Okay this isn't "PC Is better" this is just how much "Next Gen" are "PS4/XB1" consoles are?
I am really tired of explaining how underpowered those two consoles are, you as a console gamer should not buy these consoles for their graphics (actually don't buy anything for graphics thats just stupid), because they are not really much technically advanced compared to PS3 / Xbox 360, and they're much closer to WiiU than you think, the difference is that Wii U doesn't use PC architecture so thats why porting it on there is hard (not really hard compared to PS3 but why make an effort when its so easier to port it on PS4/XB1) , This is why games like Arkham Knight are "next gen exclusive" it has NOTHING to do with "dumbed down for last gen" thats the most idiotic statement ever , its just that they don't want to bother porting them on PS3/Xbox 360 because those are "Hard" to port on, think of it like this , PS3 /360 is like re-writing a text file made on Notepad to re-publish it using a typewriter on paper , however on PS4/XB1 those consoles are made by the same thing the PC was made of, so instead of using a typewriter and publishing it on paper, you can just "copy" the whole text file and "paste" it on both consoles, INSTANT PROFIT ! , you can also try to persuade previous console owners that "ohhh this is next gen!" and they will just buy into it easily, and now you have a bigger cash cow filled with bullshit to conter the mobile phone market
Sony and Microsoft DID NOT MAKE THESE to be "next gen" they made them to be "Easier to develop on" to attract indie developers and mobile developers, they made it PC architect to make games easily ported from Steam to their consoles, arguing about how much more powerful one is to the other and then showing P.R bullshit said by Sony and Microsoft as an argument is just fucking stupid , no offense, they want you to warrant a purchase but you're not getting "Next Gen graphics!!!" you're getting "Easier to develop on" consoles, now you go on and talk about AAAAAAAA (infinite As) game development you don't really understand that AAA is what they are trying to AVOID here, as they are trying to lose less and earn more this time around, they're not trying to push game development at all, and thanks to PR bullshit you are getting sucked into the hype of "next gen"
So make yourselves a favor and buy the consoles to play games not argue about graphics, and if you REALLY REAAAAAAAAAALLYY want to have "Dem graphix" (not worth it since most games that are released by big studios suck to be honest) then just get yourself a PC and enjoy wasting your money on crap like Watch Dogs.
Nope, I wont get Uncharted 4 like graphics on PC. No studio on the planet like Naughty Dog.
The holy grail of graphics Crytek will be finished in a few months so what will PC gamers boast with next? Skyrim mods?
Naughty Dog is so overrated! Yeah sure their games are great, but people tend to overrate their quality, especially graphic wise. I just started playing the 1st uncharted this weekend (yeah, i have the trilogy at home and never bothered to try it before). Although the game is good, it's nowhere near the expectations I had cuz of you sony fanboys overrating everything ND does. Graphically it's a bit of a letdown to be honest.
User was warned for this post - Viper.
I mean, Uncharted 1 didn't come out in 2007 or anything... Why not play through all 3 and TLoU (if you havn't yet), and then judge. Please, for the love of god, don't be that guy who tries to compare them to PC or PS4 games right now. This is 8 year old hardware, after all...
Well, this did kind of turn into a "PC is better..." thread, even if that wasn't your intent. Bro, let's be realistic for a second. Console specs never look great on paper, especially when you compare them to high end PC's. We are talking devices that need to sold at a fairly low price here, after all. The thing that consoles have always had going for them has been exclusive developer support from some of the greatest devs the industry has, a department that PC has always somewhat lacked in (at least in terms of AAA devs). You won't really find games from devs like ND, SSM, GG, Bungie, and EPIC. At least not their best works anyways.. Point is, it's not about how weak hardware seems; it's about how well a good developer can use it. These new consoles are definitely more powerful than the previous gen, than you may think. If games like Second Son and Shadow Fall haven't proved that, then I don't know what else to tell you. This gen is just getting started. Games aren't going to look that great this early on because we're still in the cross gen phase. Happens every new gen. Nothing new here. Just give it time and you will see.
"I am really tired of explaining how underpowered those two consoles are"
Was it the denial in your brain? These consoles are severely underpowered. My PC I built 3 years ago will run anything that comes out this gen (I paid 600 total for it. So 300 for a computer and 300 for the gaming aspect. I do so much more than game on it too). If the PS4 cannot even run 60 FPS 1080p properly how is it not underpowered? My next upgrade will have lower power consumption and be much more powerful than the current gen consoles. The next Radeon and GTX series cards are going to bring a good sized bump to power/power consumption. Give it another year or two and even the budget cards will destroy consoles. While the consoles still have another 5 years of their life left.
3 years ago, a GPU equivelant to the PS4's would have cost $400. That's a GPU equivelant to the PS4's too, not one with at least a 50% overhead in performance to compensate for being extremely inefficient in comparison.
Well Nvidia gpu these days tend to have a better power to watt ratio than AMD gpu's but are more expensive,
The GFLOPS per watt ratio for mid and high end is largely even between AMD and nVidia. nVidia's lower end GPU's though are easily more efficient per watt.
I'm going to ask that you all keep your quote trees trimmed down to 3 or less, please.
I'm sorry but I don't agree, your information won't give people who dont understand these things an accurate indication of these machines capabilities. You are in marketing so you know the concept of false advertising and those numbers ARE misleading. You cant map them to any aspect of the Wii Us hardware in comparison to the hardware within the new HD twins. You should use things that can actually be measured (GPU throughput, Usable RAM, CPU clockspeeds, Core counts and internal HDD capacity). These all show that the system lags behind anywhere from 3 to 5 times based on the components being compared and that is not "close" to the XBox One.
