Gaming Image Quality Showdown - PS4, Xbox One, Xbox 360 & PC

[Lynx]

Just registered to post my little problem with the video (and most videos like it).

.......................................

................

.......

.

It would be nice to see a comparison of things like machine noise levels comparison; since some of us do put value in having a quite machine.

 

nice insight there. and i would add about keyboard and mouse thing, sure it's best FPS and RTS, but for third person games, Nay.

comparing a gaming PC vs console is not an apples to apples, but apples to orange

so if you want best of the best, just have them both, a gaming PC and console

[DestryLP]

Does anyone know what HDMI Splitter they're using? I'm goin to need to record PS4 for the exclusives, and it was a hassle last gen doing it with DVI strippers and/or component.

[LinusTech]

Just registered to post my little problem with the video (and most videos like it).

 

Small little rant before I go into the post,

 

There's absolutely no reason past 95' to have a limit on password length. User passwords should be hashed and salted and length if absolutely irrelevant in that regard. Personally I also prefer 100+ passwords. While your forum is obviously just a skin of one of the commercial options unlike tech syndicate (which is supposedly hand made, yet apparently for all the security babel can't save my password hashed in their database), I would still appreciate it if such a limit didnt exist. If there is a reason for me to use a short password, such as for accessing from a random mobile device then I would simply change my password; but even then I would prefer an open authentication solution over "dumb passwords" since that would go though a 2-way authentication.

 

-------------------------------

 

+LinusTechTips

 

My personal problem with the comparison in the video is that you're comparing BF4, Call of Duty and so on which are more akin to PC-centric games gone to consoles, and like games like Crysis are in the model "hey we made a game, go buy a graphics card" rather then serving the consumer platform. While you may have no issue with putting a better graphics card in, this is not necesarily an option for everyone and some consumers may not even WANT to subscribe to the model of handling performance problems themselves though hardware. From my perspective, if all you're going to look at is cases like BF4 which are well-known "hardware melters," of course you're going to get better results in a market where you can spend 10,000 on hardware if you wanted.

When you look at other games and other types of games and start to take into account the number of games you have access, the types of games you have access to and the communities in those games, the consoles actually look very promising.

Then you have to start to consider the environment the box would sit in. You had it on a desk on a 24" 60hz (or 120hz?) monitor, its suppose to be under a 52" tv (at whatever hz) in your living room, and yes you can make a small factor pc that maybe is only 3 times as ginormous by comparison to even the xbox one, but you wont be able to do shit on it if you stick it in your living room (assuming you can even control it properly). In addition, chances are the people in question have LAPTOPS or very crappy PCs with crappy monitors, so which would you rather have:

• PC, kind of does what console does, running on a 17-19" (which probably also means crappy colors and such)
• console, doesn't quite do every productivity thing (but your not very PC-centric when it comes to productivity anyway; otherwise you would already have a beefy PC) and runs your games on your 52" nice looking TV.

And yes I know there's the whole steam box thing; but it's not here yet so it's all a bunch of hot steam until it comes to fruition. And lets face it the steam box is something new, this whole "pc master race" argument has been with us for ages.

Then there's also the issue with how the argument is formulated. If you want to compare hardware and claim that X is better then Y because of hardware performance then why do claims such as "a mac has a better gaming experience then a console" and "my phone has a better gaming experience then a 360" or "reasonably powerful handheld Z has better gaming experience then living room 52" tv based console Q" not hold any water. If "hardware performance" was really the only point for comparison, they should have been true, but they are not. So we can only deduce "hardware performance" is at best only ONE point of comparison among many, and not the deciding factor. If anything hardware accessibility and form factor are more important these days (even among the pc master race crowd).

Finally, I own a reasonably powerful PC and have plenty of games on it (planetary annihilation, anno 2070, witcher 2) which I run on absolute max settings, I just want to say I couldn't care less for the games shown in the comparison. Not every person on earth cares for FPS bro-shooters and that no-story-momentum pretty looking grindfest that is the Assassin Creed franchise. Any company now could make a game that can only run on LOW settings even on the best hardware on the market, that doesn't mean it's "relevant" when making a decision on what you want to get or that said game should be used as a "measuring stick" (imagine for a second if The Last of Us was the first game of the last generation). Lets say you're into fighters, jrpgs, rpgs, etc.... well PC is a wasteland when it comes to them, has at best ports, with a few exceptions virtually no communities (since people who care play it on the platform it was initially sold to, 1-3 years earlier!) and performance most of the time is a non-issue.

