You posted 1080p benchmarks when consoles use sub full HD resolutions......
-
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.
GTA V PS4: 1080@30, Core i3/750Ti: 1080@60. How is this possible?
- Thread starter alexandros
- Start date
You posted 1080p benchmarks when consoles use sub full HD resolutions......
You were making the point that that hardware duo can be out-performed by the PS4 but cited BF4 benchmarks @ 1080p high/ultra. The PS4 version does not run at these settings. There were early impressions that cited medium to high mixed settings (at best) @ 900p and unstable 60 FPS. If we looked at GTA5 maxed out benchmarks the 750 TI wouldn't perform well on that either. This thread is all about comparison with the PS4 version so it's moot.
I don't know much about DX12, but presumably PC will get even further ahead, as it should. Its just the natural progression of HW, in combination with much more efficient software optimization for your personal set up.
The consoles won't rest on their laurels software optimization wise either. I'm sure there will be plenty of things left to do to make them run better than at present, but the HW advantage of PC will always be there.
The CPU's of the current gen consoles will always be the weak end of the systems.
If your fine with 30fps in a majority of games going forward(unless a dev specifically aims for 60, or its an upport/remaster) this should not be an issue
derExperte
Member
So games that run better on comparable PC hardware are unoptimized on consoles and must be ignored while when it's the other way around it proves the PS4 hardware is more capable. Also a locked framerate indicates that a game could maybe, probably, definitely run better because why not, we're making shit up anyway.
thelastword
Banned
Check this video out. You will realize that he had many settings at medium and eventually turned down lod even lower. Throughout the video you had several dips below 30 and even 17-18fps in certain parts. Don't let people fool you with these comparisons, you will buy these cards and be disappointed in the long run.
I'm on the run right now, but I've posted some vids with the 750ti in the dying light DF thread, combat didn't even get hectic in the video I just posted to be honest, so you've seen nothing yet. When you start facing more aggressive zombies and more of them in packs, especially the big red/yellow guys or the bloaters which explode and throw all that green ooze on screen the 750ti begs for mercy. I posted a video showing just that in the Dying light faceoff thread, you might want to check it out. The guy even had to turn off AO and MB mid video and the framerate still tanked regardless.
Don't believe persons who tell you go buy a 750ti machine, it's the price of a PS4 and performs the same or better, do you research.
Maybe you should check this video: https://youtu.be/xhxT0L-imRQ?t=1m15s
Plus:
- LOD distance can be lower and still be better than PS4.
- Recording has a penalization of 4-6 fps.
- HBAO+ is on.
- GPU is not overclocked.
That guy was running with 4GB RAM. He was RAM bottle-necked and he annotated right in your face in the video to a new one after he upgraded to 8GB.
He was able to set textures to "High" and in the description he reports "no more sudden FPS drops". In the description of the original video you linked and in the comments of this newer video the uploader mentioned that he gets 5 more FPS when not recording. DF also reported that the LOD slider in-game even at it's lowest possible setting is still higher than the PS4 version and the guy in this video has it about a fifth of the way. He turned off AA but combined with the above and how in that video he barely dipped just once slightly below 30 (averaging well above 40 and the PS4 version reports occasional dips anyways) with HBAO on I don't see how that isn't, at the very least, comparable to or on-par to the PS4 version. The PS4 (and PC) AA solution in this game is SMAA 2TX which barely drops performance but introduces blurring/ghosting so it's understandable if someone would disable it, too. This article and this one reports AA as having "negligible impact" in Dying Light performance, specifically. On the other hand, HBAO+ does have slightly more of performance impact over SSAO but still pretty negligible. Nvidia DOF was off but it only applies to cutscenes and conversations and there's nothing to indicate there is anything like this in the PS4 version. DF reports Shadow Map on the PS4 version as being "at-least on-par" to medium on PC but it's very telling that they don't outright say "high" because the difference is pretty obvious.
