Support NeoGAF

[DoctaThompson]

So now you are resorting to strawmans and cover ups? Do you really think next gen games won't have an option to run at 60 fps? Even if by some miracle they didn't, the FPS and hack/slash games will be 60 fps on console anyway. Keep venting your insecurities its amusing. Its okay buddy, Your 3k didn't go to waste you can still see all that gorgeous grass at high LOD in far cry 5. That's got to count for something right?

Why should next gen consoles have an option to run @60fps?! Lmao, that should be the standard for all games. No insecurities here. I'm not the one in a thread arguing against pc's.... Let that sink in for a second. People have proven you wrong, over and over, yet you still come back to do what? Trolling at this point? You haven't been correct, not one time yet.

My money was wisely spent, and games running over 144fps is proof alone. Let me know if you can reply to this, from your console. If you can't do that, it's another reason why I prefer pc.

 

[VFXVeteran]

Thanks for the reply.

Tried everything on settings and still dont get the performance we see on ps4 pro. Specs are arguably the same.

My point on console games better optimised than pc equivalents still stands.

No it doesn't. I just told you what sacrifices the devs had to make on the consoles which aren't done on the PC = better image quality overall. To get the same image quality, your PS4Pro wouldn't run @ constant 60FPS. Hell, even with them pulling out some graphics features, it still can't lock 60FPS.

 

[hyperbertha]

Why should next gen consoles have an option to run @60fps?! Lmao, that should be the standard for all games. No insecurities here. I'm not the one in a thread arguing against pc's.... Let that sink in for a second. People have proven you wrong, over and over, yet you still come back to do what? Trolling at this point? You haven't been correct, not one time yet.

My money was wisely spent, and games running over 144fps is proof alone. Let me know if you can reply to this, from your console. If you can't do that, it's another reason why I prefer pc.

The insecurity is overflowing. Keep the tears coming. And once again, proofs all over on youtube. RDR 2 pro virtually still looking the same as PC. And 144 fps? what's the point without decent games? Bet the xboneX can do 144 on counterstike too at unlocked framerates. Don't worry, I already said you money was well spent getting extra grass, why can't you be happy with that?

 

[VFXVeteran]

I have a good enough PC because of VR and other stuff, but the gimnastics or refusal to accept that consoles are what really drive developers to build games for better hardware baffles me.
The target platform it's more often than not consoles because of the player base, so PC elitists should be ecstatic about every new console gen.

Except that isn't true. But you guys will believe it anyway as I guess it gives you some kind of internal peace about your system of choice. What's funny is that even if that were true, the PC version of ANY game will always look better and run faster than any console version. So insisting that the target platform is consoles doesn't give you any weight in an argument on which platform is the de facto platform to play the game on.

 

[Muddy]

No it doesn't. I just told you what sacrifices the devs had to make on the consoles which aren't done on the PC = better image quality overall. To get the same image quality, your PS4Pro wouldn't run @ constant 60FPS. Hell, even with them pulling out some graphics features, it still can't lock 60FPS.

Yes there are sacrifices but thats part of optimising.

Re2 on ps4 pro runs at more stable framerates and a higher resolution than on my par spec pc. No matter what I do with the settings.

 

[LittleBigGamer]

A comment of an actual industry insider about silent hill as a PS5 exclusive.:

I imagine it will be an exclusive next gen title. Graphics will be amazing and surely better than the PS4 gen. Exclusives are always prettier (well, most of the time), and this magic SSD will probably show its full power on these exclusives. Can't wait.

Captain obvious here.

 

[VFXVeteran]

Yes there are sacrifices but thats part of optimising.

Yes, but the game won't look better. Period.

 

[gooner4life_uk]

i like the way you think only the 1660 super has GDDR6

 

[VFXVeteran]

A comment of an actual industry insider about silent hill as a PS5 exclusive.:

I imagine it will be an exclusive next gen title. Graphics will be amazing and surely better than the PS4 gen. Exclusives are always prettier (well, most of the time), and this magic SSD will probably show its full power on these exclusives. Can't wait.

Captain obvious here.