 

There also this "better value in the long run" argument floating in your video comments. I'll just answer it very briefly, since you dont point it out yourself. Problem 1: You got 1000 games though steam, great! Do you play all of them? Nope. If you only got 2-3 tiltes and you played them months would that not have been better? When you look at it like that, availability is more important, and consoles have greater availability in general (most things come console first). But lets say you're the "lots of games" gamer, the PS+ subscribition gives you free games with out even going though sales (so you're paying a fixed budget and getting plenty of games; instead of potentially spending hundreds on games you'll never pay because of buyer hype). If you live somewhere like japan PS+ will actually net you even more stuff, from my understanding. That said, on the xbox one side, you're getting completely ripped off and also congratulations on having to deal with double dipping; so yes if its xbox one or PC, steam wins. Additionally if like me you like RTS and Strategy games (grand strategy etc) you're better off on PC too, at least for the moment.

 

ps.

 

I would have preferred actual full quality video, youtube is garbage when it comes to comparisons since it both compresses the files and also reduces them to 30fps. You should have provided a torrent with the actual files.

 

This is more of a nit pick, but IMHO comparing "launch games" which were obviously shoved out the door and not optimized properly for the hardware (from the looks of it) is IMO not the fairest of comparisons.

 

It would be nice to see a comparison of things like machine noise levels comparison; since some of us do put value in having a quite machine.

 

Some good points in here, some that I don't feel are as valid. I don't have time to reply (traveling right now) but I just wanted you to know I read it, and this won't be our last console vs PC comparison. And we'll definitely be working on tweaking the format in the future.

[LinusTech]

did you use the latest patch for the ac iv on ps4 it now runs at 1080p

 

http://kotaku.com/with-new-patch-aciv-now-looks-sharper-on-ps4-1469848384

 

Yes we did.

[LinusTech]

Hello Linus, I have a question concerning the controllers. Now, I know you said you liked the 360's one the most, then the PS4's Dualshock 4 and then the Xbox One controller. Now I have to say, so far the 360's controller is my most favourite one, but I never really had my hands on the new gen controllers for a long time. I also remember you in other videos saying you have quite small hands, and I deducted from those videos that my hands most likely are a bit larger.

Now, what were Slick's impressions of the controllers? I somehow think his hands are a bit larger than yours, so his experiences might differ from yours...

 

Slick also prefers the XB 360 controller to all else. He and I are really not big fans of the new XBOne controller.

[MzCatieB]

Slick also prefers the XB 360 controller to all else. He and I are really not big fans of the new XBOne controller.

i hope XBO released the controler for PC soon, i need to get one for the Game im working on  

[inubazh11]

 

CPU: AMD A8 5600K APU

NCIX: http://bit.ly/ImtWRK

 

Why is this linking a 4930k?

[the21robot]

Clicks cheap ddr3 1600mhz ram from amazon*

damn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[adelhied]

Linus the links for the 450 apu build are all for the performance build. just telling.

[AnotherTechGuy]

.

[ultimatemythbuster]

Obviously so he can change them to the topic content later without some ass taking the posts

But with him being an admin, he could always just delete the post and replace it.  I guess it's more polite to use a placeholder than to have to delete someones post.

[skywake]

There's also another option on the table that people fail to mention all the time in these sort of things. The Wii U. Smack bang in the middle between "last-gen" and "next-gen"/"this-gen" in terms of price and visual quality. Then instead of a kinect camera you basically get an integrated NVidia-Shield like off-TV experience out of the box. Something available on PC and PS4 but as an optional extra that adds to the cost significantly. It does lack third party support but it makes up for it by having some of the most unique and interesting first party content. The day the XBOne launched with bugger all in terms of new and exclusive content the Wii U got Super Mario 3D World. A game that on aggregate review sites is either second or third for this year behind GTA V and The Last of Us.

So personally I think the best option is to start with a gaming PC somewhere between the two listed. Then look at maybe building a low-end and very, very small form factor machine for streaming to your TV via SteamOS when that hits. Maybe even something along the lines of Intel's NUC or even just some components you can scavenge together into something that works. Then once you've done that grab a Wii U to cover you for playing small indie stuff and old classics on your couch with the TV off and all of the Party games. Then you've covered basically the whole spectrum of gaming experiences possible this generation.

