lightchris
Member
You're missing the point. He made the comparison to disprove the "High-end PCs won't be able to run games in the future" argument. Nothing said about efficieny.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Gamespot: Can We Build a Gaming PC on a Console Budget?
- Thread starter Dombrowski
- Start date
You're missing the point. He made the comparison to disprove the "High-end PCs won't be able to run games in the future" argument. Nothing said about efficieny.
You might want to go check your facts. We had official confirmation in one of the threads from a multiplat dev that the Ps4s cpu was the stronger of the two consoles. Most of the post is true though.
Well no as you need everything else to go with it, those 3 alone are £200+ and the 260x is NOT as powerful as a Ps4!
But that is also missing the point of PC and modular design, this only runs because he has added 3gb of ram to it, back in the day this machine would not have had 3gb of system ram, back then 2gb was Recommended as High End. Like I said not a fair comparison like for like. A STATIC machine from 2006 most likely with 1GB of ram would not even run these games now, that was my point.
Wrong. You need an r9 270. Honestly though, this gen of consoles is weak sauce. It's truly disappointing from a tech standpoint.
UnrealEck
Member
X4 750K, 260X, 8GB 1600MHz RAM, case, 600W TT PSU, 500GB WD HD.
What makes you say a 260X isn't as powerful as the PS4's graphics processing?
It isn't, it's weaker than a 7850. 7850<PS4<7870.
I wish someone would do an actual £350 PC build. Mobo + CPU + GPU + RAM + HDD + case / power supply + Windows + KB/M. Don't bother adding the cost of a controller or optical drive. Don't take cheaper Steam games into account or the PS+ subscription vs. free games balancing act. Just build a £350 PC and then tell me how BF4 / AC4 / Trials Fusion run on it. I don't need selling on either machine, I don't need one to 'win', I don't care how each will stand in 5 years time, I just want to know how a £350 scratch-built PC performs.
Personally, I'd spend more because PC gaming is fucking awesome and justifies paying a bit more, to get much more. I'm just bored of seeing all these comparisons where there are always other variables introduced. Show me a real £350 machine!
Personally, I'd spend more because PC gaming is fucking awesome and justifies paying a bit more, to get much more. I'm just bored of seeing all these comparisons where there are always other variables introduced. Show me a real £350 machine!
UnrealEck
Member
You said you need a 270X. I asked why you think a 260X is not as powerful as the graphics processing the PS4 can do. Why is it?
Because the chip is not as powerful, I don't know I could explain this in simpler terms. The 260X cannot match the performance of the ps4 gpu because it's a weaker chip. Very simple. No explanation needed.
UnrealEck
Member
I'm asking you what information you're using. Where's the data? Do you have real world benchmarks of games?
Because the 260x is basiclly a 7790 alot weaker than the Ps4 which is between a 7850-7870.
Fact is the PS4 was designed with the bandwidth and ROPS to hit 1080 and it will not have a huge performance increase when dropped to lower rez! the 260x is way below that level.
UnrealEck
Member
PS4 seems to perform similarly in games to a PC of the specs I listed with a 260X.
It is its just that every time its brought up someone brings up the 8800gtx and derails the original statement
Are you actually trying to argue this? Do you not know that the r7 260X is a refresh of the 7790 with more ram and a slightly higher clock speed? SMH, honestly SMH.
No it doesn't, I don't know what benchmarks you're using but you should go check those very well. It is almost impossible to compare console and pc gpu's because you don't know what's going on under the hood of the console. An example of this is Ac4, the 260X runs it at 1080p~60fps on all low settings. The ps4 runs it at 1080p30fps on unknown settings. Is the 260X running better? Nope because as we can clearly see, the ps4 is running it at higher settings so how are you going to compare? This is why we look at the gpu's and they are not comparable.
UnrealEck
Member
No. PS4 is running it at higher settings than your scenario of the 260X running it on low.
A 260X is capable of running AC4 with virtually indistinguishable graphical quality to the PS4 version at similar frame rates.
lightchris
Member
2 GB should be enough. Especially if you sticked to Windows XP, but probably also for Windows 7.
But again, even if it didn't it doesn't contradict the original statement. You could totally build a PC in 2006 that lasted through the entire generation, that's all that was claimed and it remains true.
No, it's really not because from what we know about the gpu's, this is not possible. The 7850 has 2x bigger bus width, 2x rops, almost 2x the stream processors and the 260X is terrible in compute related tasks when compared with the ps4 gpu.
It's really pointless arguing tech with someone who doesn't know what they are talking about but keep arguing. It's entertaining.
yeah it doesnt.
The R260X cannot even hit 60 fps on TombRaider @ 1080
Ditto BF3 is well below Bf4 PS4 levels, it just is a weaker GPU and we are looking at this now within the first 6 months of launch the gap will only get wider.
yeah it doesnt.
