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

Forums - Gaming - Digital Foundry: Unreal Engine 4 Demo - PS4 vs. PC (Update)

JEMC on 03 April 2013

So the conclusion is that while the PS4 demo is different from the PC demo, it is inferior. But given that they are still working on the dev tools they could make it look better... although still not to reach the level of the PC card.

Yes, the GTX 680 is the top dog (Titan aside), but given that it outperforms the PS4, maybe the GTX670 or the HD7950 offer the same performance than the PS4, and both cards can be found for less than 350 €, probably cheaper than what the PS4 will be.

And don't forget that the console will launch at the end of the year, when AMD and Nvidia expect to launch their new cards. And new cards bring better performance, so the GTX 680 will no longer be the top card... but what's important here is that we will be able to get the performance from the GTX670/HD7950 from lower cards like the GTX760Ti/HD8870, which won't cost more than 300 €, meaning that it's no longer a performance that "only the PC enthusiasts can get".

But PS4 will "out-power most PCs for years to come"...



Please excuse my bad English.

Former gaming PC: i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Current gaming PC: R5-7600, 32GB RAM 6000MT/s (CL30) and a RX 9060XT 16GB

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

Around the Network
SENTIENT6 on 03 April 2013
walsufnir said:
SENTIENT6 said:
walsufnir said:
SENTIENT6 said:
walsufnir said:
SENTIENT6 said:
walsufnir said:
SENTIENT6 said:
Yeah the problem is a PC that will run it at those settings barely anyone has and won't for awhile..........Not many PC's in the wild have 8 core CPU's 8 GB GDDR5 ram, fast GPU. Not to mention the optimization they can do with a console being a closed system. All this PC talk is moronic and I'm a PC gamer , when Ps4 first launches it will look on par with the best PC's for awhile, a PC with near the same specs is a lot less efficient due to drivers, OS, other processes running. games will look great who cares if you want to spend a lot of money on a PC so it will look a little better?

CPU? Really? 8 cores of really slow CPUs (yes, I know, it's APU, but still). 8 GB GDDR5 is nice but there have to be studies on how this turns out to be a real advantage. And again this OS-things... It reads like what has been posted since many weeks and still sounds like parroting.

That's your argument? It sounds like parroting? People say it because it's true, amazing concept.  Windows overhead, drivers, PC's a massively way less efficient, it's why 7 year old hardware can still look good, a 7 year old PC with the same specs would struggle to run minecraft. Again facts are facts.

BSD also has overhead, drivers is true but even with PCs you can code to metal.

Also: http://www.minecraftwiki.net/wiki/Hardware_requirements

Yes, facts are facts. But wrong facts are still wrong.

LMAO don;t know sarcasm? Minecraft was an exaggeration.

 

Explain whya  PC with the same epcs as 360 and PS3 cannot run games like consoles can? PC needs a lot more brute strength, I can point you to an article where ID's John Carmack talks about the ptifalls of PC developemtn. Facts are facts. A PC requires much mroe hardware to run games at the same settings as console. It just so happens over tiem PC will have much better hardware.


Yes, they have overhead, nothing to argue this off. Problem is that by now there is hardware available which is better than nextgen, it will be even cheaper when nextgen is out, especially given that AMD sells their APU-stuff also for everyone and the APU-stuff also has a roadmap that shows how powerful they will be in the next years.

I don't say that PC-gaming is better, i quit PC-gaming for years now but the problem is that pc-hardware got exponentially better over last years (remember the nvidia-slide? the scale was logarithmic). There will be hardly an advantage of consoles this time over PC, not like the past 2 gens. This doesn't mean we won't see amazing graphics, of course, NextBox and PS3 will have good graphics, for sure. Just not as good as PC, as always.(And yes, there will be PCs with worse graphics and yes, I know that there isn't ONE gaming-PC with fixed hardware, other than consoles).

The number of People who will own Pc's that will run games better then PS4 in it's first year will be miniscule. There will be an advantage same as there always is at launch. There are always better PC's around it costs money most people simply do not have said PC's.

I somehow want to agree with you but I think we should wait for multi-plat-titles and df-analysis of these games - to me forecasting this gen is too unstable.


The other issue is how many developers will actually take advantage of PC hardware? This gen PC was plagued with most games being straight ports..... As a PC gamer this was always disappointing.



walsufnir on 03 April 2013
JEMC said:

So the conclusion is that while the PS4 demo is different from the PC demo, it is inferior. But given that they are still working on the dev tools they could make it look better... although still not to reach the level of the PC card.

