Support NeoGAF

[ghst]

So, just to be fair, you can't make a point for PC games' prices by assuming that console games cost 70 euros (10-15 more than they currently cost) for as long as the gen lasts. Everything's expensive if you're an early adopter or buy on launch.

PC games are at every point in their lifecycle cheaper than console games and there are far more opportunities to buy them at severely reduced rates. there may be anomalies, but this is the overriding trend.

A high-end PC from 2009-2010 might have been able to match it as it is now. My mate has a 5830 and first-gen i3 (OC'd to 4.2 GHz) that plays BF4 at 1080p med settings at 40 FPS, so a beefier card from that year might have done the job at 900p high settings. Naturally the PS4 will easily come to surpass that kind of hardware in time when more power can be squeezed out of it, but the launch multi-plats atm seem to perform at a level below comparable PC GPUs (at least with a strong CPU beside them, but I don't think CPUs are usually involved in expected comparisons: only GPUs). Must be a launch thing.

the PS4 version of BF4 is hovering around 50fps in multi-player with a mixture of settings at 900p. there are plenty of people with not even top end 2011 cards getting more out of the game than that.

 

[belmonkey]

Well, I think BF4 runs @60fps on consoles. I <3 PC gaming but I doubt a 2011 rig will out perform a brand new console (barring some insane OC). However, you could pretty easily update that 2011 PC with the $400 you would spent on a new console.

A high-end PC from 2009-2010 might have been able to match it as it is now. My mate has a 5830 and first-gen i3 (OC'd to 4.2 GHz) that plays BF4 at 1080p med settings at 40 FPS, so a beefier card from that year might have done the job at 900p high settings. Naturally the PS4 will easily come to surpass that kind of hardware in time when more power can be squeezed out of it, but the launch multi-plats atm seem to perform at a level below comparable PC GPUs (at least with a strong CPU beside them, but I don't think CPUs are usually involved in expected comparisons: only GPUs). Must be a launch thing.

 

[alexandros]

A three-year old midrange card like the 560 Ti can easily match the PS4's performance at similar detail settings. Check on YouTube, there are multiple videos there.

 

[UnrealEck]

Well, I think BF4 runs @60fps on consoles.

BF4 runs up to 60 fps on consoles and it gets there when there's not much going on and by lowering graphics settings and resolution.

 

[Rawket Lawnchair]

You're simply wrong. I have a Xbox360/PS3 and will buy a PS4/One, I'm not PC-only.

And you don't have to buy it from the official stores. I got Bioshock Infinite, Battlefield 4 and many more games for 30-35$ (preordered it), you just have to know where to buy. And on these sites the console version is always 10-20$ more expensive.

PC Gaming is the best and cheapest. Fact.

In what way did you just contradict me? If you wait a while and know where to buy, no matter the platform, you'll get the games for cheap, simple as that. When you need a budget of anything over 700-800 euros to build a new gaming rig (and obviously the more you spend, the more it will last), how does a console player actually "pay more" when he spends only 400-450 euros to be set up for the first year and does not mind waiting for game prices to drop?

 

[alexandros]

In what way did you just contradict me? If you wait a while and know where to buy, no matter the platform, you'll get the games for cheap, simple as that. When you need a budget of anything over 700-800 euros to build a new gaming rig

You don't need that kind of money.

 

[Faith]

In what way did you just contradict me? If you wait a while and know where to buy, no matter the platform, you'll get the games for cheap, simple as that. When you need a budget of anything over 700-800 euros to build a new gaming rig (and obviously the more you spend, the more it will last), how does a console player actually "pay more" when he spends only 400-450 euros to be set up for the first year and does not mind waiting for game prices to drop?

You just don't get it, heh? Games are always cheaper for the PC, always. Day 1 and after, always. You will always pay less if you buy the PC version.

And the fact that your older games are not working anymore, that you have to buy new controllers, new equipment and that you have to pay for online gaming make the console gaming even more expensive as it is already.

 

[Zoned]

A three-year old midrange card like the 560 Ti can easily match the PS4's performance at similar detail settings. Check on YouTube, there are multiple videos there.

Joke post?

 

[Rawket Lawnchair]

PC games are at every point in their lifecycle cheaper than console games and there are far more opportunities to buy them at severely reduced rates. there may be anomalies, but this is the overriding trend.

I agree that overall PC games are cheaper than console games, but the "more opportunities" bit is debatable, simply because DD (Steam and Amazon mainly) has not diminished, unlike online retail which has (and which is still the most sensible way to buy console games).