 

Then you have to start to consider the environment the box would sit in. You had it on a desk on a 24" 60hz (or 120hz?) monitor, its suppose to be under a 52" tv (at whatever hz) in your living room, and yes you can make a small factor pc that maybe is only 3 times as ginormous by comparison to even the xbox one, but you wont be able to do shit on it if you stick it in your living room (assuming you can even control it properly). In addition, chances are the people in question have LAPTOPS or very crappy PCs with crappy monitors

 

Actually if you go with an ITX low-profile case you can get something that sits between the PS4 and XBOne in terms of size and be only marginally less powerful than the entry level machine at about the same price. So just throwing that out there. Kinda makes this point moot.

[Lukiose]

-super long post that i bothered to read lol-

There's so many things that can be cleared up with this post i hope i can clarify for you point by point.

 

My personal problem with the comparison in the video is that you're comparing BF4, Call of Duty and so on which are more akin to PC-centric games gone to consoles, and like games like Crysis are in the model "hey we made a game, go buy a graphics card" rather then serving the consumer platform. While you may have no issue with putting a better graphics card in, this is not necesarily an option for everyone and some consumers may not even WANT to subscribe to the model of handling performance problems themselves though hardware. From my perspective, if all you're going to look at is cases like BF4 which are well-known "hardware melters," of course you're going to get better results in a market where you can spend 10,000 on hardware if you wanted.

When you look at other games and other types of games and start to take into account the number of games you have access, the types of games you have access to and the communities in those games, the consoles actually look very promising.

Fair enough, but if that's the case then you're not the crowd we are targeting.

 

 

Then you have to start to consider the environment the box would sit in. You had it on a desk on a 24" 60hz (or 120hz?) monitor, its suppose to be under a 52" tv (at whatever hz) in your living room, and yes you can make a small factor pc that maybe is only 3 times as ginormous by comparison to even the xbox one, but you wont be able to do shit on it if you stick it in your living room (assuming you can even control it properly). In addition, chances are the people in question have LAPTOPS or very crappy PCs with crappy monitors, so which would you rather have:

• PC, kind of does what console does, running on a 17-19" (which probably also means crappy colors and such)
• console, doesn't quite do every productivity thing (but your not very PC-centric when it comes to productivity anyway; otherwise you would already have a beefy PC) and runs your games on your 52" nice looking TV.

And yes I know there's the whole steam box thing; but it's not here yet so it's all a bunch of hot steam until it comes to fruition. And lets face it the steam box is something new, this whole "pc master race" argument has been with us for ages.

1) For your image of a 'small factor' pc, there are many custom rigs made by boutique dealers which are of similar/marginally larger size than a glorious xbox one [which by the way, can't stand up apparently?] One of such i linked above is the http://www.digitalstormonline.com/bolt.asp which is priced fairly well considering the manhours and design, plus hardware put into it.

 

2) You can plug your PC into your TV in case you haven't realised, so if you have a small form factor PC, you CAN use it with your TV. [And to be honest, many PC users don't use their TV for gaming, 1080p on 52" is like 480p/720p on 24", the pixel density is obviously not there. Giving you a non-HD feel.

 

 

Then there's also the issue with how the argument is formulated. If you want to compare hardware and claim that X is better then Y because of hardware performance then why do claims such as "a mac has a better gaming experience then a console" and "my phone has a better gaming experience then a 360" or "reasonably powerful handheld Z has better gaming experience then living room 52" tv based console Q" not hold any water. If "hardware performance" was really the only point for comparison, they should have been true, but they are not. So we can only deduce "hardware performance" is at best only ONE point of comparison among many, and not the deciding factor. If anything hardware accessibility and form factor are more important these days (even among the pc master race crowd).

Finally, I own a reasonably powerful PC and have plenty of games on it (planetary annihilation, anno 2070, witcher 2) which I run on absolute max settings, I just want to say I couldn't care less for the games shown in the comparison. Not every person on earth cares for FPS bro-shooters and that no-story-momentum pretty looking grindfest that is the Assassin Creed franchise. Any company now could make a game that can only run on LOW settings even on the best hardware on the market, that doesn't mean it's "relevant" when making a decision on what you want to get or that said game should be used as a "measuring stick" (imagine for a second if The Last of Us was the first game of the last generation). Lets say you're into fighters, jrpgs, rpgs, etc.... well PC is a wasteland when it comes to them, has at best ports, with a few exceptions virtually no communities (since people who care play it on the platform it was initially sold to, 1-3 years earlier!) and performance most of the time is a non-issue.

