Gamespot - "Can You Tell The Difference Between PS4, XONE and PC?"

[cesrai]

I'm waiting to see when will this thread get locked.

[Lynx]

would not bother to watch it, this is just stupid!

[Matu20]

most humans have around a 120+ FOV (in the tests my youth pastor did and using some wikiipedia)

i need quake style FOV in games to make me happy x'D

 

Humans have a FOV of almost 180 degrees, what you smoking ?

[planedrop]

Ok so there are a massive amount of problems with this test, and I will list them in detail as organized as I can in this post, but I just wanna say tests like this often times frustrate me, they can be so bias, so fake, and overall just not done well enough to prove things (aside from the fact that he only tested a few people and admitted that in the video). 

 

-Alright so the first problem I noticed was the fact that he tested only a few games, and they are all known for being bad console ports (other than FarCry 4 sort of), you can't use a console port game to show if PC is better or not. Console ports are known for being horrible on PC and not being able to utilize their full power (because of bad optimization usually) and their graphics aren't usually bumped up to the level they could be. 

 

-The second issue is the gaming PC they used, with those specs it's a decent rig that's true (not a "beast" as he called it, this thing is far from a beast), and he likely chose it since the pricing wouldn't be a ridiculous amount off of the consoles (i.e. not more than about double). If you had a PC with higher specs you could indeed tell the difference just a "bit" more. 

 

-I think the by far biggest issue I have is that he doesn't list the settings that the games were tested on, so the PC settings could have been at high instead of ultra, or even medium. He also could have just turned down the texture quality so that it was harder to tell the difference considering that's usually the biggest thing. 

 

-He never listed the full PC specs so we don't know how good this thing actually performed, the amount of RAM and other factors can make a small (but still noticeable difference). 

 

-If he had tested a game built specifically for PC (i.e. The Vanishing of Ethan Carter), and yes I know it's not possible to completely test this considering these games aren't on console, but you could still test the best games graphics wise for console vs. the best for PC and ask which game had the better visuals, although that wouldn't be a good test either. But anyway, if you look at games that are designed to use the full power of the PC then you can see what real beauty is in games. 

 

-One of the biggest things has to be the fact that those monitors are 144hz, but there is absolutely no way those games could be run at 144hz with that GPU, unless the settings were turned down. So you would either notice a smoothness difference or a graphics quality difference (in general so textures and what not) but not both, 144hz is noticeable. 

 

-Testing COD was the worst idea ever considering it's one of the poorest console ports out there, the game doesn't really look that great, even on PC. 

 

-Consoles often run at around 30FPS, so my guess (since people couldn't tell the difference in smoothness for the most part) is that he had settings such as AA and what not turned up really high (the stuff that stresses the GPU more other than texture res and what not) so you couldn't tell the difference since the GPU on that system wouldn't be pushing too much higher than 30FPS. 

 

-I would say by far the biggest thing that wasn't mentioned in this video and should have been, is the future ability of PC, those consoles graphics are already at about max, so as soon as this year the difference becomes much, much more drastic. You also have the ability to upgrade the PC, upgrading a console is impossible (although Microsoft might make it so the slim version of the XBONE has higher specs, but that would just confuse consumers). So sure you buy a PC once and it costs twice as much, but then ever 4 years you spend 300 ish and drop a new GPU in there and everything is great again (of course only if you have other components that were picked right to keep up with demands for a while), so it's cheaper than a console in the long run. 

 

-Some might say that the biggest thing going for consoles is that they simpler, you can walk into a store and buy them and plug them in and use them. But that argument is slowly becoming not true, that's why there are people that build custom PC's, so it takes all the guess work out of it. Sure you can't just go into a store (usually) and buy a gaming rig, but it's not much harder to find someone close by (if being in person is important to you) that knows how to build rigs. Also, with Steam big picture mode it makes it even easier, if the person really likes controllers, the builder just says something like "See that icon that is dark blue, round, and has the grey thing going through it (send a picture if needed), click that, then click controller icon." And now it looks and functions just like a console, with controller use really being a thing. So, in a few words, that argument is mostly irrelevant. 