The R260X cannot even hit 60 fps on TombRaider @ 1080
Ditto BF3 is well below Bf4 PS4 levels, it just is a weaker GPU and we are looking at this now within the first 6 months of launch the gap will only get wider.
Hold on, that's PC 1080p Ultra vs PS4, probably running low-medium graphics...
UnrealEck
Member
Except it really is. A 260X can play AC4 similarly to a PS4.
Tomb Raider on PS4 is not Tomb Raider on PC. It's Tomb Raider on PS4. Oh and I'm sure it can hit 60 FPS at certain points. It depends on what the benchmark involved. Similar to how PS4 doesn't run Tomb Raider Definitive Edition at 60 FPS. It's funny since you done a similar argument by using BF3 and BF4 together.
What about my post is trolling? Tomb Raider DE is not Tomb Raider. It's Tomb Raider DE. If you think I'm trolling you're clearly just lacking an argument against it.
You have not seen the PS4 version of TombRaider have you?
I take it you are just trolling now?
Look at the below and this is @ 900p with TRESS FX OFF!!!
BF4
It cannot average 30 and the PS4 is running 60 in single player pretty much locked at 900p high. The fact is you cannot do a like for like but there is no argument to this PS4>r260x
It is clear you have no idea on Tech at this point!
Objectively Bad Opinion
Member
Yes, it has moving trees. Cool. And jacked LOD, no/low tessellation, shit shadows, etc.
I haven't seen it, but does it even run max AA? Or TressFX? I seriously doubt it's the same as Ultra on PC which needs a lot of horsepower.
UnrealEck
Member
Look at the below and this is @ 900p with TRESS FX OFF!!!
It is clear you have no idea on Tech at this point!
Link me to that benchmark please.
Objectively Bad Opinion
Member
Why? 4xAA in Tomb Raider is 4xSS-fucking-AA. Do you really expect the 260X to get higher than 30fps at 900p?
Yeah id like to see the exact settings being run.
It uses some implementation of TressFX (or a close technology), adds Sub-Surface Scattering for skin, and replaces the default mesh and texture for Lara (new mesh is higher poly, less angular detail-wise, and doesn't animate as well as the default)
4xAA low settings is not the same as 4xAA ultra TressFX enabled...
Objectively Bad Opinion
Member
4xSSAA at 900p, means it's rendering equivalent to 3200x1800 no?
UnrealEck
Member
Barely gives any information. So yes anyway, like I said, that's Tomb Raider, not Tomb Raider DE. Different settings. Other people have also pointed it out but like your BF3 and BF4 comment, you don't seem to understand there's going to be a clear difference on what's being asked of the hardware between versions.
Yeah very surprised from techpowerup, don't even state the config!
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks
CPU: Intel Pentium G3420 3.2GHz Dual-Core Processor (£46.78 @ Amazon UK)
Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard (£34.49 @ Ebuyer)
Memory: Corsair XMS3 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR3-1333 Memory (£49.67 @ Amazon UK)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive (£42.99 @ Amazon UK)
Video Card: Gigabyte Radeon R9 270 2GB Video Card (£131.98 @ Amazon UK)
Case: Cooler Master N200 MicroATX Mid Tower Case (£32.99 @ Novatech)
Power Supply: EVGA 430W 80+ Certified ATX Power Supply (£29.98 @ Ebuyer)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 8 (OEM) (64-bit) (£10.00)
Keyboard: Logitech K120 - UK Layout Wired Standard Keyboard (£7.99 @ Amazon UK)
Mouse: Gigabyte GM-M6800 Wired Optical Mouse (£9.96 @ Ebuyer)
Total: £396.83
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-04-22 12:24 BST+0100)
I reckon you could very very easily get this down to £340-360 if you used Flubit on the Amazon items. Everything else is free postage, or included. Doesn't even take into account the numerous cheapo options of a case + PSU bundled together, or the KB/M, etc. You grab a copy of Windows 8 from Reddit and install it via a USB drive. With some Flubit offers taken into account, and a little patience for one or two sales, you could very well get yourself a PC that is mostly comparable to a PS4/XB1 for ~£350. Even less if you were willing to buy a 2nd hand GPU, for example, or if you had a spare HDD lying around.
Would it be the best value for money, right now, with a PS4 at the same price point? Maybe not, but you get a reasonable PC that also acts as a system capable of running most modern games at a relatively good fidelity.
Also, I'd have to disagree with the notions of taking out the costs of PS+, Steam sales, etc. These are absolutely factors to be taken into account across the lifespan of a system or a PC, in my opinion. But I wanted to try out your criteria and I honestly believe it can be done.