If you can wait for select online retailer's weekly offers, you'd be surprised for how much console games can be sold.

 

[iamshadowlark]

PC games are at every point in their lifecycle cheaper than console games and there are far more opportunities to buy them at severely reduced rates. there may be anomalies, but this is the overriding trend.

This isn't accurate.

AC4
http://www.gamestop.com/pc/games/assassins-creed-iv-black-flag/108254
http://www.gamestop.com/ps4/games/assassins-creed-iv-black-flag/109958
http://store.steampowered.com/app/242050/?snr=1_7_15__13

Ghosts
http://www.gamestop.com/pc/games/call-of-duty-ghosts/109395
http://www.gamestop.com/ps4/games/call-of-duty-ghosts/109956

The lists goes on. I think you mean its alot easier to find alternative stores with better prices for PC games at launch but the same is available with consoles. MSRP is the same generally. At least for AAA titles.

 

[alexandros]

Joke post?

I told you where to find proof. If you don't believe me, take a look yourself.

 

[fantomena]

pc/ps4...the way to go for me

True, but i would put an Wii U in there too.

 

[belmonkey]

the PS4 version of BF4 is hovering around 50fps in multi-player with a mixture of settings at 900p. there are plenty of people with not even top end 2011 cards getting more out of the game than that.

It may not be representative due to only being a single example (and a strong CPU), but this guy with an i7 4770 + 7770 OC did a benchmark and avg'd 54 FPS (min 41) at 900p high settings:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8vLIsTo-rY

It seems fairly close for a weaker GPU, although I don't know if console has any Ultra settings mixed in.

 

[Rawket Lawnchair]

You just don't get it, heh? Games are always cheaper for the PC, always. Day 1 and after, always. You will always pay less if you buy the PC version.

I didn't disagree with the games' cost, in fact I mentioned it in my last post, but you seem to deliberately ignore the barrier to entry.

Budget PC rigs of 300-400 euros with 720p monitors and second-hand 2 year old GPUs will heave and limp and thirst for a sensible upgrade sooner than a 800 euro rig. In contrast, a console will not have upgrade costs, and if it breaks down, it's hardware, everything breaks down eventually no matter the platform.

And the fact that your older games are not working anymore, that you have to buy new controllers, new equipment and that you have to pay for online gaming make the console gaming even more expensive as it is already.

The "older games" bit has nothing to do with anything; you don't buy a new console to play games from two generations past, if you want to do that, you can simply buy an older console and older games for peanuts. New controllers and equipment are also debatable; just like most console gamers are fine with one stock controller, anything more is each person's choice and there's no reason to add it in mandatory costs (just like mechanical keyboards, gaming mice and 7.1 headsets are also not mandatory on PC).

Online gaming is the only point you really make, but Live and PS+ have been a huge value for money on their respective consoles (at least that's what the majority of gamers say), and it's too early to tell how they will shape for new ones, so we just have to wait and see.

 

[Finaika]

I'm was saying that your average 2011 Gaming rig isn't likely to match a PS4.

My laptop with GTX 460M & i5 CPU which I bought in 2011 kills the PS4.

 

[Sorc3r3r]

Uhm, dear nvidia, i disagree, l love the experience i have on console, i find pc gaming experience stll far behind, and if i'm going to imagine what and how a pc should be to get my interest, the pic i get is a pic of a console, so there is no hope.

 

[Faith]

My laptop with GTX 460M & i5 CPU which I bought in 2011 kills the PS4.

Rofl, never ever.

You need at least 3-3.5Tflops to outperform a PS4.

 

[alexandros]

It may not be representative due to only being a single example (and a strong CPU), but this guy with an i7 4770 + 7770 OC did a benchmark and avg'd 54 FPS (min 41) at 900p high settings:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8vLIsTo-rY

It seems fairly close for a weaker GPU, although I don't know if console has any Ultra settings mixed in.

As PS4 owners are quite keen on pointing out in PS4 vs XB1 threads, numbers don't lie and neither do videos. Anyone expecting the developers to suddenly pull out hidden performance out of x86 CPUs and AMD GPUs is going to be disappointed. This isn't some exotic piece of technology like the Cell, most developers have been working with is hardware for years if not decades. Of course there's still the power of the cloud and the power of the hummus, but these are as of yet unproven technologies.

Rofl, never ever.

You need at least 3-3.5Tflops to outperform a PS4.

Proof?

