Support NeoGAF

[benson827]

Yup, people are delusional. PC cracked to max (admittedly, requires a very strong PC) looks leagues ahead of what the consoles are putting out. Rightfully so.

And I haven't messed with the .INI files. Having SLi 980s and only running at 1080p, I am sure I still have plenty of headroom to tweak graphical quality.

You should really try out SweetFX to tighten down the cartoony brightness look of the game. I have the same setup as you and this alone has made the biggest difference to me aesthetically.

https://sfx.thelazy.net/games/preset/3712/

 

[finalflame]

Why even compare a console to PC? It literally makes no sense unless the PC cost $350.

The MSRP of the PS4 is still $399. Also, it is possible to build $399 PCs that run multiplatform games better than a PS4, so your comment is pretty invalid.

 

[Sticky&Sweet]

Having played both the PS4 version and the PC version on Ultra, this is one of the biggest gaps in quality between the two this gen so far. On PC it is just outright gorgeous. Here's a recent shot I took with PC Ultra

Beautiful

 

[adixon]

That image of the consoles versions missing shadows, this is one of those times that if I dont see the PC version side by side I wouldnt have never missed the shadows of the console versions for some reason, I guess "what I cant see it doesnt hurt me" or something like that lol.

Fading shadows out at a given distance is literally something that every graphics engine I've ever seen does. So if you wouldn't normally notice it, it's because you're used to seeing it in every other game ever made.

That shot seems a bit cherry picked because you're looking off a ridge that basically obscures the entire range where the ps4 would draw shadows. So it looks like the ps4 version doesn't even bother to draw shadows, whereas in the vast majority of the game, any time you're not looking off a high ridge, I'm guessing (haven't actually played the ps4 version) you're going to be seeing shadows in the foreground and not really noticing them in the background. And the shadowless background will also take up a lot less of the screen for 99% of the game (think about what happens when you're on level ground, or pretty much any other terrain). That's frequently the problem with these side-by-sides: You could do the same thing to point out a harsh transition in shadow draw distance with almost any game.

I also wouldn't be surprised if the pc settings on that screen have the shadow distance tweaked to something you can't even normally set inside the game, and who knows what level of hardware/ actual effect on fps that setting has, especially in worst case scenarios. There's often a reason (or in fact many, many reasons and a lot of thinking) behind the developers making the graphical choices/trade offs they do.

 

[GRaider81]

The MSRP of the PS4 is still $399. Also, it is possible to build $399 PCs that run multiplatform games better than a PS4, so your comment is pretty invalid.

How much better? Because I'm seriously considering building a PC with a budget of £500 ish.

 

[benzy]

Nobody cares if PS4 is medium, low, etc. It's how poorly it performs and how unimpressive the graphics are among current gen only games.

This quality in the graphics is just not competitive and it doesn't perform above the peers either. For a foliage heavy game, I'm surprised how poorly it compares to GTA V, Inquisition, and even Black Flag foliage LOD. Here we go again (in that fugly armor we've all tried):

Witcher 3 looks better than DA:I to me. The greater density of vegetation and trees all blowing in heavy wind with each little branch casting shadow is something else.

DA

W3

 

[StevieP]

I notice the differences on my 5.1" mobile device, my 15" laptop, and both my 50" and 65" TV's. Same way I noticed even smaller resolution differences between older 360 and PS3 multiplatform games.

Or have 20/20 vision.

Hey, it's cool that you can't tell the difference, but many of us can. Nothing wrong with that.

I'm aware of your post history, dude. You frequently downplay the differences of the PS4 and XB1 versions. The fact is the XB1 version of this game is significantly blurrier than the PS4 version and 900p is instantly noticeable to many people. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's a fact.

Not really. You can clearly see the difference on a 40" screen already.

I can notice a difference in IQ even in that youtube videos. Its not tha big by any means, but it is quite clearly there.

A lot of these posts fit the sensationalist headline category, quite embarrassing.

I personally bought the game for pc, but I am impressed by what they were able to achieve on consoles. I had a chance to play it on my friends ps4 last night and outside of the higher frame rates and cleaner image, the ps4 version looks near identical. I was particularly surprised by the overall IQ.

