While their hardware reviews aren't up to the standard of some of the big sites like Anandtech, they do tend to use a very good selection of high end, modern games which sets them apart. I assume you're not advocating they remove the PC from the faceoffs as thats pretty much unique on the whole net, and should be of interest to console and PC gamers alike.
Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2015]
- Thread starter Deleted member 11852
- Start date
-
- Tags
- digital foundry
- Status
But why must they make wverything so blurry? PS3 version looks better for me in this comparison, just because everything in background of the ps4 version is so extremely blurry.
D
Deleted member 86764
Guest
You assume correctly. PC should continue to be included in the face-offs.
The problem with the PC in the faceoffs is it's not a fixed platform. You can't say, "PC is better," when the details of that answer are, "this flavour of PC provides this much improvement, but the reality of your machine could be absolutely anything." PC makes some sense comparing the best modern tech has to offer as a benchmark against what the consoles are able to achieve, but it's a very unscientific measure which clashes with the underlying ethos of Digital Foundry. Perhaps a meaningful metric for the PC is some scale where PC owners can measure their PC and see what sort of performance they personally will get. So let's say a 10 point scale, a grade 2 machine will play this game at 1080p at whatever framerate, a grade 8 PC at whatever other framerate, and compare that to consoles. And the PC measure needs to be multidimensional thanks to settings, so you'd need a performance value for a set of hardware at console res and quality, and a performance value for maximal quality at a fixed framerate.
Your opinion doesn't matter. Only DF's opinion matters. We should be so lucky.
To be fair they are pretty consistent most of the time as they have that "affordable PC" or whatever they call it which uses a 750Ti and i3. Settings wise they always use the console settings as a baseline but will sometimes show "how much extra" you can get with a higher spec PC. I think it's a pretty good way of comparing but it would be nice to see them up the 750Ti base spec to a GTX 950 now that it's taken over the $150 price bracket.
I think your memory is not 100%, you might wanna reread their faceoff's, the only thing consisitemt is their mantra is BEST = PC (bugger the cost, the gfx card alone costing more than the console, no problems),
Im with shifty geezer, they should pick a fixed PC platform be it a 750Ti and i3 and use it every single time, what digital foundry does is if performance on the 750 aint good enuf is well stick a 780 in and see if it exceeds to consoles, if that fails, hell we'll stick a 980 in. i.e. they always change their platforms
I think different analysts, based in different parts of the world, have access to different systems. And as time goes on, the representative PC hardware will change (unlike console).
Over time their PC should evolve as that represents the actual market. It's time for something faster than a 750 Ti IMO, as the market has moved on.
Over time their PC should evolve as that represents the actual market. It's time for something faster than a 750 Ti IMO, as the market has moved on.
You're making this sound like a PC vs console thing and that's not what the DF articles are about (although it doesn't stop people using them as fuel for that argument as per the comments sections on the face offs!). From the PC perspective they're about showing the art of the possible with the PC game, that MUST include what kind of performance you'll get from a fixed spec, what kind of graphics you can get when maxing the game out, and what hardware it takes to max the game out and/or match or exceed the console experience. All of those factors are completely relevant to their readership so there's no reason to make out that they're fueled by some pro-PC agenda (or even worse some anti-Sony agenda) because of it.
While I agree a fixed spec should be used as a performance baseline every single time, I totally disagree that it should be the ONLY PC spec that they test with (if that's what you're implying). Now maybe my memory of every single faceoff isn't 100% but I think they have been pretty consistent in their use of the 750Ti to show a baseline level of performance over the last year or so but if they've failed to do that in even a single one without good reason then I'd totally agree that's unfair.
In terms of not also testing on more powerful hardware though, I fail to see what justification anyone could offer in support of that. It usually takes more power than a 750Ti to max out the PC version of the game so should DF simply be ignoring those settings and the kind of hardware it takes to push them at playable settings? That wouldn't make for much of a technical analysis would it? A large portion of their PC readership is going to be using a system more powerful than the 750Ti baseline spec so it's clearly relevant to them what more powerful hardware is able to do with the game, as well as what kind of results they could get from an upgrade which is obviously a key aspect of PC gaming. Should that question and market segment be ignored for fear of offending another market segment that would rather see their platform "win"?
I don't recall a 780 ever being unable to exceed the consoles performance but that's by the by. They show what kind of hardware it would take to exceed the console experience, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that since it's a completely valid point to investigate and one that has a direct practical baring on their readership. As long as they are consistent with the baseline performance testing (750Ti) and honest in their analysis of whether it exceeds or fails to exceed the console performance before moving on to faster hardware then that should be absolutely fine. And I don't personally think they've ever shied away from showing the 750Ti in a worse light when it's underperformed - how could they when their analysis are backed up by comparison screenshots and video's? It's not like they are just throwing unfounded opinions at us.
The indignation about not quoting the price of the more powerful PC components in every article also doesn't make sense to me. Everyone knows a i7/780 powered PC is way more expensive than a console so there's no reason to state it in every review simply to appease console fans who might be offended by the comparison. They are providing a technical analysis and should leave the questions of cost and "which is the better buy" for the fanboys to battle out since that's where the partisan opinions come in anyway.
I think a major problem with the way the DF Faceoffs are perceived is because the 'question' or purpose isn't being explicitly described and people are reading them with their own personal question. Some will be asking how well an equivalently priced PC compares to consoles. Others will be asking how close to/short of the best possible the consoles are. Others, whether they should get this game on their PC or console. Depending on what one's trying to answer, the content can be quite frustrating, and leads to these conflicts of interest, one person raising economy, another quality, another state of the art.