1) Because the three points you pointed out, are really unrealistic to be honest. A phone has a better gaming experience than a console on a big TV, seriously? I mean, if you actually gave a more controversial scenario it would actually 'hold some water'.

 

Hardware performance was never the sole point of comparison though, many factors such as software optimizations and control ergonomics all play a role, but when what you're seeing on the screen is based directly off hardware and software[We can do nothing about software], hardware is where the comparison goes. Your game can play great, but when what you see is a bunch of cluttered poop[Quantum of Solace camera angles/lighting anyone?...] that is where hardware kicks in[Which you CAN change] in order to provide yourself a better experience. Nonetheless, certain platforms do have special software optimizations such as the consoles, this can be easily seen in this particular video where the PS4 actually has really good graphical performance rivaling that of the entry-level PC, despite having poorer hardware! 

 

2) Fair enough, definitely true, ↳'but if that's the case then you're not the crowd/they are not the crowd we are targeting.'

 

 

There also this "better value in the long run" argument floating in your video comments. I'll just answer it very briefly, since you dont point it out yourself. Problem 1: You got 1000 games though steam, great! Do you play all of them? Nope. If you only got 2-3 tiltes and you played them months would that not have been better? When you look at it like that, availability is more important, and consoles have greater availability in general (most things come console first). But lets say you're the "lots of games" gamer, the PS+ subscribition gives you free games with out even going though sales (so you're paying a fixed budget and getting plenty of games; instead of potentially spending hundreds on games you'll never pay because of buyer hype). If you live somewhere like japan PS+ will actually net you even more stuff, from my understanding. That said, on the xbox one side, you're getting completely ripped off and also congratulations on having to deal with double dipping; so yes if its xbox one or PC, steam wins. Additionally if like me you like RTS and Strategy games (grand strategy etc) you're better off on PC too, at least for the moment.

Here's where your argument gets a little bit too lopsided, PC gamers do play whatever games Consoles gamers play - except we can obtain them on Steam for like $5 to $10 each rather than $60, plus subscription.

If you're not willing to wait for sales which happen rather damn frequently [You never have to if you actually purchase several at each], games are always available! There are a million more PC-only games than you can scream 'Console Exclusives!!!!!' that people don't realise, and if you want any game, anytime > Buy it off steam/origin/amazon/whatever!

 

Let's just assume you build an entry level PC, that's 1 to 3 games free already from it, giving you an effective 3 months PS+ subscription priveleges. At every sale, you purchase 5 games at $10 each, down from a usual price of $60, you effectively saved $250 or the equivalent for 4.16 months of PS+ subscriptions - get where i'm going here? Purchasing on buyer hype is a problem of all platforms so it is irrelevant.

 

For Japan, definitely true! That is exactly why consoles still reign supreme there, Sony is Japanese, Nintendo is Japanese, even Samsung is just down the block [ok totally irrelevant here lol], coupled with their limiting factors such as small living space in cities, plus the incentives such as cool events and stuff, definitely - buy a console there.

 

As for the general gist of this 'better value in the long run', it really depends - but personally i have to say Consoles do win here, PC will give you better value now, and every other time for the next 8(?) years due to their power and versatility, but, for purely games in this argument, Consoles will far outlive the 'entry level gaming pc' in the video due to optimizations, so if anybody is on a tight budget, is ok with spending $60 for a game every once and awhile, and wants the system to last - console.

 

That's about as fair an opinion i can give on the subject without bias, hope it helped to alter your p.o.v!

 

TL;DR: If you're on PC don't bother reading, you already know why you're here lol. 

[skywake]

For your image of a 'small factor' pc, there are many custom rigs made by boutique dealers which are of similar/marginally larger size than a glorious xbox one [which by the way, can't stand up apparently?] One of such i linked above is the http://www.digitalstormonline.com/bolt.asp which is priced fairly well considering the manhours and design, plus hardware put into it.

 

Wow, that thing looks fantastic. Someone needs to come up with a cheaper D.I.Y. version of this.

[Bentheguy]

The links are stuffed up!

[JupiteL]

To sums it up:

Console is for people who don't have much income (Kids) or for casual gamer.

[rentaspoon]

To sums it up:

Console is for people who don't have much income (Kids) or for casual gamer.

That's an outdated thought, its more likely the fact of size and ease of a console. Put a game in and play.

