after I got it, and I find the gaming experience is comparable.

 

[DoctaThompson]

PC has Kameo?
Gears wasn't on the PC or matched right away.

Not sure about kameo, but I checked up comparisons of gears, and pc is definitely superior, in all resolutions. And it's been this way throughout different generations. I don't know of any game that looks and runs better on console than pc.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Not sure about kameo, but I checked up comparisons of gears, and pc is definitely superior, in all resolutions. And it's been this way throughout different generations. I don't know of any game that looks and runs better on console than pc.

No Kameo isn't and looked better it's first few years than any platform game on the PC at the time.
Gears wasn't on PC right away and bested most PC games when it released.
We aren't doing the performance/resolution argument.

 

[Shmunter]

Yup SSD is not a ram replacement. Even Cerny didn't say that.

It operates on player's timeframe. Say you need 5-6 gb data within next 1-2 second, while player is turning around, it can do that.

But if you need that much data for next frame ie within 1/30 second, it won't do that. Ram can.

One thing you’re missing here is that if it can get that 5-6 gb data in enough time, that’s 5-6 gb in ram currently able to be dedicated to the current scene, instead of 5-6 gb data lying dormant in ram as cache.

The fast streaming effectively frees up more ram for current use instead of wasting it on buffers for unseen gfx.

 

[Shmunter]

Quick question... Did you for any second while writing that post, come to the realization that ALL games are developed on a PC? All assets, textures, effects, rendered scenes, audio, etc? Then the game gets downgraded and ported to consoles. If games are made on a PC, which is obviously faster and more powerful than the consoles the game gets ported, does this mean consoles are now going to develop games? As in no need for a pc anymore? Can I go out and buy a ps5 or Xbox series X, and run ZBrush or other 3D/modeling programs? Can I sell my pc, and run AutoCAD on consoles now? If not, then you really need to rethink your post, and realize consoles don't really have any advantage besides pricing.

This is an alt account of VFXhero isn’t it? There’s just no way.

 

[psorcerer]

Ram can.

Yup. You can win any SSD fight with 64 or 128GB of ram.
But "64GB ram required" looks much worse than "NVM SSD required"...

 

[Shmunter]

What’s interesting about next gen consoles is that they require next gen games to execute from the ssd’s. Even if it’s pac-man. It’s an incredibly strong statement by the platform holders to push the industry forward. How it plays out for PC requirements is genuinely an interesting prospect.

 

[DoctaThompson]

No Kameo isn't and looked better it's first few years than any platform game on the PC at the time.
Gears wasn't on PC right away and bested most PC games when it released.
We aren't doing the performance/resolution argument.

So why pick a game that isn't on pc, and a game that was released not long after 360, as the basis for your argument?

This is an alt account of VFXhero isn’t it? There’s just no way.

Definitely not him. I have much respect for VFXVeteran , but I can't hold a candle to him. He's smart enough to know the strongest platform, since he does this for a living. I mean realistically, do you honestly think you will get the power of a $1300 gpu for less than half the price, including a cpu, motherboard, i/o controllers, WiFi, controller, case, etc? Either you are living under a rock, have unrealistic expectations, or you are just straight up trolling at this point. No one with common sense is going to think they will get a $2k system for $500 bones. This is why pc hardware reigns supreme, because hardware isn't subsidized for a general audience. The BOM of consoles are usually a little cheaper or around the price that a console is sold for.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

So why pick a game that isn't on pc, and a game that was released not long after 360, as the basis for your argument?

WHAT?

 

[DoctaThompson]

What’s interesting about next gen consoles is that they require next gen games to execute from the ssd’s. Even if it’s pac-man. It’s an incredibly strong statement by the platform holders to push the industry forward. How it plays out for PC requirements is genuinely an interesting prospect.

So let me ask you this. Why would a pc suddenly need a faster ssd than the ssd's that pc gamers have had for over 10 years? Do you believe a ssd comes anywhere near the speed of ram? I'm genuinely curious as to why you are pretending to be the PR spokesperson of next gen consoles,

WHAT?

You said it not me.

Kameo on 360 bested any platformer on PC at least for a couple years as did Gears.

Uncharted 2 and GOW 3 look better than most PC games of that whole generation with Crysis and it's sequel being the exception.

Link showing what the upcoming consoles are being programmed on?

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

So let me ask you this. Why would a pc suddenly need a faster ssd than the ssd's that pc gamers have had for over 10 years? Do you believe a ssd comes anywhere near the speed of ram? I'm genuinely curious as to why you are pretending to be the PR spokesperson of next gen consoles,


You said it not me.

