By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Unreal Engine 4 running on PC looks better than PS4

Vashyo on 24 February 2013

I'm just waiting on for some PS4 benchmarks before I start going all "LOLOLOL PS4/PC IS BETRS THXBAI!"



Around the Network
VGKing on 24 February 2013
CGI-Quality said:
VGKing said:
CGI-Quality said:
VGKing said:
The PC one was also running on like 3 high-end GPUs. Call me crazy or a fanboy but I'm OK with the PS4s graphics.

It was? O_O I was under the impression it was a single 680.

That GPU costs $500.....so my point still stands.
The Unreal Engine 4 PC demo was runnin on an unrealistic PC setup. The 1%.

How is it an unrealistic set-up?

How many people actually have $500 graphics cards? Does it even matter if a $1000+ PC can overpower a PS4? I mean that would be expected, but is it worth it?



TheShape31 on 24 February 2013

The PS4 tech demo was running on early hardware featuring either 2GB or 4GB of RAM. Everything from now on will look much better than that.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=155605&page=2#62



SOLIDSNAKE08 on 24 February 2013

when are pc gamers just going to enjoy their shiny set up and graphics and stop trying to make pc gaming relevant again? nobody cares about pc! why do you think people were so hyped for new consoles? because they dont give a shit about gaming on pc and never will!

Moderated,

-Mr Khan



Zekkyou on 25 February 2013

Wow, no way! Are you telling me that a tech demo running on a computer that's graphics card alone costs the same amount as the (estimated) PS4's price, looks better?!

In all seriousness though, I highly doubt the tech demo that was shown was fully optimized. The texture distribution on the PS4's screenshot is rather out of wack.



Around the Network
Munkeh111 on 25 February 2013
Flame said:
Munkeh111 said:
Flame said:
Munkeh111 said:

Yes, I understand overclocking, I am well aware that my 670 basically performs as a 680 due to the out of the box overclock put on it by Asus. I am also aware of patches that claim to "improve performace by 30%."

If you actually look at the power of the consoles versus what they produce against the output of a pc, there is a drastic difference, which is why PC games don't look that much better than console games, see the Witcher 2. I fully believe that the games made by Naughty Dog and SCE Santa Monica are going to look as good as anything on PC


Optimization does play its part but it's not something mystical.  It's not going to make the Wii U anywhere near as powerful as the PS4.  It's not going to make the PS4 as powerful as a PC with a high end card.

With current consoles, a lot of devs just scale back the resolution of textures, pixels (sub HD is much less than half of 1080p), lock it at 30 frames and hope you don't get horrible performance drops.  In the sense of optimization, it just looks like they're drastically reducing the load by lowering the quality to make it playable.  I can crank up Crysis to ultra/1080p and it'll look beautiful yet I get 5 to 7 frames per second.  Performance is a huge factor as well.

They did an awesome job with Witcher 2.  They basically redid the game, art style and all to make it fit and for it to still look and perform well.

The PS4 will be great for everyone whether people like Sony or not.  It's using a familiar architecture, off shelf parts and it's quite the upgrade from the PS3.  Sony did good.

It is going to cause the gap to shrink between the actual PC power and the console power. I don't know the exact numbers, but it will definitely be very significant

But really, how much can one notice?

Crysis 2 may actually be running on ultra 60fps, but does it look that much better than Uncharted 3?

Gap between actual power?  I'm not sure I follow.  If you mean the PS4 being x86 architecture then it would most likely eliminiate bad ports pc tends to get.  That actual gpu power can actually be utilized like it is supposed to and that would most likely widen the gap.

You'll definitely notice 720p/30fps compared to 1080p/60fps no matter what game you play.  And yes, it will look better.  High resolution means sharper textures.  AA makes for less jaggies so yeah It'd undoubtedly look better.  A lower frame rate also means a higher latency for input so 60fps is recommended for fast paced games.

Put crysis 2 on a 42" Tv with 2 different res. The lower 720p res will look much blurrier than the native 1080p game.

The difference is very noticable.  If it weren't, people wouldn't have been begging MS/Sony for a new console.

I mean the overall grapical capabilities of each system, I know it can't be quantified but if you pretend it can then what I said mostly makes sense

The gap is becoming noticable between the top end PS3 games and PC games now, but hasn't been for most of the generation. Obviously PC ports will look a bit better. I am not arguing that 720p looks as good as 1080p, but the overall look of the Uncharted games is close enough based on all the various tricks they can use to make 100% use of the hardware



fillet on 25 February 2013
TheShape31 said:
The PS4 tech demo was running on early hardware featuring either 2GB or 4GB of RAM. Everything from now on will look much better than that.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=155605&page=2#62


That's not really true or relevant to how good the game looks, the extra RAM is to make programming easier, as in make bigger spaces without loading and without needing to put the burden of getting those large game worlds to play seamlessly as possible without ridiculous loading.

It's not really related to the graphics to be honest in terms of visual quality.



TheShape31 on 25 February 2013
fillet said:
TheShape31 said:
The PS4 tech demo was running on early hardware featuring either 2GB or 4GB of RAM. Everything from now on will look much better than that.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=155605&page=2#62


That's not really true or relevant to how good the game looks, the extra RAM is to make programming easier, as in make bigger spaces without loading and without needing to put the burden of getting those large game worlds to play seamlessly as possible without ridiculous loading.

It's not really related to the graphics to be honest in terms of visual quality.

Oh, of course.  The PC demo could have been done with 256MB of RAM and it would've looked identical.  Got it!



ethomaz on 25 February 2013

The PS3 devkits used to shows the demos in conference are using only 1.5GB for graphics...



VGKing on 25 February 2013
CGI-Quality said:
VGKing said:
CGI-Quality said:

How is it an unrealistic set-up?

How many people actually have $500 graphics cards? Does it even matter if a $1000+ PC can overpower a PS4? I mean that would be expected, but is it worth it?

Depends on what you're using it for, but that is irrelevant in regards to what you said. It doesn't take three high-end GPUs to run that UE4 tech demo. It only took one.

Doesn't matter if its 3 or 1. The bottom line is that its still an unaffordable PC set-up.