Support NeoGAF

[Bo_Hazem]

That still does not solve bandwidth (it's more than 10x lower) and most importantly the latency. NAND flash is not that fast, besides constant read/write would kill the SSD "very soon". This is not it chief.

So you mean a 2.4GB/s SSD would feed the 560GB/s faster? The bottleneck? The benefit you get here from that 560GB/s is mostly to make the difference less staggering in terms of speed yet it has to do more than 2-3 cycles to match the overall data fed.

 

[it_wasn't_me]

at 18:12 ''no console in the entire history of video games has won a generation with its specs only.''

Well, if we include base X1 and PS4, then yes, PS4 won with specs. That's the one ot the reasons.

 

[Gamernyc78]

Wow at the start of this gen the ps4 was praised as a more powerful, no bullshit machine, no inovations other than the touchpad controller(which really wasnt used) now people like you are embarrassingly saying the ps5 is like an exodic car while the xbox is a muscle car lol. fast SSD is not an inovative thing that just sony made, and the tempest engine is like microsofts triton . you saying inovative is so cringe.

Yet it came with the most innovative peripheral ever in console gaming psvr which no other console has and is the epitome of a new way to play innovative to the core. Wtf would say ps4 wasn't innovative except ignorant that don't know the meaning of the term

Some of you also need to learn what the definition of innovative is. Sony always is pushing innovation from Psnow, remote play, to shareplay, share button etc all new ways to do things tht no other console was pushing but instead come later and copy and fans act as if others originated the idea.

 

[VanSiriusGabriel]

Well, if we include base X1 and PS4, then yes, PS4 won with specs. That's the one reason.

Don't think so. PS4 won because of a combination between specs and price.
Maybe a 100 dollars more machine, if more powerful, could stay on par with a less powerful and expensive machine. But a costlier and less powerful one? Nah.
If One launched at 299, it would have been different. They couldn't because the BOM was higher, but the specs were a 299 console.

 

[ZywyPL]

The smoke + red lightning car still the most impressive thing I saw.

That infamous combat section between 3:30-4:40 is the bare minimum I expect from next-gen titles, there won't be any excuse to not to pull that off this time around.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

Even IQ is blurrier, textures, assets remain the same. That's the whole point. You can have for example, like on PC, ULTRA settings at 1080p and at 4k. But yes, Rockstar somehow fucked up checkerboard technique on PS4 because we know that even some others 3rd party games have a great checkerboard solution

Yes, but resolution is part of graphics, and it looks blurry and not good enough. On PC at 4K ultra then you can speak about it as an impressive current gen game:




Some devs are dumb and don't know how to tweak graphics in an efficient way, but it's a chore and 8/10 at best overall with too much running on horses and insultingly easy difficulty which is something I didn't expect according to previous Rockstar games.

 

[thelastword]

Have Sony detailed the amount of RAM for the OS yet? If when Sony does the hardware teardown, the OS and game reveal, they indicate additional memory for the OS and Media features, that would be hilarious......4GB GDDR5 for the OS would be amazing...and the entire 16GB would be left for games...

 

[it_wasn't_me]

Yes, but resolution is part of graphics, and it looks blurry and not good enough. On PC at 4K ultra then you can speak about it as an impressive current gen game:



Some devs are dumb and don't know how to tweak graphics in an efficient way, but it's a chore and 8/10 at best overall with too much running on horses and insultingly easy difficulty which is something I didn't expect according from previous Rockstar games.

It is. But resolution can't change the quality of the graphical assets. If some element is at Ultra setting, it remains at Ultra settings, despite IQ.

 

[VanSiriusGabriel]

Yes, but resolution is part of graphics, and it looks blurry and not good enough. On PC at 4K ultra then you can speak about it as an impressive current gen game:




Some devs are dumb and don't know how to tweak graphics in an efficient way, but it's a chore and 8/10 at best overall with too much running on horses and insultingly easy difficulty which is something I didn't expect according to previous Rockstar games.

The blurry problem is the lesser problem.
To achieve those graphics and animations, they probably got the highest input lag of this gen. Input lag it's not a graphic thing, but it's inside the technical achievements of a game, and it's one of the most important no question.
RDR2 completely fails in that regard.

 

[yewles1]

Random question related to AMD GPU's, when they talk about the Geometry Processor rendering 4 primitives per clock, is that a core clock basis or a CU clock basis?