It most certainly could be better, like has been proven in many other games. I'm sure the upcoming patch and future patches will prove that just the same.

That is not even close to being a truthful statement.

My goodness, these opinions. You're pretty much doing the same thing that the poster did from his first reference quote. This is not a buy a PC thread, it's a thread to compare the different versions. I'm willing to bet, everybody knew what they wanted, when they bought a PC/PS4 or XB1. This is not a thread where we change their minds.

Saying the PC is the best gaming investment is just so out there it's not funny. You do have to pay well for a PC that runs this game at ultra settings and 60fps, who says everybody is willing to do this. What makes that the better investment by default? Also, what is the point of buying a gaming PC (low to mid end) that's more expensive than the PS4 in any case just to play at equivalent settings to the PS4?

If I want to play the best version of USF4 or Mortal Kombat, or if I only play Madden or FIFA and I want to play the best players across the world in these games, what is the better investment then? If I add that I want to play GOW4 or Uncharted as well and many other exclusives down the line, what is the best gaming investment? This is certainly not a thread for that and I didn't want to go off topic, but that statement was so off course, it's like people are on a crusade in asking people to buy a PC. I have not seen any PS4 owner ask XBONE owners to throw their consoles and buy a PS4, we only compare the games and spot the differences.

The point is, there are a number of reasons (all viable) why any piece of kit is the best investment in a gaming device, you can't make a conclusive statement like that. My reason could be as simple as wanting to get a couple rounds in titanfall, a couple of weeks in..

Horse Armour was right

 

[nelsonroyale]

I think one of the things that doesn't change is while the vegetation density is super impressive (and even more so on PC), the vegetation modelling does leave something to be desired, especially the small plants. The October footage of FFXV for instance, had much more impressive grassland vegetation and shadowing for instance.

Horse Armour was right

Rich coming from you...

 

[GifGafIsTheBestGaf]

the sun is just closer to the earth in the ps4 guys.


this was a good face off, sometimes the game looks awesome on the ps4 other times it doesnt. hopefully CDPR keeps fixing and fine tuning the console versions as well just like they do with the PC version

 

[UpDownLeftRight]

How much better? Because I'm seriously considering building a PC with a budget of £500 ish.

Not much. In all honesty when people say the $300 PC they're usually not counting a whole bunch of stuff. Windows will cost you most of £100 of that budget then you got the antivirus to add on to. M+K if you don't already have spares, but even then you'd likely want a better mouse. Can easily spend £100 on those too. Another £100 on the ram. We're still missing a shell, mobo, psu, cpu, gpu and hard drives at this point.

Best advice I'd say is take that budget and start to shop around the net, see what you could build with that cash. Check some benchmarks on the bits you've chosen and see where you could change parts for others and get a better PC. I do this with my builds and unfortunately it almost always ends in going over the budget to get the slightly better parts.

The fact you mentioned pounds already means you're getting screwed. Parts seem to be considerably more expensive over here.

 

[emrober5]

I am really enjoying this game on PS4, but a patch can't come soon enough. The framerate and loading screens are really bad.

Best looking open world game I've seen though.

 

[Tohsaka]

I wish I had purchased this on PC. PS4 version is a buggy piece of shit.

PC version is buggy, too. I've had it crash or freeze around 10 times on me so far, it happens so often that I've not even been playing it much the past couple days because I hate having to manually save constantly.

 

[thelastword]

ps4 is closer to the xbox one than people think, of course PC is far superior

Wrong, using adverbs to stress your point does not make it so. The PS4 has a gap that has shown very tangible differences in many games apart from resolution and better framerates. It has done so with better resolution+framerates+effects in some games. Of course, not all devs have the budget, time or skill to get the same results.

Can I use Strider, Remake and Revelations 2 to say the XBONE is more powerful than the PS4? No, we have to make our statements within reason and logic.

As for your PC statement, that's a wrong statement too, if I have a 386 machine with 4MB of ram, that PC is certainly not far superior to the consoles, neither is the i3/750ti or even most mid end PC's far superior to consoles.

VRAM has nothing to do with how ultra w/ hairworks performs, let alone the fact that a Titan X has 12 GBs.