Because games aren't built from the ground up with the SSD in mind thus they are held back by old tech.

We are comparing graphic assets of what released on consoles vs PC in the same time frames.
Not resolutions or FPS.

 

[VFXVeteran]

I don't think you're looking at it the right way. PC's are used to develop games because they have the input devices and software tools necessary to make all the code and assets, not because it's stronger than the hardware you're developing for necessarily.
I could write code on my PC for a completely different system that would run that code 1000 times faster than the PC i wrote the code on.
It's not like they make the whole playable game on the PC and then just fork it over to the console or whatever.

Except that's exactly what they do. Call up Naughty Dog and ask them if they have their games running on a PC.

 

[VFXVeteran]

I have zero clue why VFX ever thought that. It makes zero sense. It's statements like that, that make me wonder why he does it even have such an anti-console agenda to begin with.

You aren't looking at things like I do that's why. Instead of immediately criticizing me and thinking I'm talking out of my ass, you should ask me what specifically I mean.

 

[VFXVeteran]

Makes sense to restrict pc resolution in current scenario.

Next gen consoles are firmly 4k machines. I doubt we will see checkerboarding or any such nonsense anymore. To outdo those, pc will need to beat those visuals at 4k only.

Untill the time comes when pc hardware is able to comfortably handle 8k. Which doesn't looks like will happen in next 5 yrs.

Next resolution jump won't come so easily.

Running at a true 4k resolution burns a lot of bandwidth. Look at some performance benchmarks of games on a 1080Ti @ 4k to get a glimpse of how hard it is on hardware. It's not just the screen that changes, it's every single thing in the pipeline. ALL of the shaders have to run 4X as much. Textures will be fetched even more (add 16X anisotropic filtering on top of that), depth buffer will be larger, etc.. etc..

Checkerboarding will not disappear.

 

[longdi]

Except that's exactly what they do. Call up Naughty Dog and ask them if they have their games running on a PC.

I wonder has anyone leak the PC .exe of older console titles?

 

[DoctaThompson]

I wonder has anyone leak the PC .exe of older console titles?

Pretty sure it's all done under emulation of some sort. Someone leaking these tools would be one of the biggest ooof's in gaming history, period. Although it would be pretty cool to have.

 

[DoctaThompson]

Because games aren't built from the ground up with the SSD in mind thus they are held back by old tech.

We are comparing graphic assets of what released on consoles vs PC in the same time frames.
Not resolutions or FPS.

Gears wasn't released too far off on pc. You can also pick literally any multiplatform game of your choice. You can even nitpick them if you'd like. Go ahead.

 

[Shmunter]

So let me ask you this. Why would a pc suddenly need a faster ssd than the ssd's that pc gamers have had for over 10 years? Do you believe a ssd comes anywhere near the speed of ram? I'm genuinely curious as to why you are pretending to be the PR spokesperson of next gen consoles,

Because a system is a sum of it's parts, and memory has 3 tiers, each slower. 1. On Chip Cache -> 2. Ram -> 3. Storage

They all work in harmony to deliver assets to be rendered in real-time. Next gen software in theory can be optimized around that system as it has today around current gen system. Software taking advantage of that new found speed will need to be scaled (compromised) accordingly for systems that cannot match the speed.

Yes infinite ram would mean no need for storage outside of an initial (long) load. Just as infinite cache would require no ram. This kind of approach is impractical and unrealistic in our time.

 

[DoctaThompson]

Because a system is a sum of it's parts, and memory has 3 tiers, each slower. 1. On Chip Cache -> 2. Ram -> 3. Storage

They all work in harmony to deliver assets to be rendered in real-time. Next gen software in theory can be optimized around that system as it has today around current gen system. Software taking advantage of that new found speed will need to be scaled (compromised) accordingly for systems that cannot match the speed.

Yes infinite ram would mean no need for storage outside of an initial (long) load. Just as infinite cache would require no ram. This kind of approach is impractical and unrealistic in our time.

