PS4 vs. PC side-by-side comparison in Unreal Engine 4

[PeterMerkin69]

The PC version smoked the PS4. It's not a subtle difference, watch the video again and pay attention this time. There's a lot more post-processing going on in the PC side, a lot more background detail, a lot more debris when the place came crashing down. It's smoother and crisp and beautiful; some of the scenery and texturing the PS4 side looked comparable to current-gen tech, particularly some brickwork toward the end. That was almost embarrassingly bad.

I'm still buying a PS4 and keeping my PC I compiled from hardware that only cost me $600 in 2008, but there's no denying that the PS4 side was inferior. Obviously inferior. And it is a little depressing.

 

[Professor Lupin Madblood]

Look I'm all too happy to prove how gimped consoles are but that is done with a proper benchmark and proper results, you do not do it with a barely launched engine on an unlaunched console with completely different renders and claim any of that has the slightest weight on anything... it just doesn't.

And I won't even go into the absurd notion that publicly recognizable chips in the PS4 make it inferior, just because you are ignorant and never heard of the stuff they put in Xbox and PS3 does not make it fairy magic or rocket science.

Could not agree more.

There was a great Eurogamer article on the subject, actually, and one of the points it mentioned - which I found to be very logical - was that, looking at the Elemental demo, when it was initially released, there was a gap between PS3 and console similar to what you see in the OP. Now, though (as in GDC 2013 now), a PS3 was capable of rendering/playing/whatever the whole thing at graphical levels which were comparable if not equal to PC standards.

Optimization, kids. It makes a difference. Let's not start bashing on the PS4 because the only footage from it comes from a not yet released, un-optimized development kit.

 

[Professor Lupin Madblood]

I don't really see what the huff is about.
To me both versions in the OPs Post look good. Yes, PC looks better, but to what degree?
Granted, if you are a graphics affectionado, and really want top-notch-graphics, you will want to go PC. But for me personally, Games passed the point where I am able to spot graphical improvements easily. It all looks good enough to enjoy in the games.

Also a worthwhile point. The graphical differences were noticeable, but not a whole lot, and probably not enough to make longtime console gamers switch to PC at the drop of a hat.

 

[babinro]

What's the point of a comparison?

PC's are upgradeable, PS4 is not.
Given enough money a PC will always be superior.

None of this really matters though assuming developers follow last generations trend of making the majority of cross-platform games console ports.

 

[DSK-]

I noticed quite a few differences between them, but the most negative was the FPS stuttering the PS4 had when the rubble was falling.

In truth, it doesn't really matter which looks better. If you saw both of them seperately the demos would still look good. I would say the same in regards to these side by side videos of Crysis and Crysis 3 (Possible spoilers for the Crysis 3 video btw):

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcKLjgWl7tM[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVcx_qnevEk[/youtube]

I liked the Xbox lighting of Crysis 1 over the PC version truth be told, and the Crysis 3 comparison isn't too bad for the consoles either. Again, the devil is in the details and again, if you saw them seperately they would still look impressive.

 

[DarkhoIlow]

I don't really get why there are such comparisons out there to be very honest with you. No consoles (ever) will manage to reach the power of a high end PC.

Long time PC gamers already have invested so much in their PC rig that is way over the current specs of the PS4 and I don't think they will invest in one except if maybe they are swimming in money and want to waste it.

Consoles are made for convenience for "lazy" people that don't want to bother with installing games and what not and just shove the disc in and play, which is understandable but not my style.

I am doing all of my tasks on my PC (games, surfing the net, getting the news, watching movies). Why would I bother with consoles? I can play all the games with my plug&play x360 controller if I really need to play certain games with that controller. Also I can just plug my PC to my TV if I really wanted that sort of "experience".

My 2 cents about this whole thing.

*flameshield on*

And I like my games to work without me digging through a pile of .ini files. I like my games to work without having to install new drivers and check for compatibility with my hardware every step of the way. I guess I'm just "lazy" like that.

That may be needed for people who really want to test the limit of how far the game can take it performance wise. Driver wise and compatibility I've never had to update every few weeks because it's not needed.

Once you purchase a medium high PC you won't even need to check compatibility since the current high end PC's will manage to run all the games on ultra (maxxed settings) for at least the next 2-3 years without any problem.