 

[SgtCaffran]

I think that next gen audio will benefit vr most, I just cannot see all of these enhancements that people are discussing working to full extent on tv speakers or stereo headphones

Can you imagine playing CoD Warzone with this technology? Hearing exactly where enemy players are, above, below or behind you. I play regularly with good set of headphones and I cannot wait to experience the PS5 3D audio.

Dare I say, it might be a system seller for hardcore gamers in fps genres, especially with the recent crossplay advances.

 

[PaintTinJr]

we have got less knowledge of tempest vs project acoustic, just saying

We probably do - in the context of eSports gaming like CoD or Fornite.

Playstation put this technology front and centre as industry changing in their reveal with it being highly relevant to competitive gaming – despite being unable to show the difference in a talk. The sales pitch is also counter-productive to them selling their high-end audio products - of which they are in a league of their own IMO with Hi-res audio – because they would happily have 3D audio work on a £2 pair of stereo bud headphones with a bespoke HRTF map to let the poorest kid(Diego with a football) competing and win.

Competitive gaming on Live is a cornerstone of the Xbox strategy to sell services and games, and to grow their market share, the lack of technical display at the beginning shows they in a best case scenario are playing catchup in the same way they did on Xbox 360 and HD video standards – because the first model didn’t have hdmi and was designed to target sub-hd PC defacto resolutions. In a worst case scenario their audio solution is going to be a tickbox t osay they can do it on paper and in the ears of gamers be worlds apart from the ever improving SPU solution Playstation is doing

 

[VanSiriusGabriel]

Have Sony detailed the amount of RAM for the OS yet? If when Sony does the hardware teardown, the OS and game reveal, they indicate additional memory for the OS and Media features, that would be hilarious......4GB GDDR5 for the OS would be amazing...and the entire 16GB would be left for games...

Too good to be true imho. If there is a magic GDDR5 or 4 chip outside the normal RAM, they would have say it as they told us about the rest. Maybe their OS optimization work is not finished, who knows.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

It is. But resolution can't change the quality of the graphical assets. If some element is at Ultra setting, it remains at Ultra settings, despite IQ.

Well, even at 4K Ultra it doesn't look ground-breaking. It looks very good, that's it. To me, it doesn't compare to GOW at 1800p with checkerboarding, neither Death Stranding.

 

[it_wasn't_me]

Well, even at 4K Ultra it doesn't look ground-breaking. It looks very good, that it. To me, it doesn't compare to GOW at 1800p with checkerboarding, neither Death Stranding.

Sharing the same opinion

 

[it_wasn't_me]

Don't think so. PS4 won because of a combination between specs and price.
Maybe a 100 dollars more machine, if more powerful, could stay on par with a less powerful and expensive machine. But a costlier and less powerful one? Nah.
If One launched at 299, it would have been different. They couldn't because the BOM was higher, but the specs were a 299 console.

But i've said, that's one of the reason

 

[VanSiriusGabriel]

But i've said, that's one of the reason

Maybe it's my english.
You said "that's THE one reason". I understood it like "it's the main reason".
It is not correct?

 

[M1chl]

So you mean a 2.4GB/s SSD would feed the 560GB/s faster? The bottleneck? The benefit you get here from that 560GB/s is mostly to make the difference less staggering in terms of speed yet it has to do more than 2-3 cycles to match the overall data fed.

No I don't think that SSD could not be use as VRAM/RAM in neither of those two consoles.

 

[ZywyPL]

Even according to MS the RAM efficiency is 2-3x better thanks to the SSD integration, also Cerny stated something similar actually recognising that a 2x RAM increase doesn't sound big at all, but there is SSD.
Now, the idea that an SSD could be used as true RAM all the time it's too good to be true, I agree, but according to both MS and Sony it plays a role. Starting from this, the PS5 SSD should play a bigger role than SeX SSD, simply because it's very likely far better.

The way Cenry described it, you can store 30 times more data in those 16GB compared to 8GB previously for a given second of gameplay, thatnks to how fast the SSD can feed the RAM. And this is the crucial part here - the SSD feeds the RAM. I can already see retards who not only denial that 12>10, but even 560>8-9... If those 8-9GB/s could really allow all the data to be utilized directly from the RAM, completely bypassing the RAM, then XB1's DDR3 wouldn't be an issue at all, as its 68GB/s was already 8.5-9.5 more bandwidth than PS5 SSD. If all the data for the CPU and GPU could really be accessed directly, Sony wouldn't bother with 256bit bus and 16GB, but put something like 16-32bit 2GB RAM for OS and call it a day. But apparently that's not the case.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

Sharing the same opinion

I just hope they go with 8K assets on PS5 then compressing them to 4K. Quixel also do that on UE4 and I think you can use it on Unity and maybe other engines, it's a massive library of photorealistic assets.

