56 posts in this topic

I really didn't think the void was that bad, but a 5 year old GPU outperforming both consoles.. He couldn't even underclock the GPU by enough to match the Xbox One.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enough of the "PC Master race" trolling, please. It's not acceptable for console wars, we're certainly not going to overlook PC vs console wars.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trolling. I just didn't realise how big the void was. I find it astonishing that Sony/MS poured all that money into developing the custom Jaguar chip, and it's outperformed by a GPU so old it isn't even available anymore.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enough of the "PC Master race" trolling, please. It's not acceptable for console wars, we're certainly not going to overlook PC vs console wars.

 

What's there to troll? :laugh: For all the hype and whatever that Sony and Microsoft were trying to build, they failed laughably. Today's GPUs outperform the consoles' by a large margin, imagine what the future GPUs will do, considering that S/MS keep joking that this console generation will last 10+ years. :laugh:

 

This has nothing to do with #PCMasterRace, anyone with two grams of brain can realise this.

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really didn't think the void was that bad, but a 5 year old GPU outperforming both consoles.. He couldn't even underclock the GPU by enough to match the Xbox One.

 

That was evidence?

 

 

Eh....

 

 

Anyway, how much of that is just poor coding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 5 year-old high-end video card outperforms a console's graphics?  Whodathunkit?  Let's not forget that this card was $500 when it came out and still sells now for ~$120.  So basically, when this card came out, the card itself was more expensive than the entire console.  LOL.

 

I didn't even bother looking at the video for more than a few seconds because it's clearly a "hurrdurr pc masterrace" kind of video and I just wanted to learn what card they were using.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 5 year-old high-end video card outperforms a console's graphics?  Whodathunkit?  Let's not forget that this card was $500 when it came out and still sells now for ~$120.  So basically, when this card came out, the card itself was more expensive than the entire console.  LOL.

 

Yes it was high end, but it's 5 years old now. That's ancient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Ancient and would cost a fraction of the price to make these days. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trolling. I just didn't realise how big the void was. I find it astonishing that Sony/MS poured all that money into developing the custom Jaguar chip, and it's outperformed by a GPU so old it isn't even available anymore.

 

The video is fine and a decent talking point. The image I removed was nothing but flamebait and I won't tolerate it.

 

What's there to troll? :laugh: For all the hype and whatever that Sony and Microsoft were trying to build, they failed laughably. Today's GPUs outperform the consoles' by a large margin, imagine what the future GPUs will do, considering that S/MS keep joking that this console generation will last 10+ years. :laugh:

 

This has nothing to do with #PCMasterRace, anyone with two grams of brain can realise this.

 

See above.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be a lot easier to get consistent performance from the console version of the game as when you program for a console you know exactly what hardware you are programming for where as with PC's there are 1000's of combinations of hardware you need to try and get the game working with.

 

Lets face it, yes the PC version if done properly will look better, have much higher resolution and better framerate.

 

But for most people they just don't give a crap, they just want something they can sit on the sofa, turn it on and play with their mates.

 

Also consoles tend to be played on TV's with people sitting further away than they would with a PC so they can often get away with things not looking quite as sharp as the PC counterpart.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic has got off to a very bad start but I believe it has potential for some decent discussion, hence it has stayed open.

 

However, that will only be the case if there is less of the PC master race nonsense, less console vs pc war and less of the memes / useless flamebait images.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all know that MS and Sony are basically selling their consoles at a small loss or maybe break even, so I think anyone thinking clearly should realize that we are getting about the best we can get for $400.

Bringing up the fact that pcs can be more powerful is not really relevant. If someone can find a way to fit in more powerful hardware into a console without going above $400, I would love to hear a break down.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really a big deal. If you want extreme graphics performance out of your Xbox One, you can use the hidden expansion ports on the left side and hook up some Titans.

 

gtxbox.png

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could make the same argument about a 5 year-old $500 high-end video card outperforming a current mid-range video card.  You're comparing apples and oranges.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is such a simplistic view of the problem it's hard to explain.

 

By removing all other bottlenecks other than the video card, they made sure that API overhead (which exists on the consoles) was non-existent in their test. Also anything else that wasn't graphics related stopped being accounted in their test ? and it is counted in the consoles.

 

Overall, this was a fairly unrealistic comparison.

 

Not to mention what was mentioned earlier: they used a high-end video card. Look at its size, price (then) and power consumption! You can't realistically put the equivalent card in today's values into a console and expect it to "work" in terms of pricing, power envelope, and cooling.

