Epic aim to make their UE 5 demo run at 60 FPS on consoles + Is the PS 5 demo ouperformed by a mid-tier PC?

[hishnash]

49 minutes ago, Tech Enthusiast said:

Im with you on that one.

Tiers are not dictated by an artificial price limit, but by what is available on the market.

 

A 1080 is no longer high-end, because even the lower end current gen GPUs offer similar performance.

And while a 1080 is enough for most 1080p gamers, it hardly makes 4k@60 viable, let alone with amazing settings. So no, it is not more than a mid tier GPU.

f you are a game developer you mid tier GPU means AVG or Median GPU currently in use from all users.

1080 is well above that!

 

Firstly remember most gaming happens on (lower powered android) phones.

 

But even if we just consider PC gaming. Most PC gaming happens on laptops with must much lower powered GPUs than the 1080. So if Sony say the PS5 out performs a mid ter pc then all they mean is it out performs an intel integrated gpu.

 

And for game developers this is a very important bit of information, no one writes a game that can only be played on a RTX 2080 TI. you would be limiting your customer base to less than 0.001% of possible users, you would need to charge in the $100k for each copy of the game. You assume that your users are using a lower end desktop card or even an integrated mobile gpu since that is 99% of your customers.

[Raptor_Fawr]

1 hour ago, Delicieuxz said:

Obviously people have some different opinions on this. But I think that classifying GPU tiers without considering for how they fit into the performance spectrum just doesn't make sense. If someone lists a used GTX 1060 GPU for $1,000, that doesn't make it a high-tier GPU. And if Nvidia decide to increase the prices on their GTX 1660 GPUs so that they cost the same as an RTX 2080, that doesn't make them a high-tier GPU and comparable to an RTX 2080.

 

This is how I currently consider Nvidia's gaming GPUs.

 

Low-tier: GTX 1060, all forms of GTX 1660,

 

Upper low-tier: GTX 1070, RTX 2060

 

Mid-tier: GTX 1080, RTX 2060 Super, RTX 2070

 

High-tier: GTX 1080 Ti, RTX 2070 Super, RTX 2080

 

Extreme-tier: RTX 2080 Super, RTX 2080 Ti

 

 

And when the RTX 30XX series releases, everything will likely get bumped-down a tier.

 

I hear the view about price-points and it just doesn't make sense to me. I don't need to rationalize my GTX 1070 as being a mid-tier or high-tier GPU to make myself feel better about owning it rather than an RTX 2070, 2080, or 2080 Ti, even though I'd love to have any of those cards. I don't know if that's a factor for everyone, but I wonder if that's the only way the price-point barometer makes sense as the default one to use when describing one's GPU. It seems a lot more functional in a discussion to me to describe tiers as normalized across the spectrum rather than have most everything bunched into the high-tier and above category.

Cannot agree more. Also I love the fact that you put 1080ti and 2080 in the same category, some people think that newer is automatically better. 

 

I'd still buy a 2080 rather than a 1080 Ti just because it's newer and probably it will do better in the long run, but if I had a 1080Ti I would not upgrade it at all with the current market

[Raptor_Fawr]

24 minutes ago, hishnash said:

f you are a game developer you mid tier GPU means AVG or Median GPU currently in use from all users.

1080 is well above that!

 

Firstly remember most gaming happens on (lower powered android) phones.

 

But even if we just consider PC gaming. Most PC gaming happens on laptops with must much lower powered GPUs than the 1080. So if Sony say the PS5 out performs a mid ter pc then all they mean is it out performs an intel integrated gpu.

 

And for game developers this is a very important bit of information, no one writes a game that can only be played on a RTX 2080 TI. you would be limiting your customer base to less than 0.001% of possible users, you would need to charge in the $100k for each copy of the game. You assume that your users are using a lower end desktop card or even an integrated mobile gpu since that is 99% of your customers.

For the sake of the argument, this is totally true and that's basically the reason why console games don't have a "graphic setting" option while pc games do: in order to make the game more sellable you need to make it more accessible to the players while keeping up with new technology. You must satisfy both the 2080 user and the 750 user if you want to sell

[Raptor_Fawr]

4 hours ago, Commodus said:

Here's the thing, though: when the PS4 and Xbox One came out, people complained that they had graphics equivalent to recent mid-range GPUs from computers.  They still produced great results.

This is true, mainly because console games are designed to take all the resources from the machine and make them work, unlike pc gaming where usually you have also other tasks in the background (coff coff windows coff coff). 

 

This kind of well designed performance from the software side can be seen in asic machines, where you don't need powerful components to make things work. 

It's not the same thing but think about crypto mining computers, the most buyed cpu for those is intel celeron and I would never buy a celeron for anything else honestly

[Delicieuxz]

I've edited this part into my previous post. I think it's potentially an important factor in GPU tier identification:

 

2 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

Also, adjusting GPU tiers when Nvidia inflates their prices encourages greater exploitation from Nvidia: If people adopt the view that a mid-tier GPU is a high-tier GPU, then Nvidia will feel justified in charging high-tier prices for a mid-tier GPU. If you don't acknowledge that the card Nvidia is charging $500 for is actually just a mid-tier card, then you let them get away with price-gouging - which is exactly what Nvidia is doing with their hyperinflated prices.