Notice he said "prettier" which is a SUBJECTIVE opinion.. that doesn't mean superior running or more advanced..

What will be your argument of exclusive superiority over PC when your PS exclusives also show up on the PC? Let me guess:

"It cost you $1k to get the better game"
"The differences are minimal"
"It took you 6 months to enjoy a game I've already been playing so there!"

 

[OmegaSupreme]

I thought the point was that PCs could handle console games at 60 FPS at the same quality levels?

That's a point. Not the whole. P psorcerer was claiming that you need a cpu twice as fast to get double the framerate which absolutely false.

 

[Muddy]

Yes, but the game won't look better. Period.

Maybe its just me but it does look better.

Screen Space reflections look like crap on the pc. So crap they need to be turned off on pc. Fine on the ps4 pro.

 

[VFXVeteran]

Completely agree and with Mid life upgrades for consoles now a norm I doubt we will ever see the average PC ever having an advantage over consoles.

Just because there was a mid-gen cycle last generation doesn't mean there is going to be one this generation. And even the last generation chips were just O/C. I seriously doubt MS/Sony will put entirely new GPU chips into their machines in 3yrs. And overclocking isn't an option on these new consoles as they are already tapped out.

 

[VFXVeteran]

Maybe its just me but it does look better.

Screen Space reflections look like crap on the pc. So crap they need to be turned off on pc. Fine on the ps4 pro.

It is just you. SSR looks like garbage on the consoles too.

You have a low end GPU trying to compare it with a high-end PS4 (Pro edition). First of all buy an Nvidia board before comparing to consoles. AMD is not known for fast GPUs.

 

[DoctaThompson]

The insecurity is overflowing. Keep the tears coming. And once again, proofs all over on youtube. RDR 2 pro virtually still looking the same as PC. And 144 fps? what's the point without decent games? Bet the xboneX can do 144 on counterstike too at unlocked framerates. Don't worry, I already said you money was well spent getting extra grass, why can't you be happy with that?

Lmao why are you so insecure here? Pc has no good games... So I'm assuming since we have the whole line up of Xbox games, pc exclusives, and getting PlayStation games as well. Wouldn't that man pc has more games than both consoles combined? Then you account for much better hardware than consoles. At this point, what do consoles have over pc, besides pricing?

Not gonna lie, but I get a chuckle each time you reply, as your replies are soaked with insecurity. You say this game can't run at this framerate, or this quality. People prove you wrong, then you jump to something else, over and over. Now you are saying pc has no games? Lololol. Even you admit that pc offers more than consoles. Then you backtrack all over again. Keep the whiny posts coming, cause I love humor.

 

[thelastword]

There was never a time when PC hardware was not ahead, mainly PC+GPU, but consoles have their own strengths......More customized architecture being one, that focuses simply on gaming, which also translates to more money and dedication being placed in game development over PC......You won't often get the development teams and budgets that console games have on PC.....

A console is a standard platform, this time around it will be a very high ceiling across CPU and GPU, most PC owners won't have specs that match the PC hardware releasing in November; say 10990K or Ryzen 4950X + 3080 ti's and Big Navi 5900XT, 5950XT's....Even specs bellow that wont be as common as console spec...…..This is why consoles have led the charge in having delivered the best looking games the entirety of this gen, because the money and time needed to pursue the best graphics on the 1000 guys who own a 2080ti + 9900K is not worth it, you will not get your returns.....You will never see a PC developer getting 50-100 million to develop a cutting edge game on 3080ti, because they will not sell 100 copies if their game cant run on 1080P GPU's which form the whopping majority of PC's on steam......