So as far as I can tell, the differences between what that guy is running in the video and what's running on the PS4 is:
~20% LOD setting vs. something below 0% (with an unknown but slightly larger performance impact than the other differences) (this video was recorded before the patch that modified the LOD scale)
HBAO+ over SSAO/no SSAO (very marginal performance impact assuming PS4 runs SSAO, huge if not)
-5 FPS to the results because of recording (according to his comment on the newer video and the description in the older one)
Disabled AA compared to SMAA 2TX on the PS4 (according to DF) (which is even more marginal of a performance impact)
Contrasting the bolded vs. the un-bolded combined with the lowest drop below 30 FPS in that video being one time at ~28+ while still maintaining over 40 and 30 during other crowded combat scenes PLUS the patches to the game after this recording improving performance on the PC version at equivalent pre- and post- patch LOD levels further there is nothing to indicate to me that the 750 ti combo is performing sub-par to the PS4 version (perhaps even swinging the other way).
My idea wasn't comparing pc and ps4 versions of BF4, I just tried to say that I don't believe that i3+750Ti is something you can count on in the future and benchmark was for someone who plays on pc, not for comparison.
That's it
Yeah, but this thread is about comparing performance with a PS4. Not whether someone actually would want to use a i3+750 ti as their gaming rig.
No, it doesn't make sense. The reason stuff like The Order and Driveclub are not on PC are because of economic reasons (as in very few cutting edge companies can afford to make that sort of stuff outside of first party scenarios), when this thread is about technical specs. It's an asinine thing to bring up. You might as well talk Kinect features, that's how relevant it is.
CharmingCharlie
Member
I can't comment on other tests because I haven't seen them. I however seen this test and from what I have seen the testers underestimated the console equivalent settings for GTA 5. I gave you one example of a setting they got wrong. How can you be sure all the other settings are right ?
On that basis alone the only "truth" to be drawn from this GTA 5 test is that an i3 + 750ti did NOT match the PS4's performance and visual quality. So I am at a bit of a loss as to why you keep trying to make it out to be a truth.
I really doubt they got all of the GTA V settings correct but if you just think about how they are already getting 60 FPS with these settings already that even if they were to increase a few settings and sliders they could still have a locked 30 FPS experience. And that's why we keep saying that the performance is comparable at the very least.
UnrealEck
Member
Not really, no.
It isn't hard to stomach when you learn that PC on Normal looks even worse than PS3 version (dated hardware) in certain aspects
Here is a comparison.
PC Normal vs PS3
Which areas does the PS3 version look better? I can see areas the PC version on 'Normal' looks better.
Aizu_Itsuko
Member
But it is a potential bottleneck, even on a closed platform, especially in a game that wasn't created with that platform in mind. An i3 4130 is significantly faster than 6 jaguar cores, especially at single core performance, yet it is already limiting performance. Just look at this:
Same GPU, different CPU, performance takes a huge hit.
Yes, the PS4 has the GPU to run this game faster, but unless CPU performance can keep up, they are going to keep it locked at 30 instead of having an unstable framerate.
DarkLordMalik
Member
I didn't say it looks better everywhere. I just said that in certain aspects like Textures, Character models and the Lighting/Shadows, it does indeed look better. Check the bottom 3 screens.
Just remember, i3 plus 750Ti
Edit:
Just look at Battlefield 4...what do you expect.
http://i.imgur.com/5Kt7iE4.png
http://i.imgur.com/ywoUts8.png[/QUO...v=JxUPJdcChzE&feature=player_detailpage#t=315
This is just fud.
Very few pc gamers are enthusiast or fps whores. Out of the millions of possible pc gamers a lot more deal with what they can than aim for a certain speed of fps or resolution at max.
You don't have too nor are you required too.
No let's talk for other 20 pages why a double capable intel cpu can handle 60 fps better of the ps4 or how much better it's to buy a budget pc for the multiplat.
So it's that the real point of the thread? Prove how much superior it's a budget pc over the ps4 hardware? Because you said to don't know why GTA runs better on pc but you seem perfectly know it's not true ps4 it's that superior to handle better port, reading the sarcastic post above. Now it's clear to me the real purpose of this thread.
derExperte
Member
I'd say the shadows are better on PS3. And the unnecessary lack of any AF also drags the PC shots down. But having played GTAV on PS3 a month ago I can tell you that those pictures don't tell half of the story, that version has huuuuge problems which only become apparent when you start moving. It's bad.