Yes, the GTX 680 is the top dog (Titan aside), but given that it outperforms the PS4, maybe the GTX670 or the HD7950 offer the same performance than the PS4, and both cards can be found for less than 350 €, probably cheaper than what the PS4 will be.

And don't forget that the console will launch at the end of the year, when AMD and Nvidia expect to launch their new cards. And new cards bring better performance, so the GTX 680 will no longer be the top card... but what's important here is that we will be able to get the performance from the GTX670/HD7950 from lower cards like the GTX760Ti/HD8870, which won't cost more than 300 €, meaning that it's no longer a performance that "only the PC enthusiasts can get".

But PS4 will "out-power most PCs for years to come"...


This is why I doubt that the Infiltrator has anything to do with PS4, especially at this kind of detail. The hardware Infiltrator ran on is a lot better than PS4. Perhaps with tricks it can match these graphics so ppl can't really see the difference and keep in mind that Epic wants to sell their engine for next-gen so they won't implement more things that won't be able to do on next-gen.



walsufnir on 03 April 2013
SENTIENT6 said:
walsufnir said:
SENTIENT6 said:
walsufnir said:
SENTIENT6 said:
walsufnir said:
SENTIENT6 said:
walsufnir said:
SENTIENT6 said:
Yeah the problem is a PC that will run it at those settings barely anyone has and won't for awhile..........Not many PC's in the wild have 8 core CPU's 8 GB GDDR5 ram, fast GPU. Not to mention the optimization they can do with a console being a closed system. All this PC talk is moronic and I'm a PC gamer , when Ps4 first launches it will look on par with the best PC's for awhile, a PC with near the same specs is a lot less efficient due to drivers, OS, other processes running. games will look great who cares if you want to spend a lot of money on a PC so it will look a little better?

CPU? Really? 8 cores of really slow CPUs (yes, I know, it's APU, but still). 8 GB GDDR5 is nice but there have to be studies on how this turns out to be a real advantage. And again this OS-things... It reads like what has been posted since many weeks and still sounds like parroting.

That's your argument? It sounds like parroting? People say it because it's true, amazing concept.  Windows overhead, drivers, PC's a massively way less efficient, it's why 7 year old hardware can still look good, a 7 year old PC with the same specs would struggle to run minecraft. Again facts are facts.

BSD also has overhead, drivers is true but even with PCs you can code to metal.

Also: http://www.minecraftwiki.net/wiki/Hardware_requirements

Yes, facts are facts. But wrong facts are still wrong.

LMAO don;t know sarcasm? Minecraft was an exaggeration.

 

Explain whya  PC with the same epcs as 360 and PS3 cannot run games like consoles can? PC needs a lot more brute strength, I can point you to an article where ID's John Carmack talks about the ptifalls of PC developemtn. Facts are facts. A PC requires much mroe hardware to run games at the same settings as console. It just so happens over tiem PC will have much better hardware.


Yes, they have overhead, nothing to argue this off. Problem is that by now there is hardware available which is better than nextgen, it will be even cheaper when nextgen is out, especially given that AMD sells their APU-stuff also for everyone and the APU-stuff also has a roadmap that shows how powerful they will be in the next years.

I don't say that PC-gaming is better, i quit PC-gaming for years now but the problem is that pc-hardware got exponentially better over last years (remember the nvidia-slide? the scale was logarithmic). There will be hardly an advantage of consoles this time over PC, not like the past 2 gens. This doesn't mean we won't see amazing graphics, of course, NextBox and PS3 will have good graphics, for sure. Just not as good as PC, as always.(And yes, there will be PCs with worse graphics and yes, I know that there isn't ONE gaming-PC with fixed hardware, other than consoles).

The number of People who will own Pc's that will run games better then PS4 in it's first year will be miniscule. There will be an advantage same as there always is at launch. There are always better PC's around it costs money most people simply do not have said PC's.

I somehow want to agree with you but I think we should wait for multi-plat-titles and df-analysis of these games - to me forecasting this gen is too unstable.


The other issue is how many developers will actually take advantage of PC hardware? This gen PC was plagued with most games being straight ports..... As a PC gamer this was always disappointing.