PC's will never lead consoles in games development, maybe in shovelware due to PC's huge base and easy form of entry, similar to mobile development.....The console environment is more controlled, because the installbase is guaranteed to buy your games, you are bound to get a portion of the userbase to like your game and get a following as long as it's not absolute drek like life of black tiger, which is pretty much a mobile game and should have stayed there. Look at this developer whose game only sold 5 copies on steam, you know how many potatoe PC's could play his game...….At least with consoles the standard of hardware is the same, you don't have to worry about a million configurations so your ambition is scaled up......In essence, it's as simple as this.....if a weak jaguar with a modified 7870 could have given us GOW, Horizon Zero Dawn, GTS, Detroit, Days Gone, LOU2, UC4, DC etc....against PC's best.....The bar has now raised so high for consoles relative to GPU and CPU, we've never had such high end and fast parts on consoles before......It was either the GPU was weak and the CPU strong or vice versa...….Besides that, consoles are breaking forward with some of the latest technologies like faster SSD's that's not currently available on PC......Consoles win in gaming because of the higher ambition devs can pursue in their games due to a standard spec and a guaranteed installbase...

 

[LittleBigGamer]

Notice he said "prettier" which is a SUBJECTIVE opinion.. that doesn't mean superior running or more advanced..

What will be your argument of exclusive superiority over PC when your PS exclusives also show up on the PC? Let me guess:

"It cost you $1k to get the better game"
"The differences are minimal"
"It took you 6 months to enjoy a game I've already been playing so there!"

Fixed system benefits are not something subjective. It is objective. Exclusives tend to push the line more than the multiplatforms because the earth is also not flat. And pc takes the same multiplatform console games, of same line with a little more mustard.

4A Games chief technical officer :
You just cannot compare consoles to PC directly. Consoles could do at least 2x what a comparable PC can due to the fixed platform and low-level access to hardware.

 

[Muddy]

It is just you. SSR looks like garbage on the consoles too.

You have a low end GPU trying to compare it with a high-end PS4 (Pro edition). First of all buy an Nvidia board before comparing to consoles. AMD is not known for fast GPUs.

Why would I need an Nvidia board to compare to consoles.

Why not compare AMD hardware on pcs to AMD hardware on consoles. Its a fair and better comparison.

Btw, Though low end the Rx 570 is a 5.1tf gpu where as ps4 gpu is 4.2tf.

 

[VFXVeteran]

The specs of that PC are so far beyond the PS4/X1 that it's almost like comparing them with a next gen console. I would expect far better than that if it were fully exploited. I can't imagine the cost.

Full exploitation is defined as what percentage of your GPU is peaking at (99% being the most optimized graphics pipeline). Nearly every game is fully exploiting the power of the PC GPU.

Full exploitation doesn't mean infinite geometry and extreme levels of detail of the likes of a CG movie. A game can be maxed by just upping the resolution, indexing a texture many many times for filtering (i.e. 16X vs the PS4's 4X), moving much larger textures, rendering to high resolution shadow maps, using advanced techniques like RT-lighting, etc..

If you take a game like H:ZD on the PS4 and rendered it at a true 4k, the FPS would drop to unacceptable framerates (it was already limited to 30FPS). All you did was remove the cheap reconstruction technique so the renderer could render the entire image as it should.

 

[Muddy]

This is untrue; the PC version of Red Dead Redemption 2 blows the console versions out of the water, into the sky, through the atmosphere, and out of orbit.

The costs of getting that pc will blow peoples bank accounts out of the water, into the sky, through the atmosphere and out of orbit.

 

[VFXVeteran]

Fixed system benefits are not something subjective. It is objective. Exclusives tend to push the line more than the multiplatforms because the earth is also not flat. And pc takes the same multiplatform console games, of same line with a little more mustard.

Push what line? State your case. You have absolutely no proof that there is any tech advancement made in an exclusive that's not seen on a 3rd party platform game. Hell, we could use UE4 as a test case. Tell me one 3D feature in any PS exclusive last gen that's not implemented in UE4.

4A Games chief technical officer :
You just cannot compare consoles to PC directly. Consoles could do at least 2x what a comparable PC can due to the fixed platform and low-level access to hardware.

That may be true but it depends on the game. But this argument is not about a GPU that's equivalent to a console's GPU. We are talking about the BEST GPU on PC available compared to the BEST GPU on a next-gen console. Don't move the goalpost.

 

[GeorgPrime]

Ohh.... so you are saying a PC is in the long run more powerful than a console? No shit.....

So where is the news about that? It repeats every generation but there are still more console gamers than PC gamer because of simpleness and accessibility.