 

I could go on and on about this, but tests like this are just frustrating, they don't prove anything. Anyone with a really truly high end rig (or even a decent one for that matter like this one) can clearly tell the difference, and they also can see that games built for PC have the potential. You also have to account for the fact that you can get a good gaming rig for not too much more than a console and you can use it to stream, do work, web browse, edit videos, game on multiple monitors, play 1000's more games (especially considering there isn't such thing as old PC games not working on the new stuff, that is in general. i.e. Half Life 2 still works on PC lol). So you get a lot more for your money aside from the better graphics and smoother gameplay experience. 

[BurgerBum]

Humans have a FOV of almost 180 degrees, what you smoking ?

Again, factoring in my youth pastors tests, and factoring in that a large portion of our vision is completely ignored in terms of concious aweawareness untill people are like "hay can you still see me?"

[Matu20]

Again, factoring in my youth pastors tests, and factoring in that a large portion of our vision is completely ignored in terms of concious aweawareness untill people are like "hay can you still see me?"

 

People always tunnel vision, it's easier for the brain not to interpret everything we see, just what we focus on. But the fact remains that 180 degrees is our fov and only really applicable to video games, when we have our eyes literally next to the screen. Usually around 90 is the sweet spot.

[BurgerBum]

-taco-

Also cuz pc master race.

[BurgerBum]

You just have to look at the framerate and you can immediately tell the difference between PC and consoles.

I like how one guy in the Gamespot comments said that they should lock the PC framerate to 30 lol.

If frame timings were absolutely perfect 100%TV of the time most people couldnt tell the difference between 144 fps and 44fps. (Most people, once exposed to 144fps on a 144hz screen for long enough tho theyd know instantly, but you can adapt to fps drops and changes rather quickly)

[Memphaestus]

They really should have tested Dragon Age Inquisition.  That game looks friggin beautiful with all settings maxed on my pc.  I mean watching the grass and trees blow in the wind, and the lighting effects, especially on the armor.  You can't come anywhere close on a console, and I'm still running 50+ fps.

[Fetzie]

Again, factoring in my youth pastors tests, and factoring in that a large portion of our vision is completely ignored in terms of concious aweawareness untill people are like "hay can you still see me?"

 

The visual range is less than 180°, but you can still perceive movement up to 180°. Combined with the stereo audio from your ears allows us to pin-point the position of something that is behind us. Your problem (I'm looking right at something and I'm not seeing it) is more to do with not looking properly, but it isn't to do with the FoV.

[Dabombinable]

Ok so there are a massive amount of problems with this test, and I will list them in detail as organized as I can in this post, but I just wanna say tests like this often times frustrate me, they can be so bias, so fake, and overall just not done well enough to prove things (aside from the fact that he only tested a few people and admitted that in the video). 

 

-Alright so the first problem I noticed was the fact that he tested only a few games, and they are all known for being bad console ports (other than FarCry 4 sort of), you can't use a console port game to show if PC is better or not. Console ports are known for being horrible on PC and not being able to utilize their full power (because of bad optimization usually) and their graphics aren't usually bumped up to the level they could be. 

 

-The second issue is the gaming PC they used, with those specs it's a decent rig that's true (not a "beast" as he called it, this thing is far from a beast), and he likely chose it since the pricing wouldn't be a ridiculous amount off of the consoles (i.e. not more than about double). If you had a PC with higher specs you could indeed tell the difference just a "bit" more. 

 

-I think the by far biggest issue I have is that he doesn't list the settings that the games were tested on, so the PC settings could have been at high instead of ultra, or even medium. He also could have just turned down the texture quality so that it was harder to tell the difference considering that's usually the biggest thing. 

 

-He never listed the full PC specs so we don't know how good this thing actually performed, the amount of RAM and other factors can make a small (but still noticeable difference). 