Exactly and it's really a sad thing but as console-games seem to make more money... a vicious circle. PC-gamers don't buy games or wait until they have really low prices so publishers don't get much money off it so no effort for ports. PC-gamers refuse to buy lousy console-ports...



NobleTeam360 on 03 April 2013

Why are people comparing the PC to the PS4?



Around the Network
JEMC on 03 April 2013
walsufnir said:
JEMC said:

So the conclusion is that while the PS4 demo is different from the PC demo, it is inferior. But given that they are still working on the dev tools they could make it look better... although still not to reach the level of the PC card.

Yes, the GTX 680 is the top dog (Titan aside), but given that it outperforms the PS4, maybe the GTX670 or the HD7950 offer the same performance than the PS4, and both cards can be found for less than 350 €, probably cheaper than what the PS4 will be.

And don't forget that the console will launch at the end of the year, when AMD and Nvidia expect to launch their new cards. And new cards bring better performance, so the GTX 680 will no longer be the top card... but what's important here is that we will be able to get the performance from the GTX670/HD7950 from lower cards like the GTX760Ti/HD8870, which won't cost more than 300 €, meaning that it's no longer a performance that "only the PC enthusiasts can get".

But PS4 will "out-power most PCs for years to come"...


This is why I doubt that the Infiltrator has anything to do with PS4, especially at this kind of detail. The hardware Infiltrator ran on is a lot better than PS4. Perhaps with tricks it can match these graphics so ppl can't really see the difference and keep in mind that Epic wants to sell their engine for next-gen so they won't implement more things that won't be able to do on next-gen.

Are you saying that Epic will cap their own engine to not make the consoles look bad compared to PC?

@NobleTeam360: We do it because the article also does it.



Please excuse my bad English.

Former gaming PC: i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Current gaming PC: R5-7600, 32GB RAM 6000MT/s (CL30) and a RX 9060XT 16GB

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

walsufnir on 03 April 2013
NobleTeam360 said:
Why are people comparing the PC to the PS4?


Because it's possible ;) Really, if it is possible why should we not make it? Yes, PC is better, that's the usual outcome, but still technically interesting.



NobleTeam360 on 03 April 2013
walsufnir said:
NobleTeam360 said:
Why are people comparing the PC to the PS4?


Because it's possible ;) Really, if it is possible why should we not make it? Yes, PC is better, that's the usual outcome, but still technically interesting.


Yeah I get that. 



walsufnir on 03 April 2013
JEMC said:
walsufnir said:
JEMC said:

So the conclusion is that while the PS4 demo is different from the PC demo, it is inferior. But given that they are still working on the dev tools they could make it look better... although still not to reach the level of the PC card.

Yes, the GTX 680 is the top dog (Titan aside), but given that it outperforms the PS4, maybe the GTX670 or the HD7950 offer the same performance than the PS4, and both cards can be found for less than 350 €, probably cheaper than what the PS4 will be.

And don't forget that the console will launch at the end of the year, when AMD and Nvidia expect to launch their new cards. And new cards bring better performance, so the GTX 680 will no longer be the top card... but what's important here is that we will be able to get the performance from the GTX670/HD7950 from lower cards like the GTX760Ti/HD8870, which won't cost more than 300 €, meaning that it's no longer a performance that "only the PC enthusiasts can get".

But PS4 will "out-power most PCs for years to come"...


This is why I doubt that the Infiltrator has anything to do with PS4, especially at this kind of detail. The hardware Infiltrator ran on is a lot better than PS4. Perhaps with tricks it can match these graphics so ppl can't really see the difference and keep in mind that Epic wants to sell their engine for next-gen so they won't implement more things that won't be able to do on next-gen.

Are you saying that Epic will cap their own engine to not make the consoles look bad compared to PC?

@NobleTeam360: We do it because the article also does it.

No I think they will somehow stop at a certain point developing more stuff for the engine as these are not computable. Look, the engine is to run even on mobile devices - it is of no need if the latest iteration of features to the engine is only available to less than 1% of all types of hardware the engine is for. It is like this gen: Engines did evolve at the pace of console-hardware which means, well, not very much. With nextgen knocking on the door, suddenly we see graphics which we didn't imagine possible. There wasn't really a stating curve with better engines, there is by now a big leap also on PC.



JEMC on 03 April 2013

Ok, I get what you mean.



Please excuse my bad English.

Former gaming PC: i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Current gaming PC: R5-7600, 32GB RAM 6000MT/s (CL30) and a RX 9060XT 16GB

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.