I haven't had the need to change the .ini files in a very long time. I'm installing drivers maybe once every few months and I've had literally no issues after installing my games.

I really don't see what you are complaining about.

 

[Laughing Man]

Consoles are single purpose machines. You play games on them and maybe watch Netflix. PCs are multi-purpose machines so of course they are going to be more expensive and especially if they can't make the cost of the console back with the price of games. It's like comparing a motorcycle to an average sedan, motorcycle is faster and way better experience but most people need some other vehicle for day to day life. Comparing a single purpose machine to a multi-purpose one, with very little else in common, is disingenuous at best.

Very astute observation...


...and utterly useless.

The comparison is valid in the context of the OPs post since the OP mentions only the graphical grunt of the demo and the price comparison at no point does he mention anything beyond these two and as such their is no point in responding along the lines. The purpose of my post was singular to debunk the clear bias that the demoing PC was some cheap as chips system that could tank the PS4 when in fact it was a close to high end expensive system, which would easily be twice the price of a PS4, and in all respects the PS4 did a pretty good job of keeping pace.

Just as a side note you could buy a PS4 at the expected £350 price mark and still build a barebones system to do ALL the other stuff and still have money left over on just the price of an I7 and a 680GTX alone, let alone the rest of was running underneath that PC demoing Unreal Engine 4

The debate is pointless the maxim has always been true. For the cost of a current gen console you simply CANNOT build a PC that will play games at a similar acceptable level of quality, it was true when the PS3 came out it is still just about true now and it looks like this will continue to be the case when the PS4 arrives.

Unless we know what was in the PC it's running on it';s not worth getting in a fuss over. I'll say that the particles and shadows were much more fanciful on the PC but I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess it's being demoed on a pretty high spec build. Outperforming the PS4 won't be too difficult or expensive though if you build your own PC, I'd say an FX 8450 and HD 7870 would probably be a prettier experience in most games.

It was running on a Core I7 system alongside a Nvidia 680GTX so that is one of the highest spec groups of CPU alongside one of the most powerful single core GPUs you can buy.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Lol. This thread again. One last time, we all know a console wont be as powerful as a PC. They are two different things. One can be updated, one cant. One you can build yourself to make as powerful as possible, the other comes boxed as is. Apart from mods, cant see the point in gaming on a pc. Look at the games released already on console and PC, Crysis 2 and 3 and Far Cry 3. All three have amazing graphics and playing on a ten year old console whos chip set were 2 years old when it was released. All i can say is Farcry 3 was great. Crysis 2 & 3 just a boring generic shooter - i know its the bench mark of high quality graphics on the PC, but its still a boring game.

I never understand why PC gamers get so bent out of shape over a console. Is it bitterness because your uber PC running only games like Crysis are being ported to lowly consoles? Yeah, i think thats it. We have been there before when GTA, Silent Hill, Resi Evil and Final Fantasy made its move from exclusive to PS to multi platform release. Skyrim looks great on the 360, ok it isnt all sparkly as a PC with a million mile crystal clear draw distance, but it still plays perfectly well. But console people play for the games not for the graphics, a shit game is still shit regardless of how amazing it looks...cough cough Crysis 2. End of the day consoles will soon be no more and PC will still be around, i dont even think there will be consoles after the PS4. Or they will be more digital where you hook your tv upto Cloud and play through that.

 

[mikecoulter]

I really saw little difference. Sure, there were a few frame rate drops, but it's a console that isn't even out yet. I'm sure there's some more optimisation to be done. A solid effort from both sides.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Not a bad showing by the PS4, to be honest.
The differences in quality are small, but noticeable (the shadow quality especially). Though I'd want to see how it handles dynamic game elements rather than a pre-arranged tech demo.

 

[Yuuki]

I don't know with PS4's hardware whether they were planning to make 60 fps @ 1080p the standard or not. If they're trying to push graphics that far then 30 fps will inevitable able, with drops down to 15-20fps every now and then. I don't know about console owners but on PC such incredibly low framerates are like watching a slide show and frustrating to play due to the sheer input lag caused by the frame delays.

