Current Consoles vs High End PCs

[orangpelupa]

if next gen console is specced as the rumor, then My pc is not ready for next gen console (port)

 

[Sigfried1977]

This thread is hilarious, in a bad way.
When I get the time (and if the thread didn't close in the meanwhile), I'll post some screenshots of my heavily modded skyrim and dare anyone to post a console shot that can get remotely similar.

I don't think anyone is arguing that. I'm just not seeing the "night and day differences" the master race loves to keep raving about. I'm pretty sure even your Skyrim won't be able to adequately represent the 10+ times more powerful hardware you're running it on. Besides, mods or no mods, your Skyrim npc animation will look just as prehistoric as mine, dragging the rest of the presentation down with it. You can apply as many band aids as you want, in motion it's never going to look as lovely as a Red Dead Redemption.
And don't forget: some people would rather play their games instead of counting pixels, fiddling around with ini files or searching the Skyrim Nexus for texture packs. The differences between the various versions of out-of-the-box-Skyrim aren't all that drastic at all.

 

[Mobius1aic]

Depends on what you're trying to do really.

You look at Crysis on PC and it's hard to believe that we (as in myself and others) were playing that game at 720p or similar resolution with a dual core AMD Athlon (Windsor for me) and an 8800 of some sort, when you have newer games that look barely as good and require a quad core and a Radeon 6800 to play well. However, most of what you really see out there in the PC gaming space is all about pushing 1080p, plus you have developers making the most out of consoles now. Before dual core AVX equipped Core i Series and derivative chips, there were no native dual cores out there that could match Xenon in pure GFLOPS. Yes it only has 1 MB of L2, it's an in-order chip, and on an integer/branch prediction basis, it's pathetic compared to what we have today, but it took a while for mainstream PC CPUs to catch it on the basis of GFLOPS as prices came down and quad cores began to make financial sense for most PC users. Games like Crysis made full use of the older dual cores which meant using much more than just the SIMD/vector capabilities, so we saw the benefits of the much more flexible CPUs available in PCs, not to mention the RAM size benefits and availability of extreme graphics cards.

It looks like it just took a while for devs to really make use of the three VMX units on the Xenon, and when figured out how to balance their loads and threads, Athlon x4s and Core 2 Quads pretty much became necessary for outright console beating performance since they could offer the 4x 128 bit SIMD processing to match and exceed Xenos getting us PCers the double framerates we were expecting.

It's not to say that Athlon II x2s and Core 2 Duos can't be good, it's just that 360 developers have a better grasp of Xenon and it's greatest strength (GFLOPS) which still somewhat holds a candle to mainstream gaming PC CPU performance.

CPU performance seems to be more limited to me these days. Some games like BF3 and Metro 2033 need alot of graphics horsepower at 1080p with all the eye candy, but at 720p, it doesn't take much really. 8800 and 9600GTs as well as Radeon 3850s and 4770s still have pretty good performance in the face the latest console releases.

 

[Mize]

I don't think god intended me to be blind with carpal tunnel and be staring at bezels.
...but I spend enough time in my desk chair.

I posted something like this 3-4 years ago Then I got back into PC gaming...

 

[metacore]

You'd be hard pressed to find any modern PC which was purchased with the intent of gaming (even light gaming) that isn't significantly more powerful than the current consoles.

And yet, last fall, I saw many examples on my pc with e7200@3.2ghz,8800gts, when this card was destroyed by xbox360. Examples: MW3 at 15f-20ps at similar resolution to console, skyrim at 30 but with huge dips , and total unplayable disaster in battlefield 3 (playable only in tank and jet levels) even at lowes settings and 1024/768. The only things better are unreal games. I know this is 8800 gts, but on paper it is two times more powerful than xenos... I bet on similar results on mid range cards ( x600 type)from following series.

And when I think about whats inside current mid- high end graphics card with >15 times in raw performance in texture, bandwidth, polygon, shading , additional stages in pipeline and many other advancements and what is this capable, and after 7 years i only see battlefield 3 with cosmetic improvements it blows mi mind.

