Next-gen console > Current PC? (at launch)

[Jedi2016]

I've seen this discussion come up once or twice in regards to the whole "PC versus Console" argument (which I am NOT trying to start here, please hear me out). I've seen a few examples from seven years ago stating that PCs at the time (2005-2006) could not actually push what was being done on Xbox360/PS3 at launch, and that only as PCs continued to upgrade did the gap show up again.

I'm asking here instead of other places like NeoGAF because folks here tend to have a better understanding of how these systems actually work, much more so than I do.

Do you think it's possible that, around launch time (late 2013-early 2014), the consoles will actually be able to push its games just as well as current top of the line PCs push the same game? I know people always look at PC exclusives as the benchmark, and usually with good reason, but in this case I'm referring to PC ports.

Right now, games are built to spec with the Xbox360. 720p (if you're lucky) at 30fps (more or less). Current PCs can run those exact same games with higher resolution assets at 1080p+ at 60+fps. I do it all the time myself.

But what about next-gen? Let's say that the Playstation 4 can run Watch Dogs at 1080p/30. For a game that looks like that, I think 1080p/30 is a pretty good benchmark even for a PC like mine.

It's no secret that PC console ports are about to see a jump in visual fidelity, once these new systems are on the market. And, of course, the PC gap will widen once again, as PC hardware continues to get better over the next 5-6 years while the Nextbox/PS4 will remain unchanged.

But, at launch, do you think the consoles will be able to push cross-platform games just as well as, if not better, than current PCs?

I'm curious to hear others' thoughts on this.

 

[AlphaWolf]

If the rumors are true of the consoles, high end PC's will be running console ports at higher resolution with better frame rates. In 2005-06 a high end PC was at best the equal of a console. Already you have 5TFlop PC's and the sub 2TF consoles aren't out yet. Then there's the issue that the consoles are as much like a pc as they ever have been.

Consoles will still be a good value for the performance, but I just don't see them ahead of PC at any point in the coming generation unless the rumors are bogus and the consoles are closer to 3TF.

 

[pjbliverpool]

As AlphaWolf said, PC's are far more powerful in relation to consoles this new generation than they were at the start of the current generation. They're also using thinner, more efficient API's so regardless of the relative efficiency arguments between consoles and PC's, from a power perspective PC's are in a much, much better place this time than they were when the current generation started.

 

[menaceuk]

Current PC > Next gen console.

Based on the suggested specs vi rumors the next gen consoles are going to be very underwhelming. Although Some dev reports have suggested these could have similar real world power to a GTX680 but in all honesty, from what I am seeing....I just don't see it.

 

[swaaye]

I'm pretty surprised what they've gotten from the current consoles. I've also been disgusted at how poorly utilized my fancy PC hardware has been for the last 5 years. We're still getting f'in D3D9 games OK? So frankly I think some of you are crazy in thinking current PC stuff will be at a worthwhile advantage against new consoles. Do you actually believe PC hardware will suddenly get proper attention from multiplatform games?

PC strengths lie in massive multiplayer, modding and strategy gaming anyway. Consoles don't even figure into that.

 

[pjbliverpool]

Current pc games or hardware? I agree the games wont touch next gen games for the most part but next gen games should run as well or better on current high end pc hardware as on the new consoles. The problem with current pc games is they are designed to run on ancient hardware and simply scale certain effects up in an extremely inefficient power required to visual benefit ratio.

PC strengths lie in massive multiplayer, modding and strategy gaming anyway. Consoles don't even figure into that.

Id have to disagree with that. For me pc's strength is the ability to play AAA cross platform games the way they were meant to be played, at 1080p with great imagr quality, smooth framerates and full 3d. As long as I get the same with next gen cross platform games as well i'll be happy.

 

[swaaye]

In other words there will again be a small window where we have feature parity and D3D11 will be with us for 6 years.

I have a feeling that any new games developed focused on new consoles will run like crap on recent D3D11 PC hardware. Maybe because of PC APIs or because of a lack of focus on what's necessary to perform well on PC. Do they have reason to care? The video card companies will sell more upgrades, the game developers saved time and money. That's what goes down now.

 

[Jedi2016]

Id have to disagree with that. For me pc's strength is the ability to play AAA cross platform games the way they were meant to be played, at 1080p with great imagr quality, smooth framerates and full 3d. As long as I get the same with next gen cross platform games as well i'll be happy.

The problem there is that this mindset has really only come about in this last generation. Before that, PC gaming was about doing things that were simply impossible on console. Now, PC gaming is about doing the exact same thing as on console, only better.

Swaaye does have a point.. having a full OS at your disposal for things like modding, and a "controller" with 104 "buttons" does make things like MMO and RTS a no-brainer for PC.

 

[Grall]

In 2005-06 a high end PC was at best the equal of a console.

Well, not really. At the time the 360 launched in 2005 we had geforce 6, or maybe even 7 series, and the high-end cards stomped the 360 pretty brutally even though they don't have unified shaders. A year later the 8800GTX came out, and we all probably remember what a legendary GPU that was. It runs skyrim at 60fps 2560*1440 rez with everything except textures, AA and shadows maxed out...

Consoles will still be a good value for the performance, but I just don't see them ahead of PC at any point in the coming generation unless the rumors are bogus and the consoles are closer to 3TF.

You're right, consoles simply can't be ahead of a PC, unless they cost $1000+, and that'd be suicide of course.

 

[pjbliverpool]

I have a feeling that any new games developed focused on new consoles will run like crap on recent D3D11 PC hardware. Maybe because of PC APIs or because of a lack of focus on what's necessary to perform well on PC. Do they have reason to care? The video card companies will sell more upgrades, the game developers saved time and money. That's what goes down now.