For e.g. Call of Duty has always been running at 60 fps because the devs believe in keeping the visuals more or less the same through all the iterations, performance comes first. But BF3 runs at 30 fps because it is pushing the visuals. Could someone who plays BOTH games on consoles testify whether the difference in framerates between the two games impacts their gameplay/experience in any way?

 

[Gatx]

We're at the end of a console cycle so it's natural that gaming PCs out-perform the 360 and PS3...

But the PS4 isn't even out yet and it's already underpowered compared to a PC? And the Wii U is even further behind, power-wise.

I'm not really seeing any reason to invest in the next generation of consoles as opposed to just upgrading my PC.

Does it matter if it's not "top of the line" tech? I mean yeah technically if you buy a console you're investing in new technology, but the real reason to buy a console isn't because you want a powerful machine, you want to play games. At this point, there are still be console exclusives so it's worth it to have one if you really want to play... I dunno, the newest Halo, Uncharted, or one of those genres that are only barely represented on the PC like JRPG, fighting, or those combo heavy hack and slashes.

 

[sneakypenguin]

I don't know with PS4's hardware whether they were planning to make 60 fps @ 1080p the standard or not. If they're trying to push graphics that far then 30 fps will inevitable able, with drops down to 15-20fps every now and then. I don't know about console owners but on PC such incredibly low framerates are like watching a slide show and frustrating to play due to the sheer input lag caused by the frame delays.

For e.g. Call of Duty has always been running at 60 fps because the devs believe in keeping the visuals more or less the same through all the iterations, performance comes first. But BF3 runs at 30 fps because it is pushing the visuals. Could someone who plays BOTH games on consoles testify whether the difference in framerates between the two games impacts their gameplay/experience in any way?

I can tell the difference big time, but then i'm one of those freaks who can tell when a game dips even a few frames below 60.

 

[V8 Ninja]

After watching that video, I have decided that I truly do not care about graphics anymore. I mean, look at that! I would be happy with either of those two demos being an actual game! I can't see many people arguing against that.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

I'm getting pretty fucking sick of this whole TEH SPECS ZOMG TEH SPECS shit.

First, there was no serious difference. A bit of a particle here, a shadow there, nothing that would make me buy one over the other. And that's not even taking into account the compression of YouTube.

Second, I'll note graphics card they were using costs 500 dollars BY ITSELF. That's without any other parts of the computer. The current prediction for the PS4 is to be from 400ish to 500ish and that includes EVERYTHING apart from a screen.

I really don't want to start another flamewar over console vs PC, but this video really shouldn't be drawing this much attention.

 

[ResonanceSD]

Fewer particles and stunted lighting effects? Come on Sony, You're meant to be bringing out NEW hardware.

 

[carlh267]

For me, graphics have never been as important as gameplay. Sure, the PC version is obviously better, because consoles use mid-lower end tech so the average consumer can afford one. It was obvious that the PS4 was going to be less powerful than the latest and greatest pc, because it wasn't trying to compete with the latest and greatest pc, at least as far as hardware is concerned.

The games are the most important part of a console's worth and longevity, so I suggest that we focus on those instead of a tech demo comparison when the PS4 hasn't even been released. Considering most developers (including indie devs) are showering Sony with nothing but praise at the moment, I remain cautiously interested about picking one up.

 

[Something Amyss]

immersion.

Using that word wrong. It adds "realism," which is not the same thing. Which also doesn't really answer why I'd want it. It's also not describing anything that would have changed the way I perceived the screens I was talking about, so I'm guessing this wasn't the right thing to promote to me anyway.

On the PC you don't have to have it if you don't want.

So I can disable something I don't want in the first place, and that's....A plus?

I have to ask OP, did you exclude this info to rally the attack against the consoles, the info is freely out there and like I said took me less than 30 seconds to find?

This is a console wars thread. Not sure what you expected, but....

Still, the core message is the same. PCs will get shinier stuff, and we should care because reasons.

 

[Waffle_Man]

Oh look shiny. Now excuse me while I go back to playing games from last decade.

 

[NWJ94]

This is new info? Kinda figured everyone already knew this outside of blind fanboys who were convinced that Sony was packaging a super computer for $500.

Most normal gamers are interested in the exclusives not the tech.