 

[Evilms]

Well, if we include base X1 and PS4, then yes, PS4 won with specs. That's the one ot the reasons.

The PS4 didn't win because of its specs against the XBO, it was just better in everything: exclusivities, Sony's policy: no drm, no resale of games, no 24/7 connection, better hardware, cheaper ...

 

[it_wasn't_me]

Maybe it's my english.
You said "that's THE one reason". I understood it like "it's the main reason".
It is not correct?

Trust me, i'm not better either.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

No I don't think that SSD could not be use as VRAM/RAM in neither of those two consoles.

Ok, no need to:

 

[Gamernyc78]

I'm personally so sad about the reviews of Days Gone, it was one of the best games I've ever play, gameplay so good, graphically amazing, music, difficulty pretty balanced, the story and how it's represented feels so natural that I've never experienced anything near that level of "convincing" acting even in movies/series.

This soundtrack just makes you nervous when you approach a massive horde:



And when they notice you and come after you:



I can't imagine how many freakers can be there on PS5

Spoiler

I hate zombie games, so that's something.

How you going to me tion all those positive but not the most positive thing of all ? People talk so much about advancing AL and having dynamic worlds and Days Gone knocked that out the park. The al is great and npc enemies act alive in their own world. I've come across random bears attacking hordes, cheetahs fighting wolves, little zombie hordes attacking freakers. It's crazy the little details. These devs know what thy are doing. Too bad the story was too white dude bro and we live in a world with an agenda against that which is why it suffered in reviews.

 

[VanSiriusGabriel]

The way Cenry described it, you can store 30 times more data in those 16GB compared to 8GB previously for a given second of gameplay, thatnks to how fast the SSD can feed the RAM. And this is the crucial part here - the SSD feeds the RAM. I can already see retards who not only denial that 12>10, but even 560>8-9... If those 8-9GB/s could really allow all the data to be utilized directly from the RAM, completely bypassing the RAM, then XB1's DDR3 wouldn't be an issue at all, as its 68GB/s was already 8.5-9.5 more bandwidth than PS5 SSD. If all the data for the CPU and GPU could really be accessed directly, Sony wouldn't bother with 256bit bus and 16GB, but put something like 16-32bit 2GB RAM for OS and call it a day. But apparently that's not the case.

I guess Cerny is right, it simply doesn't mean you can push his statements to get PS5 to 120 TFs.

 

[M-V2]

Lol and they come & brag about "Ma PC is better than consoles" when majority stuck in 1080p

The irony...

 

[Bo_Hazem]

How you going to me tion all those positive but not the most positive thing of all ? People talk so much about advancing AL and having dynamic worlds and Days Gone knocked that out the park. The al is great and npc enemies act alive in their own world. I've come across random bears attacking hordes, cheetahs fighting wolves, little zombie hordes attacking freakers. It's crazy the little details. These devs know what thy are doing. Too bad the story was too white dude bro and we live in a world with an agenda against that which is why it suffered in reviews.

Man, no cheetahs in the Americas You meant cougars. Yes! You can even cut them on the way to their den/cave that might turn nasty to you as well. It's one of the best tailored/dynamic if not the best open world game to me.

 

[martino]

Lol and they come & brag about "Ma PC is better than consoles" when majority stuck in 1080p

The irony...

unlike consoles on pc users are not stuck , they choose.

 

[VanSiriusGabriel]

Lol and they come & brag about "Ma PC is better than consoles" when majority stuck in 1080p

The irony...

PC is always been like this, harcore people pushing rhetorics like their world is everyone's world. Truth is: normal folks do not spend 1000+ for a gaming machine, it's the reason why consoles exists. For most people PCs are not about PAWA, it's about devices, personalization and, guess what, GAMES.

 

[kareemna]

The PS4 didn't win because of its specs against the XBO, it was just better in everything: exclusivities, Sony's policy: no drm, no resale of games, no 24/7 connection, better hardware, cheaper ...

