http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/49?vs=46
Not a massive difference at all (note that the q9400 is running 0.2Ghz less than your Q6600, but is close IPC wise as shown in http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/75?vs=53)
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Digital Foundry - Metro Redux (Console Analysis)
- Thread starter stryke
- Start date
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/49?vs=46
Not a massive difference at all (note that the q9400 is running 0.2Ghz less than your Q6600, but is close IPC wise as shown in http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/75?vs=53)
Darkroronoa
Member
Aren't 1950's benches have no point because they dont have unified shader architecture? Xbox was advanced when it came out.
Now modern GPU's have the same architecture as consoles so these GPU's should last the generation.
I mean an 8600gt or an ati 3650 can play most modern games that dont need dx11 (cause they dont support it) with performance pretty close to a console and they supposed to have similar performance with consoles (judging by flops and bandwidth, i know this is not all but i had an 3650 and i could play multiplatform games with similar settings).
Now modern GPU's have the same architecture as consoles so these GPU's should last the generation.
I mean an 8600gt or an ati 3650 can play most modern games that dont need dx11 (cause they dont support it) with performance pretty close to a console and they supposed to have similar performance with consoles (judging by flops and bandwidth, i know this is not all but i had an 3650 and i could play multiplatform games with similar settings).
If you're contending there's a static relationship in its perf vs consoles it should handily outperform it as it did in Oblivion, not just slightly outperform. So that's what I'm wondering - where it played Oblivion at 1600x1200/40+fps/UltraHigh, will it play Skyrim at 1600x1200/40+fps/Low?
Every early console game is arguably not very well optimised for it vs later waves. That's part of the point really.
I'm afraid I don't have the time or the money
Re. DF though, what I mean is that it would be very interesting for them to come back to this PC in 5 years and do an end-of-gen article to compare against their beginning-of-gen one.alexandros
Banned
Of course you did, because PC hardware evolves constantly. What you don't understand is that this is not an issue at all for gamers, since by the time this increase in visual fidelity happens you can buy a new graphics card that will get the job done for the price of a video game, at most a collector's edition one. There is no reason to stay with an ancient graphics card when more power is available so cheaply. Developers know that and they design their games accordingly. If PC game settings had remained the same throughout the generation I believe that the X1950 would be able to keep up just fine.
Im no tech expert just curious but isnt it the same with ps4 being different to that it can use its pool of ram for cpu tasks to no PCs do this saybe wont be an good comparison again. Please correct me if im wrong id like to understand the differences. I dont believe this 2 times more power optimisation but surely there is some benefit from closed platforms.
Personally I find the use of slight in a technical thread discussing empirical data comparison to describe more than 25% differences in values absurd.
In OT, when discussing your own view on how much (or little) it matters to you? Sure - but there are other threads for that. As others have noted too people in tech threads need to stick to facts or provide more rational for their subjective views.
Objectively there is a moderate to notable resolution difference between the two. Not slight.
It's just not a subjective kind of thread at the end of the day.
RAM is Random Access Memory, it does not compute anything.
I fully understand the ability and willingness of people to upgrade, and how this feeds in to developer decisions about specification requirements and recommendations. I'm saying x happens, you're saying it happens because of xyz... and I don't disagree. There's lots of reasons why it happened, why one game might have been poorly optimised, why dx9 support was dropped, why a dev bumped min specs between franchise iterations for convenience etc. etc. I'm just saying it happened - whatever the reasoning - where others earlier seemed to contend that it did not and that the perf delta between a pc and console was and would be reliably static across a generation. In subsequent debate what I've drawn is that it's a case of, at least, 'it depends'.
To maybe expand on that, and make it a little more precise.
//=====================
Here are the histograms for the 2nd comparison pic in the zoomed comparison.
PS4 top, XB1 bottom.
(The big spike on the left side of the PS4 distribution is also present on the XB1 image, it's just sitting on the left border because I framed these images really poorly.)