 

-If he had tested a game built specifically for PC (i.e. The Vanishing of Ethan Carter), and yes I know it's not possible to completely test this considering these games aren't on console, but you could still test the best games graphics wise for console vs. the best for PC and ask which game had the better visuals, although that wouldn't be a good test either. But anyway, if you look at games that are designed to use the full power of the PC then you can see what real beauty is in games. 

 

-One of the biggest things has to be the fact that those monitors are 144hz, but there is absolutely no way those games could be run at 144hz with that GPU, unless the settings were turned down. So you would either notice a smoothness difference or a graphics quality difference (in general so textures and what not) but not both, 144hz is noticeable. 

 

-Testing COD was the worst idea ever considering it's one of the poorest console ports out there, the game doesn't really look that great, even on PC. 

 

-Consoles often run at around 30FPS, so my guess (since people couldn't tell the difference in smoothness for the most part) is that he had settings such as AA and what not turned up really high (the stuff that stresses the GPU more other than texture res and what not) so you couldn't tell the difference since the GPU on that system wouldn't be pushing too much higher than 30FPS. 

 

-I would say by far the biggest thing that wasn't mentioned in this video and should have been, is the future ability of PC, those consoles graphics are already at about max, so as soon as this year the difference becomes much, much more drastic. You also have the ability to upgrade the PC, upgrading a console is impossible (although Microsoft might make it so the slim version of the XBONE has higher specs, but that would just confuse consumers). So sure you buy a PC once and it costs twice as much, but then ever 4 years you spend 300 ish and drop a new GPU in there and everything is great again (of course only if you have other components that were picked right to keep up with demands for a while), so it's cheaper than a console in the long run. 

 

-Some might say that the biggest thing going for consoles is that they simpler, you can walk into a store and buy them and plug them in and use them. But that argument is slowly becoming not true, that's why there are people that build custom PC's, so it takes all the guess work out of it. Sure you can't just go into a store (usually) and buy a gaming rig, but it's not much harder to find someone close by (if being in person is important to you) that knows how to build rigs. Also, with Steam big picture mode it makes it even easier, if the person really likes controllers, the builder just says something like "See that icon that is dark blue, round, and has the grey thing going through it (send a picture if needed), click that, then click controller icon." And now it looks and functions just like a console, with controller use really being a thing. So, in a few words, that argument is mostly irrelevant. 

 

I could go on and on about this, but tests like this are just frustrating, they don't prove anything. Anyone with a really truly high end rig (or even a decent one for that matter like this one) can clearly tell the difference, and they also can see that games built for PC have the potential. You also have to account for the fact that you can get a good gaming rig for not too much more than a console and you can use it to stream, do work, web browse, edit videos, game on multiple monitors, play 1000's more games (especially considering there isn't such thing as old PC games not working on the new stuff, that is in general. i.e. Half Life 2 still works on PC lol). So you get a lot more for your money aside from the better graphics and smoother gameplay experience. 

Ssshhh, you'll bring out the flaming fanboys.

[planedrop]

Ssshhh, you'll bring out the flaming fanboys.

LOL I suppose something like that could bring out them fanboys, well at least the information is there for everyone to see. 

[nicholaswillems]

Part of it isn't going in blindly. 

 

If I went into it blindly, sure, I would be more focused on the gameplay than the smaller details on graphics. 

 

Another aprt of it is age. That xbox one will look that good for...6-10 years. PC will bypass the limits shortly and you will be stuck. 

 

Another part is the game. Some developers do a much better job at making multi platform games. Some, dont even utilize a PC as much as they can. 

 

And finally.... it IS more than just graphics. Just graphics alone? Yes, a Both a Honda Accord and a BMW move forwards and backwards and stop. But that doesn't make them comparable.....

 

Exactly this. The problem with these consoles is that they will need to have quite a long lifespan and by the end of their planned lifespan, they will once again have been holding back a lot.