Number one should be the price

 

[kareemna]

So now we have the official specs except certain details like ROPS and TMU counts, but many are still arguing about the specs

 

[pasterpl]

that’s a new beautiful game

got it day one, played it on my xbonex and I wouldn’t call it beautiful

 

[Stuart360]

PC is always been like this, harcore people pushing rhetorics like their world is everyone's world. Truth is: normal folks do not spend 1000+ for a gaming machine, it's the reason why consoles exists. For most people PCs are not about PAWA, it's about devices, personalization and, guess what, GAMES.

Wrong. The most common gpu's on PC are the 1060 and 2060, both more powerful than the best console. The reason why you see things like in that post (which is outdated by the way) is because a lot of PC users push framerate over resolution. Watch some streamers, you will see them with 2080ti's and are running at 1080p, with lowered textures and stuff, all to get that 144+fps. Thats the beauty of PC gaming, choice, and freedom.

 

[TBiddy]

Have Sony detailed the amount of RAM for the OS yet? If when Sony does the hardware teardown, the OS and game reveal, they indicate additional memory for the OS and Media features, that would be hilarious......4GB GDDR5 for the OS would be amazing...and the entire 16GB would be left for games...

It's probably hidden in the PSU.

 

[VanSiriusGabriel]

Wrong. The most common gpu's on PC are the 1060 and 2060, both more powerful than the best console. The reason why you see things like in that post (which is outdated by the way) is because a lot of PC users push framerate over resolution. Watch some streamers, you will see them with 2080ti's and are running at 1080p, with lowered textures and stuff, all to get that 144+fps. Thats the beauty of PC gaming, choice, and freedom.

More powerful for sure, but having a GTX 1060 (which came out like one/two years after the base consoles btw, and I guess you are referring to 2019/2020 average users, a bit late eh, wonder what was the average card used in the ENTIRE GEN) doesn't make PCs about PAWA, c'mon. It's about getting a cheap card to play good, and that's it. I'm talking about folks pushing stuff like the PCs are alien tech compared to consoles, maybe a 2080 TI is (not anymore), but there isn't only 2080 TI.
As you said, PCs are not about being hardcore enthusiasts spending on 800-1000 dollars cards because ULTRA SHADERS, it's about the freedom to have some medium settings but 144 fps, which is great.

 

[nosseman]

60 FPS, using cutting edge Id Tech 7, and the game is pretty much the same on PS4 Pro and One X except for a slight difference in resolution. And the gap between the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X is BIGGER in power than the XSX and PS5. The One X has significantly more memory and memory bandwidth, 1.5x the GPU FLOPS, and a higher CPU clock.

Slight difference in resolution?

1800p is 60% more pixels than 1440p.

 

[martino]

More powerful for sure, but having a GTX 1060 (which came out like one/two years after the base consoles btw, and I guess you are referring to 2019/2020 average users, a bit late eh, wonder what was the average card used in the ENTIRE GEN) doesn't make PCs about PAWA, c'mon. It's about getting a cheap card to play good, and that's it. I'm talking about folks pushing stuff like the PCs are alien tech compared to consoles, maybe a 2080 TI is (not anymore), but there isn't only 2080 TI.
As you said, PCs are not about being hardcore enthusiasts spending on 800-1000 dollars cards because ULTRA SHADERS, it's about the freedom to have some medium settings but 144 fps, which is great.

this one is coming late this gen.

 

[Stuart360]

More powerful for sure, but having a GTX 1060 (which came out like one/two years after the base consoles btw) doesn't make PCs about PAWA, c'mon. It's about getting a cheap card to play good, and that's it. I'm talking about folks pushing stuff like the PCs are alien tech compared to consoles, maybe a 2080 TI is (not anymore), but there isn't only 2080 TI.
As you said, PCs are not about being hardcore enthusiasts spending on 800-1000 dollars cards because ULTRA SHADERS, it's about the freedom to have some medium settings but 144 fps, which is great.

Just because not everyone has 2080ti's, it doesnt mean SOME people dont. When people say 'PC Gaming is the best', they are not meaning every single PC in existence, but the poeple that do have a high end PC. Its like saying we cant discuss the OneX and Pro when talking consoles because more people own the base consoles.
'Steam Stats' have always been the thing clueless console fanboys fall back on, without knowing why those stats are the way they are.

 

[VanSiriusGabriel]

Slight difference in resolution?

