It isn't impossible, depending on the game consoles usually have settings equivalent to high, medium low and sometimes lower than low. We'll have to wait on Alex,the consoles comparisons, NXGamer and VGTech.
Last edited:
-
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: Alan Wake 2 - PlayStation 5 DF Tech Review - Remedy Raises The Bar Yet Again
- Thread starter adamsapple
- Start date
SenkiDala
Member
In fact this is even way more than 2500€, the cheapest 4090 I found is a t 1879€ an i7 13700K is 550€, just this and we're already almost at 2500€, so I'd say a 3200€ PC if you add the RAM, motherboard, NVME, controller, the right cooling system, the PSU... yeah between 3200 to 3500€.
To that day, the PC equivalent to run the game like the PS5 runs the game costs at least 1500€.
Feel Like I'm On 42
Member
I cant stand him. He's actively hurting console gaming by trying to dissuade people from wanting a Pro console. DF has even had sway with developers and publishers in the past. Worst of all, he's a PC master racer who only cares about the consoles insofar as making sure PC versions are better. If he feels like the PC wasn't optimized properly he'll make a video targeting the devs. Where is that same energy from DF whenever the console versions get shitty treatment from devs?
He also likes to rub it in whenever PC is superior. Why does DF spend so much time these days comparing console to PC in their "console analysis"? Why not just include that comparison in your PC deep dives?
Mortisfacio
Member
Good thing this game seems to be a PC game first ported to console. Console ports to PC always suck, but this looks significantly better on a capable PC. Glorious.
Feel Like I'm On 42
Member
Perfect examples of what you're talking about is a game like GOW Ragnarok. It's not pushing next gen visuals very much at all but it looks pristine at 60 fps and with great hdr. I'll take that over a soft, shimmery game with next gen visuals and only 30 fps any day.
Maybe Sony is right not to push visual boundaries this gen. That begs the question tho, did they make the ps5 powerful enough? This one of the reasons we need a PS5 Pro yesterday.
Fbh
Member
Exactly.
I actually just played through Ragnarok, and while graphically no individual element stood out, they way it all comes together in a nice sharp image with great performance (usually in the 70's with the unlocked framerate VRR mode) ´+ the good HDR presentation was awesome.
If I compare it to a game in a similar style like FFXVI which has too drop all the way down to 720p to manage 60fps during combat (and is still full of drops during exploration) it's not that I don't see how in many ways FFXVI is obviously graphically superior to Ragnarok. But I'm just not seeing a big enough improvement where I would choose those graphics at 720p vs those of Ragnarok at 1440p and 70-80fps.
Last edited:
rofif
Can’t Git Gud
Still don't see what makes it low settings.
He is just reposting stills from DF video which compares ps5 quality to maxed out pc version.
The only difference is still rt in these shots.
That channel is just some bs who never played the game lol
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
This guy is just using the screens from the DF video, he has no idea what the PC equivalent settings are.
rofif
Can’t Git Gud
Exactly. But people are already going around spreading shit. I hate twitter
Gaiff
SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
What is the excuse for such stupid and ignorant takes when you have Google?
SenkiDala
Member
OK man, I've been building PCs for 3 decades now, it was even my job in the past, but teach me smartboy, I'm watching you (no).
Last edited:
Gaiff
SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
A 6700 XT is $310. A 6800 which comfortably beats the PS5's GPU is $400. You won't need anywhere near $1500 USD for a console-equivalent PC. This isn't 2020 (and even then, it wasn't true).
SenkiDala
Member
OK buy and build a 500$ rig (with a DualSense included, to be as fair as possible) and run AW2 with those PS5 settings, then come back to post videos we'll be
First game is not very good (although I still quite like it) but I think you will enjoy the second one much more if you play it first.
It's like 10h long, and the atmosphere is strong enough to keep you entertained
DonJorginho
Banned
Quality is upscaled 4k from an internal res of 1120p i believe and Performance is an upscaled 1440p from an internal res of 872p.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
- Quality: FSR2. 1272p used to upcale to 2160p
its 4k fsr balanced.
Gaiff
SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
Not what you said. You claimed this stupidity:
Again it doesn't cost "at least $1500" to get a PC equivalent to a PS5. That's some moronic comment. And I know you're full of shit by claiming you've been "building PCs for 3 decades," when proper GPUs only became a real thing in the late 90s. Don't what kind of freakin' PC you were building in 1993. A $1500 PC wipes the floor with the PS5. It isn't equivalent.
Here is what you can get for around $1500.
That rig will more than double the PS5's performance. Hell, that PC could even consistently beat the PS5 Pro. Now we're at "bu bu but $500!" Don't move the goalposts. A rig on the level of a PS5 will run you $750-900.