Denton
Member
Just remember, i3 plus 750Ti
Edit:
Just look at Battlefield 4...what do you expect.
Digital Foundry shows 750Ti holding 60fps fairly comfortably at 900p/high, which is close to what PS4 was running.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0v4VJu4_M4
UnrealEck
Member
I never said you did. That's why I asked which areas it does.
Here's another comparison. You can see that shadows are drawn further away on PC, the textures are clearer at distance, the LOD is greater (look at the trees and the military base in the distance) and the lighting is clearly better on PC Normal. Look at the light hitting the trees.
I'm not sure about the character models, I'd have to check those.
Yeah the PS3 is where I played the game before the PC version. I don't really remember how bad it was though. I do remember the framerate being pretty poor and the resolution being really low.
For those who were wondering about textures. Here's a small comparison. PC on the left, PS4 on the right:
I took screencaps from this video here. It's a really good comparison video, but I think it's PC on highest settings.
quite appropriated for this thread.
So true.
DF's GTA face-off is now complete:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-grand-theft-auto-5-pc-face-off
They revised some of the settings that are used in the console versions. While the first article in OP is based on everything on 'high' preset to match the ps4\xb1, DF now acknowledge that some settings are a match for 'very high' and in fact the post effect setting is a match for 'ultra'.
Under the new settings, this is how Core i3 4130 + 750 Ti handles them:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-grand-theft-auto-5-pc-face-off
They revised some of the settings that are used in the console versions. While the first article in OP is based on everything on 'high' preset to match the ps4\xb1, DF now acknowledge that some settings are a match for 'very high' and in fact the post effect setting is a match for 'ultra'.
Under the new settings, this is how Core i3 4130 + 750 Ti handles them:
quite appropriated for this thread.
This should go in the OP of every DF Face Off thread.
This is even more impressive. Not all textures in PS4 are a match for very high.
So with a modest CPU, 750Ti does better than a PS4 without problems despite of being a weeker GPU.
its cool to know that its still a comparable machine though. and its nice that you can alter the settings to achieve ~60fps if you want. such is the advantage of gaming on a PC. on the flip side you could probably tweak the settings further to allow for better graphics (turning down some things and other thing up) then lock the game to 30fps
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
quite appropriated for this thread.
How is it appropriate for this thread when the PC snob is the one who created the thread to downplay consoles?
I though the article said they are quite comparable in some way.
It's more of a slap in the face to those that think these consoles can magically punch above their weight.
Jacksinthe
Banned
I'm always amazed at how people spend so much time harboring animosity for something they don't like.
Hey, guy, you aren't going to see trails being blazed by any multiplatform title in console hardware optimization.
Ever.
Get over it, yeah?
Someone is wrong on the internet I see.
Nothing wrong with trying to educate people
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Right, because we really need that along with the constant dead horse beating of that PC superiority. Gotta keep those unwashed masses in line right?
alexandros
Banned
You shouldn't be so condescending without adequate knowledge of the other person's opinions on the subject. The thing you just said, about trailblazing in multiplatform games, I've been saying it for years.
Lol! so much salt.
Not really any different to how the XB1 is treated when discussed in comparison to the PS4. A lot of people just don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot.
Anyways, I'm not sure this completely disproves that consoles *can* receive a higher level of optimization, but I think it does show that when PC's get a good level of treatment themselves and aren't treated as an afterthought, they can get very impressive optimization as well. Basically, it often comes down more to time and effort involved(and talent, of course) rather than just theoretical 'coded to the metal' gains. Rockstar obviously spent a good amount of effort on the CPU scaling for GTA V for PC, which in a game like this, really gives it the ability to perform to it's fullest.
Windom Earle
Member
I admit that I didn't expect the 750ti/i3 combo to be so close to PS4 after the more in-depth face off we got. It would run at a close to locked 30.
all that can be said for certain is that the 750Ti does no worse than PS4. As mentioned before, the lack of an unlocked framerate on PS4 means we don't know what the lower and upper bounds on framerate are to compare - only that it doesn't drop below 30fps.
its not about platform superiority! It's about getting a handle on hardware performance and the limitations they bring. There have been so many threads complaining about resolutions, framerates and graphics all while making assumptions that "the ps4 should be able to do this at 60fps" when in reality the machine just doesn't have the grunt to do that. and as PC's are often held as a benchmark for performance the consoles are always compared to a PC. It just puts things into perspective when low end parts like an i3 and gtx750ti can easily match the PS4 in performance.