 

[Rawket Lawnchair]

My laptop with GTX 460M & i5 CPU which I bought in 2011 kills the PS4.

Two years ago (2011), a friend bought a laptop with the 560M and an i7 2670QM processor. Plays on 1080p.

AC4 and State of Decay are some of the latest games which he considers unplayable even on low-medium settings and 900p, with less than 30fps for both. I went at his place to take a look, and even though I thought State of Decay was playable (but very ugly on low), AC4 was just not worth it.

Then again, laptops aren't true PCs.

 

[alexandros]

The 560m is rated for about 600 GFlops, it is not comparable at all to a desktop part.

 

[erawsd]

You would be quite wrong.

Admittedly, I haven't seen the numbers but feel free to share them.

However, judging the graphics cards alone, the 560 was the 2011 flagship for Nvidia. Last I heard, the PS4 is packing something in the realm of a 7870 which should be easily more powerful.

A 590 is likely more powerful but then we're not talking about the average gaming rig.

 

[Faith]

Proof?

Many developers said that you can get 2x more power with console hardware because of optimization.

 

[ghst]

Admittedly, I haven't seen the numbers but feel free to share them.

However, judging the graphics cards alone, the 560 was the 2011 flagship for Nvidia. Last I heard, the PS4 is packing something in the realm of a 7870 which should be easily more powerful.

A 590 is likely more powerful but then we're not talking about the average gaming rig.

the 580 was the single chip flagship. 560ti was the power/performance choice. the PS4 GPU is a 7850 equivalent (extra SPUs but lower clocks) and it's performing right in line with that - or worse in many cases (BF4 is debatable, but contrast, blacklight and warframe all hold a steady 60fps on a 7850 while suffering noticeable drops on PS4) but how much of that is the GPU or the CPU is unknown.

 

[Wanny]

pc/ps4...the way to go for me

All you

Spoiler

will

need.

 

[alexandros]

Admittedly, I haven't seen the numbers but feel free to share them.

However, judging the graphics cards alone, the 560 was the 2011 flagship for Nvidia. Last I heard, the PS4 is packing something in the realm of a 7870 which should be easily more powerful.

No need for numbers, video is much better. Do a search for "560 Ti Battlefield 4" and you'll find multiple videos on the subject. The 560 Ti was released in January of 2011 so it's almost three years old by now and was never Nvidia's flagship. It was a decidedly midrange part with a launch price of $249.

Many developers said that you can get 2x more power with console hardware because of optimization.

Great, so show me some games than run 2x faster. Should be easy enough if so many developers say so.

 

[Faith]

Great, so show me some games than run 2x faster. Should be easy enough if so many developers say so.

Best example: try to find a PC from 2006 that runs Crysis 3 like the Xbox360 does.

 

[diaspora]

Many developers said that you can get 2x more power with console hardware because of optimization.

You understand that on a technical level this is impossible right? "Optimization" doesn't magically turn 1.8 teraflops into 3.6. 1.8 is 1.8, such a GPU cannot, and will not ever match the performance of hardware that's faster.

Best example: try to find a PC from 2006 that runs Crysis 3 like the Xbox360 does.

Crysis 3 looks and runs like trash on the 360 so it probably isn't particularly difficult.

 

[MidgarBlowedUp]

This isn't some exotic piece of technology like the Cell

Actually it is a bit exotic, not like the cell no, but a bit different than your typical PC. Game devs have not been working with gpu compute for years, so it will take some time for gpu compute tasks to be fully implemented in game engines. That's actually one of the reasons pcie3 will be standard, and should be standard for the steam box. You are going to need that bandwidth when you start throwing tons of stuff into compute units on the gpu.

 

[K.Jack]

My laptop with GTX 460M & i5 CPU which I bought in 2011 kills the PS4.

Damn you're wrong.

The GTX 460M is a downclocked GTS 450. And your i5 is a dual core. You don't sniff the PS4's performance realm.

 

[alexandros]

Best example: try to find a PC from 2006 that runs Crysis 3 like the Xbox360 does.

I'm sure you understand that finding data for how a seven year old PC would run a modern game is quite difficult. There's no need to go back in time, next gen consoles are out, next gen games are out, post a couple of examples of the PS4 or the XBox One outperforming a PC GPU of similar power by 2x.

Actually it is a bit exotic, not like the cell no, but a bit different than your typical PC. Game devs have not been working with gpu compute for years, so it will take some time for gpu compute tasks to be fully implemented in game engines. That's actually one of the reasons pcie3 will be standard, and should be standard for the steam box. You are going to need that bandwidth when you start throwing tons of stuff into compute units on the gpu.