A PC needs to become much more simple regards gaming to hit the mass market. All those different launcher aside from Steam and GOG are just annoying as fuck.

And for the latest high end PC you have to spent like 1000-2000 dollar.

People prefer spending 400 on a new console, getting a shitload of new games within the next years and can just pick up and play them whenever the want.

 

[iHaunter]

That's how technology works? This can be said by just about everything in tehc, outside of Apple products.

 

[hyperbertha]

Lmao why are you so insecure here? Pc has no good games... So I'm assuming since we have the whole line up of Xbox games, pc exclusives, and getting PlayStation games as well. Wouldn't that man pc has more games than both consoles combined? Then you account for much better hardware than consoles. At this point, what do consoles have over pc, besides pricing?

Not gonna lie, but I get a chuckle each time you reply, as your replies are soaked with insecurity. You say this game can't run at this framerate, or this quality. People prove you wrong, then you jump to something else, over and over. Now you are saying pc has no games? Lololol. Even you admit that pc offers more than consoles. Then you backtrack all over again. Keep the whiny posts coming, cause I love humor.

You keep saying somone proved me wrong? Where is this delusion coming from? PC is inferior to consoles as a gaming platform for most people, since most people don't care about fringe GPU settings. With next gen, any graphical difference between pc and console will move to less than negligible. Always amusing how insecure PC only gamers are.

 

[DoctaThompson]

You keep saying somone proved me wrong? Where is this delusion coming from? PC is inferior to consoles as a gaming platform for most people, since most people don't care about fringe GPU settings. With next gen, any graphical difference between pc and console will move to less than negligible. Always amusing how insecure PC only gamers are.

Not just someone, but several people. Pc is superior, and it's only you and a handful of others who think otherwise. Even you see that pc games can run everything on ultra, while consoles have quality settings lower, than the lowest setting on pc. Who cares what other people have? We're talking about gaming pc's vs console, not a pc that is used at a Walmart to print photos from. You can't tell the difference between 30 and 100fps, so you have no say so in regards to that.

It's really sad that some people can go online, and publicly embarrass themselves on an online forum. They see the proof, yet they try to refute it with illogical mental gymnastics, especially you. Is it pride? Is it envy or jealousy? Anguish? What is the reason you cannot accept these facts? Even console Fanboys have agreed that pc will always be superior. Even you can build a pc that will be better than next gen. You can built it now or even a few years ago. How hard of a concept is that to grasp?

If you have nothing to add to this conversation, than simply making a fool of yourself, you can ignore me, or troll elsewhere. But the fact still remains: PC > consoles. Take it or leave it.

 

[Nickolaidas]

You keep saying somone proved me wrong? Where is this delusion coming from? PC is inferior to consoles as a gaming platform for most people, since most people don't care about fringe GPU settings. With next gen, any graphical difference between pc and console will move to less than negligible. Always amusing how insecure PC only gamers are.

Well, if you had paid 4000$ to get a machine which makes games look 10% prettier than a 500$ console, wouldn't you feel the need to constantly downplay the 500$ machine in order to feel less of an asshole?

 

[NT80]

Full exploitation is defined as what percentage of your GPU is peaking at (99% being the most optimized graphics pipeline). Nearly every game is fully exploiting the power of the PC GPU.

Full exploitation doesn't mean infinite geometry and extreme levels of detail of the likes of a CG movie. A game can be maxed by just upping the resolution, indexing a texture many many times for filtering (i.e. 16X vs the PS4's 4X), moving much larger textures, rendering to high resolution shadow maps, using advanced techniques like RT-lighting, etc..

If you take a game like H:ZD on the PS4 and rendered it at a true 4k, the FPS would drop to unacceptable framerates (it was already limited to 30FPS). All you did was remove the cheap reconstruction technique so the renderer could render the entire image as it should.

Wasted on things that aren't making enough of a difference relative to the expense and power compared to console. I wonder what a console with those specs could do with it's best exclusives and how they might use that power in more meaningful ways. How does that setup compare to the XSX and PS5?