 

The advantages that consoles have is that they have the potential to be highly integrated software and hardware-wise and, with that, getting extra performance and lower latencies as developers get to know the platform. It always happens to every console generation and will happen in this one. Just sit and wait.

 

Dayumn I'd love some integrated GPU+CPU memory (the way current-gen consoles and the iOS devices do it) on a PC arch...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all know that MS and Sony are basically selling their consoles at a small loss or maybe break even, so I think anyone thinking clearly should realize that we are getting about the best we can get for $400.

Bringing up the fact that pcs can be more powerful is not really relevant. If someone can find a way to fit in more powerful hardware into a console without going above $400, I would love to hear a break down.

 

It's not the fact PC's can be more powerful, its how old and cheap the card that's outperforming it is.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But for most people they just don't give a crap, they just want something they can sit on the sofa, turn it on and play with their mates.

 

 

Kind of ridiculous considering the majority of players are not on consoles. Western countries != world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic has got off to a very bad start but I believe it has potential for some decent discussion, hence it has stayed open.

 

However, that will only be the case if there is less of the PC master race nonsense, less console vs pc war and less of the memes / useless flamebait images.

 

I think we all know now that this will only end with the thread being locked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So that 5 year old card is going to play project cars at the same resolution with the same graphical fidelity as the XO and PS4.... we'll see... but I don't think so...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how people are completely forgetting how the overall picture is more than just raw numbers.

 

Which PC games have similar levels of graphical fidelity to Ryse or Infamous for the same level of cost and hardware?  Certainly wouldn't be getting that out of that card.

 

Also, console (PS) has The Last of Us. Highest rated game for years. Get that on yer PC :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now get this card to render Ryse, KZ:SF, Halo 5, Forza Horizon 2, Drive Club etc. at the same resolution+IQ and then we will talk.

It's not the fact PC's can be more powerful, its how old and cheap the card that's outperforming it is.

You didn't need this video for finding that out. There are plenty of tear downs and cost estimates of both consoles.

 

Also, console (PS) has The Last of Us. Highest rated game for years. Get that on yer PC :p

I am not a PC gamer but I am sure there are plenty of PC games scoring equal or better.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally having played the Last of us its over rated.  I am finding a lot more innovation on the pc side then console side things.  I think the problem is publishers suck.   For instance I just  found Divinity Original Sin which I had no idea existed. I am not saying its AAA but its still is fun.  Both consoles up until this point have been lackluster. I think once directx 12 comes out we will really see differences.  I think some exclusive will be pc only like star Citizen. I am not saying the consoles won't have their exclusives.  I just don't think publishers with their marketing budgets have gamers interests at heart. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I am not saying its AAA but its still is fun.   

 

Whether a game is AAA or not should not matter at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consoles have to sell an overall package, they aren't modular, so every single nut, bolt, screw and piece of silicon is paid for by the same company. When it comes to PC's there are multiple manufacturers all getting by on their own margins and strengths/weaknesses.

 

To ever expect a console to match a PC is to live with a delusion in your own head, not a delusion that console players think consoles are technically superior to PCs. None of us level headed console owners have ever thought that. When you have a box that cannot be updated, it cannot ever match the ever improving technical world that PCs can by upgrading components.

 

The reason technical debates exist between console owners is to compare what each manufacturer has managed to get out of their box with their budget and price sold to consumer, it's not to start seriously comparing to PCs. Sure Joe Bloggs may add a comment here or there saying his PC is old and as far as he can see his PS4/XB1 looks far better than it on his TV when playing games, but again calm your rage PC elite, he's already admitted his PC is outdated.

 

We have the facts backing up what it costs Sony and MS to create these boxes, so what argument is there to have? They do the best they can with what hardware can be crammed in that DOESN'T bleed money, and more importantly doesn't overheat (RROD anyone?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both companies were too focused on making sure they weren't losing money per console and reducing power consumption, IMO. I can understand Sony's need to cut costs, as they're bleeding cash, but Microsoft? Why power usage was even a focus point for a unit plugged into a wall outlet is beyond me. Never have I heard someone complain about their console jacking up their electric bill.

 

Going with AMD was a mistake CPU wise. Intel is very proud of their tech and would've wanted a ton of cash to use i5's. Microsoft should've just stayed with the PPC CPU/AMD GPU combo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.