Last edited:
DonJorginho
Banned
Thank you Slime
It was most likely maxed out or high because of ray tracing, Oliver didn't show the PC version at medium.
SenkiDala
Member
Again you're misunderstanding, you're talking about raw power, I'm talking about "final result" after the optimisation that is only possible on consoles.Not what you said. You claimed this stupidity:
Again it doesn't cost "at least $1500" to get a PC equivalent to a PS5. That's some moronic comment. And I know you're full of shit by claiming you've been "building PCs for 3 decades," when proper GPUs only became a real thing in the late 90s. Don't what kind of freakin' PC you were building in 1993. A $1500 PC wipes the floor with the PS5. It isn't equivalent.
Here is what you can get for around $1500.
That rig will more than double the PS5's performance. Hell, that PC could even consistently beat the PS5 Pro. Now we're at "bu bu but $500!" Don't move the goalposts. A rig on the level of a PS5 will run you $750-900.
The good thing is we agree that the PC you can get for 500$ controller included is ridiculous compared to a PS5.
For let's say 850/900$ you can have the "hardware equivalent" that you get when you buy a PS5 (oh I forgot to include the 4K BR player, well so we're not talking about 500$ but 400$, the PS5 Digital).
I am saying that in most situation, to get the same result, the exact equivalent of what is on your screen, the final result, between let's say Forbidden West and an hypothetic PC release of that same game, it wouldn't be the 900$ rig that you mention and that is yes indeed a "perfect" equivalent to a 400$ PS5, but in my opinion a 1500$ rig, maybe 1300 when FW gets released on PC.
onnextflix5
Member
Well that’s not surprising considering remedy are primarily pc devs, but they did a decent job with the console ports.
Gaiff
SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
This isn't 1999. PCs don't need components twice as powerful as consoles to get the same performance.
For $900 you can get a build centered on an RX 6800 which outperforms the PS5 by over 50% in real life scenarios. The PS5 typically performs around a 2070 to 2080S depending on the game. That's far weaker than a 6800.
No.
In a Plague Tale: Requiem, the PS5 gets outperformed by an RTX 2070S.
In Death Stranding, it's slightly faster than an RTX 2080.
There are only two games where the PS5 performs much better than its PC-equivalent cards and these are Uncharted 4 and TLOU Part I (same engine) where it's far better than even a 2080S and is close to a 2080 Ti/3070 (still slower than a 6800) but these are the exception, not the rule. In general, the PS5 performs on the level of a 2070 to a 2080S depending on the game and closer to the lower-end of the spectrum when factoring ray tracing. The CPU is around the level of a Ryzen 3600 but to be on the safe side, it's best to use something significantly faster like a 3700X. The 5600X in my proposed build crushes the 3700X.
The 6800 which is a $400 GPU outperforms the 2070S by 50% and the 2080S by over 30%. The 7900 XT in my proposed build is more than twice as fast as the PS5's GPU.
$900 wouldn't give you hardware that's merely equivalent to the PS5. It would give you hardware that is much faster than the PS5 and would beat it easily 1000% of the time.
Consoles are good bang-for-your-buck machines and at $500, they're still a very attractive option but you're woefully uninformed and sound like you haven't built a PC since the late 90s. There's no way to spin this. A PC sporting a 7900 XT+5600XT ($1500) is far beyond the capabilities of a PS5 and very likely closer to a PS5 Pro if not faster. No amount of "console optimization" will cover such a massive deficit, especially when a paltry 3070 in this game beats a PS5 by up to 50% and the 7900 XT itself beats the 3070 by 70%.
Last edited:
Thirty7ven
Banned
RDNA3 seems to be at Ampere levels of RT performance which ain't bad for pathtracing considering how Cyberpunk went, should make an interesting PC video from DF to see how they're doing it.
I'm just glad my 3090 is hanging in there, a bit of DLSS or some tweaks should get a nice 40fps mode
Apparently it's only using path tracing for indirect lighting, cyberpunk is doing it direct lighting aswell. So aw2 is doing less that cp in this regard, i'm not sure remedy should have marketed this as full raytracing I really don't want a future where stuffs labelled full RT/PT but isn't really.
Mister Wolf
Gold Member
Feel Like I'm On 42
Member
We need to figure out how the SX version compares to PS5. Does SX have the shimmering issue?
I've got it downloaded on PS5 because of Dualsense but I'm thinking of canceling until I know how SX compares. The shimmering will really bother me if I know I could've had the cleaner version.
I've got it downloaded on PS5 because of Dualsense but I'm thinking of canceling until I know how SX compares. The shimmering will really bother me if I know I could've had the cleaner version.
DaGwaphics
Member
@
rofif
I hear what you are saying.
