PC/Console Graphics comparison

[Edgar R. Zakarian]

So @Slick & @LinusTech did a video some time ago,

where the consoles could barely keep up with an underclocked GTX 480.

 

What is the status now?

 

People are saying that they perform as Radeon HD 7870, which is quite powerful.

I would love to see an updated video, on graphics/fps comparison on newer titles, and to see if the consoles have started performing better.

full 1080p@30.

And what level of hardware you need to get the same performance.

 

Are they more worth the money now than before?

[ThatOneRussian]

Yeah nah they dont

[connorpiper]

Consoles have not changed since that video.

[SImoHayha]

To be honest they're still pretty weak, hell its sad that most games today they can't even push 1080p. Instead we're getting random ass numbers like 900 p or 790p and stuff. Am not sure what the hell is going on but thats just sad, at least the PS3 could push 720p and even 1080p ( Not entirely sure about Xbox 360 but am pretty sure it was something like 720 p as well)

[Edgar R. Zakarian]

Actually fallout 4, they both run 1080p@30

Rather high settings. Only grass quality was low I think.

[BrightCandle]

Graphically they are doing quite well still, but its 30 fps and usually sub 1080p (especially on the xbox one). They are somewhere around a quarter of the performance of a decent GPU now. In terms of power from spec alone it was a 7850 for the PS4 and the xbox one being lower than that. In practice they are underperforming those cards due to being APUs and having weak CPUs.

[FixedDevice]

Seriously? Do I even have to state the obvious?

Listen,

PC's are better as consoles have downgraded graphics when compared to the PC.

[Whorax]

The Xbox is still limited to 30fps at 900p for "demanding" games, so take that for what it's worth.

[LogicalDrm]

Console hardware hasn't changed. Thats fact. Difference would be how well developers can optimize games for consoles so they look close to what PC users are used to.

[Edgar R. Zakarian]

Graphically they are doing quite well still, but its 30 fps and usually sub 1080p (especially on the xbox one). They are somewhere around a quarter of the performance of a decent GPU now. In terms of power from spec alone it was a 7850 for the PS4 and the xbox one being lower than that. In practice they are underperforming those cards due to being APUs and having weak CPUs.

I understand, however in fallout 4, they're both running FULL 1080p@30. With almost all high graphics.

 

Seriously? Do I even have to state the obvious?

Listen,

PC's are better as consoles have downgraded graphics when compared to the PC.

Of course an expensive PC will be overpowered compare to a console, but how is it in the same price range? 

Specifically what sort of GPU will you need in order to get the same/better performance in the same game, with these same graphical quality? 

 

The Xbox is still limited to 30fps at 900p for "demanding" games, so take that for what it's worth.

Not really. Xbox One & PS4 are both running the new Fallout 4, at FULL 1080p@30 fps, all graphics on high, except grass I think. 

Plus the Xbox One is actually running the game, better than the PS4. - Digital Foundry video.

 

Console hardware hasn't changed. Thats fact. Difference would be how well developers can optimize games for consoles so they look close to what PC users are used to.

Yeah, well hardware doesn't change, that's for sure. But with optimizations etc. how well do they perform in newer games now? What graphics card + CPU would you need, to replicate the same performance? 

[Edgar R. Zakarian]

To be honest they're still pretty weak, hell its sad that most games today they can't even push 1080p. Instead we're getting random ass numbers like 900 p or 790p and stuff. Am not sure what the hell is going on but thats just sad, at least the PS3 could push 720p and even 1080p ( Not entirely sure about Xbox 360 but am pretty sure it was something like 720 p as well)

They run Fallout 4 on FULL 1080p@30fps  with almost maxed out graphics though? Quality on high, just draw distance and grass quality on medium I think. 

-Check out Digital Foundry comparison video on youtube.

[gonnog]

Something tells me that this generation of consols won't last as long as  the last one.  

[Whorax]

Not really. Xbox One & PS4 are both running the new Fallout 4, at FULL 1080p@30 fps, all graphics on high, except grass I think. 

Plus the Xbox One is actually running the game, better than the PS4. - Digital Foundry video.