 

[Keihart]

Push what line? State your case. You have absolutely no proof that there is any tech advancement made in an exclusive that's not seen on a 3rd party platform game. Hell, we could use UE4 as a test case. Tell me one 3D feature in any PS exclusive last gen that's not implemented in UE4.



That may be true but it depends on the game. But this argument is not about a GPU that's equivalent to a console's GPU. We are talking about the BEST GPU on PC available compared to the BEST GPU on a next-gen console. Don't move the goalpost.

How about soft deformation on character models and the LOD changes that Uncharted 4 uses as well? Those are still not mainstream.

 

[DoctaThompson]

Well, if you had paid 4000$ to get a machine which makes games look 10% prettier than a 500$ console, wouldn't you feel the need to constantly downplay the 500$ machine in order to feel less of an asshole?

I'll take 300% performance, and 100% prettier, all day, everyday. If everyone had the money, who wouldn't get the best experience? I highly doubt there would be someone who would pick the lesser hardware, if money wasn't an issue. I mean, would you rather drive a Ford Pinto, or an exotic super car?

 

[Nickolaidas]

I'll take 300% performance, and 100% prettier, all day, everyday. If everyone had the money, who wouldn't get the best experience? I highly doubt there would be someone who would pick the lesser hardware, if money wasn't an issue. I mean, would you rather drive a Ford Pinto, or an exotic super car?

At some point, price far exceeds the benefits. For example, you would pay 1000$ to get a TV which would get a 9 our of 10 score in Hi-Tech magazines, and 4000$ to get a TV which would get a 9.3 out of 10.

Unless you have a shit-ton of money to spare, it isn't worth it to spend 3000$ more in order to get that 0.3 out of 10 extra quality. That is my point.

I don't care if consoles are behind of PCs once they're released, the year later, and the year after. I game on consoles, and the quality of the console is what interests me. That's where the money is. There's a reason why video games which ignore console specs and go to PC only can be counted with one hand's fingers. The majority of publishers need to have their games on consoles in order to sell, and as a result, video games are made with consoles in mind, not high-end PCs.

Horizon looks and plays phenomenally on my Pro. I never once said "wow, this version looks like shit - I think I'll spend 4000$ in order to play this game as it was meant to be played."

 

[BluRayHiDef]

The costs of getting that pc will blow peoples bank accounts out of the water, into the sky, through the atmosphere and out of orbit.

I honestly LOL'ed.

 

[hyperbertha]

Not just someone, but several people. Pc is superior, and it's only you and a handful of others who think otherwise. Even you see that pc games can run everything on ultra, while consoles have quality settings lower, than the lowest setting on pc. Who cares what other people have? We're talking about gaming pc's vs console, not a pc that is used at a Walmart to print photos from. You can't tell the difference between 30 and 100fps, so you have no say so in regards to that.

It's really sad that some people can go online, and publicly embarrass themselves on an online forum. They see the proof, yet they try to refute it with illogical mental gymnastics, especially you. Is it pride? Is it envy or jealousy? Anguish? What is the reason you cannot accept these facts? Even console Fanboys have agreed that pc will always be superior. Even you can build a pc that will be better than next gen. You can built it now or even a few years ago. How hard of a concept is that to grasp?

If you have nothing to add to this conversation, than simply making a fool of yourself, you can ignore me, or troll elsewhere. But the fact still remains: PC > consoles. Take it or leave it.

How much nonsense do I have to read lol. The fact remains that console will always have the games while PC will always have the side stuff that I can't even notice at 4k quality on youtube. Keep shifting the goalposts. First it was ultra quality but after that's lost now its 144 fps on counterstike. Who cares?

 

[DoctaThompson]

At some point, price far exceeds the benefits. For example, you would pay 1000$ to get a TV which would get a 9 our of 10 score in Hi-Tech magazines, and 4000$ to get a TV which would get a 9.3 out of 10.

Unless you have a shit-ton of money to spare, it isn't worth it to spend 3000$ more in order to get that 0.3 out of 10 extra quality. That is my point.