It isn't a case of there not being a difference between the shots when you are staring at side-by-sides, there is, but in motion the differences aren't that big of a deal. I think Remedy did okay by the consoles here, and it turns out they did okay on the PC side as well. I don't know why they would push such high minimum requirements when that isn't what those that have tested it seem to be getting. Seems like that could cost them some sales.
The shimmer is unfortunate, but we'll survive.
rofif
I hear what you are saying.It isn't a case of there not being a difference between the shots when you are staring at side-by-sides, there is, but in motion the differences aren't that big of a deal. I think Remedy did okay by the consoles here, and it turns out they did okay on the PC side as well. I don't know why they would push such high minimum requirements when that isn't what those that have tested it seem to be getting. Seems like that could cost them some sales.
The shimmer is unfortunate, but we'll survive.
MikeM
Member
Well that will teach me for watching what youtube recommends in the morning before coffee. To make it worse I had actually seen that chart because I new it used 1 ray 3 bounces vs cp 2 rays 2 bounces, I'll be in the corner with the dunce hat on if you need me
AL2's raytracing
Mister Wolf
Gold Member
Well that will teach me for watching what youtube recommends in the morning before coffee. To make it worse I had actually seen that chart because I new it used 1 ray 3 bounces vs cp 2 rays 2 bounces, I'll be in the corner with the dunce hat on if you need me
Honestly it doesn't have as much impact in this game since they baked the lighting. I think I will use the single bounce if there is a significant difference in performance. In Cyberpunk it makes a huge difference vs their standard real-time probe based GI.
Feel Like I'm On 42
Member
Anyone know how this game fares on Series X compared to PS5?
marjo
Member
You said it would cost 'at least' 1500 Euros for a PC to play at PS5 settings, which is obviously absurd. Now that you've been called out on it, you've moved the goalposts to $500. You're disingenuous as fuck. You could definitely build a PC that would beat the PS5 for less than $800. And you wouldn't need to pay a yearly fee for online play, and you'd save a significant amount of money on the games as well.
There are good reasons to own a console (e.g. exclusives), you don't need to make additional shit up to justify it.
Last edited:
hinch7
Member
This is what I'm leaning towards. Single bounce will look significantly better than regular RT and raster while performing closer to regular RT. Add in frame gen and playing in native with DLAA would look so much better and cleaner than using DLSS or other forms of upscaling. That how I played Cyberpunk 2077 2.0 and Phantom Liberty. Because even at 1440P DLSS, the internal resolution for those upscaled is still quite low and not that flattering (imo).
Mister Wolf
Gold Member
Someone gotta show us the cost between single and triple bounce. I know the more bounces the better but I bet 3 is diminishing returns. Would love to see a side by side. Thats what makes DF the best. Bet they will show stuff like that.
SenkiDala
Member
Now we reached the "you're too old" argument ? If that's all you have... It might disappoint you but I built a PC recently, ryzen 7 5800X, RX 6800XT, 32gb of DDR4 (3200mhz)... I know everything you're saying here and the exemple of Plague Tale is clever, it's one of the worst running game on PS5 so it goes with what you're trying to demonstrate, that's for sure.This isn't 1999. PCs don't need components twice as powerful as consoles to get the same performance.
For $900 you can get a build centered on an RX 6800 which outperforms the PS5 by over 50% in real life scenarios. The PS5 typically performs around a 2070 to 2080S depending on the game. That's far weaker than a 6800.
No.
In a Plague Tale: Requiem, the PS5 gets outperformed by an RTX 2070S.
In Death Stranding, it's slightly faster than an RTX 2080.
There are only two games where the PS5 performs much better than its PC-equivalent cards and these are Uncharted 4 and TLOU Part I (same engine) where it's far better than even a 2080S and is close to a 2080 Ti/3070 (still slower than a 6800) but these are the exception, not the rule. In general, the PS5 performs on the level of a 2070 to a 2080S depending on the game and closer to the lower-end of the spectrum when factoring ray tracing. The CPU is around the level of a Ryzen 3600 but to be on the safe side, it's best to use something significantly faster like a 3700X. The 5600X in my proposed build crushes the 3700X.
The 6800 which is a $400 GPU outperforms the 2070S by 50% and the 2080S by over 30%. The 7900 XT in my proposed build is more than twice as fast as the PS5's GPU.
$900 wouldn't give you hardware that's merely equivalent to the PS5. It would give you hardware that is much faster than the PS5 and would beat it easily 1000% of the time.
Consoles are good bang-for-your-buck machines and at $500, they're still a very attractive option but you're woefully uninformed and sound like you haven't built a PC since the late 90s. There's no way to spin this. A PC sporting a 7900 XT+5600XT ($1500) is far beyond the capabilities of a PS5 and very likely closer to a PS5 Pro if not faster. No amount of "console optimization" will cover such a massive deficit, especially when a paltry 3070 in this game beats a PS5 by up to 50% and the 7900 XT itself beats the 3070 by 70%.