The PS4 image contents look very similar to XB1's, except compressed within a range that looks suspiciously like the bounds for the "LDR" content in limited-range RGB. There's a little bit of image content outside of that range; some of this is the "PS4" text on the image, the rest is pretty small and looks as though it's not much more than jpeg-related histogram bleeding.
Images 1 and 4 in the comparison have a similar thing going on.
//=====================
Images 3 and 5 are different. Image 3, the one with the snowy car, has this histogram, which looks more similar between PS4 and XB1:
//=====================
tl;dr DigitalFoundry probably captured some of the PS4 images from an RGB Limited source with an RGB Full receiver.
Wouldn't be the first time DF is utterly confused when it comes to limited/full settings. Their original defense for the XB1 crushed blacks issue made no sense whatsoever.
GhostTrick
Banned
There's something you seem to never take into account.
And it's a pretty much important one... Xbox 360 GPU was something NEWER than PC GPUs at the time.
As for the CPU, you're comparing it to a Pentium 4. Sure, Pentium 4 was faster core per core... But Pentium 4 was only ONE core.
While PS4 was maybe not using a newer GPU, but still using a high end GPU at the time. Plus taking into account the CPU.
Both were advanced machines for their time.
They had advantage over PC, in term of cores or architecture.
But nowadays ?
Not only those are using off the shelve parts, those components aren't even high end. There was no way to find something 3 to 4 times more powerfull than an Xbox 360 at its release. The same could be said of PS3. But as for PS4 ? You already have 3 times faster GPUs. And not 1000 dollars ones, but 250 dollars ones.
It is already easy to find cheap GPUs that outperforms in term of rough specs the one you find in consoles. Which wasn't the case back in 2005/2006.
Throughout this discussion I said that I had no idea if this would or wouldn't repeat into the future. You're presenting reasons why this may not repeat, and I agree. Things could be different this gen for a variety of reasons. I was merely saying it did happen in response to a poster who said that 'console optimisation never happens in reality' and pointed to an article about launch games this gen on PC vs console. I was contending that if (relative) console optimisation 'never happened', the relationship between a PC of similar hw vs consoles should be static across a gen, and that didn't seem to me to be the case last gen, so be cautious about drawing too many conclusions from launch games. Maybe it would be different this gen, maybe not. That's all!
Hmm I would like to buy that MSRP $250 GPU that is 3 times faster than HD7850
Yea some say anything to shit on consoles.
Rich coming from someone that has no idea what RAM is.
Dictator93
Member
Do not just look at the TFs of the 780Ti, Nvidia Flops are in general much more "per-value" than AMD flops.
1,84 AMD TFs (PS4 GPU) x 3 = 5,52 TFs
a 290X is 5,6 TFs
a 290x is quite similar performing in most applications to a 780Ti which is 5,04 Nvidia TFs.
Except consoles don't rely on drivers. floating point operations = floating point operations.
Either way, just disproving the foolish notion that such a card could be had for $250.
What has this got to do with absurd comments. Im in the process of looking at parts for a PC, even some one like me can see it was a silly comparison. Also my comment on the ram thanks for being informative you would rather degrade some one. My point about the ps4s build im sure i read it some where that cpu tasks can be helped I stated im no tech expert so would of liked to know what it was about.
Dictator93
Member
Consoles do not have a 1:1 translation of flops either. They have APIs and "drivers" too, it is not as if console programming is all done in assembly or something.
But yes, to say that you can get 5.5 TF for $250 is not smart.
thelastword
Banned
You are absolutely right but of course you're only speaking to the clouds because that's not what some persons want to hear. Look at how the pc guys have overtaken this thread when it was a ps4 to xbox comparison in the first place. Albeit... with a pc screenshot with no reference.
It's par for the course in these threads really, some persons will try to downplay the differences between the two console versions by using terms like "it's only a slight difference", "I can't tell the difference between 900p and 1080p", "ohhh.. the average Joe won't know the difference". Why do we always have persons coming into a tech thread to announce that they can't tell a difference? Perhaps, if you can't tell a difference then tech threads are just not for you because all seems grey to you anyway....
