• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Introducing the Potato Masher "Pro" (PC priced at PS4 Pro price)

Lister

Lister

Banned
So JermGaming just released an update to his "Potato Masher" video series where he pits a $400 2014 PC vs the PS4. Now, he spends the same amount of money it takes to upgrade to a PS4 Pro (selling his original PS4 in order to recoup funds towards it) on a new GPU for the original Masher.

If you've wanted to see how a PC option around the price of a PS4 Pro stacks up, well here you go. The video goes in depth on benchmarks and commentary on graphics difference accross a number of titles. It's rellly good stuff! If you're undecided this holiday shopping season, or you just want to see what a budget PC can bring to the table vs a new console, this should be enlightening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcrotHUVFN0&lc=z13ku3moxrqotdn3x231xxubzk3belo0d

I'm hoping 4K video for this goes up soon though, the 1080p 60 YouTube bit rate is truly shit.

TL;DW - They trade blows very well, but the Potato Masher "Pro" definitely grabs the crown in most games tested. It's not a slaughter though. Great value for both platforms.
 
L

LaunchpadMcQ

Banned
This is a great video. I'll give it a full watch later, but it certainly explores the options thoroughly for people on the fence.
 
A

Aztechnology

Member
What if every game had a PS4 pro patch.

PC

These videos are always awesome. You don't even have to skim the aftermarket barrel like him for affordable parts though. For around $600 you can build a really comparable rig.

There's truly never been a better time for entry level or mid level PC gaming.
 
A

Aztechnology

Member
Bumping because I think this video does a great job of clearing up the misconception around cost in PC gaming and frames it in a way that honestly any frugal gamer like myself thinks.
 
K

Killroyskbg

Member
Why compare to games that run exactly as original PS4? Every game from now on will have PRO support so wait and compare to them.
 
L

LewieP

Member
Interesting comparison. In reality PC gaming also has cheaper games and no subscription required for majority of games, and console gaming has a healthy secondary market for games, so a direct comparison of upfront device cost doesn't tell the full story with regards to cost.
 
M

Marty Chinn

Member
Not too surprising. I dropped a GTX 1060, which is around $250, into a four year old PC and it'll run pretty much every game maxed out at 1080p60.
 
C

Chezzymann

Member
Stumpokapow said:
They're not patched for Potato Masher Pro support either, which is a point he brings up in the video.
Click to expand...


but its not like games on the pro automatically have higher framerates if its not patched in though right? Wouldn't it still run like its on a normal PS4 without the patch? While on PC you dont need anything and it'll run at 120fps if it can for most games
 
A

Aztechnology

Member
LewieP said:
Interesting comparison. In reality PC gaming also has cheaper games and no subscription required for majority of games, and console gaming has a healthy secondary market for games, so a direct comparison of upfront device cost doesn't tell the full story with regards to cost.
Click to expand...

Console games can be sold though. That's really the biggest separating factor. Physical media that the player "owns".
 
G

ghibli99

Member
Good video! Everyone's approach is going to be different, though. I keep expectations in check when buying a $300-400 console. My video card alone was $500-600, and I have no intention of building a budget rig. It's been this way ever since I got my first 386/33 back in 1991. Each system/platform serves different purposes, and it really should come as no surprise that a smartly priced and pieced together PC can match or surpass the Pro. Anyway, thanks again for sharing. I subbed... these are very high-quality videos and analyses.
 
E

Equanimity

Member
A few things to note: The "potato masher pro" does not include a Blu-ray Drive, 1TB HDD, cheap headset or a DS4 controller. It's not really a comparable package in the traditional sense. That said, I'm aware some of those components and accessories are not required for gaming on a PC.

And speaking as a Brit, you can't really build anything close to a PS4 Pro for £330.

The value proposition is in favour of the Pro, in UK at least.
 