But as consoles get more complex, PCs will creep in.

[silencerbob]

I love my new PC.. That said it did cost $4500 (including monitor). It will last me 4+ years at 1440p resolution with any luck. I can sell it / salvage it for a more advanced htpc / steambox for the living room after those 4+ years.

I have the money to throw at this system so I do it. Call me a fool for spending all that cash? I don't regret it for a minute.

And YES there is of course a correlation between cost and image quality, as the videos clearly show. The high end PC isn't THAT much better than the cheaper alternatives and YES the consoles are greater bang for your buck.

I want the best and I'm willing to dish out the cash to get it.

[rentaspoon]

I had the wow factor with graphics switching back from console to pc a while back think it was something as stupid as the crispness of the graphics on BF3.

Last time I had that was the ps2 graphics compare to the ps1

[AMICLG]

There should have been a $600 without OS contender.

[Henry]

What splitter was used to capture the PS4 gameplay?

Also, what is a good cheap splitter that can do that?

[AMICLG]

What splitter was used to capture the PS4 gameplay?

Also, what is a good cheap splitter that can do that?

It wasn't really a splitter, it ripped the encryption out of the hdmi signal then sent it out to the capture device, they are like $500 or something.

[JD_And_Chocolatebear]

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/292Oz

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/292Oz/by_merchant/

Benchmarks: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/292Oz/benchmarks/

 

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor  ($109.99 @ Amazon) 

 

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-78LMT-USB3 Micro ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($39.99 @ Mac Mall) 

 

Memory: Kingston 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1333 Memory  ($44.99 @ Mac Mall) 

 

Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive  ($58.98 @ OutletPC) 

 

Video Card: MSI Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition 2GB Video Card  ($129.99 @ Newegg)

 

Case: Zalman ZM-T1 MicroATX Mini Tower Case  ($27.99 @ Mwave) 

 

Power Supply: EVGA 500W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply  ($29.99 @ Microcenter) 

 

Operating System: Microsoft Windows 8.1 - OEM (64-bit)  ($98.98 @ OutletPC) 

 

Keyboard: V7 Standard PS/2 Keyboard Wired Standard Keyboard  ($6.75 @ Amazon) 

 

Mouse: Toshiba PA3765U-1ETG Wired Optical Mouse  ($2.58 @ Microcenter) 

 

Total: $550.23

 

(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)

(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-11-26 14:10 EST-0500)

 

Excuse me linus? New user here but I am a frequent poster on /r/buildapc and I noticed with your low end PC build well it could be better.

 

• 6300 is better than the APU you have, along with having a AM3+ system allows for upgrades better than FM2
• Pretty decent motherboard with USB 3.0
• 8GBs of cheap RAM
• 1TB WD blue
• 7870Ghz with a good cooler.
• Cheap case. This would be the first thing I would upgrade.
• Cheap good power supply that will allow for some upgrades/OCing if you want
• Windows 8.1
• Cheap keyboard and mouse. 

Now then the price includes MIR but if you live by a microcenter instead of using MIR to get down to 550 you can instead get the 6300 and motherboard bundled together for -$60.98 off which would bring you down to around 540 without MIR. This build would preform better than your's with an APU and a 7770. With MIR and the microcenter bundle you could also get a much nicer case and better keyboard/mouse.

 

-JD_and_Chocolatebear

[Ruaille]

I would love to play both console's exclusive titles but I just can't justify forking out several hundred dollars on a console when I would much rather play the non-exclusive titles on a PC. I will be building a new PC for video editing and, though a gaming GPU isn't ideal, it's much less expensive than a workstation GPU and I will be considering the $300 I spend on my GPU the cost of my "console" - my much more powerful, versatile console.

 

Still, this is just me - other video editors will want a workstation GPU - which I just can't afford. Other gamers will want a console. My choice is based on my needs. None of the contenders are the best for everyone. However, I will say that the people who buy a console for inhouse multiplayer, just get a Wii U, it's so much fun!

[skywake]

However, I will say that the people who buy a console for inhouse multiplayer, just get a Wii U, it's so much fun!

 

Based on sales I'd say we're a dying breed but damn are you right. Mario Kart and Smash Bros are still in a class of their own in terms of local multi and the new 3D Mario game is supposedly in the same league. Then there's Nintendo Land which at its best is a more accessible and dilute version of what Goldeneye was back in the day. Those other guys have made watered down PC experiences, Nintendo has made a fantastic toy.