So why would having a fast ssd, and low amount of ram, be a good solution? Pc's have more cache on cpu than consoles. Always have and always will. Pc's don't rely on ssd to vram only. There is such thing as system memory, which isn't the same as vram. We have already addressed why consoles have a single pool of ram, it's a shortcut and cost savings solution. If it worked better than pc's, computers would have implemented it will over 15 years ago, and removed system memory completely. It didn't take any time for fuel injected systems to overtake carburetted engines. If removing system memory was beneficial, computers wouldn't continue to have it. Does that make sense to you this time? Or will we keep arguing the obvious for the next couple of points? Once you take off the blinders, and realize the reality of things, the burn won't be so bad when you are wondering why ssd's were so hyped up, and how it doesn't increase resolution, raytracing, pixel density, amount of vertices or geometry on screen, physics, or anything that you believe because of rumors or hearsay. Please bring an actual argument to the table, as you have provided zero evidence or proof. Several people have disproven your claims.

 

[clem84]

By machines that cost how much?

Anyway you look at it, when PS5 and XSX are released, they're going to be the best bang-for-buck deals out there in terms of graphics and budget, and it will remain that way for quite some time.

 

[DoctaThompson]

By machines that cost how much?

Anyway you look at it, when PS5 and XSX are released, they're going to be the best bang-for-buck deals out there, and it will remain that way for quite some time.

Pretty sure it's been established that consoles will be the better value, initially. But this thread is all about performance. Will consoles or pc's have the more powerful hardware, not the better price tag. I wouldn't expect a stock Honda Accord to beat a modified supercar. The same way some posters shouldn't expect a 2k package for a $500 price tag. Too many console warriors have been sipping on the Cerny-juice, and feel that they will have nuclear reactor in their living room. Maybe heat wise, but not power-wise

 

[Shmunter]

So why would having a fast ssd, and low amount of ram, be a good solution? Pc's have more cache on cpu than consoles. Always have and always will. Pc's don't rely on ssd to vram only. There is such thing as system memory, which isn't the same as vram. We have already addressed why consoles have a single pool of ram, it's a shortcut and cost savings solution. If it worked better than pc's, computers would have implemented it will over 15 years ago, and removed system memory completely. It didn't take any time for fuel injected systems to overtake carburetted engines. If removing system memory was beneficial, computers wouldn't continue to have it. Does that make sense to you this time? Or will we keep arguing the obvious for the next couple of points? Once you take off the blinders, and realize the reality of things, the burn won't be so bad when you are wondering why ssd's were so hyped up, and how it doesn't increase resolution, raytracing, pixel density, amount of vertices or geometry on screen, physics, or anything that you believe because of rumors or hearsay. Please bring an actual argument to the table, as you have provided zero evidence or proof. Several people have disproven your claims.

Sorry who’s arguing ssd = resolution, raytracing, pixel density, amount of vertices or geometry on screen, physics?

The only people that keep bringing up this false equivalency and putting it into an imaginary conversation is you and vfx. Because that’s the shallow limits of your understanding and you think everyone is as idiotic as to relate these seperate topics.

It’s as if you’re the same person as nobody on here or anywhere takes such a ridiculous stance, at verbatim no less. It’s has be trolling.

 

[DoctaThompson]

Sorry who’s arguing ssd = resolution, raytracing, pixel density, amount of vertices or geometry on screen, physics?

The only people that keep bringing up this false equivalency and putting it into an imaginary conversation is you and vfx. Because that’s the shallow limits of your understanding and you think everyone is as idiotic as to relate these seperate topics.

It’s as if you’re the same person as nobody on here or anywhere takes such a ridiculous stance, at verbatim no less. It’s has be trolling.

So let me ask you this. Will any part of next gen consoles beat hardware that is currently available for pc? Cpu, Gpu, SSD, etc? You seem to run around questions, but have nothing to debate or add to the discussion. So please contribute something instead of trying to imply I'm VFXVeteran or some other account belongs to him. He clearly proved you wrong, yet you claim he or I have limited understanding.? Well go ahead and explain yourself. There's no point in calling people out, but have nothing to dispute...

 

[Shmunter]

So let me ask you this. Will any part of next gen consoles beat hardware that is currently available for pc? Cpu, Gpu, SSD, etc? You seem to run around questions, but have nothing to debate or add to the discussion. So please contribute something instead of trying to imply I'm VFXVeteran or some other account belongs to him. He clearly proved you wrong, yet you claim he or I have limited understanding.? Well go ahead and explain yourself. There's no point in calling people out, but have nothing to dispute...

I’d have more luck explaining things to the potato in my pantry. You carry on the good fight, there’s a prize at the end I’m sure. And no I’m not going to reply to whatever obtuse ass comments you may have from here on.

 

[DoctaThompson]

I’d have more luck explaining things to the potato in my pantry. You carry on the good fight, there’s a prize at the end I’m sure. And no I’m not going to reply to whatever obtuse ass comments you may have from here on.

