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

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

Captain_Tom on 01 March 2013
fillet said:
AnthonyW86 said:
fillet said:
TheShape31 said:
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!

What are you talking about? Where does the 256MB come from, obviously there comes a point where the amount of system RAM makes producing certain graphical qualities impossible, but those limits aren't approached at 2GB/4GB. When you're talking about a system that has that much ram Vs say 8GB, visual quality can be maintained completely, things that would suffer would be needing smaller gaps between load times.

I really don't think there was any need for your comment as it's clearly not what I was implying, and that I was talking within the context of dev kits having 2GB/4GB of RAM. Obviously 256MB is 1/8th of 2GB and that would cause serious problems.

Crysis 3... oh and that's just video memory we're talking about here.


Yes but crysis 3 runs at sub 20fps on the latest videon cards on "high" at 1080p. A completely unreasonable comparison. Those are also peak memory usage, they could easily be tweaked if an actual sinlge target platform was available. I'm a supporter of the PS4 so far and not here to make it look bad at all. I'm simply saying that the dev kits having 2GB/4GB of RAM does not mean anything graphically, it means that the when dev kits with 8GB are used, then games will be able to have improved design and maybe more open world type stuff going on, it's not going to make "teh graphix" look better, it's going to make it easier to code for and better actual games hopefully, that is a better thing than graphics, it could possibly cut down development costs even.


What are you smoking?  My video card costs $380 and it can run Crysis 3 in Ultra with x4 MSAA at 60 FPS  (x8 MSAA is still 35+ but the extra AA doesn't help).    A $180 7850 2GB  (What is essentially in the PS4) can run my settings at 30 FPS.   Heck a $100 7750 could probbaly run it on high in 1080p with only FXAA on at  playable levels.  

 

You ignorant people really don't get how affordable PC's are now do you?



Around the Network
fillet on 11 March 2013
Captain_Tom said:
fillet said:
AnthonyW86 said:
fillet said:
TheShape31 said:
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!

What are you talking about? Where does the 256MB come from, obviously there comes a point where the amount of system RAM makes producing certain graphical qualities impossible, but those limits aren't approached at 2GB/4GB. When you're talking about a system that has that much ram Vs say 8GB, visual quality can be maintained completely, things that would suffer would be needing smaller gaps between load times.

I really don't think there was any need for your comment as it's clearly not what I was implying, and that I was talking within the context of dev kits having 2GB/4GB of RAM. Obviously 256MB is 1/8th of 2GB and that would cause serious problems.

Crysis 3... oh and that's just video memory we're talking about here.


Yes but crysis 3 runs at sub 20fps on the latest videon cards on "high" at 1080p. A completely unreasonable comparison. Those are also peak memory usage, they could easily be tweaked if an actual sinlge target platform was available. I'm a supporter of the PS4 so far and not here to make it look bad at all. I'm simply saying that the dev kits having 2GB/4GB of RAM does not mean anything graphically, it means that the when dev kits with 8GB are used, then games will be able to have improved design and maybe more open world type stuff going on, it's not going to make "teh graphix" look better, it's going to make it easier to code for and better actual games hopefully, that is a better thing than graphics, it could possibly cut down development costs even.


What are you smoking?  My video card costs $380 and it can run Crysis 3 in Ultra with x4 MSAA at 60 FPS  (x8 MSAA is still 35+ but the extra AA doesn't help).    A $180 7850 2GB  (What is essentially in the PS4) can run my settings at 30 FPS.   Heck a $100 7750 could probbaly run it on high in 1080p with only FXAA on at  playable levels.  

 

You ignorant people really don't get how affordable PC's are now do you?


Crysis 3 in Ultra with x4 MSAA at 60 FPS on a $380 graphics card?

...I'm guessing you have a 7950 as a 7970 costs £300 in the UK and I'm guessing about $420-$450 in the US.

That being the case, you're outright wrong I'm afraid and must be just guessing the frame rate. There's no way a 7950 or even a 7970 can run Crysis 3 on Ultra at 1920x1200 with 4x MSAA at 60fps

To get the most out of Crysis 3 you need a minimum of a 7970 or GTX 680 and preferably a Geforce TITAN if you want to enable a decent amount of AA, a GTX 680 will do 60fps with no AA, add on AA and you're talking 40-45fps, add on some higher end AA and you can take that average down to 30fps.

 

For the record I have a 7950 myself, sold my 6950 with unlocked shaders and took the free games promo with the 7950 to make the upgrade effectively free after selling the games, I've been buying graphics cards since the Videologic PowerVR Apocalypse 3DX...oooh about 15 years ago.