[Humbug]

I think the objective was simply to see whether all this talk about 720p vs 1080p and 30fps vs 60fps matters as much as some people say it does. I know people will disagree with me. But IMO it does not matter so much when you are gaming with a controller from the couch.  It matters on PC with big monitors close to our face taking up a large FOV and with fast polling high precision input devices (mouse).

 

-The second issue is the gaming PC they used, with those specs it's a decent rig that's true (not a "beast" as he called it, this thing is far from a beast), and he likely chose it since the pricing wouldn't be a ridiculous amount off of the consoles (i.e. not more than about double). If you had a PC with higher specs you could indeed tell the difference just a "bit" more.

Dude- they used a 780ti. That's beast.

The fact that a tiny percentage of people use 980s or R9 295x2 doesn't change that.

[LePawel]

They play on monitors from a TV distance...

[deviant88]

Sadly the only difference for PC was framrate which was enough to tell it apart but for PC theres 3 main differences that werent respected Framerate(was), rezolution and very important antialiasing,if you look at the end video of the 3 far cry comparison,you can easily spot  1 is console 2 is PC 3 is console,but 2 PC has same resolution and no AA like consoles which is stupid.And thats just non game dependant tweaks,if you add up that some PC games come with PC extra quality like HD textures and other quality settings (HBAO+ etc).

[jecho]

But did he set all the PC games to max or did he just think he would use high/med.

[IP man]

sigh... not this again 

[Yoinkerman]

Didn't watch video.

Comparing the same game, ie, a console first game with a crappy pc port is flawed to begin with.

[Doobeedoo]

Why even care when they make bad ports or they release downgraded game and visuals are not gonna be a huge difference between devices.

[Jerakl]

the REAL reasons PC is a better choice;

 

mods. 

better controls. 

its a COMPUTER. (kiss that 1500 dollar macbook goodbye, this does everything that it can and more) 

its a GAMING MACHINE (kiss the other 300 dollar appliance goodbye, it does literally everything that it can) 

you cant be a console enthusiast. (except nintendo...... nintendo master race. ) 

 

those features alone. 

 

no further discussion.

'

But I want to play Halo...

[planedrop]

I think the objective was simply to see whether all this talk about 720p vs 1080p and 30fps vs 60fps matters as much as some people say it does. I know people will disagree with me. But IMO it does not matter so much when you are gaming with a controller from the couch.  It matters on PC with big monitors close to our face taking up a large FOV and with fast polling high precision input devices (mouse).

 

Dude- they used a 780ti. That's beast.

The fact that a tiny percentage of people use 980s or R9 295x2 doesn't change that.

Yeah you make a good point, it's harder to tell when you're so far away, I would agree with that. Just another reason this test is inaccurate lol. As for the 780ti not being a beast, I didn't mean that it's not a good card and that most people don't have the top end stuff (although a surprising amount of people do), but that doesn't change the fact that it's still not "beast" by PC standards, sure it's powerful. But don't call it "beast" until you have at least 2 GPU's (of top performing ones), at least that's the way I look at it, this system to me is just the low end of the high end stuff so to speak. 

[Mattr567]

They should have given us the test. Rather than just give the results of the test subjects.

[Mattr567]

Ok so there are a massive amount of problems with this test, and I will list them in detail as organized as I can in this post, but I just wanna say tests like this often times frustrate me, they can be so bias, so fake, and overall just not done well enough to prove things (aside from the fact that he only tested a few people and admitted that in the video). 

 

-Alright so the first problem I noticed was the fact that he tested only a few games, and they are all known for being bad console ports (other than FarCry 4 sort of), you can't use a console port game to show if PC is better or not. Console ports are known for being horrible on PC and not being able to utilize their full power (because of bad optimization usually) and their graphics aren't usually bumped up to the level they could be. 

 

-The second issue is the gaming PC they used, with those specs it's a decent rig that's true (not a "beast" as he called it, this thing is far from a beast), and he likely chose it since the pricing wouldn't be a ridiculous amount off of the consoles (i.e. not more than about double). If you had a PC with higher specs you could indeed tell the difference just a "bit" more. 