I don't care if consoles are behind of PCs once they're released, the year later, and the year after. I game on consoles, and the quality of the console is what interests me. That's where the money is. There's a reason why video games which ignore console specs and go to PC only can be counted with one hand's fingers. The majority of publishers need to have their games on consoles in order to sell, and as a result, video games are made with consoles in mind, not high-end PCs.

Horizon looks and plays phenomenally on my Pro. I never once said "wow, this version looks like shit - I think I'll spend 4000$ in order to play this game as it was meant to be played."

Console games don't look bad. But if I want to crank up the settings from 1080p to higher resolution, turn on the missing effects from console version, and go from 30 to 120fps, who wouldn't want that? It may be more expensive, but is it any different than comparing a game on digital foundry between consoles? If someone roots for their console of choice, to be the better preformer of the two consoles, it would be no different than wanting the best experience of said game. And I personally want to experience a game in the best light. My only option is to get that game on pc. You may have different priorities, which is fine and all, but I actually care about fidelity. Many people do, which is why you see so many comparisons between games, and why many people prefer to game on pc. If consoles were superior, I could sell my pc and but each next gen console, and a multitude of games. But why would I downgrade my experience?

 

[DoctaThompson]

How much nonsense do I have to read lol. The fact remains that console will always have the games while PC will always have the side stuff that I can't even notice at 4k quality on youtube. Keep shifting the goalposts. First it was ultra quality but after that's lost now its 144 fps on counterstike. Who cares?

You obviously care. You don't game on PC, yet you are in a thread all about pc's. You even go as far as trying to argue a point, yet you can't even tell the difference between 30fps and quadruple that. That makes no sense. And what's with your infatuation with counterstrike? I don't even play that game lol. I'm not moving goal posts, but YOU are bringing up irrelevant stuff.

Do you have anything constructive to add to the topic? Or will you keep showing your insecurities, and fall flat on your face, each argument?

 

[Nickolaidas]

But why would I downgrade my experience?

Like I said, cost. If you can afford it, more power to you. If you have other priorities to spend your money on, consoles can be the perfect solution to get decent looking games for a minimal cost.

Everyone would like to drive a ferrari. But if your needs are simply to drive at work, and you can barely afford a 10,000$ car, you'll just have to make do by turning the Ferrari into a wallpaper on your desktop.

 

[hyperbertha]

You obviously care. You don't game on PC, yet you are in a thread all about pc's. You even go as far as trying to argue a point, yet you can't even tell the difference between 30fps and quadruple that. That makes no sense. And what's with your infatuation with counterstrike? I don't even play that game lol. I'm not moving goal posts, but YOU are bringing up irrelevant stuff.

Do you have anything constructive to add to the topic? Or will you keep showing your insecurities, and fall flat on your face, each argument?

Why do you keep coming back without that loser of an argument? Pc just doesn't have 60 percent of the games I wanna play. It just doesn't have any graphical features that anybody would care for. Most of the games that benefits from 60 fps are 60 fps current gen, and next gen ALL of them will be. You have no argument except superior grass. Hilarious.

 

[Nickolaidas]

And just to be clear:

The reason people like VFXVeteran and the OP are irritating is because what they do is basically party-pooping. It's like we're having a party, someone's bringing this huge cake, and there's this one guy who keeps telling us stuff like, "seriously, don't eat this stuff. It's full of cholesterol, it's bad for your health, it'll make you fat", etc. etc.

And everyone's like "No shit, sherlock!". We know it's bad for our health. We know it will raise our cholesterol levels. We know it'll get us fat.

We just don't care. And people who keep on trying to bust our balls and kill our hype of eating the cake are simply being jerks at that point.

No one argued that PCs are inferior to consoles. No one argued that a current gen game on consoles won't look better on a current gen high-end pc. No one disagrees.

So what's the point? Why do some people keep saying about PC superiority when it's an undisputed fact? Why do they keep making debates about the PC master race when no one disagrees with them?

What is the reason? What is the point other than trying to annoy us by trying to downplay our excitement for the next-gen consoles?

 

[Muddy]

Remember the time my friend kept upgrading and blowing money on his pc just to get Crysis running.

So traumatised was he after this experience that he has never touched a pc since.