And yes, a Titan X, when overclocked can maintain a pretty constant 60 fps in most scenarios with hairworks on (no MSAA tweak). That is unless you are in the midst of about 5-7 wolves.

The Titan X lacks the shading horsepower for Hairworks + 60fps at 1080p, nothing do to with the amount of VRAM.
Hairworks is too much to ask from a 750ti.....and from the consoles as well it seems.

It was the first GPU on the list, (which usually means the most powerful), I also heard it's about $1200-1300, that's a pretty significant investment to make for a single part, yet it still comes short running an Nvidia feature, it's an Nvidia card after all, so no talks of incompatibility with hairworks or the like. I just find it quite disappointing that it can't do 60fps on Ultra at 1080p. That'd be a hard pill for me to swallow if I made that investment. I'm pretty sure it's coupled with a state of the art CPU as well, no laptop cpu or i3 in sight I'm thinking.

Cool.
I've seen the PC version using over 7GB of main memory. Obviously it's not going to use as much for the PS4 version because it physically or mathematically can't, but if you're talking about increasing things which utilise more memory, it's going to have an impact. 8GB of shared memory for the entire system including anything outside of games (services, apps and so on) isn't as much as you might think.

7GB, why on earth would it need to use so much RAM, doesn't that footprint include windows OS with all it's background services? Well, I was talking about textures anyway, and it's not like the Witcher has the best textures ever. I think Mordor's Ultra setting on textures was much more impressive by and large and the PS4 handled high textures there with aplomb.

 

[jiiikoo]

All I can say is that PC version looks leagues ahead of PS4 or Xbox One versions, but that said, I am really enjoying how it looks on the PS4. Can't complain.

 

[Kezen]

It was the first GPU on the list, (which usually means the most powerful), I also heard it's about $1200-1300, that's a pretty significant investment to make for a single part, yet it still comes short running an Nvidia feature, it's an Nvidia card after all, so no talks of incompatibility with hairworks or the like. I just find it quite disappointing that it can't do 60fps on Ultra at 1080p. That'd be a hard pill for me to swallow if I made that investment. I'm pretty sure it's coupled with a state of the art CPU as well, no laptop cpu or i3 in sight I'm thinking.

If you ask me this is a great thing that taxing features are available even though they aren't practical for 99% of the PC user base, this speaks volumes about the benefits of scalability. It's really isn't difficult to think of workloads which even the most cutting edge GPUs won't be able to run at 60fps.

Nothing to be ashamed of, the price is what the market is willing to pay and not immediately correlated by raw specs alone. I don't think a single one of Titan X owners genuinely believed this was the GPU that will run absolutely anything at 60fps, that piece of hardware will never, ever exist.

But The Witcher 3 is perfectly playable at above console settings and 30fps on a 760 grade GPU (7850/7870) paired with a 2011 CPU (I5 2500K).
You don't need anywhere near a high-end PC to have a console beating experience, and that's great.

 

[EatMyFace]

Having played both the PS4 version and the PC version on Ultra, this is one of the biggest gaps in quality between the two this gen so far. On PC it is just outright gorgeous. Here's a recent shot I took with PC Ultra

Well, it's expected. How much money did you put into your PC?

 

[Sendou]

Well, it's expected. How much money did you put into your PC?

I once put a $20 bill into my PC but my CD tray just got stuck. Can't recommend.

 

[Percy]

Rich coming from you...

Indeed. I cringed at that post you quoted.

Seems to be quite the thread for system warriors in glass houses.

 

[StevieP]

Rich coming from you...

Indeed. I cringed at that post you quoted.

Seems to be quite the thread for system warriors in glass houses.

Try disputing the content of the post, not the poster.
Look what he posted on the first page, then look at exactly what happened. Like clockwork.

I honestly can't see much difference between PS4 and PC versions but the difference between PS4 and XB1 is huge but that's to be expected given the gulf in hardware power between the two.

 

[M1ch04c4n0]

Nice to see that even dumbed-down a notch for consoles, CDPR still delivered in the pc.