Kudo

Kudo

Member
Equanimity said:
A few things to note: The "potato masher pro" does not include a Blu-ray Drive, 1TB HDD, cheap headset or a DS4 controller. It's not really a comparable package in the traditional sense. That said, I'm aware some of those components and accessories are not required for gaming on a PC.

And speaking as a Brit, you can't really build anything close to a PS4 Pro for £330.

The value proposition is in favour of the Pro, in UK at least.
Click to expand...

And it's "upgrade" situation so in reality the PC Pro is even more if you don't have PS4 or PC in first place, don't think they even sell that CPU anymore as its 6 years old. Granted, you can get those specs for dirt cheap if you buy the PC used.
Can't deny that PS4 Pro is insane value if the game happens to support it, personally I wouldn't be willing to gamble for my games so my PS4 stays as exclusives machine.
Insane how that old CPU can still keep up though.
 
D

dex3108

Member
Equanimity said:
A few things to note: The "potato masher pro" does not include a Blu-ray Drive, 1TB HDD, cheap headset or a DS4 controller. It's not really a comparable package in the traditional sense. That said, I'm aware some of those components and accessories are not required for gaming on a PC.

And speaking as a Brit, you can't really build anything close to a PS4 Pro for £330.

The value proposition is in favour of the Pro, in UK at least.
Click to expand...

You also don't need to pay PS+ for MP and games are cheaper on PC day 1.

kasane said:
A 1060 alone is like 360 cad. Thats more than the price of the pro. Heck i got my rx 480 for 320
Click to expand...

He paid GPU around 230$ I think, he talks about it in video. He had 260$ budget for GPU.
 
A

Akronis

Member
Kudo said:
And it's "upgrade" situation so in reality the PC Pro is even more if you don't have PS4 or PC in first place, don't think they even sell that CPU anymore as its 6 years old. Granted, you can get those specs for dirt cheap if you buy the PC used.
Can't deny that PS4 Pro is insane value if the game happens to support it, personally I wouldn't be willing to gamble for my games so my PS4 stays as exclusives machine.
Insane how that old CPU can still keep up though.
Click to expand...

More insane that Sony and MS decided on the Jaguar in the first place...

It's truly awful.
 
M

Mr_Moogle

Member
I've tried convincing my console playing friends that gaming PC's really aren't that expensive or hard to put together but it's basically like trying to give a cat a bath.
 
E

EctoPrime

Member
If only my Pentium would of lasted next to a decade with gpu upgrades. Nice to see what a system similar to mine can do with a new videocard.
 
E

Equanimity

Member
Kudo said:
And it's "upgrade" situation so in reality the PC Pro is even more if you don't have PS4 or PC in first place, don't think they even sell that CPU anymore as its 6 years old. Granted, you can get those specs for dirt cheap if you buy the PC used.
Can't deny that PS4 Pro is insane value if the game happens to support it, personally I wouldn't be willing to gamble for my games so my PS4 stays as exclusives machine.
Insane how that old CPU can still keep up though.
Click to expand...


Yeah that CPU microarchitecture is discontinued as far as I'm aware. And I would not an old used CPU regardless of how much it costs.


dex3108 said:
You also don't need to pay PS+ for MP and games are cheaper on PC day 1.
Click to expand...

Partially true. F2P games don't require a PS+ subscription. Plus your argument falls apart for people that mainly play single player games. That said, PS+ has its benefits on the Pro.
 
A

Akronis

Member
CryptiK said:
Its also really cheap.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure if a PC that's built with $400-$500 has a CPU about 4x better in terms of single-threaded performance, they could've thrown in something far better and not had to worry about pricing it differently.
 
U

Unknown Soldier

Member
Akronis said:
More insane that Sony and MS decided on the Jaguar in the first place...

It's truly awful.
Click to expand...

It's not.

The available choices were Intel, AMD, Nvidia, or going ARM.

Intel is not a valid choice, their iGPUs do not supply enough graphical power. They would have needed to combine Intel CPU + Nvidia or AMD GPU.