 

[Sosokrates]

PC wont be left behind, certain PS5 fans are forgetting how multiplat development is done all for the sake of console wars.

3rd parties will assess the technology in PC, xsx and ps5 and they will use and create game engines which work well with these platforms.

If you want to know the future of visuals look at the popular game engines, UE4 is made for PC hardware. The xsx and PS5 is using PC hardware with some tweaks. While the next gen consoles are powerful its not possible to make a $500 console and have it perform much better then equivalent PC hardware.

People like to over hype certain features of consoles because of consoles wars, while things like fast ssds will impove certain a lot, as long as a PC has the same class of hardware its going to be just as good as console and more expensive PCs will be better.

 

[DoctaThompson]

Like I said, cost. If you can afford it, more power to you. If you have other priorities to spend your money on, consoles can be the perfect solution to get decent looking games for a minimal cost.

Everyone would like to drive a ferrari. But if your needs are simply to drive at work, and you can barely afford a 10,000$ car, you'll just have to make do by turning the Ferrari into a wallpaper on your desktop.

Which is why I said, if money isn't an issue... You don't need a Ferrari to be fast. You don't need a high end pc to beat xb1x. A cheap cpu and rx 580/gtx 1060 can be had for cheap, and give you more headroom. For next gen, it will be the same thing when consoles release this year. Prices drop for hardware, new cpu's and gpu's come out.

And there are several people in this very thread that think consoles are more powerful than pc's. Which is completely not true. You don't need a huge budget to get there.

Why do you keep coming back without that loser of an argument? Pc just doesn't have 60 percent of the games I wanna play. It just doesn't have any graphical features that anybody would care for. Most of the games that benefits from 60 fps are 60 fps current gen, and next gen ALL of them will be. You have no argument except superior grass. Hilarious.

Lol what? Obviously the people who game on pc care about graphical features. And apparently YOU do too, hence you arguing in this thread.can you show me the confirmation that every game on consoles, will be in 60fps? More than 85% of people, voted that next gen consoles will release with 30 FPS games. Which shouldn't really matter to you, since you can't tell the difference. The only one who's argued about grass, in this whole thread, is you. But, I'll take my high quality grass, higher resolution, higher frame rate, better experience, etc.

I don't care what the next man has in his PC, or what console fanboys have to say. I only care about my experience, and I want to have the best experience possible. This is why I will settle with nothing less than a PC for next gen, as it would be a lesser experience for me on console. I don't like restrictions.

 

[dano1]

Completely agree and with Mid life upgrades for consoles now a norm I doubt we will ever see the average PC ever having an advantage over consoles.

I was always jealous of the PCs graphics until I got my Ps4 pro. But because of hackers in my shooting games I stayed away. At this point it’s cheaper and easier to just buy a console and and have a system that plays games better than 95 percent of PCs.

 

[DoctaThompson]

I was always jealous of the PCs graphics until I got my Ps4 pro. But because of hackers in my shooting games I stayed away. At this point it’s cheaper and easier to just buy a console and and have a system that plays games better than 95 percent of PCs.

You do realize 95% of pc's aren't used for gaming, right? I'm confident that the average pc gamer has much better hardware than a ps4/Xbox 1 on the other hand. The most used gpu on steam, is stronger than the ps4 pro and Xbox 1 X.

 

[Sosokrates]

I dont understand why ppl are arguing, some ppl prefer playing on pc and some prefer playing on console, its all good.

 

[Muddy]

You do realize 95% of pc's aren't used for gaming, right? I'm confident that the average pc gamer has much better hardware than a ps4/Xbox 1 on the other hand. The most used gpu on steam, is stronger than the ps4 pro and Xbox 1 X.

1060? Definitely stronger but even then only 12% of Steam users have it.

Looking at that survey the majority have GPUs weaker than Ps4 pro and Xbox one X. Around 70%.

 

[DoctaThompson]

1060? Definitely stronger but even then only 12% of Steam users have it.

Looking at that survey the majority have GPUs weaker than Ps4 pro and Xbox one X. Around 70%.