We need to see if it catches on first, developers won't be able to use that technology until most of the hardware out there can take advantage of it.

 

[Faith]

I'm sure you understand that finding data for how a seven year old PC would run a modern game is quite difficult. There's no need to go back in time, next gen consoles are out, next gen games are out, post a couple of examples of the PS4 or the XBox One outperforming a PC GPU of similar power by 2x.

You missunderstood me. All I'm saying is that you need more than a 1.84Tflops GPU in your PC to play multigames with the performance of a PS4.

 

[alexandros]

You missunderstood me. All I'm saying is that you need more than a 1.84Tflops GPU in your PC to play multigames with the performance of a PS4.

Not much more. You'd be fine with a 2 Tflop card.

 

[diaspora]

You missunderstood me. All I'm saying is that you need more than a 1.84Tflops GPU in your PC to play multigames with the performance of a PS4.

The fewer abstraction layers of a console doesn't lend itself to double the performance of what it's actually capable of. At worst a 7850 owner needs to simply upclock their GPU and they're set. I doubt anyone needs to worry about their CPU with something as bad as jaguar is in mind.

 

[ghst]

You missunderstood me. All I'm saying is that you need more than a 1.84Tflops GPU in your PC to play multigames with the performance of a PS4.

those damn elitists and their £130 GPUs.

 

[Dario ff]

Best example: try to find a PC from 2006 that runs Crysis 3 like the Xbox360 does.

That's not really fair considering there's no 2006 card that supported DX11 to my knowledge. The Crysis 3 PC version is built only for DX11. So yeah, the 2006 PC doesn't run Crysis 3.

There's some Intel HD videos tho. But those things are much more efficient so it's not really comparable.

EDIT: Fixed URL.

 

[Faith]

See.

 

[alexandros]

[/IMG]

See.

In theory, then. How about in practice?

 

[diaspora]

In theory, then. How about in practice?

I'm not willing to give it to Carmack on theory either. It's wrong, both in theory and demonstrably in practice.

 

[Nethaniah]

See.

Never far away.....

 

[Leb]

See.

Consoles: 1, PC gamers: NaN.

Thank heavens that anything that was true once will be true forever and that something that was arguably representative of the disparity between specific (last-gen) architectures can be easily extrapolated to all future architectures, and by someone who hasn't (and now won't be) developed anything for these new platforms.

 

[belmonkey]

In theory, then. How about in practice?

In practice, that 560 ti you mentioned and that 7770 I mentioned aren't that far off, despite the theoretical power differences. Although that will probably only be a thing around launch; PS4 should pull ahead of these aging cards in the future.

 

[FACE]

See.

Now this thread is complete.

 

[sono]

Should we limit our options to Nvidia ?

 

[Leb]

Should we limit our options to Nvidia ?

Yes, because AMD receives financial backing from the Templars.

 

[Faith]

So you guys think that a GTX660 (no-TI) won't have any problems? With the same graphics and stability as the PS4?

 

[diaspora]

So you guys think that a GTX660 (no-TI) won't have any problems? With the same graphics and stability as the PS4?

Better in many ways, worse in others. 660 has a significantly higher stock memory clock speed, and more TMUs, but has a smaller bus width and fewer shaders.

 

[Stallion Free]

I'm sorry, but gaming on a PC is not some grand Utopian plane of existence where rainbows are going to shoot out of your dick when you slap yourself in the forehead and realize what an ignoramus you've been for not seeing the light sooner.

It certainly feels like a utopian plane of existence to me, though I was raised on PC.

 

[olore]

My PS4 cost me 400 bucks. No matter what people tell me, I don't find it fun to tinker and mess around with settings. I just plug my system in, pop a game in and I'm ready to go.

I've come to the same conclusion. I really just want to start a game and not bother with zillions of settings. I have more important things to do these days. If only consoles would offer keyboard plus a mouse for FPSs and I wouldn't even look back.

 

[diaspora]

I've come to the same conclusion. I really just want to start a game and not bother with zillions of settings. I have more important things to do these days. If only consoles would offer keyboard plus a mouse for FPSs and I wouldn't even look back.

Then don't? Just play.

 

[Faith]

I've come to the same conclusion. I really just want to start a game and not bother with zillions of settings. I have more important things to do these days. If only consoles would offer keyboard plus a mouse for FPSs and I wouldn't even look back.

Yeah, these 6-8 settings most games come with are very confusing.