So a 7870 isnt able to do procedural rendering? Some HW ps4s gpu has for that?
The real PC equivalent of the PS4 console?
- Thread starter Skaal
- Start date
So a 7870 isnt able to do procedural rendering? Some HW ps4s gpu has for that?
phoenix_chipset
Regular
Of course PC can do it. It can run anything any console can atm since there's nothing exotic about them anymore. It's just a matter of how much extra power (if any, in the case of a high level coded console game) PC needs to accomplish the same results. But could a PC's 7850 run HZD? Probably not.
For one thing even the desktop 7870 has less asynchronization abilitiy than Ps4's chip. But that's not exactly exotic on Ps4's part, it just has the same abilities as the desktop 7970 in this one regard.
phoenix_chipset
Regular
We really don't know how much the 8 ACE units on the ps4's chip has benefited games, compared to Xbox's 2 and the 2 on 7850/7870. But it must make a difference, as this was the one thing Mark Cerny was trumpeting when the ps4 was unveiled. He said developers would grow into Async compute as the gen went on, and we have seen this on pc. Just look at the MASSIVE performance gain you get on Wolfenstein 2 from upgrading to turing from pascal, thanks to the asnyc improvements.
And given the jaguar's weak performance I think this was a great customization on Sony's part.
So yeah, the nitty gritty ps4 exclusives might need to be toned down a bit on a 7850, even if it was coded "to the metal."
And given the jaguar's weak performance I think this was a great customization on Sony's part.
So yeah, the nitty gritty ps4 exclusives might need to be toned down a bit on a 7850, even if it was coded "to the metal."
I don't know if a 7870 could, honestly. The GPU is probably capable but I'm doubtful that the 2GB of on board memory is enough to render the game, store textures and do the GPGPU stuff that that game purportedly does. One of the optimization advantages that consoles have is the unified memory. That 8GB pool in the PS4 is more versatile because you aren't limited to a fixed amount of for the graphics data, or game logic, etc. A 7870 might perform as well as a PS4 in general, but there are certainly games that are available on PS4 that are performance limited on 2GB graphics cards now on console quality settings.
phoenix_chipset
Regular
Vram would be the main limiting factor here, yeah. But talking about the chipset irrespective of vram - Pc's full spec 7870 even without the extra ace units is a better chip than ps4.
beyondtest
Newcomer
Shouldn't a PC with 7850/70 be able to run HZD but likely without the same settings/iq?
phoenix_chipset
Regular
Yes.
Also is HZD considered the peak of sony exclusives technically on b3d or something? If so I disagree I have to give it to Uc4 and the sotc remake though I haven't played spiderman.
HzD has a real copy pasted look to it due to it being procedural and really lacks in its world interaction. I'm more impressed by Until dawn really, sans framerate
7870 has advantages/disadvantages to ps4 gpu. It should be able to run hzd at comparable settings if not better. A pc is likely equiped with somethig better then a tablet cpu.
Besides that a 7970 6gb gddr5 was out more then a year before ps4 even saw the light. Hzd coded to that would give even higher settings/fps and maybe resolution.
Btw did play spiderman ona pro today while it looks nice it didnt impress me. There was a one x running forza demo, with different seasons (winter/spring etc) that game is on another level.
well, that's difficult, you can look at the specs and very clearly there are similar cards, but in practice it varies;
we could look at the PS3 vs a Geforce 7900, and even with the 7900 having clearly higher specs with the same architecture, it couldn't really match PS3 settings later on, running the same multiplatforms, because PC had moved on (unified shaders) the optimization was not there I guess...
with a 7870, I'm noticing GCN 1.0 losing performance on newer titles,
RX 550 (2016's GCN with 512SPs @ 1100MHz, 128bit GDDR5) and the R7 370 (2012's GCN with 1024SPs@985Mhz, 256bit GDDR5)
if you look at Fortnite 1080P high https://www.techspot.com/article/1557-fortnite-benchmarks/
370 = 36FPS
550 = 24 FPS
or
Destiny 2 high https://www.techspot.com/review/1478-destiny-2-pc-benchmarks/
370 = 48FPS
550 = 33FPS
sounds about right! that's the pattern you will see for most games...
but...
Forza Horizon 4 Ultra (DX12)
https://www.techspot.com/review/1716-forza-horizon-4-gpu-benchmarks/
550 = 31FPS
370 = 25FPS
and on on the latest Assassins Creed (DX11) they are basically a match.
so while the 370 (7850 OC) was a match for PS4 for most titles, it might not be for some, specially newer ones...
that's probably why the "i3 + 750 ti" thing ended, with time optimization on the consoles just get better, while older PC hardware will improve to a point and then be left out? so you can't really just match specs and expect similar performance on all games.
we could look at the PS3 vs a Geforce 7900, and even with the 7900 having clearly higher specs with the same architecture, it couldn't really match PS3 settings later on, running the same multiplatforms, because PC had moved on (unified shaders) the optimization was not there I guess...
with a 7870, I'm noticing GCN 1.0 losing performance on newer titles,
RX 550 (2016's GCN with 512SPs @ 1100MHz, 128bit GDDR5) and the R7 370 (2012's GCN with 1024SPs@985Mhz, 256bit GDDR5)
if you look at Fortnite 1080P high https://www.techspot.com/article/1557-fortnite-benchmarks/
370 = 36FPS
550 = 24 FPS
or
Destiny 2 high https://www.techspot.com/review/1478-destiny-2-pc-benchmarks/
370 = 48FPS
550 = 33FPS
sounds about right! that's the pattern you will see for most games...
but...