1800p is 60% more pixels than 1440p.

Both upscaled to 4K.
Yeah, change all the perspective of the game.
A 60% difference in sub HDs resolution is far bigger than this, it works the same for everything else. It's fine if you have a good eye, but in this subjective matters the average is the most practical point of view. The average wont notice that difference during gameplay, or if yes it wouldn't be big at all.

 

[VanSiriusGabriel]

Just because not everyone has 2080ti's, it doesnt mean SOME people dont. When people say 'PC Gaming is the best', they are not meaning every single PC in existence, but the poeple that do have a high end PC. Its like saying we cant discuss the OneX and Pro when talking consoles because more people own the base consoles.
'Steam Stats' have always been the thing clueless console fanboys fall back on, without knowing why those stats are the way they are.

I'm talking about people ASSUMING PCs gaming it's mainly about high/ultra settings 60 fps+ at least and 1 ms monitors with pro style controls.
I'm not talking about people "assuming" (it's actually true) some PCs gamers has a GTX 2080 TI.

 

[MT231290]

I would like to know if almost all the ps5's gpu specs like tmu, rops, shaders ect gets a boost in performance by the gpu clock being capped at 2.23 Ghz compared to xsx gpu clock at 1.825 Ghz?

 

[thelastword]

Lol and they come & brag about "Ma PC is better than consoles" when majority stuck in 1080p

The irony...

I always told folk just that.....The guys on youtube, most forums, the guys on wccftech making memes, trolling with gifs and pics, talking about how shitty consoles are, how the 5700XT cant hold a candle to the 2080ti, how Radeon Technologies Group need to close, are the same guys still running I3's with 1050ti's. Most times, the guys with the serious rigs don't even game that much, they do mostly audio and video editing and desktop work...…...Do you think the JayzTwoCents and all the guys who get free 2080ti's etc...….,even game that much, even these guys mostly use these rigs for work and benchmarking…..The benchmark king Steve from Hardware Unboxed, mostly plays Fortnite and says he rather play at low settings and high frames....


All the guys talking up Ultra 4K on everything mostly screenshot instead of playing......

 

[Stuart360]

I'm talking about people ASSUMING PCs gaming it's mainly about high/ultra settings 60 fps+ at least and 1 ms monitors with pro style controls.
I'm not talking about people "assuming" (it's actually true) some PCs gamers has a GTX 2080 TI.

Its like my PC (I7 6700K, 16gb DDR4 Ram, GTX 980ti), its 4 years old now, and 'mid range', yet its still far more powerful than the OneX. Your average PC user hasnt needed more than a 1060, 960, 970. 2060, 980, etc this gen, because all are more powerful than the consoles. Hell even the low end 750 was outperforming base PS4 at the start of the gen lol.Then throw in any decent cpu at or above an I3, and you have much more powerful hardware on PC than console, even if the hardware is mid to low end in PC terms.
Once the next gen consoles are out, you will see the average gpu used go up to a 2080, 3060 or 3070. No need to at the moment though.

 

[martino]

I'm talking about people ASSUMING PCs gaming it's mainly about high/ultra settings 60 fps+ at least and 1 ms monitors with pro style controls.
I'm not talking about people "assuming" (it's actually true) some PCs gamers has a GTX 2080 TI.

it exists... but in proportion and quality (in bad way) it is far outshine by consoles warring ...
go back to the gaming section landpage if you have a doubt.
and check some or your post above...with opinion based on nothing turn into facst ....
Sane behavior before gloating would be to wait for datas to be sure , no ?

 

[VanSiriusGabriel]

Its like my PC (I7 6700K, 16gb DDR4 Ram, GTX 980ti), its 4 years old now, and 'mid range', yet its still far more powerful than the OneX. Your average PC user hasnt needed more than a 1060, 960, 970. 2060, 980, etc this gen, because all are more powerful than the consoles. Hell even the low end 750 was outperforming base PS4 at the start of the gen lol.Then throw in any decent cpu at or above an I3, and you have much more powerful hardware on PC than console, even if the hardware is mid to low end in PC terms.
Once the next gen consoles are out, you will see the average gpu used go up to a 2080, 3060 or 3070. No need to at the moment though.