An image at native rez will always look superior to an upscaled image there's no two bones about it, if you don't mind the blurrier look, that's fine. The game is still intact with a very solid performance on the xbone, if that's all you have to play it on, fine. If it's your console of choice, that's fine too, but there's no reason to deny the tangible differences afforded by a higher pixel count. Textures appear sharper, in this case, there's less shimmering, picking up on detail is all that much better overall.
On the flipside it's really an injustice for some persons to come to a thread and do a comparison that's not fair or justified. Comparing a high rez image (which we have no reference to) to a blurry youtube video of the console version is wrong. It detracts from very solid work done by a studio who's gone to hell and highwater to get these console versions at a very remarkable performance level.
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
What the hell happened in this thread?
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Great to see the Metro Redux CONSOLE comparison thread has evolved 100% to PC > consoles talk.
Now let's see if the Future PC thread gets shitted up with console discussion. My money says not at all.
Now let's see if the Future PC thread gets shitted up with console discussion. My money says not at all.
Dictator93
Member
I really have no idea. I posted some screens comparing the lack of volumetrics and then somehow someone said something along the lines of "the volumetrics do not look too good anyhow" or "other games do them better." I have no idea, but eitherway, we now have this.
Relax man, not everyone here is being venomous. The discussion has been quite good.
Canis lupus
Member
Doesn't the 780Ti cost ~2x PS4 and is only like ~2x the power?
Doesn't matter anyway, price/performance wise nothing can beat the PS4. They explicitly chose to go down this route. Last gen they went for power and costs spiraled out of control. Not to mention, the shiny advanced PS360 were outdated within 2 years after release and the only thing MS/Sony got was expensive consoles not selling well, heating issues thanks to those exotic parts that led to broken consoles. It all led to last gen being longer than usual because platform holders needed longer times to get their investment back.
This gen we have a 200 dollar cheaper console that's selling extremely well, will get cheaper faster because of its components and is extremely dev friendly.
Dictator93
Member
In terms of Raw flops, a 780Ti is about 3 x as powerful, that is not including its superior VRAM situation.
But yes, it is quite a bit expensive. Absurdly expernsive.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
It was, but now it's taking that turn, which has nothing to do with the thread topic.
LlamaJohnson
Member
I looked at this thread when it was on page 1 and thought, "Ah, cool". Now I come back, it's on page 10, and I don't understand a freaking word of it. I need some lessons. Shit.
SMOK3Y
Generous Member
Was thinking same
Dictator93
Member
Can we talk about how bad it is that DF only offers a limited number of compressed JPGs in its comparisons?
Would it be so hard to ask for PNGs... or just in general more awareness towards IQ?
Or similarly... properly uncompressed/low compression videos at native framerate?
Would it be so hard to ask for PNGs... or just in general more awareness towards IQ?
Or similarly... properly uncompressed/low compression videos at native framerate?
Summer Haze
Banned
Steve McQueen
Member
Dictator93
Member
Haha, that is true actually, you asked about the PC GPU required to get a PS4 like experience
alexandros
Banned
The reason why this happens is basically the whole point of the discussion, no? PC gamers upgrade their PCs because they want and can do so, console gamers don't upgrade their consoles because they can't. PC developers know that the hardware baseline is raised with every passing year and make sure to offer better graphics as time progresses. Eventually you will need to upgrade your PC, not because console optimizations raised the minimum requirements but because PC devs did in response to their audience's buying habits.
So it is true that a 2005 PC might not run the PC version of, say, Far Cry 3 as well as the 360 will run the 360 version. Not because of the 360 coding to the metal and such, but because the PC version contains advanced graphical effects not seen on the console version.