Majority? Just looking at the list, the majority of these cards are waaay better than ps4 pro or xb1x. Take another look again, as matter a fact, I'll just post the picture here. How many of these gpu's are inferior? Once you start adding up the percentages, is apparent that the average gamer has decent specs.

Also, many people install steam on their work laptop. I have as well, so that I can have the steam client, when I'm not home. And of course, I don't game on it. (It has an integrated gpu). So some stats will be inflated with non gaming machines. But either way, you would get the idea of what kinda hardware pc users have.

 

[Muddy]

Majority? Just looking at the list, the majority of these cards are waaay better than ps4 pro or xb1x. Take another look again, as matter a fact, I'll just post the picture here. How many of these gpu's are inferior? Once you start adding up the percentages, is apparent that the average gamer has decent specs.

Also, many people install steam on their work laptop. I have as well, so that I can have the steam client, when I'm not home. And of course, I don't game on it. (It has an integrated gpu). So some stats will be inflated with non gaming machines. But either way, you would get the idea of what kinda hardware pc users have.

1050ti, 1050 and 750ti are superior too ps4 pro and xbox one x?

Looking at those cards you posted around 35% of users have superior gpus. That still leaves 65% with inferior which is a majority.

 

[DoctaThompson]

1050ti, 1050 and 750ti are superior too ps4 pro and xbox one x?

Looking at those cards you posted around 35% of users have superior gpus. That still leaves 65% with inferior which is a majority.

Which is why I said not everyone with steam installed, have it on their gaming rig. I don't play games on my work laptop, but I have steam installed.

Also the 1050 ti > ps4 pro. Probably not better than the Xb1X, but it can easily do 60fps in games that are locked @30fps on console. A gpu that costs under $150 can beat a console that costs more that 2x the money. Most people upgrade when consoles release, to get better pricing. This happens every console generation.

And this is the beauty of pc's. You get back what you put in. So if I want to spend more money, I get more performance. For someone who isn't as adamant about gaming, can spend less, but still reap the benefits. There's no amount of money, that will make a series X or a ps5 better or faster. Your literally limited from day one, for the next 5 to 7 years. Someone with an inferior PC, can upgrade at any time, and for less money than a next-gen console, and still beat it.

 

[Muddy]

1050ti with 2.1tflops is barely any better than the base ps4 with 1.8tflops which has a modified 7870. Ps4 pro with 4.2tflops has 470/480 spec gpu which absolutely destroys a 1050ti. Its no contest. A 480 competes with 1060.

 

[DoctaThompson]

1050ti with 2.1tflops is barely any better than the base ps4 with 1.8tflops which has a modified 7870. Ps4 pro with 4.2tflops has 470/480 spec gpu which absolutely destroys a 1050ti. Its no contest. A 480 competes with 1060.

Not sure if you were informed that the majority of Nvidia gpu's beat AMD gpu's, while have 2 or so, LESS teraflops. You can absolutely run games at 60fps, at medium-high settings. Instead of looking at teraflops numbers, look at benchmarks and comparisons.

1060 > 480

By now, you should know teraflops numbers don't tell the whole story. If a developer limits a game to 30fps for consoles, and I can run the game at double the framerate, with same graphical settings, it's an automatic win in my book. I'm not sure why that scares console owners.

 

[CrustyBritches]

Going by Steam Survey, around 9 million users already have RT+DLSS capable hardware. Another 12 million have 1070 or greater hardware. That's about 20 million Steam users that have hardware safely above any current gen console.

That's Steam users, with the increased popularity of EGS and Game Pass PC it's completely plausible to have PC gamers who aren't active on Steam at all, so the numbers can only be higher.

A likely 10 million RT/DLSS capable GPUs in comparison to the majority of console users who are on Radeon 7770 and 7850/7870 level hardware isn't some small gap, with another 6-7 months to go before a single next-gen console is on the market.

This is only to say that a great amount of PC gamers already have advanced hardware. It's not as though it's a few thousand "PCMR"-types bragging on the forums. It's common to have next-gen features now in the PC world.

 

[PlayStaytion]

There's no need for that , it's already been confirmed pc is more powerful.