 

-I think the by far biggest issue I have is that he doesn't list the settings that the games were tested on, so the PC settings could have been at high instead of ultra, or even medium. He also could have just turned down the texture quality so that it was harder to tell the difference considering that's usually the biggest thing. 

 

-He never listed the full PC specs so we don't know how good this thing actually performed, the amount of RAM and other factors can make a small (but still noticeable difference). 

 

-If he had tested a game built specifically for PC (i.e. The Vanishing of Ethan Carter), and yes I know it's not possible to completely test this considering these games aren't on console, but you could still test the best games graphics wise for console vs. the best for PC and ask which game had the better visuals, although that wouldn't be a good test either. But anyway, if you look at games that are designed to use the full power of the PC then you can see what real beauty is in games. 

 

-One of the biggest things has to be the fact that those monitors are 144hz, but there is absolutely no way those games could be run at 144hz with that GPU, unless the settings were turned down. So you would either notice a smoothness difference or a graphics quality difference (in general so textures and what not) but not both, 144hz is noticeable. 

 

-Testing COD was the worst idea ever considering it's one of the poorest console ports out there, the game doesn't really look that great, even on PC. 

 

-Consoles often run at around 30FPS, so my guess (since people couldn't tell the difference in smoothness for the most part) is that he had settings such as AA and what not turned up really high (the stuff that stresses the GPU more other than texture res and what not) so you couldn't tell the difference since the GPU on that system wouldn't be pushing too much higher than 30FPS. 

 

-I would say by far the biggest thing that wasn't mentioned in this video and should have been, is the future ability of PC, those consoles graphics are already at about max, so as soon as this year the difference becomes much, much more drastic. You also have the ability to upgrade the PC, upgrading a console is impossible (although Microsoft might make it so the slim version of the XBONE has higher specs, but that would just confuse consumers). So sure you buy a PC once and it costs twice as much, but then ever 4 years you spend 300 ish and drop a new GPU in there and everything is great again (of course only if you have other components that were picked right to keep up with demands for a while), so it's cheaper than a console in the long run. 

 

-Some might say that the biggest thing going for consoles is that they simpler, you can walk into a store and buy them and plug them in and use them. But that argument is slowly becoming not true, that's why there are people that build custom PC's, so it takes all the guess work out of it. Sure you can't just go into a store (usually) and buy a gaming rig, but it's not much harder to find someone close by (if being in person is important to you) that knows how to build rigs. Also, with Steam big picture mode it makes it even easier, if the person really likes controllers, the builder just says something like "See that icon that is dark blue, round, and has the grey thing going through it (send a picture if needed), click that, then click controller icon." And now it looks and functions just like a console, with controller use really being a thing. So, in a few words, that argument is mostly irrelevant. 

 

I could go on and on about this, but tests like this are just frustrating, they don't prove anything. Anyone with a really truly high end rig (or even a decent one for that matter like this one) can clearly tell the difference, and they also can see that games built for PC have the potential. You also have to account for the fact that you can get a good gaming rig for not too much more than a console and you can use it to stream, do work, web browse, edit videos, game on multiple monitors, play 1000's more games (especially considering there isn't such thing as old PC games not working on the new stuff, that is in general. i.e. Half Life 2 still works on PC lol). So you get a lot more for your money aside from the better graphics and smoother gameplay experience. 

 

One thing, 780 Ti is only decent? My friends 780 Ti outpreforms my 970 somewhat.

[RagnarokDel]

Did anyone watch the three vids at the end? I think PC was the first. The second two just didn't look as clean. But then, as pointed out above, they could have altered the frame rates, etc. So I don't know

if all the videos are recorded at the same framerate, it wont matter how many FPS the PC gets as long as it's not lower then the recording frame rate...  At least I think so.

 

 

Also those tests videos are void because they're in different settings.