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

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

You seem a bit unfamiliar with current gen gaming PC's. Firstly motherboard/PSU/SSD/HDD are irrelevant to performance.

That's not even true at all. Older motherboards don't have the proper slots for newer GPUs and memory sticks. So having an old motherboard is an automatic blow to your ability to have a high performance computer. If your power supply doesn't have enough wattage for your setup, your computer wont perform much at all. And overclocking your PC requires a higher wattage PSU. Also SSDs are quite noticeably way faster at data access than HDD which allows it to pull up information faster, and thus load anything installed on it faster. If you have to grab new data it can find it more quickly which can effect the performance of games that don't save everything in working memory. In fact Treyarch whined about the fact that they couldn't add too many more weapons to black ops 2 without slowing it down for exactly that reason.

You seem a bit unfamiliar with how computers work in general. Just because the GPU and the processor are the main workhorse parts doesn't make the other pieces "irrelevant."

I'll tell you what. You build a high end performance PC with a 145 watt PSU, and a Shuttle AK32 VIA KT266 mobo. And then I will admit that those pieces are irrelevant.

I'm a PC advocate and I'm glad you're defending them, but the man is right here. He's not suggesting not having them at all, or having wholly inappropriate components. What he's pointing out is the direct impact on games performance. Assuming a game runs "fine" on a particular hardware platform, using a slightly faster hard drive, juicier PSU or shiner mobo will have no impact on gaming performance. Whereas increasing GPU or CPU horsepower will, with RAM a distant 3rd.

And HDD performance has negligible impact on performance and frame rates. The best that can be expected from a hard drive upgrade is faster load times. Frame rates will be largely unaffected. This is because maps, objects and textures are loaded into the RAM of GFX cards and painted from there (sometimes "without loading screens" as some games proudly exclaim, but usually with). This is why maps are so small in games now and loading screens so numerous...the pathetic RAM of current consoles and the fact games are designed for the lowest-common denominator, means even with 2GB GFX cards on the PC, we still have maps and textures that take up no more than 256MB (because of the PS3) before a loading screen gives us that next lot.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

reduced for space

Words have meaning and he ought to learn them. Irrelevant: "Not connected with or relevant to something."

That was his stated argument against me and it was an undeniably false argument. I have shown all stated points to be connected to performance no matter how tangentially so. And to cite one; having a more powerful fan and a more powerful PSU can have a big effect on the performance of a computer if you know how to overclock it properly.

Also direct versus indirect is irrelevant. It's like when the ancient Romans left babies out in the wilderness to die because it would be dishonorable to directly kill the child, like doing it indirectly is so much better for the child. Indirectly giving your computer a proper level of performance has the exact same effect as directly doing so.

 

[Maximum Bert]

I basically see diminishing returns also how much more money would I have to pay for the PC to look slightly better than the PS4?

Im not intending to get an answer yet as we dont even know what the PS4 costs but this is a question I will be asking when the details are known because I wouldnt pay twice as much for something slightly better while if it is only slightly more then the PS4 has shot itself in the foot. In the past my consoles have always aged better than my PC and proved a much cheaper option in the short and long term for playing games at a decent graphical level that increases without me having to do anything as it becomes more and more optimised.

How does the PS4 compare to a PC? It doesn't.

/thread

Exactly. But my question is, why does it need to?

Because console gamers are horribly insecure, I guess.

I have never heard someone seriously compare their console to a PC and if I did I would slap them for their stupidity one is primarily a works machine but is also remarkably adept at multi tasking as well as pretty open in architecture and software while the other is designed purely for entertainment most notably through games and is a closed machine with limits to what you can do with it.

Now games yes people compare games between the two but I usually find its the (higher specced) PC users comparing to the consoles rather than the other way around as if to say how superior the PC is for some reason which is obvious as its continually evolving but then ironically a lot of games are made with the consoles in mind as thats where the market is, so it seems most people dont care what is the superior machine so much as what they get for their money.