Why would that be the case? It wasn't the case 8 years ago when PC hardware was much closer in power to the consoles than it is today.

In late 2005/early 2006 consoles and top end PC's were roughly as powerful as each other and yest cross platform games generally still ran as well or better on high end hardware (going from my own experience with a GF8800 GTS), by late 2013 top end PC's will be at least 3 times faster and running thinner, more efficient API's than they did in 2005. Developers will have to be doing an utterly abysmal job in relation to 2005 for PC's not to be able to keep up and exceed console performance from day one.

Just because current console ports are horribly optimised at higher settings on the PC doesn't mean that next generation games that are designed from the ground up for modern, powerful DX11 hardware will not use that hardware efficiently on the PC as well.

As ever we'll see horribly inefficient performance scaling beyond the console baseline but at the console baseline graphics the PC versions should receive all the same optimisations that the console versions will receive.

 

[pjbliverpool]

The problem there is that this mindset has really only come about in this last generation. Before that, PC gaming was about doing things that were simply impossible on console. Now, PC gaming is about doing the exact same thing as on console, only better.

Swaaye does have a point.. having a full OS at your disposal for things like modding, and a "controller" with 104 "buttons" does make things like MMO and RTS a no-brainer for PC.

I agree with both points. It's just that for me, MMO's and RTS's aren't that interesting. They're are clear advantages for the PC platform but their not the only advantages.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

The problem there is that this mindset has really only come about in this last generation. Before that, PC gaming was about doing things that were simply impossible on console. Now, PC gaming is about doing the exact same thing as on console, only better.

While that is mostly true, you still have some developers that put out multiplatform games where the PC version does things that are absolutely impossible on consoles. Hence, consoles get a greatly stripped down version of the game. Crysis 2 and the Witcher 2, for example.

But then you have something like Dead Space 3 where the company representative came right out and said that the PC game will not be getting anything special. It'll run the exact same art assets as the console versions because they don't want any version to be better than any other version. ugh.

Regards,
SB

 

[pjbliverpool]

But then you have something like Dead Space 3 where the company representative came right out and said that the PC game will not be getting anything special. It'll run the exact same art assets as the console versions because they don't want any version to be better than any other version. ugh.

Regards,
SB

Yep, same as Rage. It's an utterly ridiculous mind set IMO. Like console gamers give a crap if PC owners who have hardware 2-3x more expensive are getting a better experience than they are.

That truly is an example of developer laziness IMO and the whole platform equality talk is just a marketing tactic to cover the fact that they couldn't be bothered to put in the effort for each platforms strengths.

 

[Rodéric]

Games are twice as expensive on consoles than on PC (and not counting steam sales), I'd have to do the maths to see the number of games you need to buy before it's more interesting to play on a PC.
(Although some games are console exclusives so it would have an impact on the decision.)

Anyway I expect PC to match or outmatch next gen consoles all of their lifetime.

 

[Arwin]

I don't think it is a matter of IF you can buy a PC that runs a multi-plat game as well as a next-gen console, but how expensive that PC will be.

Apart from that of course, based on previous experience, PC market won't see nearly as many impressive games that make the most of that expensive hardware.

For my part, I have an i7 based system and would hope to be able to buy a GPU that will help it to match next-gen consoles, but I also know that it will have to have a heavier GPU, as I don't see how the i7 can contribute as efficiently to the pipeline as the Jag would/should be able to in the next-gen consoles, where in Orbis for instance it should be able on the same memory and even framebuffer as the GPU, completely in tandem. And it is unknown what bottlenecks remain in Direct X on Windows vs something that is as open to do whatever you like on Orbis, or extensions specially created for Durango.

But yeah, my guess would be that a PC of twice the price of a next gen console is about the line where we can start to expect parity or better on the PC side.

 

[Svensk Viking]

I've been wondering about this too. Each time the next-gen console vs PC theme comes up, I can't help but to remember this article from 2011.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/03/16/farewell-to-directx/2

To developers it probably isn't any news, but I was shocked in reading by how much the current-gen consoles outperforms 2011 PCs with DX11 in draw calls.


I'm crossing my fingers my i7 (I hope X86 CPUs in consoles will help with that) will age with dignity, and that picking up a mid-range Maxwell/VI GPU in 2014 will keep me comfortably above console settings. Only thing I feel "safe" with is that I can always put 16GB+ RAM in my PC

 

[swaaye]

You can also hear all about PC performance problems in Carmack's RAGE talk from Quakecon. How hard it was to try to lock 60 fps even on ultra powerful hardware. API, Windows and IHV stuff. And then we got the super AMD driver fuck up.

Tech Report's recent exposure and influence on AMD drivers is telling about aspects of PC too.

I'm just really disappointed with the way we are basically getting sloppy seconds most of the time. Lots of parties are the cause, along with economics that aren't on our side with multiplatform clusterf*s. They play games with us while we blow lots of money.



On the other hand, bring on exclusives like Star Citizen and Planetary Annihilation. And mods like STALKER Lost Alpha. This is what keeps me gaming.

 

[Davros]

I'd have to do the maths to see the number of games you need to buy before it's more interesting to play on a PC.

Ive already done the maths the answer is 1

 

[Mobius1aic]

Ive already done the maths the answer is 1

That's our Davros

I'm in the same boat. I'm not against multiports as long as they run decently and they are actual good games.

 

[swaaye]

I should mention that I don't own a 360 or PS3. We certainly get some more pretties playing multi-platform games on a monster PC but it that's not exactly a surprise considering just how much more powerful what we're running is. I don't think that this matters to very many people though. It's still the same gameplay.