Pc hardware is such underutilized nowadays. I would go further, to me it's waste of money. IQ improvements are to little. It almost feels like only thing used is few more ram chips. Remember when last gen after only 3-5 years since console launches we had this gulf in graphics:
MoH rising sun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72oAurHJNRw
MoH pacific assault
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGmjeW8R_AQ

Not to mention comparison like: Timesplitters future perfect vs FEAR, only after 4-5 years( and more, FC, D3, HL2, B2, UT2004 and others). Today after almost 7 years we have some half assed dx11 like crytec tessellation implementation sponsored and other smoke and mirrors by nvidia that does not translate in wow factor at the screen like in last gen. I would say we had improvements on this scale only after year in games like moh frontline and allied assault.

It's really a shame. Even console exclusives can still be beyond pc games. Look at uncharted with water simulation, models , lighting ,sand/snow effects animation and even textures and compare it to the wicher2 ... When i see bragging from pc crowd about graphics and resolution ( higher gap last too) gen i admit it makes me laugh. Maybe they all have really short memory...

 

[Mize]

Good points metacore, but a couple things to remember...you say your PC was being trounced by an xbox360, but were you really running at 1280x720 or less? And, tell the truth, how much VRAM on that 8800 GTS? You have the little one, right?

Also, remember that almost all the games you listed were written for consoles and ported to PCs.

Where consoles really fall down (IMHO) is polygon glitching, horrible AA/AF and lighting models. There are some exceptions and there's a real shortage of quality games that exploit the capabilities of high-end PCs, but, in spite of owning 2x xbox360 and 2x PS3 I'm still on my PC more than any of my consoles.

 

[Blazkowicz]

You're operating under the deluded impression that there aren't people out there still using an 8600 (or less or it's like) for gaming. The fact that you can buy something inexpensive that would be quite superior isn't really relevant, the simple truth is that many gamers do not.

what's more, the $50 GPU is using 128bit ddr3 and so has as much bandwith as console GPU (less if you consider x360's edram). way more FLOPS though, which works well for pixel shaders at higher res, but consoles are good at showing many objects and pieces of foliage - low API overhead plays a role too.

 

[metacore]

Yes it is the little one, but stilll... it is too much raw power and memory bandwidth of newer gddr.. And yes it was 1024/768 without any AA, at 720 p it was obviously worse.

I realize the reasons for pc state of things, but they are does not change facts and justify pc upgrades for me . I would rather sink my money elsewhere and wait for next gen consoles ( if they bring usual jump) . I think pc situation will be even worse/funnier next time. With center of the mass of overall presentation laying more in animation , art department, which cost most, there may may be not even single game really utilizing pc , entire gen. Even now there are no smaller games on pc comparable to let, say the journey.

Moreover, last time there was this sudden shift to in order multi threading on consoles and engines were still tailored towards pc al off them, source, idtech 4, gamebryo, unreal and cryengine 2. I belive someone from epic even said something like that u3 was pc engine but consoles were lucky and hit it spec window.
This time will be diffrent, this engines will be optimized from the ground up towards consoles. And if the architectures which they choose( for example even havier MT like ibms 4 threads per core or some kinde of fusion type design with strong point on low latency high bandwidth connection , interposers or maybe edrams) will have strong points where pc bottlenecks are, there will be nasty few years on pc ports side...

 

[Mize]

I guess, for me - of late especially when I've been playing lots of strategy games - the additional pixel real-estate of 3880x1920 is a huge bump over any console and strategy games on consoles are just insanely frustrating. So I'm biased

 

[AlphaWolf]

I hear you, but RTS is probably the only reason I own a PC with more than IGP.

 

[Mize]

I hear you, but RTS is probably the only reason I own a PC with more than IGP.

RTS and TBS! Don't forget TBS! Us old farts need extra time!

 

[metacore]

I guess, for me - of late especially when I've been playing lots of strategy games - the additional pixel real-estate of 3880x1920 is a huge bump over any console and strategy games on consoles are just insanely frustrating. So I'm biased

Whatever works for you I just realized ,even RTS department is not the same anymore.There are fewer and fewer rts's and none of them are pushing the technical envelope like world in conflict or supreme commander... I would be so nice to see their successors targeting 2011/2012 hardware.