 

[RedDeadFred]

I really didn't notice a difference. There were a couple times when I thought the PC version looked better and a couple times when I thought the PS4 version looked better.

Besides, it's not the graphics I care about, it's the games. Sony always seems to deliver the best exclusives IMO and I doubt this generation will be any different.

 

[The White Hunter]

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.

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.

Much like battlefield 4 was shown running on a Radeon HD 7990, which is an £800 card. They're both pretty and the PS4 will be a step up next gen, though I 'm investing in my PC first becasue frankly I need more from it for editing and streaming. I'll likely grab a PS4 further down the line for exclusives. Have a Wii U, pretty fun machine, needs more damn games though.

 

[Exterminas]

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.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

Anyone who thought that a $400-500 console can beat a high-end PC in a power contest is delusional.
There is a huge difference between the hardware industry from the N64 era and now. Hardware is growing stronger with each year faster than ever and excepting the big 3 to have hardware on par with a high-end PC is too much. Remember, they need to sell those things. And they will be selling them at a loss even as it is. Adding more losses would be a suicidal business practice.

If Sony keeps selling at a huge loss like it did with the PS3, it won't be long before they are forced to drop out. MS isn't even a bit dedicated to gaming like Sony, so they have even less reason to keep working at a loss. Nintendo has no other division to fall back like Sony and MS have, so they can't allow themselves to sell at any bigger loss.

So yeah, PC>Consoles as for hardware power is obvious.

 

[Juk3n]

A thread completely dedicated to stating the obvious, brilliant :-\

and before anyone throws the fanboy card at me, im lucky enough to have a pretty decent pc rig aswell as all the current gen consoles, but this threads purpose eludes me.

I've yet to find - online, in the vast number of popular forums I frequent - a console fan, moreso a PS fan who has claimed PS4 superiority to a current gen PC IN any ASPECT. And judging from some of the replies from TE's "elite pc gaming master race", it seems some of you are missing the point of consoles altogether.


Everyone - console and pc gamers - know that PC power is superior, there isn't a single PS4 fan disputing this. What's the sympathy for? People who DON'T want to play socially on PC's because of stink attitudes like yours..well..no sympathy needed really? PC gamers don't need to keep stating how superior the PC is, because no ones arguing with you in the first place, it just screams butt hurt to do so.

Thing is (this is directly to the PC gaming snobs not anyone who plays on a pc - like me), a lot of Console gamers don't give a fuck about what their favourite games look like on a high powered PC, they don't have one... their friends don't have one... it's irrelevant, we have fun. End.

A thread like this stinks of some sort of Butthurt-y-ness, but I can't for the life of me understand why.

"To those who expected to be blown away by the PS4 (and with performance, not porridge) I express my deepest sympathies.."

- well keep your sympathies, because graphics play only a little PART of what blows most people away when playing a game, do you think guys who played Uncharted 2 were bummed out whilst hurtling though the Train section because of how awesome the battlefield 3 trailer looked? I sure as fuck didn't give a rats ass. Do you think the first time I called in a Predator Missile in MW2, I was bummed out that it wasn't running at 120 frames a second? YEAAAAHHNO, son I wasn't. You see after all the threads like these, ive come to realize one thing;

Console gamers are now the truest form of gamer there is, they're the guys that find the FUN in any given situation, do they have the best hardware? no. The cleanest pictures and frames? NO. Can they alter the fucking config files and spawn red AK's instead of black/brown ones? No. Do PS3 gamers preach inferiority over N64 users , well ..no. Know why?

BECAUSE WE CONSOLE GAMERS DONT MAKE THE HABIT OF STATING THE FUCKING OBVIOUS AT EVERY - PC LOVING - TURN.

Does ps4 use older generation hardware? Oh it does! Then what the fuck are you comparing to INFINITLY MORE customizable hardware for?

/endrant.

 

[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.