I'm guessing you have nothing to add, which I definitely expected. Good luck explaining to that potato, as it probably has a better response than you could come up with in this thread. Hopefully you at least watch this thread, and possibly take in a thing or two. Learning and understanding things go a long way in this forum. Best of luck to you in that regard.

 

[Great Hair]

Both will be outclassed, but not for $499.

Spoiler

Add a 3700x ($300), 16gb ($140), 1tb ($150) nvme, mitx am4 ($150), case ($100), psu 650w ($100), bd4k ($50), rdna2 GPU ($500), WiFi card ($30)

Ngen console $500 (+/-)
Ngen PC $1400 (+/-)

 

[martino]

People just care about whether to not a game "looks good".
Obviously that's subjective. But I also think that it depends more on budget than tech.

All the things you listed seem irrelevant when one game just has much better animation than the other, or more variety and detail in assets, or better performance capturing.

Resolution, draw distance, AA and many other things are easily measurable, so they're more objective, but I honestly don't think that small differences here have a big impact on the overall look of a game. Red Dead at 4k or 1440p isn't going to drastically change my perception of the game's visuals.

One of the reasons why exclusives or games like Red Dead 2 stick out from the crowd is because of their big budgets and different production processes.

And I am convinced it will be like that next-gen as well.
The majority of games dropping jaws will be exclusives.

And yet best example on how far it goes is a third party games
But there will be AAA third party with same budget and visually as impressive (outside biased appreciation) but with better graphics on their pc version.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Gears wasn't released too far off on pc. You can also pick literally any multiplatform game of your choice. You can even nitpick them if you'd like. Go ahead.

Why would I go off point and do that? Who said PC versions of games couldn't run better?

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Both will be outclassed, but not for $499.

Spoiler

Add a 3700x ($300), 16gb ($140), 1tb ($150) nvme, mitx am4 ($150), case ($100), psu 650w ($100), bd4k ($50), rdna2 GPU ($500), WiFi card ($30)

Ngen console $500 (+/-)
Ngen PC $1400 (+/-)

The GPU will cost more

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

So let me ask you this. Will any part of next gen consoles beat hardware that is currently available for pc? Cpu, Gpu, SSD, etc? You seem to run around questions, but have nothing to debate or add to the discussion. So please contribute something instead of trying to imply I'm VFXVeteran or some other account belongs to him. He clearly proved you wrong, yet you claim he or I have limited understanding.? Well go ahead and explain yourself. There's no point in calling people out, but have nothing to dispute...

The SSD will cause as I stated earlier... PC games won't be built with a SSD as fast as the PS5's in mind.
So PS5 will have the advantage in this area.

 

[RaySoft]

Except that's exactly what they do. Call up Naughty Dog and ask them if they have their games running on a PC.

Please elaborate...

 

[martino]

The SSD will cause as I stated earlier... PC games won't be built with a SSD as fast as the PS5's in mind.
So PS5 will have the advantage in this area.

No games build from scratch for final specs will until mid or even later in the gen since AAA take 4+ years to develop.
And by the time most gaming pc will have ssd coupled with 32/64gb
Cerny said it : end this year you will have 7gb/s ps5 can use. now imagine in 4 years with pcie 5.0
PC hardware is not locked you can change only what you need to change at some point.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

No games build from scratch for final specs will until mid or even later in the gen since AAA take 4+ years to develop.
And by the time most pc will have ssd coupled with 32/64gb
Cerny said it : end this year you will 7gb/s ps5 can use. now imagine in 4 years with pcie 5.0
PC hardware is not locked you can change only what you need to change at some point.

Tech evolves this isn't my argument.
PC games built with super fast SSD in mind I don't see happening anytime soon.

 

[martino]

Tech evolves this isn't my argument.
PC games built with super fast SSD in mind I don't see happening anytime soon.

I don't see it happening soon on console too that's the point

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

I don't see it happening soon on console too that's the point

It will happen much sooner on ps5.

 

[martino]

It will happen much sooner on ps5.

internet on this subject atm.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

I don't see it happening soon on console too that's the point

What makes you think it will take long? If it's actually possible, I expect to see the difference in launch titles themselves.

Speaking in scientific terms, if you are able to explain a new theory to a layman (example, theory of relativity), it needs a lot of development and time to digest. If general public can get it, its not new anymore.

Same here. Cerny was able to explain everything in so simple terms, I think it's a rather mature concept in development circle. Launch titles or at max second wave of titles should be capable of harnessing SSD, provided its possible.