Nvidia is not a valid choice, unless they were going ARM because Nvidia does not have a license for x86 architecture. Nintendo made the choice to go ARM, hence Nvidia Tegra in the Switch.

AMD, by process of elimination, was the only valid choice (unless they were going ARM). Unfortunately AMD CPU performance is abysmal when considering perf/watt or hell just straight up perf. So Sony/MS made the best of it, the CPU was going to be shit but at least they could get 8 cores of shit and let the devs figure out how multithreaded game code works. At least they could also get a decent performing GPU and AMD was willing to give the whole thing to them for a song which let them hit their launch price targets, unlike Intel/Nvidia who would charge out the ass.

So yeah, Jaguar is a piece of shit, but it's there for many good reasons. $399 launch price of PS4 is one, low power usage allowing for much less cooling required and smaller console form factor is another. The biggest reason though is that they could get a pretty decent AMD GPU without paying Nvidia ungodly sums of money.
 
O

Orayn

Member
Unknown Soldier said:
It's not.

The available choices were Intel, AMD, Nvidia, or going ARM.

Intel is not a valid choice, their iGPUs do not supply enough graphical power. They would have needed to combine Intel CPU + Nvidia or AMD GPU.

Nvidia is not a valid choice, unless they were going ARM because Nvidia does not have a license for x86 architecture. Nintendo made the choice to go ARM, hence Nvidia Tegra in the Switch.

AMD, by process of elimination, was the only valid choice (unless they were going ARM). Unfortunately AMD CPU performance is abysmal when considering perf/watt or hell just straight up perf. So Sony/MS made the best of it, the CPU was going to be shit but at least they could get 8 cores of shit and let the devs figure out how multithreaded game code works. At least they could also get a decent performing GPU and AMD was willing to give the whole thing to them for a song which let them hit their launch price targets, unlike Intel/Nvidia who would charge out the ass.

So yeah, Jaguar is a piece of shit, but it's there for many good reasons. $399 launch price of PS4 is one, low power usage allowing for much less cooling required and smaller console form factor is another. The biggest reason though is that they could get a pretty decent AMD GPU without paying Nvidia ungodly sums of money.
Click to expand...

Basically, yeah. Jaguar was the best bad choice they could make, given the circumstances.
 
A

Akronis

Member
Unknown Soldier said:
It's not.

The available choices were Intel, AMD, Nvidia, or going ARM.

Intel is not a valid choice, their iGPUs do not supply enough graphical power. They would have needed to combine Intel CPU + Nvidia or AMD GPU.

Nvidia is not a valid choice, unless they were going ARM because Nvidia does not have a license for x86 architecture. Nintendo made the choice to go ARM, hence Nvidia Tegra in the Switch.

AMD, by process of elimination, was the only valid choice (unless they were going ARM). Unfortunately AMD CPU performance is abysmal when considering perf/watt or hell just straight up perf. So Sony/MS made the best of it, the CPU was going to be shit but at least they could get 8 cores of shit and let the devs figure out how multithreaded game code works. At least they could also get a decent performing GPU and AMD was willing to give the whole thing to them for a song which let them hit their launch price targets, unlike Intel/Nvidia who would charge out the ass.

So yeah, Jaguar is a piece of shit, but it's there for many good reasons. $399 launch price of PS4 is one, low power usage allowing for much less cooling required and smaller console form factor is another. The biggest reason though is that they could get a pretty decent AMD GPU without paying Nvidia ungodly sums of money.
Click to expand...

I guess for a full SoC solution, yea AMD was the only choice.

What an awful awful choice they had to make though
 
BennyBlanco

BennyBlanco

aka IMurRIVAL69
QuantumSquid said:
That's USD, not CAD.
Click to expand...

Right, but aren't ps4 pros more expensive in CAD too?

Unknown Soldier said:
It's not.

The available choices were Intel, AMD, Nvidia, or going ARM.