I suppose having gone from that to Voodoo 2, Geforce 2 MX400, Geforce 4 Ti4200, Geforce 5 5900, ATI Radeon 9700, Geforce 6800GT, Geforce 7800GTX, Geforce 8800GTX, Geforce 285 GTX, AMD Radeon 6950, AMD Radeon 7950 and into graphics cards for 12 generations or so makes me ignorant?

Fair enough :)



Kasz216 on 11 March 2013
CGI-Quality said:
Navane said:
Proclus said:
err.. duh? You expected Epic Games to show of UE4 on pc with specs not able to fully show of the engine features?


True, but it was supposed to be running on a single GTX 680. The PS4 with its 8GB of GDDR5 RAM is supposed be as powerful, if not more.

It's my  understanding that the 680, on its own, clears the entirety of the PlayStation 4. I think some of you are either A. setting yourselves up for disappointment or B. setting the PS4 up to be put down later. Either way, the RAM isn't enough to carry any next gen console over a 680. That is why UE4 will always be technically better on PC.

I'd agree... which confuses me, because there is even one or two people on here who claim to be developers who think the PS4 will be doing some crazy stuff surpassing that... even though the majority i talk to seem to think that's crazy talk.

 

At the end of the day.  Consoles are just gaming focused computers.  With the modular nature of computers allowing you to build the computer you want... and consoles being spec specific you aren't ever going to surpass a PC.  You'll get specs that beat the mid range because they don't have to worry about other things but until i can put whatever GPU and ram i want into a playstation it won't beat crazy people like you and your insane PC specs.



Kasz216 on 11 March 2013
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?

Well A) Yes....

 

B) That is what's always missed on these arguements... the actual tech specs.  Crysis 2 looks better then Uncharted 3... but the difference in their technical achievments goes far beyond that.

And a lot of the time, the best looking stuff is actually really technically unimpressive.  Like amazing looking backgrounds, which are likely just 2D sprites with effects applied to them.


The God of War series is consistently some of the "best" looking games graphically... is it one of the best looking games technically?   Not really actually, the game is set up specifically limiting a lot of stuff specifically to look nice.


Whether that's a good or a bad thing is really based on WHAT you want out of graphics and what you find interesting.

 

To use a really biased exapme to drive home the point.. a Picaso is far technically inferor to a 1980's photo... most people would rather look at the picaso though.



nightsurge on 11 March 2013

I'm confused by the OP. The PS4 screenshot looks way better than the PC screenshot.... ?



Around the Network
Chrizum on 11 March 2013

I prefer the PS4 shot.

EDIT: damn, mixed them up. PC shot is definitely better. PS4 shot looks sharper though.



Mazty on 11 March 2013
Proclus said:
Navane said:
Proclus said:
err.. duh? You expected Epic Games to show of UE4 on pc with specs not able to fully show of the engine features?


True, but it was supposed to be running on a single GTX 680. The PS4 with its 8GB of GDDR5 RAM is supposed be as powerful, if not more.


While impresssive RAM wise, it doesn't really make up for the fact that the system that ran UE4 had a faster/better GPU. and probably was boasting a top of the line i7 CPU.


That's just wrong. You are completely forgetting that the CPU & GPU are on one board whilst also having full access to the system, something Windows does not allow. Don't get me wrong, I'm a PC gamer who loves mah grafix, but a 7850 with 8gb GDDR5, 8 core CPU and the optimisation available to consoles should be able to match a GTX 680 and I'm happy to admit that I previously had claimed it wasn't possible but Sony have gone batshit nuts with the specs which is great.



Mazty on 11 March 2013
CGI-Quality said:
nightsurge said:
I'm confused by the OP. The PS4 screenshot looks way better than the PC screenshot.... ?

Definitely not. Look again.

Dude sometimes it's not worth pointing out the obvious. I once got into an argument with some guy who claimed the DX9 & 10 versions of Crysis looked the same, even after I showed him the demos...Turns out he actually had a problem with his eyesight, as in an actual condition....People who aren't honest/can't see when graphics are obviously better in one shot than another aren't worth your time ;) 



TimCliveroller on 11 March 2013

What's the cheapest PC one can build (performing close to PS4) ?



Ex Graphics Whore.

nightsurge on 11 March 2013
CGI-Quality said:
nightsurge said:
I'm confused by the OP. The PS4 screenshot looks way better than the PC screenshot.... ?

Definitely not. Look again.

Look, either something is wrong and his images are not opening properly in my browser, or what I said is correct and you don't want to admit it.

The PS4 screenshot has vastly better lighting, way more detail and even has more stuff going on in the background with the fire/lava than the PC screenshot. The PC screenshot looks zoomed in, overly bright, and much blurrier.

So, is it an image/browser fail? Or am I missing something here?

PS4
PC

Maybe if these images were of the same resolutions we could do a much better comparison, but the PS4 is a smaller resolution and neither are even 1080p resolution screenshots! C'mon now!