 

[viveks86]

Game is staggeringly beautiful on PC, especially with some config tweaks to increase the draw distance beyond Ultra. I'm actually surprised at the Ultra caps, give you can double the Ultra variables in some cases for fairly low performance costs. If I were CDPR I'd release a desktop based config tool that allows you to tweak all this stuff, knowing what's what, without having to text edit manually. There's a lot of headroom.

Any luck with distance scaling for buildings? They seem to have hard coded that alone :/

 

[MatrixMan.EXE]

The MSRP of the PS4 is still $399. Also, it is possible to build $399 PCs that run multiplatform games better than a PS4, so your comment is pretty invalid.

You're still comparing, what even you admitted to be the output of a really good rig, to a console that costs half the price. Your point is therefore, also invalid, no? Wut lol

 

[Zakalwe]

A lot of these posts fit the sensationalist headline category, quite embarrassing.

I personally bought the game for pc, but I am impressed by what they were able to achieve on consoles. I had a chance to play it on my friends ps4 last night and outside of the higher frame rates and cleaner image, the ps4 version looks near identical. I was particularly surprised by the overall IQ.

"The ps4 version looks near identical"

If you play the pc on medium/low with a few settings on high, then yes it would.

I own a PC with an i5 2500k and an MSI 970. It runs TW3 at 1080 ultra/high 60fps. I also own a ps4 which I game on just as often if not more (hooked on the new Destiny content as much as TW3 atm). I love both platforms, I have no vested interest in promoting either.

Facts are facts though.

 

[Krakn3Dfx]

Put 10 hours into the PS4 version and it's fine, amazing game no matter where you play it, but due mostly to the load times, I switched over to PC, and I don't see anyway I would go back at this point, visually it's a pretty big step up on my GTX970 and the load times are literally 15th of what they are on the PS4, and that's being conservative, it's 4-5 second at most for any load, compared to almost 60 second load times I was experiencing on console.

 

[AZ Greg]

So if some are going to downplay the huge difference between PC and PS4 due to cost, then can the much smaller difference between PS4 and X1 be downplayed due to the PS4 retailing for $50 more?

 

[Kezen]

Put 10 hours into the PS4 version and it's fine, amazing game no matter where you play it, but due mostly to the load times, I switched over to PC, and I don't see anyway I would go back at this point, visually it's a pretty big step up on my GTX970 and the load times are literally 15th of what they are on the PS4, and that's being conservative, it's 4-5 second at most for any load, compared to almost 60 second load times I was experiencing on console.

Oh yes, another point which is not brought up that often is how shorter loading times can be on PC if you have an SSD. I have The Witcher 3 on my Samsung 840 Evo and loading are 5-10 seconds (from the main menu to the game) and even less than that when I reload a save.

I heard they are much, much longer on consoles and your comment seems to confirm that.

Yet another potential advantage on PC, and SSDs have become extremely affordable on PC. You can buy a Samsung 850 Evo 500gb for less than 200€ where I live.
Very tempting by the way, but I'm running out of sata 3 ports.

 

[MatrixMan.EXE]

So if some are going to downplay the huge difference between PC and PS4 due to cost, then can the much smaller difference between PS4 and X1 be downplayed due to the PS4 retailing for $50 more?

Both sides of the argument are stupid in my opinion

 

[EatChildren]

Any luck with distance scaling for buildings? They seem to have hard coded that alone :/

Tweaked the mesh related variables and yeah, seems limited by the asset . Which is odd, given practically nothing else is. Figured foliage would be, but nope, full control.

Haven't found how to extend light sources either.

 

[viveks86]

Tweaked the mesh related variables and yeah, seems limited by the asset .

Some of the mesh LoD is awfully aggressive. It gets blurry at close distances even though there is a beautiful LoD0 texture and geometry hidden in there. Hope they can allow changes to that down the line (or someone swaps those assets out altogether)

Figured foliage would be, but nope, full control.

Yeah they turned the tables on that one

 

[finalflame]

You're still comparing, what even you admitted to be the output of a really good rig, to a console that costs half the price. Your point is therefore, also invalid, no? Wut lol

I am saying there's absolutely no comparison, and people saying that the maxed out PC version is only "marginally" better are insane. Also, my graphics cards alone cost more than twice what a PS4 costs. My entire PC is over 5x as much as a PS4. It's a hobby, and I don't act like it's cheap. On the flipside, you can build a PC that runs TW3 at the same settings and superior performance when compared to a PS4 for the same price as a PS4 ($399).

