Are consoles looking as good as PC's now?

I was looking a these side by side comparison's at 1920X1080 and the only difference I can see is a little different settings of shadows and intentional blurring, I don't see jagged lines like in the past. PlayStation 4 VS PC? side by side.


BF4
Tomb Raider

No.


BF4 and Tomb Raider are several years old.


They run at 792p and 30fps on "medium" settings compared to PC. They look "good" but consoles dont compare to modern powerful PC's.

bob4933 said:

No.


BF4 and Tomb Raider are several years old.


They run at 792p and 30fps on "medium" settings compared to PC. They look "good" but consoles dont compare to modern powerful PC's.

Click to expand...

30 FPS is so PlayStation 1-like and SNES-like. Even the Nintendo 64 had 60 FPS capability!

bob4933 said:

No.


BF4 and Tomb Raider are several years old.


They run at 792p and 30fps on "medium" settings compared to PC. They look "good" but consoles dont compare to modern powerful PC's.

Click to expand...

What would be new games to compare the difference so I can see it?

From what I have been reading the consoles are more efficient with software and don't need great hardware. I was just wondering do you have links for PlayStation 4 792p and fps 30 medium?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_4_technical_specifications

PS4 is a 1080p console. It will output video and stills at 4k.

792p is a typo. It's 720p. 720p is 1280x720. With tvs, 720p was using q366x768.

From what I have been reading the consoles are more efficient with software and don't need great hardware.

Click to expand...

If this is true , wouldn't DX 12 put consoles at a major disadvantage ?

That is true. It's easier to efficiently code for one set of hardware, versus the pc that has many.

There isn't going to be a document that states consoles run at 'medium'. But there are plenty of comparisons on the web about IQ between them.

You can't compare consoles with PC gaming, for a couple of good reasons. First, a well written PC game can look amazing when compared to a console's version. Take Crysis 3, for example. If you play it on an Xbox, it looks like an Xbox game. If you play it on a PC, you can make it look as close to real as it gets with powerful enough hardware. Granted, that was the Xbox 360, but the same is true with the current generation of consoles.

Second, I can play the games that I bought in the early 2000s on my modern computer, which is something that isn't always true on consoles. Even in the cases where it is true, more times than not, you have to rebuy them.

EarthDog said:

That is true. It's easier to efficiently code for one set of hardware, versus the pc that has many.

There isn't going to be a document that states consoles run at 'medium'. But there are plenty of comparisons on the web about IQ between them.

Click to expand...

Just wondering what IQ is?

Dlaw said:

You can't compare consoles with PC gaming, for a couple of good reasons. First, a well written PC game can look amazing when compared to a console's version. Take Crysis 3, for example. If you play it on an Xbox, it looks like an Xbox game. If you play it on a PC, you can make it look as close to real as it gets with powerful enough hardware. Granted, that was the Xbox 360, but the same is true with the current generation of consoles.

Second, I can play the games that I bought in the early 2000s on my modern computer, which is something that isn't always true on consoles. Even in the cases where it is true, more times than not, you have to rebuy them.

Click to expand...

Do you have screen shots or video of your clame becase I have been doing allot of searching and PlayStation 4 has a hefty APU 8 core and GPU 1.84 TFLOPS with 8GB GDDR 5

IQ = Image Quality

PS4 has the equivalent to a 7850 installed (ish) the XB1 has closer to a 7750 or something along those lines.

Most current gen console games run under 1080p and/or under 60fps (many locked to 30fps).

Go to digital foundry, they do very indepth looks at the resolution and frames per second that most major releases do on the various platforms.

You can find screenshots comparing the PS4/XB1/PC versions of most of the cross-platform games showing the performance and image quality differences. Look at Assassins Creed Black Flag and Unity, Battlefield games, Tomb Raider, Metal Gear Solid V, etc I imagine all of those are available at different sites.

Long story short: the current-generation consoles at launch gave a worse graphical performance compared to a high-end PC, because the consoles are nothing more (generally speaking) than a mid-range computer (APU and mid-range GPU that is now 2 generations old).

This of course is ignoring the fact that consoles can't do anything at 1440p or 4K so PCs automatically have an advantage there, as well as generally having higher resolution textures and better anti-aliasing.

I read a review recently that stated DX 12 made more use of hardware than DX 11. I believe that was the explanation given for nVidia's lesser advantage in 12 vs 11 , as nVidia's optimization was driver based , whereas AMD already relied more on hardware rendering (similar to Mantle). If I got the general idea correct , it would seem that the better hardware in PCs would make consoles even more of a poor relation. Am I even in the ballpark ?

Alaric, that is somewhat true. DX12 is similar to Mantle/Vulkan that it sends commands more directly to the hardware instead of depending as much on drivers which can allow for better performance.

Although the Xbox One will support some form of DX12 (already stated by Microsoft and AMD) so there will be performance gains on that platform eventually for games that are developed to take advantage of DX12 and released for that console. That may also finally allow for Microsoft to overtake the PS4 in some performance categories (as the PS4 is overall a faster machine in virtually every metric).

I watched Assassins Creed Black Flag and it looks great on PlayStation 4 and he gave it a great review compared to PC
http://www.redgamingtech.com/assassins-creed-4-pc-vs-playstation-4-head-to-headd-graphical-analysis/

Unity is vary close I don't know if the Patch was applied.