The Ps4 version runs a far more advanced Lighting system, more physics, far greater geometry on Lara with sub service scattering and runs TressFX (all be it updated) at ~60fps. I have it on both and I have ran them side by side..that single tree has a alot to answer for
But I have already said that and now you are saying you cannot compare..I am confused?!
IIRC the few comparisons I've seen, it doesn't have nearly as many simulated strands as the PC version on ultra.
Yes, in terms of number of samples.
UnrealEck
Member
The Ps4 version runs a far more advanced Lighting system, more physics, far greater geometry on Lara with sub service scattering and runs TressFX (all be it updated) at ~60fps. I have it on both and I have ran them side by side..that single tree has a alot to answer for
PS4 uses an advanced lighting system? I've yet to see it. Seems they've changed positioning/added/removed light sources in various scenes. I could be wrong though and I'm sure if I am, I'll be rather hastily proven wrong by you.
More physics? You mean trees being animated? That's not actual physics.
Far greater geometry on Lara and subsurface scattering? Those are not going to be big performance hits at all.
And yes, as I and several others have hinted at, it does indeed run TressFX, but not the same TressFX.
To summarise the above details you've went into about what the Definitive Edition does, it's the Definitive Edition, not the 'regular' version. Like we said. For better or worse visuals and/or performance.
Objectively Bad Opinion
Member
Newer version of TressFX has distance-adaptive LOD, and is faster than the PC version even without it enabled according to AMD.
Hairs disappear and the remaining strands get thicker as you move the camera around
Though it could also just be running fewer strands anyway.
See, that puts the garbage he's spewing into perspective.
Please show me one game that needs a i7 as a minimum.
SneakyStephan
Banned
that makes no sense whatsoever
there is always the base cost for hdd, ram, mobo, case, psu etc and for everydollar you spend after that you get huge returns in performance because it can go into gpu and cpu power
it's a terrible idea to build a pc where all the money goes into the 'framework' parts
if you spend all your budget on the what's needed just to make it function you end up with something like an xbox one...
UnrealEck
Member
BF4
It cannot average 30 and the PS4 is running 60 in single player pretty much locked at 900p high.
It is clear you have no idea on Tech at this point!
Oh, sorry, I almost missed your edit.
Battlefield 4 on the PS4 is not running at ultra settings or 1080p.
At medium and 900p the story is a lot different. Even at high it's different.
I'm not saying a 260X is better than a PS4's graphics processing power.
This is a post MAntle benchmark for BF 4 and the R7 260X
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSN2TtCImWk
On ULTRA @ 1080p which are way higher settings than the PS4, it averages 41 FPS.
The PS4 averages 50 FPS at 900p at lower quality settings. I would say the GPU is very similar in performance to a PS4.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSN2TtCImWk
On ULTRA @ 1080p which are way higher settings than the PS4, it averages 41 FPS.
The PS4 averages 50 FPS at 900p at lower quality settings. I would say the GPU is very similar in performance to a PS4.
Objectively Bad Opinion
Member
Again with the bullshit comparisons. That BF4 graph is running Ultra preset at 1080p.
Which means it has 4xMSAA enabled. Which with BF4's deferred shading pipeline causes a retarded performance hit.
The PS4 runs 900p and FXAA.
Which means it has 4xMSAA enabled. Which with BF4's deferred shading pipeline causes a retarded performance hit.
The PS4 runs 900p and FXAA.
I think you miss my point, I do not care about the PS4 or levels etc etc I am only stating facts.
The PS4 physics are on lara's weapons, bow, axe, walkie talkie. Arguing what a game is or is not rendering without having played it yourself? You are so singular on your path of downplaying the PS4 for reasons I cannot understand and I am only getting caught up in an argument I have no side in..I thank you.
old
Member
Because not everybody has a PC to begin with. Many would-be PC buyers are starting from nothing.
UnrealEck
Member
Oh I almost forgot those. Yes, so tree animations and those CPU-crushing physics of Lara's belt gadgets.
If saying a 260X can offer a comparable gaming experience to a console is downplaying PS4 then I guess by that definition I am guilty. You have no side in the argument? I very much doubt it.
yeah it doesnt.
The R260X cannot even hit 60 fps on TombRaider @ 1080
According to DF the average FPS on TR
E was 53.36 on the PS4 version. So its not like the PS4 always maintains 60. Anyways you could just tack on an additional 20 bux on top of the 260x price and get a 265. Which averages 54 FPS with tomb raider according to benchmarks. That's nearly 1 frame per second higher than the PS4 version
the version which shampooed Lara's hair with special sauce for $60. While that same launch week Tomb Raider on PC was going for as low as $3.99 on Amazon (difference of $56)...but hey PC gaming is just too expensive...