I think it would probably be better to upgrade all tiers to whatever the current market is offering in that price segment. Otherwise you'd end up with strange situations like the current "low end spec" using a GTX 680 + i7 2600K while a more appropriate target today would be a GTX 950 + i3.
Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2015]
- Thread starter Deleted member 11852
- Start date
-
- Tags
- digital foundry
- Status
I think it would probably be better to upgrade all tiers to whatever the current market is offering in that price segment. Otherwise you'd end up with strange situations like the current "low end spec" using a GTX 680 + i7 2600K while a more appropriate target today would be a GTX 950 + i3.
Except (I would have thought) most gamers upgrade parts as they go and so your solution would make most gamers not be able to compare...after all what we'd like to know is how the game will run on 'something like my PC' rather than 'if I went out and bought new parts today'.
A single comparison can't answer all questions. The idea of a progressive three-tier test platform works best because it compares entry level against consoles for the price conscious, and what the PC platform itself can achieve at different levels. For those wanting to know how their machine compares, they'd need ot compare their machine against the test platforms with reference to general card comparisons. eg. "How will my 750Ti this? Compared to the 950, reviewed here, is ~40% faster, so about whatever performance."
I suppose an alternative would be a single price point upgraded every couple of years, so PC gamers can compare their machine from 3 years ago with the latest. But then you'd lose the comparison with the bleeding edge.
So short of having a matrix of PC configurations - low, mid and high tier PCs added to every two years, so 9 PC configs in 2020 to test and report on - there's no solution to satisfying everyone. Those wanting to compare their PC to others with the question to potentially upgrading would be better served with the PC specific sites.
I suppose an alternative would be a single price point upgraded every couple of years, so PC gamers can compare their machine from 3 years ago with the latest. But then you'd lose the comparison with the bleeding edge.
So short of having a matrix of PC configurations - low, mid and high tier PCs added to every two years, so 9 PC configs in 2020 to test and report on - there's no solution to satisfying everyone. Those wanting to compare their PC to others with the question to potentially upgrading would be better served with the PC specific sites.
Rurouni
Veteran
For me, they should compare a PC with comparable price to console as the base (since this is a face off, not a bullying by a much better rig) + their master race rig to show the maximum a game could achieve on a high end rig. Both PC could be changed based on the current console/pc price and the availability of a new high end hardware.
I can't say I disagree with that either. Afterall I'm running a 670 OC + 2500K myself which is probably around mid range performance level in todays market but a modern equivalent at DF would probably be a GTX960 / R9 380 + lower tier i5.
Comparing on a like for like basis with regards to price isn't fair since a PC offers greater functionality than a console. So how much additional value would you attribute to that additional functionality? That's certainly not something everyone's going to agree on.
In terms of todays market I'd probably define 6 performance tiers as follows, but I wouldn'r expect DF to test them all, probably just the middle 4:
Casual Gamer
Dual core pentium or AMD equivalent
HD 4600 / R5 350 and below / GT 740 and below / modern AMD APU
Entry Level
Slow i3
GTX 750 / R7 360
Low End
Fast i3
GTX950 / R9370
Mid Range
Middle of the road i5
GTX960 / R9 380
High End
Fast i7
970 / 980 / 390 / 390x
State of the Art
Top end i7, 6 cores+
GTX 980Ti / FuryX
Casual Gamer
Dual core pentium or AMD equivalent
HD 4600 / R5 350 and below / GT 740 and below / modern AMD APU
Entry Level
Slow i3
GTX 750 / R7 360
Low End
Fast i3
GTX950 / R9370
Mid Range
Middle of the road i5
GTX960 / R9 380
High End
Fast i7
970 / 980 / 390 / 390x
State of the Art
Top end i7, 6 cores+
GTX 980Ti / FuryX
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
This sounds like a lot of work - but since I'm not responsible for it, I don't mind
.I think having several years of annual budget/affordable PC configurations is more helpful than an a matrix of annual bleeding edge PC configurations. I.e. when PC was my platform of choice I'd upgrade my graphics card every year and motherboard/CPU every 2-3 years and PSU as required.
But if people are gaming on a budget then I'd rationalize that they are far less likely going to upgrade their PC anywhere like as much so having a 2012 affordable spec, 2013 affordable spec and 2014 affordable spec is going to appeal to a wider audience. That and, as has been said, there are better places for benchmarking bleeding egde hardware running the latest games.
Rurouni
Veteran
I think using the baseline spec based on price is fair. It doesn't have to be exact, but close enough in price.
Anyway, I personally want them to use Kaveri, because that is what I've got.
After reading through the reviews, the biggest problem that I see is that even if they have 2 PC spec, they treat the PC as a single platform. What I want is for them to compare PS4/X1/i3 750/i5 780 and not PS4/X1/PC so that the conclusion would be like 780 is the best, then 750, then etc and not "if you've got a good PC then PC is the best". If they are saying PC is the best then they might as well use only i5 780 for the face off. Or if i3 750 is always better than PS4/X1 then why they even use it? Better to use Kaveri
Btw, what is the most common PC used in steam? Outside of laptop/mobile platform of course.
Anyway, I personally want them to use Kaveri, because that is what I've got.
After reading through the reviews, the biggest problem that I see is that even if they have 2 PC spec, they treat the PC as a single platform. What I want is for them to compare PS4/X1/i3 750/i5 780 and not PS4/X1/PC so that the conclusion would be like 780 is the best, then 750, then etc and not "if you've got a good PC then PC is the best". If they are saying PC is the best then they might as well use only i5 780 for the face off. Or if i3 750 is always better than PS4/X1 then why they even use it? Better to use Kaveri
Btw, what is the most common PC used in steam? Outside of laptop/mobile platform of course.
upnorthsox
Veteran
Why not just use the minimum recommended spec by the developer? Its there for a reason isn't it.