I remember seeing this first demo of cryengine 2 from gdc2006 and crysis itself at microsoft e3 conference( hard science fiction today) an thinking " this is not even funny, at this rate this gen have 3 more years max" If someone have told me that in 2012/13 i will be playing on the same console , have many beautiful games that aren't on pc with no replacements and no game on pc with 2 * order of magnitude more power will render anything other than cgi movies from 360 games, i would call him crazy How times have changed. Cheers.

 

[Solarus]

So all in all the 360 and ps3 really are near equal to top end PCs, why do people spend so much money just to play console games at a higher resolution? the next gen consoles are needed to get a leap in graphix. PCs will struggle to run games next generation that consoles will do with ease. If next gen graphix are at 1080p then at that point what is the use of getting the PC version of a game and spending a bunch of money to play it at a little higher than 1080p and having to cut off some features? I guess what i mean is for all the power these gpus have and all the slides nvida and amd show about how powerful they are it still takes the consoles to push graphix and not pc. I mean witcher 2 and crysis were made for pc but look just as good on 360 and like i said earlier even have better lighting on hardware that came out in 2005. then you have games like gears of war 3, uncharted 3, god of war 3 that look much better than any pc exclusive. whats going to be the point of a gaming pc next generation. it seems that each generation the consoles close the gap. this generation the gap was nearly non existent in terms of graphix differences betwen the consoles and pc, next geneation itll cost more for pc gaming to keep up with ps4 and xbox 720 than just to buy the two consoles. someone asked me why samaritan wasn't demoed on a 360 or ps3. I honestly think it could be done on these consoles but the reason it wasn't was becase it had features epic didn't know to or had enough time to figure how to program on the consoles. the consoles are comparable because of their custom hardware and that's why there still isn't after all these years a major difference between this gens consoles and the pc.

not to say i don't like pc gaming, I have a 480gtx graphix card it came with my computer, I jsut don't see how the pc is suppose to be so much more powerful but the games look the same minus the resolution.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

I mean witcher 2 and crysis were made for pc but look just as good on 360 and like i said earlier even have better lighting on hardware that came out in 2005.

someone asked me why samaritan wasn't demoed on a 360 or ps3. I honestly think it could be done on these consoles but the reason it wasn't was becase it had features epic didn't know to or had enough time to figure how to program on the consoles.

This is BS. Witcher 2, BF3 and Crysis 1 maxed e.g. look significantly better on a high end PC. You can downplay the differences and even I don't think the difference between the versions is earth shattering, but to say that they look just as good and to say that Samaritan could be done on PS360 is absolutely ridiculous and delusional.

 

[tunafish]

I mean witcher 2 and crysis were made for pc but look just as good on 360

No, they really don't.

 

[TheD]

Well thats the thing, PC gamers always talk about how PC games can't be done on consoles. Crysis 1 was always said couldn't be done then Crytek put it on consoles and it looks just as good as the PC versions. Outside of resoluton I havent seen a PC game that couldnt be done on consoles. Both crysis and witcher 2 look just as good on console and they even got better lighting. PC hardware from the same timeframe as consoles cant even run the games as well. that shows just how advanced the consoles are and how powerful they are if developers work on them. Then when next gen consoles do get here and are doing 1080p PCs cant even use the resoluton argument anymore.

Crysis 1 has hugely cut down GFX on consoles vs the PC version!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=AcKLjgWl7tM#t=229s
Second level overlooking the village, seems a bit different doesn't it?!


Witcher 2 also does not look even close to as good and the lighting system is the same or worse, just changing the lighting does not make it technically better!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDQbJ6oQznw
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-04-13-the-witcher-2-360-pc-enhanced-non-enhanced-720p-gallery

 

[pjbliverpool]

You're operating under the impression that there aren't people out there still using an 8600 (or less or it's like) for gaming. The fact that you can buy something inexpensive that would be quite superior isn't really relevant, the simple truth is that many gamers do not.

Sure there are still people out there using GPU's like that to game with but I'll be the vast majority of that already small niche aren't using their PC as a primary games platform on the same level as a console. Or to put it another way most people that want to use a PC as a platform for playing modern mainstream games on a semi regular basis (i.e. the way a console it used) will be on significantly newer/more powerful hardware. And if they aren't ehn they have the option to be for very little money.