You're looking at it from a strictly PC vs Console standpoint, while there are many reasons to consider one over the other. I play on PC because I like having control over my system. If I'm having issues, I want to fix them. I don't want to have to call tech support to have it troubleshot, and I don't want to send the system in for repairs. There are also a great many more free games available for PC than consoles. I also play on PC because games that take advantage of high end hardware look better vs. their console counterparts. If you honestly think that mid ranged hardware designed 2 years before the release of these consoles is in any way going to compete with high end hardware of that generation or any following it, I'm going to have to disagree wholeheartedly.

Some valid arguments for buying a console include exclusive titles (Halo, Mario, God of War, etc.), a layout that works better with a controller (though Steam's Big Picture mode does alleviate a lot of that), and that tech support I was talking about earlier. I may not want it, but that doesn't mean it's not a good thing.

My point is this: No, a console will not, likely ever, have the power required to make a game look as good as a PC can. That has never been a selling point for consoles. Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo and anyone else who may join, or has ever been in, the console gaming business understands that. They have to be affordable for the general consumer, and you can't make a high end system affordable.

EarthDog said:

PS4 is a 1080p console. It will output video and stills at 4k.

792p is a typo. It's 720p. 720p is 1280x720. With tvs, 720p was using q366x768.

Click to expand...

792 was not a typo.

Most xbone games run at 792p and most ps4 titles run at 900p
They have the capacity to display 1080p but very few titles actually perform at 1080p, only one or two will do 1080 AND 60fps iirc.

Frame rates are also rarely 60fps, most often 30fps.

edit: hell, halo 5 runs at 810p lol

edit 2: looking at fps/resolution charts it seems pretty evident the xbone prefers fps count over resolution, and ps4 is opposite, typically running higher resolution with lower fps vs the xbone.

The problem isnt if the ps4/xbone look "good". They certainly do. They are simply not nearly as powerful as a high end pc.

wingman99 said:

PlayStation 4 has a hefty APU 8 core and GPU 1.84 TFLOPS with 8GB GDDR 5

Click to expand...

Jaguar architecture doesn't come close to any high end gpu/cpu combo.

The 4 games I linked to in this post play 1080p on PlayStation 4.

wingman99 said:

The 4 games I linked to in this post play 1080p on PlayStation 4.

Click to expand...

bf4 is most certainly not ran at 1080p on the ps4.

TR is one of the 2 or 3 games that runs 1080p @ 60fps on the ps4. If you look at it, its because shaders and lighting effects (huge performance pigs) are turned down or off.

Assassins creed is 900p @ 30fps.

1080p rendered video =/= 1080p in game performance.

edit: again, its not that the ps4/xbox look "bad". Its they are already hitting their glass ceilings, whereas PC's are magnitudes (almost laughably) more powerful, and in terms of 1080p gaming, nothing is even close to "pushing the envelope" at this time.


this picture should sum up the difference between pc and ps4 pretty nicely.

Note the reflections off the water on her face, the extra detail in the skin and lips, the more complex shading going on, and althought you cant see it, the hair is WAY different on the PC version. The extra detail in the clothing as well. Most of the differences right now come in those "Details".

Bob, when you have a moment, link me up to some 792p content and what it is...I would do it myselg but everything gaming related is blocked at the office. TIA!

EDIT: This is all I could come up with...

It's a trend we're seeing from PS4 games that achieve a 1080p resolution at 30 or 60 frames per second when their Xbox One counterparts run at 720p or 900p at 30 or 60fps.

Click to expand...

http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/consoles/ps4-vs-xbox-720-which-is-better-1127315/3

EDIT2: Forget it... I see the headlines in google, and can look at them at home tonight.

bob4933 said:

bf4 is most certainly not ran at 1080p on the ps4.

TR is one of the 2 or 3 games that runs 1080p @ 60fps on the ps4. If you look at it, its because shaders and lighting effects (huge performance pigs) are turned down or off.

Assassins creed is 900p @ 30fps.

1080p rendered video =/= 1080p in game performance.

edit: again, its not that the ps4/xbox look "bad". Its they are already hitting their glass ceilings, whereas PC's are magnitudes (almost laughably) more powerful, and in terms of 1080p gaming, nothing is even close to "pushing the envelope" at this time.


this picture should sum up the difference between pc and ps4 pretty nicely.

Note the reflections off the water on her face, the extra detail in the skin and lips, the more complex shading going on, and althought you cant see it, the hair is WAY different on the PC version. The extra detail in the clothing as well. Most of the differences right now come in those "Details".

View attachment 170998

Click to expand...

Frankly I cant tell what one is PC or PlayStation 4 on the right here lips look more real she is more pale looking. On the left here face is more orange in cooler and her face is more blurry, on the right here face has more detail, on the left it looks like more dirt on here face, on the right here nose looks weird at the bridge. I'm guessing the PC one is at the right, the hair does not have jagged lines. They both look real good with my 27" Monitor.

The details in the picture on the right are SO much better...!

Color 'tones' really have nothing to do with the systems AFAIK. That is something that can be corrected anyway.