Intel is not a valid choice, their iGPUs do not supply enough graphical power. They would have needed to combine Intel CPU + Nvidia or AMD GPU.

Nvidia is not a valid choice, unless they were going ARM because Nvidia does not have a license for x86 architecture. Nintendo made the choice to go ARM, hence Nvidia Tegra in the Switch.

AMD, by process of elimination, was the only valid choice (unless they were going ARM). Unfortunately AMD CPU performance is abysmal when considering perf/watt or hell just straight up perf. So Sony/MS made the best of it, the CPU was going to be shit but at least they could get 8 cores of shit and let the devs figure out how multithreaded game code works. At least they could also get a decent performing GPU and AMD was willing to give the whole thing to them for a song which let them hit their launch price targets, unlike Intel/Nvidia who would charge out the ass.

So yeah, Jaguar is a piece of shit, but it's there for many good reasons. $399 launch price of PS4 is one, low power usage allowing for much less cooling required and smaller console form factor is another. The biggest reason though is that they could get a pretty decent AMD GPU without paying Nvidia ungodly sums of money.
Click to expand...

Man, I never really thought about it this way but you're right.
 
W

Wereroku

Member
Akronis said:
I guess for a full SoC solution, yea AMD was the only choice.

What an awful awful choice they had to make though
Click to expand...
They wanted to have a compact Apu and all of Intel's integrated solutions are still lagging. Also I am pretty sure Microsoft and Sony will not want to have anything to do with Nvidia for quite a while. They were both fucked over pretty badly.
 
J

jwhit28

Member
He goes about this in a pretty confusing way. I would have preferred the scenario of "I'm a person with $400, what parts are possible to scrounge up and will it give me better performance than PS4Pro". The thrift shopping is my favorite part.
 
L

Liabe Brave

Member
Lister said:
TL;DW - They trade blows very well, but the Potato Masher "Pro" definitely grabs the crown in most games tested. It's not a slaughter though. Great value for both platforms.
Click to expand...
For direct comparative purposes, the only tests that actually matter are the Pro-enhanced games. (The benefit that the Potato Masher Pro doesn't need patching for the other games is sensible, but unrelated to performance level comparisons.) This is only two tests, and I wouldn't say the PMP is definitely the winner in both.

The problem is that JERMGaming's statements in the narration aren't always justified. At one point he says some PC scenes have more lighting sources, but his example is a scene where the number of sources is the same, but Pro has some additional diffusion. For another example, he admits to not being able to pixel count Infinite Warfare, but still presumes it can go as low as 1080. He also says that he's "fairly confident PS4 Pro isn't rendering anywhere close to 4K most of the time". These points are both false, however. Infinity Ward have said that resolution drops infrequently on Pro due to their renderer's suitability. And Digital Foundry indeed found that it never fell even as far as 1440, much less 1080 (the lowest resolution they saw was 1560).

He also repeatedly refers to games running on the PMP at "4K", when he's actually got resolution scaling at less than 100%. He does explicitly point out the scaling verbally, but then goes back to calling them "4K". (And he only puts a label onscreen for Infinite Warfare, not Titanfall 2.) This is a little sloppy for someone with his focus on detail, and joined to his other errors suggests different conclusions than he eventually draws. For Infinite Warfare:

Code: 
HE SAYS                   ACTUALLY
At 1080p, PMP has...      At 1080p, PMP has...              
  Higher tessellation       Higher tessellation
  Better AO                 Better AO
  Higher-res shadows        Higher-res shadows
  More particles/bloom      More particles/bloom
  More lights               Lower AA

At "4K", PMP has...       At ~1700p, PMP has...
  Higher resolution         Lower resolution
  Lower settings            Lower settings
Res versus effects is an eternal discussion, but in general the PC seems like a definite winner in his presented version on the left, and that's what he says. But in the reality on the right, the PMP is only a clear winner at 1080p. For 4K displays, PS4 Pro is clearly better.