It's usually vastly overblown and it wouldn't serve as a consistent baseline for comparison to the consoles.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
IMO, that's the most unfair thing you can do.
People buy consoles to game on because it's what their budget can afford and/or their gaming preference. People buy a PC to game on because it's what their budget can afford and/or their gaming preference.
PC gamers who predominantly play on PC would never in a million years consider using a console or a PC priced similarly to a console. Likewise a console gamer is highly unlikely to ever get a PC to game on even if budget wasn't an issue. I know some people that spend more on their console gaming habits (custom cases, high priced and specialized accessories, etc.) than I spend on my PC gaming rig. Note - there are always exceptions as noted in that last sentence.
What would be the most fair is to compare what the average PC gamer would use and compare it to what the average console gamer would use. Unfortunately, there is no reasonable way to determine what an average PC gamer uses. Steam survey is a start but even that doesn't necessarily reflect the average PC gamer as there are a TON of casual focuses titles in there that happily run on Atom based machines that you can get for 100-200 USD.
So that leaves the most reasonable options as:
- Budget, midlevel, highend/enthusiast - for a somewhat blanket scenario.
- Budget/midlevel and highend/enthusiast - cheaper to do.
Also, I'd argue it isn't really necessary to compare to a budget machine. Most serious PC gamers (read average or higher) will have something significantly more powerful than a budget machine. And anyone that knows about PC gaming knows that it can scale anywhere from worse than console graphics/FPS to X.
That X is the important part. Is a game only matching the consoles? Does it offer something noticeably better? Something significantly better?
Comparing it to a budget/midlevel machine offers no insight. We already KNOW that the game will scale downwards. What we want to know is whether the developer has taken advantage of the power available on PC. And to a lesser extent what level of PC machinery would offer IQ and FPS relatively equal to the consoles.
Hell, it'd be amusing if they did face-offs with Indie games. Then we could have a 100-200 USD PC that offered the same gaming experience as a 400-500 USD console!
Either, whatever the results. A console gamer is highly unlikely to get a PC whether it wins or loses. And a PC gamer is highly unlikely to get a console whether it wins or loses. Hell, last generation a PS3 user was highly unlikely to get an X360 whether it won or lost. And an X360 user was highly unlikely to get a PS3 whether it won or lost.
Winning/losing is academic...unless your a console/PC fanboy. What is interesting in their Face-Offs isn't who won or lost, but what trade-offs were involved with some versions. Did the developer take advantage of any of the performance advantages offered by any platform and to what use they put it.
Winning and losing? Leave that to the fanboys.
TL: DR - bolded what I think was the most important thing to take away from this long arsed post. Neither of which would be served by using a PC priced the same as a console. Only fanboys would want to do that.
Regards,
SB
PC gamer for almost 20 years, I've been buying consoles for quite a long time. I know many people that own high end PCs and a console too.
Metal_Spirit
Regular
PC gamer for almost 20 years, I've been buying consoles for quite a long time. I know many people that own high end PCs and a console too.
Then get to know me too
I have an High End PC, and both next gen consoles. PCs are fine for high performance, high resolution games, but nothing beats the simplicity of a console. Having to wait before the PC turns off because its preparing updates, and worse, having to wait on next boot for them to finish... Pfff.
No driver problems, no incompatiblity issues, etc etc. Many advantages on consoles.
But PC is where the performance is... and a good PC is the best gaming rig there is! And nothing beats the Keyboard and mouse for precision!
Yeah the idea that PC and consoles are somehow mutually exclusive is daft, they serve different needs, console = no fiddling, PC = speed. On different days I have different needs, also it's way easier to persuade friends to buy a new platform every 5-8 years than it is to persuade them to stay on the PC upgrade track (2-3 years).
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I game on console, mobile and PC too. I think there are a fair few people who aren't PC gamers or console gamers, they are just gamers with multiple platforms. That's the way I see myself and I dislike being pigeonholed because of something I own.Then get to know me too
You do know you can just set updates to manual and then reboot whenever you feel like it right? What you describe above isn't a requirement. It's a choice. I reboot about once per week at best, I do it when it's convenient.
And on the subject of convenience, I find it way more convenient to touch my mouse, have the PC spring to life in about 4 seconds, and have my full collection of games right there on the screen ready to launch with a simple click followed by minimal loading times.
Metal_Spirit
Regular
Regardless of when you reboot you cannot turn the PC off while installing and need to wait for it to end. And on the next boot you will also have to wait before having access.
During my vacations my laptop downloaded 81 updates, although I updated all there was a week before. Although it turned off rather fast it took almost 15 minutes after boot before I could get access. Its not SSD but its a hybrid ssd\hdd drive.
There is no such thing on consoles except if updating the firmware.
Yeah, that's all well and good when things are working and if you don't have kids. I had an issue the other day, all of a sudden one of my daughers games didn't work...after a bit of huffing and puffing it was because the video drivers hadn't been updated, which (as admin) I had to log into the machine and update. This is just one issue I have with PCs in the household...for me PCs have lots of inconvenience whereas the consoles, well, they just work.
Let's not discuss PC usability once again! There's a thread on this where these arguments are thrashed out repeatedly.
- Status
Similar threads