 

So, acknowledging the performance levels of graphics cards also maintains some semblance of accountability of GPU manufacturers. Lowering your expectations to conform to Nvidia's price-gouging is letting Nvidia trample over you without any protest.

[IAmAndre]

On 5/17/2020 at 9:49 PM, SupaKomputa said:

Still you need at least $1000 to build a pc that can match that performance. That's only the box not the monitor.

That's the same old debate. People who spend that kind of money on a PC usually need a PC in the first place, plus they might have been using it for already two years so no need to upgrade now for the next 5 years if they want to match consoles performance. On top of that, no monthly fees to play online. But then again it's the same debate at every console release.

[KyberKylo77]

On 5/18/2020 at 6:37 AM, AlwaysFSX said:

Let's not forget that consoles are sold at a loss, something to keep in mind.

Who cares if they sell at a loss? As long as I'm getting cheaper stuff I couldn't care less.

[KyberKylo77]

On 5/18/2020 at 7:59 AM, huilun02 said:

And after all that's said and done, a good modern gaming PC will still clearly outperform the console...

 

Careful look at wording and legalese reveals that they (Sweeney, EGS, Sony) never made the direct claim of PS5 outperforming a gaming PCs.

 

Sony and MS, I know your old tricks. I see through your manipulative bullshit marketing.

Yep, a good modern gaming PC that costs 2* the price of the PS5.

[KyberKylo77]

3 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

A good modern gaming PC that supports more genres (RTS, MMO, sim, indies that cannot afford the cost of listing on consoles), retains the largest collection of apps and games, supports modding, has access to an open market, does a lot more than just games, and is still useful many years later

 

Yup

Yep, totally worth it to spend double the amount just to play League of Legends and to be able to do and have other things that I really care about.

[AlwaysFSX]

1 hour ago, KyberKylo77 said:

Who cares if they sell at a loss? As long as I'm getting cheaper stuff I couldn't care less.

Because consoles aren't magically 2x faster at 1/2 the cost. Consoles use a lot of tricks to make them seem like they're better than they really are. Need we forget that the current generation would render games at a lower resolution than 1080p and upscale it just to maintain performance? Or adjust settings on the fly when things became too difficult to render?

1 hour ago, KyberKylo77 said:

Yep, totally worth it to spend double the amount just to play League of Legends

If you're spending 2x on a desktop then you're bad at shopping for parts.

[KyberKylo77]

1 hour ago, AlwaysFSX said:

Because consoles aren't magically 2x faster at 1/2 the cost. Consoles use a lot of tricks to make them seem like they're better than they really are. Need we forget that the current generation would render games at a lower resolution than 1080p and upscale it just to maintain performance? Or adjust settings on the fly when things became too difficult to render?

If you're spending 2x on a desktop then you're bad at shopping for parts.

Yea, obviously a console can't be 2 times faster at 1/2 the cost no one claimed that it is. As long as I'm getting more value for my money I'm satisfied. I don't care about bragging rights as much as these PC elitists.

 

Lol, among my friends I got the best PC for the lowest price so no I'm not bad at shopping. I spent months monitoring prices and getting the best deals. And if you didn't know already, I was exaggerating to convey my point maybe it wasn't necessary but it is what it is.

[CarlBar]

3 hours ago, KyberKylo77 said:

Yep, a good modern gaming PC that costs 2* the price of the PS5.

 

The console makers make it back on game prices ;). If you buy a lot of games you'll probably spend more over time than you would on a PC.

[Commodus]

3 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 

The console makers make it back on game prices ;). If you buy a lot of games you'll probably spend more over time than you would on a PC.

At last check, flagship console and PC games were similarly priced -- and both platforms have sales with the occasional steep discount.  Console makers do make money back through game sales, but they're not charging a premium over PC releases from what I've seen.

[JoostinOnline]

On 5/18/2020 at 3:43 PM, Tech Enthusiast said:

A 1080 is no longer high-end, because even the lower end current gen GPUs offer similar performance.

Whoever told you this has no idea what they're talking about.  A 1080 still crushes the lower end current GPU's.  It's also debatable if there even are any low end ones, because NVidia raised their prices and AMD is still selling last gen ones.

[KyberKylo77]

11 minutes ago, Commodus said:

At last check, flagship console and PC games were similarly priced -- and both platforms have sales with the occasional steep discount.  Console makers do make money back through game sales, but they're not charging a premium over PC releases from what I've seen.

Exactly. Steam sales are not what they used to be and the difference in discounts are marginal. I know because I check the PSN and steam store occasionally.

[CarlBar]

To be fair it's been a while since i bought any console games. Last time i did there was often as much as a £20 upmark on console game pricing.