His analysis of Titanfall 2 suffers far less from these problems, fortunately. The PMP does have an advantage with its better shadows (and shadow LOD), and better AO. This is especially true for users on 1080p displays, since PS4 Pro's downsample can be essentially matched by the PMP. But the PMP can also match PS4 Pro's performance on 4K displays by similarly running in 1440p.

All in all, it's a very nice video, especially in terms of production polish. It stumbles a bit on the details of Infinite Warfare, but overall the comparative analysis is decent. My major gripe is that--like most people--he doesn't understand what checkerboard rendering does, and thinks it's just an upscale technique. This leads him to draw some false inferences, but they don't affect his analysis in this video at least.
 
E

EctoPrime

Member
It would be interesting to see what a desktop Atom cpu like the J3710 could do with a videocard like the 1050 ti compared to the stock PS4 in a motherboard with pcie 16x which most do not seem to have.
 
B

belmonkey

Member
EctoPrime said:
It would be interesting to see what a desktop Atom cpu like the J3710 could do with a videocard like the 1050 ti compared to the stock PS4 in a motherboard with pcie 16x which most do not seem to have.
Click to expand...

I think there was a video around with a quad core Jaguar at 1.6 Ghz with a 750 ti playing Witcher 3 at near 30 fps medium settings.
 
U

Unknown Soldier

Member
Akronis said:
I guess for a full SoC solution, yea AMD was the only choice.

What an awful awful choice they had to make though
Click to expand...

Well I mean they could have gone ARM. The ARM 64-bit architecture is pretty powerful if you give it as much power draw as low-power x86. There are custom ARM 64-bit implementations with massive core count used for server and datacenter applications and they outclass Xeons in perf/watt. But for reasons of easing development x86 was chosen over ARM, and really after the difficulties of the PowerPC 360/PS3 era it's not hard to see why.

Your garden-variety quad-core ARM Cortex-A57 as seen in Nvidia Tegra P1 ("Parker") that's rumored for the Switch probably compares very favorably with the 8 cores of Jaguar in PS4/Bone. That's how good ARM has gotten in recent years. Of course then you throw in the extra dual-core Nvidia Denver 2 in Tegra P1 and the Switch, at least on paper, has considerably more CPU power to burn than the PS4/Bone. The real wild card on the Switch is those 256 Pascal cores in Tegra P1, how that compares with the much older design AMD GPUs on the OG PS4 and Bone is the question. On paper those 256 Pascal cores have 1.5 TFlops of power, how that translates to real-world performance will be the question. The 4.2 Tflops of PS4 Pro outclasses Tegra P1 hands down, but OG PS4? I think the Switch will be a very, very interesting console if it can offer roughly comparable or even better when docked CPU/GPU power to PS4/Bone in that portable form factor.
 
S

Sword Of Doom

Member
Stumpokapow said:
They're not patched for Potato Masher Pro support either, which is a point he brings up in the video.
Click to expand...

Biggest disappointment with the pro has been having to rely on patches to add pro support and even then it might not be the upgrade I was hoping for. Just reminded me that if I want performance, I should just stick to my PC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The RTX 2060 Masher Vs XBONEX Vs Masher PRO
2
649
Can't decide replied
Potato Masher (console-level used PC) vs PS4/PS4 Pro in Watch_Dogs 2
8 9 10 11 12
552
70K
Saucycarpdog replied
Potato Masher (console-level PC) vs PS4/PS4 Pro in Dishonored 2
32
6K
iavi replied
Battlefield 1 at 4K - $450 PC vs PS4 Pro - The Potato Masher Pro
2 3 4 5 6
265
44K
icecold1983 replied
  • Locked
"I Need a New PC!" 2020. Ray Tracing. 120Hz-360Hz. Next-Gen Already.
24 25 26 27 28
1K
108K
DGrayson replied
Top Bottom