Therefore, if looking at the state of gaming PC's compared with consoles, I'd still say that the average gaming PC is far more powerful.

 

[TheWretched]

I used to have an 8800GTS 320 too... and to my knowledge, it can play most current games (at least at 720 without AA) quite well, still. I have upgraded since, though. Even Crysis 2 runs rather well on low to medium settings (which is higher than what the consoles produce) at 1680x1050. The fps do dip, but they do on consoles, too.

And, as the others said, saying TW2 or Crysis on consoles looks the same as a maxed out PC is ... well not true. The differences aren't earthshatteringly big, but they are there. And once you experience it, you don't want to go back, either. And it's not just higher quality effects and assets (mostly textures). The higher resolution, better filtering and usually MUCH higher framerate (and nigh on every game being 3D capable with DDD etc), there's just no contest. This does however depend on the games. Assassin's Creed 2 for example runs "perfect" on my PC, but has horrid shadows, as it doesn#t allow me to disable the massive shadow LOD used in the game. That's quite sad, imho.

 

[pjbliverpool]

Well thats the thing, PC gamers always talk about how PC games can't be done on consoles. Crysis 1 was always said couldn't be done then Crytek put it on consoles and it looks just as good as the PC versions.

Putting aside the fact that it doesn't as others have already shown, whether a game can be done on a platform says nothing about the relative power of that platform. You have to take into account other factors like the level of graphics the game is putting out, the efficiency of the engine, the level of optimisation made for each platform and API overhead.

The fact of the matter is that an exact replica of Crysis using CE2 would indeed be completely impossible on modern consoles. It took 4 years of research, a completely new engine and a scaling back of the graphics to make it happen. I'm not sure what that proves anything other than people were quite short sighted about how optimised Crysis was back in 2006.

Outside of resoluton I havent seen a PC game that couldnt be done on consoles.

Well if you're talking with the exact same level of graphical fidelity (discounting resolution) then you just aren't looking closely enough. In fact the vast majority of modern games sport higher settings than their console counterparts these days on PC (ignoring resolution/AA/framerate). The differences are subtle in many cases and not so subtle in others but regardless, the consoles are unable to replicate them or they would have shipped with those same settings in the first place. In fact games that make absolutely no improvement between console and PC are pretty much the exception these days and get called out as such, e.g. Rage.

If you want to look at a good example then look no further than Crysis 2. A much better comparison point than Crysis 1 since it was launched on both platforms at the same time on the same engine. And the PC settings of Crysis 2, go well, well in excess of the consoles settings even when not at the highest 'ultra' settings as stated by the developers themselves.

PC hardware from the same timeframe as consoles cant even run the games as well. that shows just how advanced the consoles are and how powerful they are if developers work on them.

Not really, it just shows how PC's have a higher API overhead and get no where near as much optimisation as consoles do. The hardware itself in consoles is comparable to that which was available for PC's when when they launched. If someone were to build a game today using today latest engines specifically optimised for say a high end Athlon X2 and R580 then it would have the potential to look better than anything released on consoles today.

The simply fact is that today's high end PC hardware is 10-20x more powerful than what's in the consoles depending on what you measure. That's not open for debate, it's a known fact. That power isn't used anywhere near as efficiently as what's available in consoles but it is there and if someone whereto try and use it fully you'd see a game that current consoles couldn't hope to look close to.

Then when next gen consoles do get here and are doing 1080p PCs cant even use the resoluton argument anymore.

I see it the other way, since consoles won;t be able to rely on running at lower resolutions to make up the power deficit we'll a lot more core graphical improvements in PC games from very early on.

 

[pjbliverpool]

What does a heavily modded game have to do with anything? Thats like saying PC games look like crap because the 360/PS3 remakes of old xbox/PS2 games look better than the old PC versions.

Since the OP is claiming that PC's are incapable of producing superior graphics to current gen consoles outside of higher resolution (as opposed to the more accurate argument of the available power isn't being used to its maximum potential) then I'd say it's highly relevant to show what's possible on a PC when the limits of modern console development are removed via mods.