I'd be happy with any PC spec - entry level, middling average, best possible - just so long as it's static and qualified and clearly illustrates what comparisons are being made and which aren't. If an i7/980, it'd be how close the consoles can get to the state of the art. If an i3/750, how well a budget PC compares with consoles. If some midrange spec, how well the typical PC out there could run the game versus a console, and whether you should think about getting a console or a new/upgrading your PC. What makes zero sense to me is the conclusion that always says PC is best. 'Best' is a relative metric defined by criteria to which its measured, yet DF faceoffs don't specify the criteria.
I'd be happy with any PC spec - entry level, middling average, best possible - just so long as it's static and qualified and clearly illustrates what comparisons are being made and which aren't. If an i7/980, it'd be how close the consoles can get to the state of the art. If an i3/750, how well a budget PC compares with consoles. If some midrange spec, how well the typical PC out there could run the game versus a console, and whether you should think about getting a console or a new/upgrading your PC. What makes zero sense to me is the conclusion that always says PC is best. 'Best' is a relative metric defined by criteria to which its measured, yet DF faceoffs don't specify the criteria.
Getting all the testers in various locations to use the same spec (or couple of) PCs would be good, but I don't think the PC should be static.
The reality is that the console and PC markets are different, but have the same games. If the PC doesn't reflect the current state of the PC market, then it become a historical curiosity rather than a look at how things are at the time of test.
The reality is that the console and PC markets are different, but have the same games. If the PC doesn't reflect the current state of the PC market, then it become a historical curiosity rather than a look at how things are at the time of test.
The problem is DF usually go like this:
- Game doesn't play on x hardware
- Keep throwing better hardware at it till it does
- Say PC version is the best if everything is aligned correctly
- Low end: 600$
- Mid end: 1200$
- High end: 2000$
I don't think that's fair, they are pretty consistent in testing the 750Ti first and providing a balanced analysis of how it stacks up the console versions at console settings - some times it hold up, sometimes it doesn't. Obviously they throw more hardware at the game to ramp settings up further or if the 750Ti can't deliver a decent frame rate. Would you really expect them not to? And how would it serve the readership if they didn't provide that additional comparison?
I had a quick look they change their PC spec's all the time, CPU & GPU, Clukos has the right idea, at the start of the year choose a fixed platform (perhaps 3 different price tier's) and stick with it
the last few pc/ps4/xb1 face off's (only writing down nvidia cards)
the gpu's seem pretty stable, though sometimes ti versions sometimes not, the CPU's OTOH vary widely
Face-Off: F1 2015 GTX 780 & i5 3570 = mostly 60fps, i3/GTX 750 Ti = ~30fps (requires overclock to get near the ps4 fps, though with lower quality settings) verdict = PC
Face-Off: Devil May Cry 4: Special Edition i5/GTX780, verdict = PC
Face-Off: Payday 2: Crimewave Edition An i5 and GTX 780, verdict = pc
Face-Off: The Elder Scrolls Online no mention of PC model, verdict = pc
Face-Off: The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt i7 3770K & GTX 780 Ti, i3 4130 & GTX 750 Ti, i5 & GTX 960, verdict = pc
Face-Off: Oddworld New 'n' Tasty i5 3570 & GTX 780, i3 4130 & GTX 750 Ti, verdict = pc
Face-Off: Project Cars GTX 780 Ti or GTX 980 (backed by a Core i7-3770K PC and 16GB of RAM) , verdict = pc
Face-Off: Grand Theft Auto 5 on PC i7 4790K & GTX Titan X, i3 4130, GTX 750 Ti, verdict = pc
Face-Off: Mortal Kombat X i5 3570 & GTX 780, verdict = ps4!
Face-Off: Dark Souls 2: Scholar of the First Sin, i7-3770K & GTX 780 Ti, verdict = pc
Face-Off: Battlefield Hardline i7 3770K & GTX 780 Ti, verdict pc
Face-Off: Resident Evil Revelations 2 i5/GTX 780, verdict = pc
Face-Off: Dying Light i5-3570K/GTX 780, i3 PC with a GTX 750 Ti , verdict = pc
Face-Off: Resident Evil HD Remaster i7-3770k & GTX 780 Ti, verdict pc
I agree they should use a fixed platform - at least as the baseline. It's debatable whether they should use fixed platforms for the higher specs though since beyond the baseline, it should be more about "what PC you need to get the most out of this game" rather than "how do PC's of different performance tiers compare to consoles". But that goes back to Shifty's earlier point about defining what they are trying to compare. I can see the argument for 3 fixed specs as well though, ideally I'd like to see two or three fixed performance tiers and then a "floating tier" which is more tailored to the specific needs of the game.
Your list focuses on the higher end GPU's and CPU's used in the those reviews rather than the baseline spec. Clearly the higher end spec is usually going to "win" against the consoles. That's to be expected. But if you're accusing DF of being inconsistent or unfair in the way they make their comparisons then it's relevant to see how they handle the baseline PC spec comparison. I haven't yet checked all the face off's you mentioned, but of the 4 games I did check, 3 covered the baseline 750Ti spec, but you haven't mentioned that in your summary. I take the point about the CPU variability though, they need to tighten up on that. Although of the 4 games I checked, at least one of them did specifically use the baseline i3 which wasn't mentioned in your summary.
This is very, very true! The intentions of DF are and have been clear for a few years and this is why I enjoy and take more notice of NXgamer more so now as he does just this. With this PC tests he uses 4 separate machines.
Entry Level
Gaming
Medium Range
Medium/High Range
All his Multi-platform review and PC games go through these rigs and so you get a clear idea and demo of how not only each spec but brand work as he has AMD/Nvidia cards along with AMD/Intel CPU's. I am looking forward to seeing what this years Multiplats will perform like across his range of machines, I find it both interesting and insightful, helped much by his non bias/Drama free delivery and much more technically minded analysis.
- Status
Similar threads