I completely agree.
Again, in my first post I simply said: some enthusiast PCs gamers are convinced their world is everyone world, which is not statistically true. With enthusiast PCs gamers, I mean people with high end setups, not with more powerful setups than console in general. Again, I wonder what is the average card for ALL the gen instead of now.
If you can play medium settings at 60 fps and it's better than consoles, hey, good. Do not pretend it's another planet. As well, do not pretend your GTX 2080 TI matters so much. PCs are not about better graphics, you are saying the same, people using PCs can't bare consoles for other stuff. That's really it.

 

[ethomaz]

I would like to know if almost all the ps5's gpu specs like tmu, rops, shaders ect gets a boost in performance by the gpu clock being capped at 2.23 Ghz compared to xsx gpu clock at 1.825 Ghz?

Yes. All units runs at high speeds.

 

[VanSiriusGabriel]

it exists... but in proportion and quality (in bad way) it is far outshine by consoles warring ...
go back to the gaming section landpage if you have a doubt.
and check some or your post above...with opinion based on nothing turn into facst ....
Sane behavior before gloating would be to wait for datas to be sure , no ?

My posts?
My posts are opinions for sure, I just don't use them as facts, they can be wrong, it doesn't matter.
As I recall, the only thing I was pretty much sure is PS5 not 9.2 TF which is true anyway.
Another thing is that the two consoles will not be so much different in power, true also.

 

[Stuart360]

I completely agree.
Again, in my first post I simply said: some enthusiast PCs gamers are convinced their world is everyone world, which is not statistically true. With enthusiast PCs gamers, I mean people with high end setups, not with more powerful setups than console in general. Again, I wonder what is the average card for ALL the gen instead of now.
If you can play medium settings at 60 fps and it's better than consoles, hey, good. Do not pretend it's another planet. As well, do not pretend your GTX 2080 TI matters so much. PCs are not about better graphics, you are saying the same, people using PCs can't bare consoles for other stuff. That's really it.

970 was the average card for the first half of the gen, then 1060, and 2060 is now catching up fast.
And well a lot of people would say 60+fps in all games is another planet, same with higher resolutions and settings.

 

[SSfox]

Seems there are still a lot of people that didn't get how SSD will be a game changer

I found this gif in resetera, guess this will make things easier to understand

Now this is from HZD, but this could also apply to any kind of game, like even fighting games (specially 3D)

Imagine you're playing a character in a 500m2 field, with all kind of stuffs (objects, animals, houses, castles ect)

With HDD this tech is simply not possible with high end graphics, so in that case usually all the 500m2 are actually display in the game, even those you don't see.

As you know, the little stuff GPU has to display, the more high of visual quality you get, for example in an open world, let's say RDR2, Artur could be much much more detail if he's the only thing that is in the console and that the GPU has to display, but of course it won't be a real game in that case lol, so there has to be a world around him, and so the more you add around the character and the world, the more it's hard to maintain high quality graphics, this is why games like RDR2 or GOW are praised, some other games are beautiful but they don't have the same level of detail and life in their world. That being said:

Now with SSD, especially one that is super fast, the console will only have to display the part you're seeing in the screen like shown in the gif above, so like only 25-33% of that 500m2 need to be display by the GPU, thanks for the SSD super fast streaming capacity, no extra work is needed for extra textures, objects and such that aren't in the screen anyway, so the GPU won't have to work near as close as much as if we were in the classic HDD model, that's why, or at least one of the reason devs are mostly excited about PS5 specs, and says you'll need to see the whole specs and not just the TF part.

Tried to be as clear as i can, hope i did lol

 

[VanSiriusGabriel]

970 was the average card for the first half of the gen, then 1060, and 2060 is now catching up fast.
And well a lot of people would say 60+fps in all games is another planet, same with higher resolutions and settings.

They can say what they want, it's fine.
The problem here is the premise, mine was different: PCs do not have an audience because of very high settings or even framerates. They have it because you can both work, play and learn with PCs, because some PC gamers can't bare gamepads and much prefer mouse and keyboards, because there are a lot more games on PCs overall, because games are also cheaper (fare to say, on consoles there are fucking good deals now, the discounts focus is really much stronger), because online is free, because mods, these are probably the main reasons imho.
Some enthusiasts, in my experience, wants to pass PCs are uber machines where you play next gen games before next gen comes and that's the main reason. It's not. I used the Steam stats to indicate this, not to say PCs gamers as a whole spill bullshits and they game mostly with GTX 1050.
My point is: PCs are a thing because they are DIFFERENT, not more powerful, even if they are more powerful on average right now.