Haha, that is true actually, you asked about the PC GPU required to get a PS4 like experience
LOL the PC image may not of helped in a thread about a console comparison though it was nice seeing what was missing so meh. Looks like a good remaster compared to the old gen consoles and at 60fps the few things we may of lost would of been worth it. So glad i have never played any of these and cant wait to with better performance than what I would of had with the ps360.
alexandros
Banned
Just to get back on topic, I believe that the developers made the right call by sticking to 60fps instead of improving the graphics. Framerate über alles!
do we have 60fps videos of this ?
Summer Haze
Banned
Hear, hear!
Hopefully with the PS5/XB4 devs won't have to choose, they'll be able to give us console gamers both stunning graphics with all the effects AND 60fps. Believe!
They will always have to chose. No matter your hardware a game targetting 30 will always look better than a game targetting 60.
Dictator93
Member
That would require DF to take up that responsibility. If you download the video they demo'd a bit back (from Gamersyde), it has many scenes running on console @ 60fps.
In a still-frame, in motion... it will look much worse.
7DollarHagane
Banned
So no volumetric lighting or Tesselation?
I might just get the PC versions with that discount for owning them on steam.
I might just get the PC versions with that discount for owning them on steam.
Please allow the strawmen and ad homs, it doesn't do this discussion any favours. That was one game off the top of my head, but another I can think of is Alan Wake. If you follow DF then they regularly say console settings tend to be a bit higher than Low or at last on par.
And using your own Crysis 2 example, Crysis 3 runs and looks better on console invalidating your own point. I can assure you that nothing I say in this thread is meant to be taken personally (or against PC gaming generally).
Which means it was based on architecture that's a year newer which was fully DX10 compliant. Then we factor in that its a conservative 2x more powerful (the difference in the numbers is even bigger) you're looking at a chip that's simply in another league.
I don't like the downplaying of the differences this generation. Last generation any little thing the 360 did better was enough to call it superior and make everyone go with that version. This time were talking whole resolution differences and now it's "they look the same" i can't see a difference anyway" "resolution isn't everything."
Pls.
Pls.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Big advantage for the PS4 again. What the hell is 912p for the Xbone?
Chance Hale
Member
The differences are less pronounced so far. Last gen there were massive resolution differences(usually going far below 720P), entire effects removed, and on top of that the PS3 versions ran worse as well. It improved as it went along but it was rough at first. The Fear release on PS3 is a good example. That's still the case at times with the PS4 and One, but it's not as bad as that example, the Darkness, or many others.
No, numbers arent bigger than 2x and games do not run similarly, but two times better, so there is no degradation of performance even after 6 years.
Is this so hard to grasp?
---
But it also looks better on similar PC.
Windom Earle
Member
Just a heads-up for PC people willing to give the game a shot:
You can generate a 75%-off Steam key for Metro:LL Complete here:
http://eu.alienwarearena.com/giveaways/metro-last-light-complete-edition-75-discount
(Created an Alienware account with some spam email, it's pretty quick)
And with the game in your library you will also get a 50% discount on the redux version next week, so it can be worth it.
You can generate a 75%-off Steam key for Metro:LL Complete here:
http://eu.alienwarearena.com/giveaways/metro-last-light-complete-edition-75-discount
(Created an Alienware account with some spam email, it's pretty quick)
And with the game in your library you will also get a 50% discount on the redux version next week, so it can be worth it.
Dictator93
Member
Alan wake, some settings on the PC some medium or high are equiv to xbox 360. Of course, a ev interview confirms this. But the xbox 360 build also runs at 960 X 540... so there are many mitigating factors.
I dont understand what you mean with your point concerning Crysis 2 and 3 that I highlighted. How does what you say disprove my point about "low" on PC having higher CVAR values than the xbox 360?
alexandros
Banned
You are right, sadly it's a common occurrence. During the last 3-4 years, when both previous gen consoles lagged far behind PC in quality, resolution and framerate, the differences (which were often 3x the resolution and double the framerate) were often dismissed by quite a few Xbox and Playstation owners because "it's essentially the same game". Now a difference of 30% is considered huge because it's between the Xbox and the Playstation. Very few gamers can claim innocence when it comes to applying double standards, all sides have done it.