[Delicieuxz]

I've come across what I think is the video of the full livestream of the Epic Games China event where an EGC engineer stated that he is able to run the UE5 demo shown on the PS5 in the UE5 editor on his notebook in real-time and get 40 FPS.

 

If someone would like to find where in the video he talks about it and verify his exact words and expression, that would be cool.

 

 

 

 

It was also reported elsewhere that Epic's Chief Technology Officer has also stated separately that an RTX Super runs the UE5 demo smoothly.

 

GeForce RTX 2070 Super and SSD are enough to run the Unreal Engine 5 tech demo on a PC

[D13H4RD]

On 5/24/2020 at 7:00 PM, KyberKylo77 said:

Yep, totally worth it to spend double the amount just to play League of Legends and to be able to do and have other things that I really care about.

FWIW, you shouldn't have to spend over a grand if you just want to play League. It's not a difficult game to run while looking decent. Unless you're also doing some mid-high tier productivity on the side (in which you shouldn't really compare it to a gaming console at that point), you likely won't need more than even a 3300X, let alone a 3600.

[GatioH]

On 5/17/2020 at 5:40 PM, Delicieuxz said:

It surely does. Though, a laptop isn't a cost-to-performance friendly way to game on PC. And a TV + console probably costs as much as a PC + monitor of at least similar performance.

You’re delusional. A TV has been a household staple for decades, it shouldn’t be accounted for with the price of a console.

[ARikozuM]

Can we stop comparing consoles to PC? We get it. The PC is much stronger. But what other device allows you to literally just buy and start playing without needing internet or guessing if the game with run?

[Curufinwe_wins]

3 minutes ago, GatioH said:

You’re delusional. A TV has been a household staple for decades, it shouldn’t be accounted for with the price of a console.

Oh yeah, every young adult just has extras laying around. Computers in general have been household staples for decades so clearly monitors aren't actually a cost. /sarcasm

 

Monitors are no less common than TV's esp when you consider that TVs (while often shitty overall) are functional monitors as well.

 

I own one TV and 3 monitors. The TV was bought only last year, and the newest monitor is from 2017. If you want to include one, you should include both. And you should include both unless explicitly told otherwise.

 

In fact, the inclusion of the screen with which to play the game is one of the biggest reasons handhelds are and were as popular as they are (from a parental perspective). No buying or setting aside a separate screen for kiddo to play some games from time to time.

 

I'm saying this being of the era where we had bought a separate tube tv w/ vcr for long rides (used to be a 9 hour commute up to family) and one of those incredibly shitty plug and play arcade things.

[Curufinwe_wins]

5 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Can we stop comparing consoles to PC? We get it. The PC is much stronger. But what other device allows you to literally just buy and start playing without needing internet or guessing if the game with run?

Not home consoles. More portable ones still do, but current gen home consoles rarely let you do that sort of thing these days. 

 

Basically any game on any "gaming" pc will pull up "playable" recommended settings by default these days, so that isn't a serious issue either. I mean I still remember playing oblivion on integrated intel c2d graphics lolz. I didn't realize it was actually a shitty experience until I went back years later on actually good hardware.

 

I don't hate on consoles (I definitely think both have a place), but in the modern era that philosophy just isn't true regardless of platform.

[Delicieuxz]

On 6/5/2020 at 2:40 PM, GatioH said:

You’re delusional. A TV has been a household staple for decades, it shouldn’t be accounted for with the price of a console.

No. I don't own a TV and have no need of one. And are you saying that people are using the same TV they had decades ago? Obviously, they aren't - and so a cost-over-time argument isn't there to make. People I know with TVs tend to buy them more frequently than the time it's been since I bought my last PC (i7 2600K).

 

What you said is also like saying that everyone already has a PC they can upgrade. It's also pretending that people didn't have to pay for whatever TV they own. Don't forget that people buy PCs to be used for all sorts of things (including TV show and movie-streaming services) and not just for gaming - just like people buy TVs for more than just gaming.

 

Ultimately, your argument doesn't work. TVs are unavoidably a part of the expense of playing games on a console.

[Delicieuxz]

20 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Can we stop comparing consoles to PC? We get it. The PC is much stronger. But what other device allows you to literally just buy and start playing without needing internet or guessing if the game with run?

I agree that there shouldn't be a competition between them - a lot of the time they cover different use-cases. When claims of cost-to-performance and system-to-system performance come up, though, there are still facts to those matters.

[KyberKylo77]

On 6/5/2020 at 8:32 AM, D13H4RD said:

FWIW, you shouldn't have to spend over a grand if you just want to play League. It's not a difficult game to run while looking decent. Unless you're also doing some mid-high tier productivity on the side (in which you shouldn't really compare it to a gaming console at that point), you likely won't need more than even a 3300X, let alone a 3600.

I know, that wasn't my point. I was just taking a shot at the guy who said PCs are worth the extra cost to play mobas and other genres.