That's beyond the point, though. My point is that comparing the maxed out PC version of the game to the console IQ is pointless, and people saying that the PC on Ultra is only "marginally" better than the way the game looks on consoles are nuts.

How much better? Because I'm seriously considering building a PC with a budget of £500 ish.

Definitely, that budget will get you a decent rig. Head over to the "I Need a New PC!" 2015 Part 1. Read the OP and RISE ABOVE FORGED PRECISION SCIENCE thread, we'll be happy to help.

You should really try out SweetFX to tighten down the cartoony brightness look of the game. I have the same setup as you and this alone has made the biggest difference to me aesthetically.

https://sfx.thelazy.net/games/preset/3712/

Thanks! Giving it a go now. Really need to look into SFX presets and INI tweaks soon, I am wasting a ton of power on the twin 980s.

 

[AkuMifune]

Oh yes, another point which is not brought up that often is how shorter loading times can be on PC if you have an SSD.

Yeah, shame you can't put an SSD in a PS4.

 

[Seanspeed]

Oh yes, another point which is not brought up that often is how shorter loading times can be on PC if you have an SSD. I have The Witcher 3 on my Samsung 840 Evo and loading are 5-10 seconds (from the main menu to the game) and even less than that when I reload a save.

I heard they are much, much longer on consoles and your comment seems to confirm that.

Yet another potential advantage on PC, and SSDs have become extremely affordable on PC. You can buy a Samsung 850 Evo 500gb for less than 200€ where I live.
Very tempting by the way, but I'm running out of sata 3 ports.

You don't need an SSD to get good load times with this game. Even with my HDD, they are very good and much much better than on console.

 

[Dictator93]

It was the first GPU on the list, (which usually means the most powerful), I also heard it's about $1200-1300, that's a pretty significant investment to make for a single part, yet it still comes short running an Nvidia feature, it's an Nvidia card after all, so no talks of incompatibility with hairworks or the like. I just find it quite disappointing that it can't do 60fps on Ultra at 1080p. That'd be a hard pill for me to swallow if I made that investment. I'm pretty sure it's coupled with a state of the art CPU as well, no laptop cpu or i3 in sight I'm thinking.

It can run it at ultra 1080p. Just not 1080p ultra 60 with hairworks all the time (OC'd though it is basically 60 all the time). Rather, if you averaged a play through together it would come out at like 55 or so for all the moments hairworks is very intense.

Hairworks is not a part of the utlra preset.

 

[Noobcraft]

Yeah, shame you can't put an SSD in a PS4.

You can't fully utilize an SSD in a PS4. Sata II isn't fast enough.

 

[viveks86]

Yeah, shame you can't put an SSD in a PS4.

It's not remotely the same thing for this game though. You get 4-5 second load times on a mid-range PC with SSD.

 

[Tagyhag]

Yeah, shame you can't put an SSD in a PS4.

You can, but you won't see the improvements that you see on the PC. Load times are tied to more than just the hard drive.

 

[Skyzard]

I think one of the things that doesn't change is while the vegetation density is super impressive (and even more so on PC), the vegetation modelling does leave something to be desired, especially the small plants.

Yep, this is DA:I grass.

I have to set the resolution to 1440p to make it less...mush.

 

[qa_engineer]

"The ps4 version looks near identical"

If you play the pc on medium/low with a few settings on high, then yes it would.

I own a PC with an i5 2500k and an MSI 970. It runs TW3 at 1080 ultra/high 60fps. I also own a ps4 which I game on just as often if not more (hooked on the new Destiny content as much as TW3 atm). I love both platforms, I have no vested interest in promoting either.

Facts are facts though.

I have a 5930k and a 290x 8gb running the game on ultra as well. And yes, it's near identical IMO, is it smoother and better overall on my pc? Hell yes. Is it also smooth (for the most part) and good looking on a 400 dollar gaming box? Absolutely. At least that's what the common consensus is.


