900>1080 +4MSAA<> 100% FPS Hit, 15% for 4x and another 20% for Resolution (being Generous, Again I am not in this argument that you all seem to want to run with!
sigh!! Well I guess I now know that you do! ;-)
-
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
900>1080 +4MSAA<> 100% FPS Hit, 15% for 4x and another 20% for Resolution (being Generous, Again I am not in this argument that you all seem to want to run with!
It wouldn't surprise me.
I haven't really dug into the PC version since I upgraded my GPU. I always drift away from that game after playing it for a few hours.
personally I woudln't see the point in making a machine that could just about handle cross-gen ports at the same level as PS4/Xbox one. That machine will be outdated pretty damn quickly as cross gen games get phased out.
I suppose as a paper exercise it is interesting, but for me the whole point of a PC is you'd want some headroom so you can get benefits for IQ or framerate etc.
that £390 UK spec with an R9 270 is pretty interesting though. Would the motherboard support upgrading to a core i later on? If not, what would be the cheapest you could put together an upgradeable system - eg a core i3 but a motherboard that can take an i5/i7 later on (not overclocked, just normal).
Can you really get a win8 license legitimately for £10?
I suppose as a paper exercise it is interesting, but for me the whole point of a PC is you'd want some headroom so you can get benefits for IQ or framerate etc.
that £390 UK spec with an R9 270 is pretty interesting though. Would the motherboard support upgrading to a core i later on? If not, what would be the cheapest you could put together an upgradeable system - eg a core i3 but a motherboard that can take an i5/i7 later on (not overclocked, just normal).
Can you really get a win8 license legitimately for £10?
Objectively Bad Opinion
Member
Well, it's a legitimate license for 10 dollars, not sure if it's a legitimate transaction...
UnrealEck
Member
BF4 runs on a 260X at comparable performance to visual quality as the PS4 version.
High at 900p. In fact in a comparison of images, I found PS4 wasn't even running it at high settings.
Objectively Bad Opinion
Member
15% for 4x? Have you played BF4? The performance hit is more like 40%, dude.
Probably more for the 260X. That's how much performance I lose with my 290.
grandwizard
Member
Thank you. This myth that PC hardware doesn't last as long for running games needs to go away. Benchmarks over this last generation have shown that the hardware equivalent of the consoles in 2006 (which cost more than the consoles) held up just fine for the big multiplatform games when running at the same settings or higher throughout the entire generation. What people don't get is that this time, it is much cheaper to match the consoles right out of the gate, a ~$600 PC could continue matching them in game performance for the rest of the generation. Whether you would want to spend that amount on a PC is up to the individual. Here is more:
GhostTrick
Banned
As a lot of people said, benchmark are a good thing to compare performances between GPUs running the same software. But to compare GPU performance from PC and PS4, you need more work than that.
First of all: No, Ultra preset doesn't mean PS4. As someone already shown, BF4 on PS4 is running at something between medium-high preset. And at 900p.
So, for each game benchmark you're making a comparison, you need to use same settings, or close ones. Which requires to make a lot of comparisons between each presets and the console version.
First of all: No, Ultra preset doesn't mean PS4. As someone already shown, BF4 on PS4 is running at something between medium-high preset. And at 900p.
So, for each game benchmark you're making a comparison, you need to use same settings, or close ones. Which requires to make a lot of comparisons between each presets and the console version.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Yes I have and on my PC (7870) it is no where near that high a Hit..but the fact remains that it is NOT a big enough to magical make the 260x go from 28 to 60.
Ok....been searching the thread to see if this came up....forgive me if I missed it...
What about the stock cpu cooler? There were some questions asked on Amazon about the AMD cpu and it was considered 'ok' for gaming but not recommended as the AMD cpu gets hot. Their words...
Cant really see any comments about the one with the Intel one.
I was always under the impression you wouldnt use the stock heatsink if you wanted to do real gaming on a PC. Or go with Intel as its usually cooler or has a better one. Or just search for the coolest running cpu based on you budget, wants/needs.
Is that a myth, good advice?
If cpu cooler hasnt came up in this thread....doesnt that add a lil extra to the price?
What about the stock cpu cooler? There were some questions asked on Amazon about the AMD cpu and it was considered 'ok' for gaming but not recommended as the AMD cpu gets hot. Their words...
Cant really see any comments about the one with the Intel one.
I was always under the impression you wouldnt use the stock heatsink if you wanted to do real gaming on a PC. Or go with Intel as its usually cooler or has a better one. Or just search for the coolest running cpu based on you budget, wants/needs.
Is that a myth, good advice?
If cpu cooler hasnt came up in this thread....doesnt that add a lil extra to the price?
