Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2023]
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
- Status
davis.anthony
Veteran
Except that chart is native 1080p with max settings which is well above PS5.It’s a 43% lead and the 3070 wipes the floor with the 3060 by 52% at 1080p/max settings.
So yeah, PS5 performs in the territory of a 2070S/2080 like it should.
A 3060ti is normally 20-30 faster than PS5 in multiplats with no RT.
davis.anthony
Veteran
The second hard market is a huge part of PC gaming and always has been.
I'm sure if people could buy a used PS5 for $150 off eBay there would be more people doing it.
I will make A 2070S Shot later in the Same area for you all - 2060S as well, Just so we can see how it scalesIt’s a 43% lead and the 3070 wipes the floor with the 3060 by 52% at 1080p/max settings.
So yeah, PS5 performs in the territory of a 2070S/2080 like it should.
GhostofWar
Regular
oh I agree, I sold my 3080 to put towards a 4090 but i'm not sure people would be happy if I turn around and say you can get a 4090 for 40% less just sell your old gpu and the price to performance value of a 4090 is now based off a 1000 dollar price point instead of 1600. It's just you can't say 100% someone can get x hardware at y price point if the only option is 2nd hand, but I totally agree the 2nd hand market is great. I've managed to put some pretty decent builds for family together using it. But if I wade into a price/value debate and say you all should just put together a 2nd hand rig, you can build a 3090/5800x3d machine for 800 bucks because I did it's probably going to be realistic even though it was for someone. Using hardware that is available new currently is the only way to really get a price range everyone can reasonably expect to be able to find.
Hope that makes sense.
Flappy Pannus
Veteran
Eh, nah. Even with the wonky vsync disabled, at 1440p, FSR2 balanced, PS5 settings, my 3060 will drop into the high 40's in the forest. DLSS balanced, maybe 2-3 fps better so low 50's. Usually around high 50's.
A 3060ti would likely be just a little better than the PS5, with the advantages that DLSS balanced and other settings that don't incur much of a hit could bring. Maybe PS5 is dropping lower than the mid 50's too so my 3060 is closer, but not in the footage I've seen, so I'd have to test the exact same areas. But I'd say it's probably better than 2060 Super level.
Last edited:
Yes, and I clearly say that.
And it beats a 3060 by 32% here. The PS5 is typically around the level of a 2070S/2080, a cut above the 3060. Nothing is out of order here.
3070>3060 Ti>PS5/2070S>3060>2060S.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you. If your aim is to make this forum unpleasant, you're doing a bang up job.
No, we don't. The comparison isn't 'which machine is better value for money' but 'what offers the best price/performance for running one particular game." All other factors are immaterial to that discussion. We don't need to calculate total cost of ownership over umpteen years including time spent updating and installing different machines at some agreed-upon hourly rate etc. perfect qualification of the 'best' platform. It's a simplified discussion that just needs cost of a machine and framerate at the same kinda quality. If you want to play the game as it looks on PS5, what would that cost in PC bits?
To that ends, we can only use RRP prices or store prices if these are not rare sales but actually available prices. eg. RRP was $399 but general availability was $350. You can generally get stuff cheaper or second hand. You might even get a console for your birthday, or a GPU free as a hand-me-down. It's impossible to compare like-for-like using these variables. So just stick to store prices and answer the question. If it turns out the PC costs more to play this one game than PS5, that doesn't say anything about PC's overall value as PC obviously does other stuff. Anyone seriously considering buying a PC or PS5 isn't going to be basing their choice solely on this discussion!
Just seek one answer to one question without overcomplicating things with personal preferences. Given PS5 running, was it Alan Wake 2?, at whatever quality, what is the build price of a PC, either now or at PS5's launch, that runs that one game at the same quality? It's just a datapoint, not a judgement.
davis.anthony
Veteran
You can buy a pre-built PC for £950 that's equipped with an RTX4070.
This will offer more than double the performance of PS5 while also offering a substantial increase in image quality.
So in AW2, PC offers better price/performance than PS5 does.
And if you built a PC in the PS4/Xbox One generation the cost vs PS5 to run Alan Wake 2 is £0.
Last edited:
davis.anthony
Veteran
And you're doing a bang up job of contributing to the thread with posts like this.
At least never swore at anyone, so what is wrong with you?
Added to ignore list.
Still waiting for an analysis to see how the hardware that the PS5 matches in power, runs the particular game which was the game discussed and analyzed by digital foundry.
It's always weird trying to compare the value proposition of a console to a PC.
IMO, anytime that is done you really REALLY need to explain why.
So, for example, anyone looking for just a gaming machine, there is zero competition to a console WRT value proposition. Honestly a PC doesn't even enter that discussion. Yes you can get better graphics from a PC, but from a value perspective, there is just nothing that comes close to consoles for pure gaming.
Now, if you need a machine for anything other than media consumption and gaming, then a console obviously holds zero value compared to a PC (Mac is also a Personal Computer in this case).
It's always going to be difficult to have a discussion WRT value when different people are coming at it from different directions. For me, I can think of it in terms of just the GPU because I also need a PC for other things (like work). However, if someone doesn't need the machine to do anything other than gaming, then the full cost of a PC is relevant because the only reason they are buying that PC hardware is for gaming and nothing else that a console wouldn't also provide them.
Basically, this is one of the reasons there is almost no overlap between the PC gaming market and the console gaming market and one of the reasons that Sony now has no problems with offering their exclusives on PC.
So, basically...
If you need a machine to do anything other than game or watch movies, PC is a good value proposition (you just need a decent GPU to add gaming capabilities to a machine you already need).
If you don't need it for anything other than gaming, PC is an absolutely horrible value proposition (you need an entire PC just for gaming).
