How to compare my PC to a ps4 or other console?

[JhonnBob]

Hi,

I have a pretty old but powerful laptop, and I was wondering if there was a tool / way to compare my pc's general performance with consoles, like what i should expect graphic-wise compared to a ps4... 

On GPU/CPU benchmark websites, I can find my specs no problem, but not a ps4's for instance.

[ki8aras]

the ps4's specs are available out there, but unless you're running linux on it then you cant just compare the specs

cuz games on consoles go through optimization to run better on worse hardware

[WereCat]

You can't but for a rough estimation if your PC is at least as powerful as a Steam Deck then it's also roughly as powerful as a PS4.

[jaslion]

Cant since the consoles enjoy superior optimization.

 

What specs is your laptop?

 

Because its not hard to basically have a desktop r9 270 gpu and a core 2 quad q8400

[Avocado Diaboli]

Play the same games on both. If the performance matches, they're equal, for all intents and purposes. Not like you're gonna use the raw power of those components in any other context.

[wasab]

by comparing FLOPS

[Mark Kaine]

On 5/12/2024 at 10:32 AM, ki8aras said:

the ps4's specs are available out there, but unless you're running linux on it then you cant just compare the specs

cuz games on consoles go through optimization to run better on worse hardware

problem is console performance is usually measured in TF... pc performance is measured in "fps" which is completely,  well vague as hell... 

[Mark Kaine]

On 5/12/2024 at 11:55 AM, jaslion said:

Cant since the consoles enjoy superior optimization.

aka framerate locks? that's the real reason you can't compare them directly...

 

 

you could however research the tf numbers of your pc components, add them up and then compare to console... would be roughly accurate... 

[Stahlmann]

Games often have specific settings and optimizations going on in the background, and they have very specific hardware made for a purpose. So it's not really comparable.

 

Still, in general, the RTX 3060Ti or RX 6700XT will deliver roughly the same performance as the integrated GPU on the PS5, provided other parts of the system aren't a limiting factor. That's basically the benchmark you want to hit.

 

Edit: Misread PS4 for PS5. Still, using the same logic you'd have to sport something in the lines of GTX 1050Ti / GTX 1650 or RX 560 to have comparable performance on a PC.

 

(Man i really didn't expect a PS4 to come in in that low...)

[Mark Kaine]

1 hour ago, Stahlmann said:

Man i really didn't expect a PS4 to come in in that low

yeah,  it was incredibly weak, mostly thanks to the anemic amd cpu... in many aspects it was actually a regress from the ps3, which had a lot of hidden potential which only few games could leverage tho.

[jaslion]

1 hour ago, Stahlmann said:

Games often have specific settings and optimizations going on in the background, and they have very specific hardware made for a purpose. So it's not really comparable.

 

Still, in general, the RTX 3060Ti or RX 6700XT will deliver roughly the same performance as the integrated GPU on the PS5, provided other parts of the system aren't a limiting factor. That's basically the benchmark you want to hit.

 

Edit: Misread PS4 for PS5. Still, using the same logic you'd have to sport something in the lines of GTX 1050Ti / GTX 1650 or RX 560 to have comparable performance on a PC.

 

(Man i really didn't expect a PS4 to come in in that low...)

Keep in mind for the time around r9 270-280 levels of performance was actually GOOD.

 

1 hour ago, Mark Kaine said:

aka framerate locks? that's the real reason you can't compare them directly...

 

Thats more for consistency. Theres far more options and scene by scene tweaking they can do as they know how the hardware will behave always.

 

Its not magic, but if you know exactly what to expect every time you can do A LOT with limited hardware.

 

Like how the last of us on ps3 was genuinly exceptional for that hardware even if a solid 30 wasnt always the case. (which at that point was a given for either the 360 or ps3 sadly).

 

 

[Mark Kaine]

22 minutes ago, jaslion said:

Thats more for consistency. Theres far more options and scene by scene tweaking they can do as they know how the hardware will behave always.

 

Its not magic, but if you know exactly what to expect every time you can do A LOT with limited hardware.

yeah, but a lot of it is actually trickery tho, ie low texture res, tons of motion blur... notably games like Tomb Raider reboot or Monster Hunter World were nigh unplayable on consoles... like sub 30 fps, blurry....

 

i really tried but nothing that i did on pc actually worked on console...  too much delay too little details...

 

whereas on my pc i had motion blur off and steady 60fps (with just a 3600 and a 1060ti, mind you) 

 

it was night and day and console "optimization" did really nothing for me.

 

 

tldr: consoles with "off the shelf" parts are just super unexciting, i get why they're doing it, cheap and predictable, but consoles really shined when they had exotic custom hardware which often actually enabled things that couldn't be experienced elsewhere  (ie actually "hard to program" on purpose,  "krazy" ken kuturagi is infamous for that for example) 

 

 

ps: actually i had an amd Athlon/ X1950GT system in 2007 which ran circles around my (beloved) ps3...

 

ps3 was only preferable because it actually had better and more games (after 2008) with more or less seamless online play

[wasab]

25 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

yeah, but a lot of it is actually trickery tho, ie low texture res, tons of motion blur... notably games like Tomb Raider reboot or Monster Hunter World were nigh unplayable on consoles... like sub 30 fps, blurry....

Yeah, higher performance ain't magic. A lot of it has to do with replacing real rendering of objects in the distance with mere images of fake. 

 

This video explains quite well. 

 

[Mark Kaine]

4 hours ago, wasab said:

Yeah, higher performance ain't magic. A lot of it has to do with replacing real rendering of objects in the distance with mere images of fake. 

 

This video explains quite well. 

 

there are many ways to do optimizations, but i think how modern games do it (often not at all) isnt the way...

 

one trick i really like is a lot Japanese devs tie things (like enemy encounters, etc) to framerate to actually save cpu cycles, hence unlike their western counterparts they often have enough spare for working mirrors, bullet impact marks, destructive environments, etc. 

 

 

(of course many people don't like that because games are usually locked to 60fps, but its fine with me, i prefer actual features over a perceived superiority lol)

 

[ki8aras]

19 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

problem is console performance is usually measured in TF... pc performance is measured in "fps" which is completely,  well vague as hell... 

pc components' per formance is also measured in TF, here it is for a 7900xtx on techpowerup

 

but unless you're running linux on the console, then it's not directly comparable

[ki8aras]

18 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

yeah, but a lot of it is actually trickery tho, ie low texture res, tons of motion blur... notably games like Tomb Raider reboot or Monster Hunter World were nigh unplayable on consoles... like sub 30 fps, blurry....

 

i really tried but nothing that i did on pc actually worked on console...  too much delay too little details...

 

whereas on my pc i had motion blur off and steady 60fps (with just a 3600 and a 1060ti, mind you) 

are you really trying to compare your ryzen 3rd gen cpu and a gtx 1060 ti to a ps4, and you're flaunting that the computer is better?
need i remind you the ps4 released in 2013, when amd richland and intel haswell were available