Thats at 2k NOT 1080 and it is only a 24/29% drop at that alone? Did you even read the article? so how am I wrong again?..i am out!!
The only PCs I've owned for the last 8 years are laptops (with integrated graphics cards). If I wanted a gaming PC I would have to start from zero. Many people do not have desktop PCs, they use laptops/netbooks/tablets/smartphones for web surfing or simple PC tasks.
Objectively Bad Opinion
Member
Okay, see ya. Take this with you:
http://i.imgur.com/t7BvXF7.png
112 > 78 FPS just from enabling 4xMSAA, at 1080p.
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!
It has been confirmed several times that the the geometry and textures are someone in between medium and low presets of the PC version (I can't speak for the other settings though - i believe it was in the 750ti thread). Not to mention it isn't running in 1080p.
A constant issue you will run into with these comparisons is what settings will match the consoles. Often these will be customised specifically for the console in question allowing it to perform well. The only ways so far to really compare between platforms is to either find the information buried in a game somewhere, find out from the devs or compare pictures.
Edit: before there is a shit storm - yes of course I am aware that it is a pretty poor port and the ps4/xbox one would likely perform better if they spent more time working on it
UnrealEck
Member
The heatsink and fan a CPU comes with is chosen/designed to keep the CPU at safe temperatures under load at stock clocks. Same with a console's cooling solution.
jim-jam bongs
Member
Complaining about fans and heatsinks, it does make me wonder how far down the rabbit hole this thread can go.
Yes and Yes, maximum supported processor would be an i7 4770k =D
ah ok..glad you can correct me...now I know I should change my job now!! Just out of curiosity then where does the 100% FPS hit come from in this benchmark (I have not this card to test)!
Thanks
Bonfires Down
Member
900p is ~70% of 1080p. Not sure about 4xMSAA but probably also a hit of 30% or so. 0,7 x 0,7 = 0,49 => 49% as much GPU power needed to play at 900p as compared to 1080p+4xMSAA.
Cross gen games tend to be more demanding on PC actually.
Modern games running on modern engines in the futrue will run much more efficiently on current PC hardware thanks to better threading on the CPU, more efficient use of the GPU, and the reduction/elimination of CPU overhead.
Can't wait to see what an i7 CPU can do for AI/Physics/who knows what else, when it's freed from the tediousness of babysitting the GPU. We're talking a processor several times more powerful than what's on a PS4. Developers WILL find something to do with that extra power. Already we're seeing stuff like double precision being used in level geometry in Star Citizen. Who knows what else is coming.
PC games have more issues because the hardware varies from PC to PC. That's why lots of problems can occur even with really really good hardware. My PC is stronger than a PS4, yet I have had troubles making newer games work properly without stuttering and framerate drops. To this day there are games I simply didn't want to play because the performance was so bad.
Sure, console games have some of these problems as well, but because everyone has the same console, an update is likely to fix all these problems for all console users, not just a selected few with a selected graphics card.
It has always been the problem with PC gaming, and I say this as someone who has lots and lots of games on Steam. Glad you had zero problems with your machine, but it is not the case with mine and many others'.
MDSLKTR
Member
It's perfect for that ignore function tho
It has FXAA; I think on PC it's either FXAA or SSAA, which just essentially just renders the image at a higher resolution. The PS4 version seems to be lacking in tessellation / parallax, considering that in DF's comparison video, the floor of a cave has more 3d bones on PC, whereas the PS4 version has more flat "bone" textures. It also has a half as demanding version of TressFX. I'm still wondering how much of a hit tessellation is, although I'm guessing it must have been big enough to not make it to the console versions; the effect seems to be abundant on PC. Perhaps the lack of DX11 effects was why the GT 8800 from earlier ran Tomb Raider as well as it did?
Lets ask MS how they feel about that after the 360 and the RRoD....which I got right after the first NXE update on my launch 360. They were on the right track with the revisions.....but took a step back on their last 360 revision.
Lets also act like anyone can just plug n play parts and have a stable PC. Build a PC....and just close your eyes and pick a power supply, heat sink...lets see how that turns out. Even mixing n matching ram can have an effect on performance, stability. Better yet...just close your eyes and pick all the PC components...
I'm pretty sure Intel and AMD cpus can by used in the same motherboards....right?
Exactly.
This could be rewritten as:
That being said, the assessment is nonsense and is quite demonstrably inaccurate.
jim-jam bongs
Member
What in the Jesus titty-fucking Christ on a bike are you blathering on about? The exact builds they used in this test are in the article, nobody expects some random dingbat to put a well selected budget gaming PC together and that's not what we're discussing here.