Obviously if money doesn't matter than PC can offer a better experience as long as you don't mind dealing with any potential OS issues, bugs, driver issues, etc.
Regards,
SB
I totally agree with the general argument that the value proposition depends on the individuals requirements but as others have noted, even as a gaming only system there are lots of other factors to consider. For example if you want to play past and present Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo exclusives via the console route, you need to spend 1k or more on multiple different machines and have all the hassle of multiple setups. Right now on my PC I have a single game menu with the likes of Gears 5, Ori, Starfield, Ratchet & Clank, Last of Us, Gran Turismo 6, Mario Odyssey and Super Smash Bros and Mario Kart 8 all sitting next to each other ready to be played on the same controller within seconds of each other. What's the value proposition of that?
And the upgrade factor has to be considered too. For several years before the PS5 and Series X launched I was using a 3700X and GTX1070. So when those new gen consoles launched, the pure gaming value proposition for me to "enter the next gen" was to spend £500 on a console or buy a new GPU that was capable of roughly matching or exceeding the console experience for the remainder of the generation. If the crypto boom hadn't happened then I'd likely have got a 3060Ti or 3070 for a similar price to the consoles. As it happened I decided to wait and spend a bit more for something much more powerful and then bump up some other components to match - but that wasn't a necessity to get the "current gen console experience".
What does this have to do with Digital Foundry's analysis on Alan Wake? This belongs to a discussion that needs its own thread
davis.anthony
Veteran
I don't think DF have a 6600XT on hand for such a test.
davis.anthony
Veteran
Finding data for GPU's close to PS5 paper specs, at PS5's quality and up scaling settings is hard.
Found one video on YouTube with a Radeon 6600 (None XT) running the game at 4k target, low settings and FSR in balanced mode (So basically PS5 settings) and was running between 27-36fps in the forest area. This is an 8.9Tflop RDNA2 GPU.
So the 10.6Tflop 6600XT (Which is ~20% faster than the none XT version) variant should easily match PS5, if not be ever so slightly above it at PS5 settings while targeting 4k.
The same video runs 1440p target, low settings but with FSR on quality (PS5 uses balanced) so I can't draw any 1:1 conclusions as up scaling level is different, but the 6600 is 45-54fps in the forest area.
Again, drop FSR down to balanced mode so it matches PS5 and you'll more or less be in the same ball park performance as PS5, and again the 6600XT should easily get you to PS5's level or slightly above it.
AMD Radeon 6600 can be found for £195 new
AMD Radeon 6650XT can be found for £230 new (Can't find the 6600XT in stock, only the 6650XT)
So PS5 isn't really performing above what it's closest RDNA2 equivalent PC GPU is running at.
Found one video on YouTube with a Radeon 6600 (None XT) running the game at 4k target, low settings and FSR in balanced mode (So basically PS5 settings) and was running between 27-36fps in the forest area. This is an 8.9Tflop RDNA2 GPU.
So the 10.6Tflop 6600XT (Which is ~20% faster than the none XT version) variant should easily match PS5, if not be ever so slightly above it at PS5 settings while targeting 4k.
The same video runs 1440p target, low settings but with FSR on quality (PS5 uses balanced) so I can't draw any 1:1 conclusions as up scaling level is different, but the 6600 is 45-54fps in the forest area.
Again, drop FSR down to balanced mode so it matches PS5 and you'll more or less be in the same ball park performance as PS5, and again the 6600XT should easily get you to PS5's level or slightly above it.
AMD Radeon 6600 can be found for £195 new
AMD Radeon 6650XT can be found for £230 new (Can't find the 6600XT in stock, only the 6650XT)
So PS5 isn't really performing above what it's closest RDNA2 equivalent PC GPU is running at.
This is not a PC vs Console value discussion. This is Digital Foundry tech analysis. The question of value when looking at a game isn't just about PC vs Console but also where current consoles' value stands in relation to their ancestors. Are they equal, better, or worse value than previous machines? There's multiple insights to be gleaned from poking at a question honestly.
Further PC vs Console value that isn't on topic will be axed.
Further PC vs Console value that isn't on topic will be axed.
It probably does deserve its own thread now so unless it's split off I won't comment on it further, but the development of the discussion from the IMO far oversimplified viewpoint that "consoles are better value because it costs more than twice as much to achieve twice the framerate on PC" to include the many other, often individualised factors that make up the real world value proposition is perfectly valid.
Sure you can divide frame rate by full system price in one game to give a result but the result of that calculation doesn't tell you anything useful about actual value or represent how most people purchase their hardware.
Panino Manino
Newcomer
So the PS5 GPU does have "Mesh Shaders", after all?
Alex says that Remedy uses the "similar" Primitive Shaders" on PS5. Going by the performance on PC the PS5 is closer to the 6700XT than the 5700XT. "Primitive Shaders" is just another name to the same thing, but it makes me think... couldn't Remedy have used the same "Primitive Shader" solution on PC, allowing the 5700XT to perform much better?
This isn't a buying thread.
The original statement was about diminishing returns, the cost and power advantage of the 4090 versus a PS5. This progressed to comparing different silicon solutions to getting content on screen. As we cannot cost up the PS5's GPU to compare against a discrete GPU, we can only compare system prices. Ergo, to get a given level of result on screen, what's the dollar investment needed to attain that across different platforms?
The answer to this question does not tell us which platform anyone should be buying. The question is not necessarily "which is better value" but how more silicon translates into tangible results - it's the same as comparing PS5 to PS4 and saying some games don't look much better. The answer (or rather results of data acquisition) gives us an idea of how different price-points compare for this game and gives a point of reference for considering PS5 versus previous consoles and their PC peers. It could even spill into the idea of a mid-gen console refresh and what costs and benefits such a console could bring.
- Status
Similar threads