I can admit that I exaggerated a bit when I said 1500€ (keep in mind in Europe a PC build is a lot more expensive than in the US, what you get for 1300 we get it for 1500) but my point is still valid, optimisation is still everything and your example of Plague Tale is a good one. There are other good exemples, look at Redfall on day one, struggling with 30fps while it looked like shit, compared to Horizon FW, Death Stranding, GOW Ragnarok... If HFW runs at 60fps on a modern hardware (whatever XSX or PS5 it's about the same) then Redfall should run at 120fps no problem. Again optimization is key. But it needs time, more than before since games are way more complex than before, something that publishers won't give to devs.
I don't say that PC have no advantage (I wouldn't own one if that was the case) but I'll keep my opinion. PCs are great for many things : most of time your games will scale on the power of your rig, while on PS5/XSX, if a game run at 4K30fps on a 4K TV / monitor, it won't run at 60/90/120fps if you plug it on a 1440p/1080p screen, which sucks. While a lot of games are well upgraded on XSX, with a resolution and fps bump, a lot of games aren't, the XSX version of Dragon Age Inquisition or Batman AK both still look bad at 720 with a lot of aliasing on XSX.
But I can't help but feeling blown away by what can produce a 400$ machine, look at horizon FW, it might be the prettiest and technically most advanced game to date (maybe outside of AW2 now?), and yes it'll look better on a PC (if you have a good enough rig) but as a person who's building PCs / and testing them as a hobby (not my job anymore) since many many years and seeing the price that people spend on those, and looking what this little machine can do is always impressive.
Last edited:
I played around with the number of bounces in portal rtx, I think I ended up going with 2 bounces for the sweet spot. There is that cyberpunk mod that lets you change it and there was a pretty big perf bump between 1 bounce and 2 but only using one bounce did make it unnaturally dark in some situations. The performance differential in the video should give you an idea of what to expect with 1 bounce.
hinch7
Member
Yeah would like to see some benchmark numbers between different GPU's and vendors. It does feel like fairly early full RT stages right now as in current GPU's just aren't that well equipped enough to handle that amount of compute and rays. And we're going to need another genearation of RT cores to handle that workload. I found there is a big difference going in bounces in image quality moving up the ray bounces but also significant performance penalty too; when messing around with a injection mod in CP2077. 2-3 is probably the sweet spot for current GPU's for performance/visual fidelity.
Buggy Loop
Member
Even an A770 keeps up at console equivalent settings, a cheap 6700XT easily surpass it.
Only thing that would hinder running H:FW on such a config is bad ports, Sony hasn't been that stellar in that regard, until many patches at least. But comparatively, we also see 720p games on consoles... so yeah..
Buggy Loop
Member
Fredrik
Member
It’s Twitter. But you have a PC, just play on PC and enjoy, seems like it’s a good version.
midasmulligan
Member
Never thought the ps5 would have to run AAA games at 800p or less for this gen to hit reasonable FPS…damn shame
Gaiff
SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
No, A Plague Tale isn't one of the worst performing games on PS5 and far from it. It performs in line with a 2070S which is exactly where it lands most of the time assuming no VRAM bottleneck. Death Stranding was an exclusive for a year and performs like a 2080 which is like 5-10% faster than a 2070S. Is Death Stranding a bad performer too?
And that rig you built is far faster than a PS5. Unless you built it with COVID prices, it shouldn't even have cost you $1500 even back in 2020 since the 6800 XT came out at $650.
Optimization isn't unique to the PS5 or consoles for that matter. You simply don't need anywhere near a $1500 PC to match a PS5. This isn't 2020 and even back then, it was a stretch. Optimization won't make a PS5 perform like a 6800 XT which is 70-90% faster, no matter how much performance they squeeze out of it. Just look at the specs sheet and see how hilariously outclassed the PS5's CPU and GPU are compared to your 5800X+6800 XT.
We all know consoles are great value, nobody is disputing that. They're just nowhere near as powerful as a $1500 rig. You need to pay close to 1.5x or perhaps 2x depending on your region the price of a console for a well-built equivalent PC, not 3x. The console is still a better value, just not to the crazy extent you're claiming.
Hoddi
Member
It's why I stuck with my old 1080p plasma for this gen. The specs were simply too low to have any meaningful 'next-gen' upgrades at resolutions above 1080p.
But even that was overestimating it a bit because AW2 still looks blurry as hell in performance mode. It's still better than on a 4k screen but not as much as I'd hoped.
Mister Wolf
Gold Member
AMD isn't that good. Jack of all trades, masters of none.