And comparing the thermal dissipation of a tower case versus the far smaller case of a console is misguided at best. My original comment, for the record, was made because putting a better heatsink and some thermal paste on your CPU isn't going to change the budget significantly at all.
Rendering with 4xMSAA in a deferred renderer will incur a much greater performance hit than most posts here account for. Furthermore, the benchmark you posted was running at Ultra settings, while the PS4 version uses medium or even below that. And on top of that, there's the resolution difference.
Basically, people almost never do an apples to apples comparison -- and when they do, the magical console advantage is generally not as amazing as previously assumed, particularly in terms of GPU performance.
CadetMahoney
Member
Pretty much. It's not impressive in the slightest and I doubt anything Naughty Dog can bring will be comparable to what future PC's in 1-2 years time will show.
These consoles are outdated already performance wise. Plus console games will eventually go back to target 30fps as they concentrate more on image quality and effects.
IIRC, R_Deckard is the guy who claimed that all PC games drop below 60fps just like consoles. You have no clue how right you are with this statement.
Thanks for the reply and info, I never gave the deferred render thought to be fair so my bad and fair "call out" / drops head in shame.
I have had varied results with BF4 tweaking settings with low setting the terrain to high, and setting lighting to low impacting my performance more than leaving at Ultra so the engine does seem Abit all over the place.
So can you show me this "PC" where no game drops below 60 please? And I said PC games have dips too, I take it you never see those?
Some people do really see what they want too!?
Prices of parts will go down too. I'd like to see someone buy both a home PC and a PS4 for $400 total though.
My friend for whom I bought a rig earlier this year had nothing but a laptop. So, you may want to widen your perspective.
Price to power is something is something that tends to get worse for a console the longer a generation lasts.
That said, i don't think building 300$ PC's is advisable even if you could match console specs in theory. There's a certain point where being too cheap will end up costing you more in the long run/ impact the experience a lot.
Pristine_Condition
Member
But was that a $500-level gaming PC in 2008? I'm guessing it wasn't.
Nostremitus
Member
That's irrelevant as the cost to performance ratio of current gen to last at launch isn't remotely the same. This is about this gen's cost, not last.
It comes down to PC's built to similar performance. This gen you can do that for a cost similar to the console. You couldn't do that last gen. His point was that a PC from that time frame with similar specs to the 360 is still usable today. Much like a PC with specs similar to the Xbox One should still be usable at the end of this gen. You just have to turn the settings down so that it runs the games on similar settings and performance as the console.
jim-jam bongs
Member
Let's just make it as clear as possible for the slow kids.
Last generation and previous, consoles launched with hardware which would in raw performance terms need a big spend on the PC side to be matched. This generation a far more modest spend is required, so comparing previous generations with the current situation isn't really relevant. This is the reason that these articles keep popping up; the hardware is more directly related to available PC hardware, and it is nowhere near the performance increase that it previously represented.
Does that mean that consoles are a waste of money? No, they still represent a highly subsidised bit of good value if you are happy to buy in to a walled garden, or are really interested in the first-party games they do and will offer. However, if that's not your cup of tea, there is an attractive and considerably more advanced option available if you spend a little more on a new PC.
Last generation and previous, consoles launched with hardware which would in raw performance terms need a big spend on the PC side to be matched. This generation a far more modest spend is required, so comparing previous generations with the current situation isn't really relevant. This is the reason that these articles keep popping up; the hardware is more directly related to available PC hardware, and it is nowhere near the performance increase that it previously represented.
Does that mean that consoles are a waste of money? No, they still represent a highly subsidised bit of good value if you are happy to buy in to a walled garden, or are really interested in the first-party games they do and will offer. However, if that's not your cup of tea, there is an attractive and considerably more advanced option available if you spend a little more on a new PC.
At entry cost I'd say spending considerably more will get you your best bang for the buck, and it's wise not to constrain yourself to console-budget limits in that case. Spend the extra couple to few hundred for a good lasting investment with performance benefits to match.
Kind of depends on your goals. If 1080p60 is enough, you start to approach maximum bang/buck ratio in the $700 range. If you plan to go above 1080p and/or 60 FPS, then yeah, you do need to invest a greater amount.
I'd say 1080p/60FPS is a great and achievable goal for someone getting into PC gaming. I spent $700 on a rig for my friend and she's able to play LoL, XIV ARR, etc. on max settings at 1080p, not sure about the FPS but there are no noticeable dips in framerate for LoL and XIV never stutters.
UnrealEck
Member
The only 4x anti aliasing Tomb Raider has is 4xMSAA so it can only be that because they said they only used the game's settings.
Objectively Bad Opinion
Member
UnrealEck
Member
Good question.
I'm getting mixed up with TR and that BF4 benchmark from before.