3 1.2GHz cores are not close to 8 1.7GHz cores
1GB of usable ram is not close to 5GB or faster DDR3
12.8GB/s of memory bandwidth is not close to 68GB/s of memory Bandwidth (ignoring the esRAM for both systems)
352GFLOPS is not close to 1300GFLOPs
Don't use NDAs as an excuse because hackers, devs and Digital Foundry has accurately predicted the performance levels of Wii U hardware even before it was released (Digital Foundry vs Nintendo E3 2011). Every 1st and 3rd party face off falls in line with LOGICAL conclusions derived from tear downs, power usage and modern GPU architectures.
Those numbers you came up with cannot be justified in any way, but the other charts posted in this thread can. Use those to easily explain to people. You wouldn't be able to market the Wii U (or any other system) with those numbers in any country with strict advertising laws. Sony got sued in South Africa for making baseless claims about the PS3s power back in the day, because it was misleading.
I have a background in marketing, i'm not in marketing(huge difference). I do know the concept of false advertising and in fact these numbers are not misleading at all. It still paints the correct image of the console capabilities. My suggestion is to go back and re-read what I wrote. I even had siad they aren't representative of the actual consoles. This whole conversation is about misinformation is your fault for not understanding something simple. I wouldn't say something that I haven't tested out in real life. I've probably sold more PS4s cause of it and I don't even work for retailers. Logic and truth does not exist in marketing, this is fact. Sony, MS, and Nintendo have all lied to all of us. Sony bolsters that 1080p 60fps claim for most of it's games yet most are 900p 60fps or 1080i 30fps. MS promised change and Nintendo promised third party. Marketing exist to throw people like you off of what these consoles will actually do.
If you want to sit here and argue specs go ahead becuase I have done my research right up to the NDAs which prevent me from seeing more. The specs that Digital foundry gave out are under NDA aswell. They were only allowed to reviel certain information. If they revieled more they could be sued by Nintendo for breaking NDA. Hackers are the least trustworthy source for information because it's almost always skewed by their own bias. Devs are under NDA, they can only say what they think it's close to.
Nope, I wont get Uncharted 4 like graphics on PC. No studio on the planet like Naughty Dog.
The holy grail of graphics Crytek will be finished in a few months so what will PC gamers boast with next? Skyrim mods?
The PC, right NOW, if more powerful than PS4. In two years, it will make PS4 look like a paper weight. This isn't like the old days where a console launches and has games that are serveral times better looking than the best looking PC game at the time. No, these consoles weren't even AT an equal level when they LAUNCHED.
As a Wii-U owner, I couldn't give two poops about horsepower but lets be real here. The PS4 and Xbone aren't that powerful.
The problem is, Drake's Uncharted 4 model isn't close to what it will look like in-game. A big difference between a pre-release cutscene and actual gameplay.
PC has been doing next-gen visuals since Syrim came out with mods almost three years ago, and it will only get better and better. Imagine what the next Elder Scrolls game would look like with mods on PC? Much better than anything the current consoles have to offer, almost guaranteed.
-pics
@ Bold: No way to know that for sure (especially when saying: "isn't close"). Nothing to base that on. We've yet to see a truly next generation game from Naughty Dog on PS4 (no, TLOU:R doesn't count).
As for Skyrim mods, I was once impressed, but these days, not so much (probably because I design games for a living now and dibble-dabble much more with computer generated stuff, espcially character models, something Skyrim falls short on.....even with mods).
And yes, there is nothing to base it on, but there is nothing to base on it actually being that good looking either. Without any gameplay footage, no one can truly say one way or another how good it will look.
Except, you know, the developers of the game coming out and saying it was completly in game...
I am yet to see graphical fidelity of this quality on any 'master race' hardware, not to mention this is running at 1080p and 60fps. If you tried to do this on a 400 or even a 600$ PC it would probably explode
as a game-developer i can only laugh at people who really believe UC4 is going to look like that. sorry to disappoint you, but a game with such details in gameplay is next to impossible to produce. this has nothing to do with the power of the console (which it don´t have anyway), but much more with the cost involved to produce such a quality throughout the whole game. sorry to disappoint you all, but UC4 will probalby look like UC3 meets Infamous SS. Not better and not worse.
I'd take the word of an actual top-tier programmer of the game rather than some random guy on forums,no offence
oh man. do you also believe the PR bullshit about the Cloud making the Xbox One 4x as powerful as it is? most likely not. But you truly believe this crap? *facepalm*.
There is a difference when a corporation that has tried to rob and screw over its customers in the past is harping about an unproven, new technology and when a good, proven developer with history of amazing graphical achievments, universal acclaim and good reputation is saying 'the trailer we showed was in-game
Except, you know, the developers of the game coming out and saying it was completly in game...
I hope you realize that a short cutscene rendered isn't really that impressive, unless that performance can be sustained during actual gameplay.
Like I said, until the game comes out no one knows what it will truly look like. See: Watch_dogs.
So now you're comparing a cross gen game that was showed when next gen specs werent even confirmed and made by a developer with a history of downgrading their games to Naughty Dogs next gen-only title?
If that was in game (as confirmed by the developers) than why wouldnt the graphics look the same during gameplay? They didnt pre render anything, they just did the motion capture and tweaked the camera angles.