Yes, really. I have an Xbox One, I would know.

 

Is there a reason you asked the entire forum about this issue when you turned around and told us your own comparison anyways? I don't need a Digital Foundry Video source telling me what I already know--that the game still runs like crap on consoles. I would assume this Digital Foundry Video has some special "FULL" 1080p that they're using as well compared to the rest of us too, right? To my knowledge there is only one 1080p. I can also tell you that grass isn't the only thing toned down, like you stated. If the Xbox is running it better than the PS4 that doesn't sound good because as far as I know the Xbox was experiencing frequent framerate drops into the teens.

 

When it comes down to it my computer runs Fallout 4 @ 1080p 60fps on ultra. There's your comparison.

 

What was the point of your OP...

[Coaxialgamer]

So @Slick & @LinusTech did a video some time ago,

where the consoles could barely keep up with an underclocked GTX 480.

 

What is the status now?

 

People are saying that they perform as Radeon HD 7870, which is quite powerful.

I would love to see an updated video, on graphics/fps comparison on newer titles, and to see if the consoles have started performing better.

full 1080p@30.

And what level of hardware you need to get the same performance.

 

Are they more worth the money now twhat i heard is that , spec for spec , the gpu inside the ps4 is similar to an hd 7850-70.

However , in practice , they don't perform as well , possibly because they are driven by a weak cpu.

[Quincy15]

Actually fallout 4, they both run 1080p@30

Rather high settings. Only grass quality was low I think.

Actually they struggle to run 1080p@30.

 

They use adaptive resolutions and even then performance stutters and Frames drift below 30 especially on the Xbone.

 

Have a look at the extensive performance data published by Digital Foundary on their Youtube channel

[Quincy15]

Something tells me that this generation of consols won't last as long as  the last one.  

I was saying that very point to the wife only the other day.

 

High end PC's owners are gaming in 2K and 4K at high quality settings, while consoles struggle to reach 1080p @ 30. They wont last 10 years, they will struggle to reach 5 

[Gibs960]

I'm not sure how long this console generation will last because a lot of console gamers are only used to 30FPS@720-1080p.

 

Also, in terms of enjoyment/price ratio, a console will win that hands down imo (coming from someone who recently spent £650 ($984) on an entry level gaming system.

[TheRandomness]

I'm not sure how long this console generation will last because a lot of console gamers are only used to 30FPS@720-1080p.

Also, in terms of enjoyment/price ratio, a console will win that hands down imo (coming from someone who recently spent £650 ($984) on an entry level gaming system.

Nowadays for $500 you can build a system with an i3 and a 380, therefore being much more powerful than a console.

[laddercats]

I was saying that very point to the wife only the other day.

 

High end PC's owners are gaming in 2K and 4K at high quality settings, while consoles struggle to reach 1080p @ 30. They wont last 10 years, they will struggle to reach 5 

 

Consoles set the benchmarks for what most users and gamers expect.

 

The fact that PCs are running 2k and 4k really has no bearing on console life span. It does unfortunately mean we as pc gamers have to endure inferior standards for many more years to come.

 

Consoles need to pay for their R+D, then reach a point where they can make money on the actual system. Next progress to even cheaper hardware refreshes getting smaller etc while their profit margins slowly increase. Lastly they introduce a new console only when they feel they have milked all there is to be milked. They wont move on a new console platform until their sales are totally snail speed AND the necessary components for the next generation have reached a price point where they can at least break even on the first 12 month release cycle for the new console.

 

We are tied to consoles, we could be 144fps 8k and still the communication of that to the majority would be minimal. If the majority of gamers (basically all consoles) are unaware or unconvinced of vastly superior options at similar or cheaper price points then there is absolutely no rush for microsoft or sony to speed up the console gen life cycle. 

 

current gen consoles are still 'new' i dont see any kind of push from the main consumer base for anything better until 2018.Earliest console release 2019 if we were super lucky. Which makes me so incredibly sad because it means we are tied to POTATO graphics for another few years, nothing new though feels like since buildng my first comp in 2009 ive been tied to a fucking potato. 