JonathanPower
Member
It's either other person opinions or other persons' opinions. Since you talk about knowledge, I just wanted to point this out.
I would be really interested in a benchmark of GTA 5 on a PC with a comparable AMD CPU and GPU. Using an i3 and gtx 750 shows us that you can get comparable or even better performance from cheap PC parts, but it doesn't really show how a PC with similar specs to the consoles performs.
Green Yoshi
Member
I'd really like to see if the game runs with my Radeon HD 5570 (1 GB VRAM) and Core i3 530 (2,93 Ghz). Just Cause 2 works fine.
Gumbie
Member
For those who missed the new thread. From digital foundry's GTA V PC face off that went up today.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-grand-theft-auto-5-pc-face-off
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-grand-theft-auto-5-pc-face-off
SneakyStephan
Banned
There's no sense in dignifying amd cpus for gaming.
People on a budget should NEVER (ever ever) buy an amd A6 cpu (similar price to i3) for gaming. These things have more cores that are individually weaker, which you don't want if you play games.
There's tons of older and last gen games that only make good use of 1 or 2 cores and not all new games are properly multithreaded either.
So while on paper in a fully threaded benchmark the amd cpu would perform close ish to the i3, in reality it would be heavily bottlenecked in a bunch of games.
If you want to game on pc and are on a tight budget then buy an i3 (or anniversary edition pentium if you're on a super tiny budget) The amd ones are not a valid alternative.
The budget amd cpus are fine for non gaming tasks and for editing software that can fully make use of more weaker cores, but they have no place in budget gaming rigs.
I'd never in a million years suggest the higher end amd fx 8 cores as an alternative to the i5 either, for the very same reason, it's going to be a crippled piece of shit in a whole bunch of games.
Even if I could get an fx8350 for the same price as an i3 I'd still choose the i3, unless all I played was battlefield.
Jacksinthe
Banned
Precisely why I posted. I've lurked for years, Al.
There is legitimate discussion to be had with your OP, however, knowing your posting habits (note: no you personally) and the myriad of thinly veiled attempts at discussion in PC v Console debate, I'd say I'm right on the mark.
It is posts like yours which I have quoted that show the bias, salt, anecdotes, etc, instead of your usual thin veil of "discussion". Which is sad since you, more than most "warriors" I feel can have logical and rational discussion on most all topics but you repeatedly make jabs to steer discussion and let others play your hand for you, accepting none of the responsibility. This isn't news, which is why I called it "thinly veiled".
Everyone has bias. EVERYONE. We all have our favorite platforms but the amount of passion some people devote to constantly belittling something they claim to have no interest in fascinates me as much as it serves no purpose in honest to goodness discussion.
In short: spare me your rhetoric. You are as transparent as glass no matter how coy you believe yourself to be and with privileges being removed you are now refraining from sugar coating it.
There is a discussion to be had here and your post I quoted shows salt, not logic.
Edit: Mods, I'm not trying to back seat. Just speaking my mind.
muzzymate
Member
I recently received a hand-me down SFF Optiplex 990 from work with 8GB of RAM and an i5-2400. I put in a 128GB SSD, a 4TB SSHD (both from my previous setup), and a low profile 750 TI.
I've been incredibly impressed with what this GPU, especially at that TDP, and an i5 is able to do. Also impressed with how far I've been able to overclock and push the 750 TI.
I've been incredibly impressed with what this GPU, especially at that TDP, and an i5 is able to do. Also impressed with how far I've been able to overclock and push the 750 TI.
It's absolutely false. What ps4 achieved it's really respectable compared the CPU available on a comparable PC.
Saucycarpdog
Member
Is it any different than the digital foundry threads between the consoles where PS4 fans have to constantly remind Xbone fans that their version is superior and xbone hardware sucks? Or the threads where Wii U fans are constantly berated with the same "last gen hardware" posts?