Edit: 5920k and not 5930k

 

[AkuMifune]

You can't fully utilize an SSD in a PS4. Sata II isn't fast enough.

Every little bit helps. It seems much faster in many regards since I dropped my old SSD in there. But whatever, where we're going we don't need rational discussion.

 

[Jedi2016]

Is anyone really surprised by this? Both the results of DF's analysis and the ten pages of bitching, whining, and/or gloating.

 

[finalflame]

I have a 5930k and a 290x 8gb running the game on ultra as well. And yes, it's near identical IMO, is it smoother and better overall on my pc? Hell yes. Is it also smooth (for the most part) and good looking on a 400 dollar gaming box? Absolutely. At least that's what the common consensus is.


Edit: 5920k and not 5930k

No, it's not. The game constantly dips below 30fps on PS4 and your computer is easily able to hold a steady 60fps at mostly high/ultra settings, beyond what the consoles manage. There's absolutely no comparison in terms of smoothness and IQ.

Every little bit helps. It seems much faster in many regards since I dropped my old SSD in there. But whatever, where we're going we don't need rational discussion.

Except empirical evidence shows very little to no performance gains in most situations (2-3 second improvements at best, and sporadically):

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ps4-hard-drive-upgrade,3695-3.html

But like you said, where we're going we don't need rational, evidence-based discussion. Just anecdotes.

 

[drotahorror]

Besides the framerate one of my biggest gripes on PS4 is Novigrad.

Sometimes you'll have a loading screen just talking to an NPC. Sometimes the NPC's won't even load (like blacksmiths/armorsmiths/vendors, quest NPC's etc) and you have to wait a bit or run away from the area and come back.

 

[Noobcraft]

Every little bit helps. It seems much faster in many regards since I dropped my old SSD in there. But whatever, where we're going we don't need rational discussion.

Yeah it will improve load times and seek times especially, but not to the same level it would using Sata III or even USB 3.0

 

[Percy]

Try disputing the content of the post, not the poster.
Look what he posted on the first page, then look at exactly what happened. Like clockwork.

Not seeing the relation between that and any of the posts you quoted though. But then I'm probably not viewing them from the same place you are though.

 

[AkuMifune]

But like you said, where we're going we don't need rational, evidence-based discussion. Just anecdotes.

Yeah it will improve load times and seek times especially, but not to the same level it would using Sata III or even USB 3.0

I'm not implying it would be better than a PC with SSD, just that it helps over a standard HDD. I don't have a regular one in there to test anymore, but it seems more than 5 seconds faster than other people are reporting. Again, just saying it helps.

I forget how threatened some people get over this.

 

[BennyBlanco]

PS4 holds up quite well compared to the PC version, I like it! sure the PC version has some minor better image quality and more shadows.

Also runs at half the frame rate which is pretty huge

 

[ANDS]

I really don't understand these threads. Is there any doubt that an i7, 980 and 16GB of ram is going to outperform either console?

Also runs at half the frame rate which is pretty huge

You really think the great majority of people are playing this on the PC at comparable or greater settings than the PS4 at 60FPS. . .I got some swamp land in Crookback Bog I'd like to sell ya.

 

[The Artisan]

Damn. :O

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUtquPxjp7w
0.12 seconds. Almost no shadows on PS4.

their xbone vs Ps4 video makes the Ps4 version look better, though. i mean makes it look better than the xbone version. I thought with the framerates and stuff that between the two, xbone would be the better version

 

[finalflame]

I'm not implying it would be better than a PC with SSD, just that it helps over a standard HDD. I don't have a regular one in there to test anymore, but it seems more than 5 seconds faster than other people are reporting. Again, just saying it helps.

I forget how threatened some people get over this.

Your wording was "much faster", but that's misleading. Testing has shown that there are hardly any improvements in most places when it comes to dropping an SSD into a PS4. It's unfortunate, as I own a PS4 and would love to stick an SSD in there to half my Bloodborne loading times, but it just doesn't work that way.

 

[Etnos]

Come on, you can't ask too much of your PS4.

But Mark Cerny told us!

Man is disappointing consoles are getting performance this poor, is almost like if both MS & Sony went into this gen not really wanting to