 

TL:DR i hate potatoes

 

( p.s i could be wrong and 4k tvs and 14/16nm gfx cards might MAGICALLY drive consumer demand for 4k and all of a sudden a 4k console push is born, we can only hope )

[Gibs960]

Nowadays for $500 you can build a system with an i3 and a 380, therefore being much more powerful than a console.

 

Not in the UK, quickly threw this together: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/MMkFjX

Comes to £539 or $815 approx.

[TheRandomness]

Not in the UK, quickly threw this together: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/MMkFjX

Comes to £539 or $815 approx.

Give me a moment to make that cheaper. @Gibs960 finally done

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i3-4170 3.7GHz Dual-Core Processor (£85.99 @ Amazon UK)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-B85M-DS3H Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard (£48.42 @ CCL Computers)

Memory: Kingston HyperX Fury Black 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory (£33.99 @ Amazon UK)

Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive (£29.99 @ Aria PC)

Video Card: PowerColor Radeon R9 380 4GB PCS+ Video Card (£156.96 @ Amazon UK)

Case: Fractal Design Core 1100 MicroATX Mini Tower Case (£28.49 @ Novatech)

Power Supply: Super Flower Golden Green HX 450W 80+ Gold Certified ATX Power Supply (£47.71 @ CCL Computers)

Total: £431.55

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-11-23 12:12 GMT+0000

[Gibs960]

Give me a moment to make that cheaper. @Gibs960 finally done

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i3-4170 3.7GHz Dual-Core Processor (£85.99 @ Amazon UK)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-B85M-DS3H Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard (£48.42 @ CCL Computers)

Memory: Kingston HyperX Fury Black 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory (£33.99 @ Amazon UK)

Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive (£29.99 @ Aria PC)

Video Card: PowerColor Radeon R9 380 4GB PCS+ Video Card (£156.96 @ Amazon UK)

Case: Fractal Design Core 1100 MicroATX Mini Tower Case (£28.49 @ Novatech)

Power Supply: Super Flower Golden Green HX 450W 80+ Gold Certified ATX Power Supply (£47.71 @ CCL Computers)

Total: £431.55

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-11-23 12:12 GMT+0000

 

Still comes to $652, don't really know how well that i3 will perform either!

[TheRandomness]

Still comes to $652, don't really know how well that i3 will perform either!

An i3 is perfectly fine in entry level builds.

[Gibs960]

An i3 is perfectly fine in entry level builds.

 

I was put off getting an i3 because it only has 2 cores, even if it does have 4 threads. Not sure if I regret that now!

[Edgar R. Zakarian]

Yes, really. I have an Xbox One, I would know.

 

Is there a reason you asked the entire forum about this issue when you turned around and told us your own comparison anyways? I don't need a Digital Foundry Video source telling me what I already know--that the game still runs like crap on consoles. I would assume this Digital Foundry Video has some special "FULL" 1080p that they're using as well compared to the rest of us too, right? To my knowledge there is only one 1080p. I can also tell you that grass isn't the only thing toned down, like you stated. If the Xbox is running it better than the PS4 that doesn't sound good because as far as I know the Xbox was experiencing frequent framerate drops into the teens.

 

When it comes down to it my computer runs Fallout 4 @ 1080p 60fps on ultra. There's your comparison.

 

What was the point of your OP...

Howard simply stated that “It is 1080p on everything”. 

http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Fallout-4-Resolution-Frame-Rate-Revealed-72593.html

 

So yes, it is confirmed full 1080p on both consoles. 

Regarding the graphics being tones down, I don't know too much, as I don't have a PS4 or XBone. 

I only have this digital foundry video to refer to.

 

As to the other statement, this isn't an issue, it's a question.

Have the consoles gained on budget pc's since they are better optimized now? 

And what kind of hardware would you need to be even with them? - Without overclocks.

 

Regarding your PC, 

 

4790k and 290x, no wonder your PC runs it at ultra 60 fps. 

It's pretty overpowered, not considered a budget PC.  Not comparable to a console-price point.