Forza Horizon 4 Ultra (DX12)
https://www.techspot.com/review/1716-forza-horizon-4-gpu-benchmarks/
550 = 31FPS
370 = 25FPS
and on on the latest Assassins Creed (DX11) they are basically a match.
so while the 370 (7850 OC) was a match for PS4 for most titles, it might not be for some, specially newer ones...
that's probably why the "i3 + 750 ti" thing ended, with time optimization on the consoles just get better, while older PC hardware will improve to a point and then be left out? so you can't really just match specs and expect similar performance on all games.
R7 370 is also only ~4/5 of a full Pitcairn die
I really liked the R9 270 2GB I had. It was a full Pitcairn GPU running at 925 MHz (for some reason drivers ended up boosting it to 975!), with faster memory than the 7870. It was a good card, could run practically anything in 1080p with at least equivalent to or better than console settings, except when higher value textures overloaded the framebuffer. Right now just biding my time with an RX 550. An appreciable product, but whole 'nother experience requiring alot of careful tweaking of games. It's definitely in Xbox One territory, esp with an OC, but 1080p is a no go unless you're fine with lower settings. 900p is definitely the more intended zone. If I want decent average framerates, I have to play PUBG all minimal settings (view distance at medium) 1080p final render with resolution scaling set to 80%. R9 270 could get me true 1080p.
I wouldn't compared the PS3's total setup to the 7900, not by a long shot. Cell made a huge difference when it was used to it's fullest extent. I image late gen multiplatform games were using it to keep parity with the Xbox 360 as well. I played through CoD: Advanced Warfare on Xbox 360 last week, and I imagine just the RSX would in no way keep up with the 360.
R7 370 is also only ~4/5 of a full Pitcairn die
I really liked the R9 270 2GB I had. It was a full Pitcairn GPU running at 925 MHz (for some reason drivers ended up boosting it to 975!), with faster memory than the 7870. It was a good card, could run practically anything in 1080p with at least equivalent to or better than console settings, except when higher value textures overloaded the framebuffer. Right now just biding my time with an RX 550. An appreciable product, but whole 'nother experience requiring alot of careful tweaking of games. It's definitely in Xbox One territory, esp with an OC, but 1080p is a no go unless you're fine with lower settings. 900p is definitely the more intended zone. If I want decent average framerates, I have to play PUBG all minimal settings (view distance at medium) 1080p final render with resolution scaling set to 80%. R9 270 could get me true 1080p.
I wouldn't compared the PS3's total setup to the 7900, not by a long shot. Cell made a huge difference when it was used to it's fullest extent. I image late gen multiplatform games were using it to keep parity with the Xbox 360 as well. I played through CoD: Advanced Warfare on Xbox 360 last week, and I imagine just the RSX would in no way keep up with the 360.
even the cut down GPU still offers higher specs than the PS4, with the higher clocks, also the memory/ROPs are the full configuration, not 4/5.
still, my point was just to show the problems older GPUs on the PC can suffer with optimization, when suddenly in more recent titles the 550 can keep up or beat this card which is way faster in older games and have clearly higher specs.
regarding the RSX, again my point was just for the specs, the 7900GTX is simply a much faster version of the RSX, but suffered greatly in games once the PC had moved on to Geforce 8/unified shaders, indeed "Cell" usage/optimization makes this more complicated,
the 360 also outlived any "x19xx" nicely, but in that case the architecture is not really a match.
in 2006 one could easily argue the x1900xt was superior in specs and multiplatforms, but a few years later the x1900 had very low performance on multiplatforms.
Most late release 360/PS3 games ran with settings that were not achievable or acceptable on PC, though. The 7900GTX might have suffered in PC benchmarks but no one was benchmarking it at 600p with low-med settings, getting 30FPS on average and exclaiming how great it is that they can play those games at console quality settings.
Sure a 7850/i5 setup could run spiderman like a base ps4 atleast, IF mighty insomniac build and optimized it from the ground to that setup.
Thing is, since the PS3, consoles arent really having top end hardware anymore, a 7970 with 3 or 6gb from 2012, one year before PS4, is easily much more powerfull and thus makes up for optimizations not being that well done on pc.
8800GTX/QX6700 same month as PS3.
True, X1900XT is much more powerfull in most ways to 360 gpu but new GPU's where arriving fast and X1900 became old fast.
I wouldn't say much more powerful. It had about 25% better fill rate due to clock speed and 8 additional shader cores that were vertex only but Xenos had a massive bandwidth advantage because of EDRAM. 46GB/s on X1900XT vs 256GB/s on Xenos so about a 5x advantage. Also, if memory serves, the ROPs were more advanced on Xenos. I don't remember exactly what advantages they had, but IIRC a big features was that Xenos could do 4 samples per pixel per cycle for MSAA while X1900XT could only do 2. Also, Xenos had a tessellation and unified shaders.
Much like AMD never releasing a desktop or laptop CPU like the Jaguars in PS4/XBONE, ATi nor AMD never released a graphics chip for PC anything like Xenos.
