He's literally the guy that built a budget PC with the intention of proving that PS4 was superior. In his mind, everyone is wrong and biased unless they agree with his preference. It's certainly bizarre.
-
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.
Digital Foundry: Watch Dogs 2 PC 4K (Titan X) vs PS4 Pro
- Thread starter adamsapple
- Start date
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Yep, that's my take away as well. If a $399 device is doing a good enough job to even be put against (and coming up very favorably bar half the frame rate) a behemoth PC setup, it's getting the job done A-OK.
Sad Affleck
Member
This. It certainly makes me hopeful for future Pro support.
Lister
Banned
I won't lie, that's kind of awesomeDid he prove it at least?
What do you think.
thelastword
Banned
Yeah, but we are talking about an i7 CPU, these are a far cry from a jaguar CPU. Locking this game at 60fps should not be an issue on account of the CPU. Please bare in mind that the Jaguar has a very solid albeit locked 30fps, so that means it's running at a higher framerate than 30fps on a PS4.Pro.
Which ones?
The Jaguar is no I7, but it is not as bad as people say it is. I personally believe the Titan X is a lot of money to waste on a GPU, for the price you pay, this should be smoking every game at ultra settings at 4k, but that is defintely not the case.....Remember this Titan X is paired with the best gaming CPU out there, it's not a mid level GPU paired with a notebook CPU, so I do expect much better graphical presets combined with 60fps as a given....
Btw, looking at the comparison here, the IQ is pretty close wouldn't you say? they even trade blows.........
I won't lie, that's kind of awesome
Check JERMgaming's Potato Masher series of videos. Dude's built a pretty capable PC with prices that match the base PS4 & PRO.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZR-a35sxLg
capitalCORN
Member
How quickly some of you write off 60fps+ off. That's double the fillrate right there.
Sad Affleck
Member
I would. The difference in quality and framerate isn't as large as one would expect between a $400 console and a top-of-the-line PC based on the price. However most people who buy PCs already know that the law of diminishing returns is in full effect when it comes to high-end hardware. You always pay a price premium for owning the latest and greatest and you frequently get bad value for money. If you are trying to compare the performance per dollar of a console and a PC in gaming then using a top of the line PC is the absolute worst way to do so.
As for Jaguar, it's jot a good CPU but it seems adequate for a games console and developers have managed to utilize it to a decent degree.
I'm already a subscriber, great channel.
thelastword
Banned
Great....They're not running this at 4k native on the Titan X. Also, how much better is that Titan X over the 480 and how much better is that i7 over the jaguar CPU? Does that matter?
Sad Affleck
Member
The Titan X is a bit more than twice as fast as an RX480 in Watch Dogs 2 at 1440p based on Guru 3d's benchmarks.
capitalCORN
Member
It matters when people want to make the 'price comparison' which is so popular. The lack of 4k is on the developer (no idea why it's checkerboarded).
Easier said than done considering how demanding 4k is on games if you want 60FPS+.
LelouchZero
Member
Smoking every game at Ultra settings 4K? All games are not made equally, they have a variety of difference demands, one game could implement an expensive graphical feature that hits the performance really hard, and another may not feature something like this and be lighter for it. This expensive effect may not even be leaps and bounds above the lower quality effects but it also demands a lot more performance for it.
This game features a variety of expensive graphical features that the developers didn't even have to implement, things like screens space reflections and the significantly higher quality shadows which are HFTS and PCSS which are really expensive.
People are obsessed with max settings at frame-rates they deem the game should run at, and it just hurts the game and the developers for demanding max settings at an arbitrary frame-rate on current GPU hardware.
Dying Light got it's draw distance nerfed for this so more people can "max" the game out.
Running at PS4 Pro equivalent settings the Titan X Pascal would probably be able to run this at 4K 30 fps, or close to it. A GTX 1060 and RX 480 can run this game at similar or slightly above PS4 Pro settings and run it at 60 fps.
Watch Dogs 2 PC: GTX 1060 vs RX 480 Frame-Rate Test
You can turn off temporal filtering.
They trade blows pretty well. The 750ti holds its own.I won't lie, that's kind of awesome
Equanimity
Member
thelastword
Banned
There's no law of diminishing returns, there's always an effect that's on the graphical slide that PC gamers deem the second coming and transformative to the experience, most times, these are effects eliminated on the consoles or reduced. Truthfully, most times it's just really expensive effects that brings $1000+ GPU's to their knees due to how expensive and unoptimized they are as well.
The point is, the Jaguar is doing much more than people thought it would do, some of the games with the best physics and A.i this gen, I've played on the PS4. Not saying much more is not possible on PC, but what's the point of paying all this money when it's not being utilized outside of expensive and unoptimized effects (GPU) and rendering millions of fodder A.I that brings your expensive cpu to 100% utilization in a typical RTS?
I think a better point has to be made for these expensive parts. So when people rush in and say oh my $1500.00 GPU is being maxed out and my i7 CPU is being maxed out. It is mostly through brute force, not in especially smarter A.I or more realistic graphics per- se. I still say that hairworks in Witcher 3 is simply a way to tax GPU's needlessly just to impress upon folk that their GPU is doing something spectacular. It does not look especially better or rather more realistic looking or aesthetically pleasing than the standard hair, I prefer the look of the standard hair personally, and hairworks as it is, is way unoptimized. On the flip, working with consoles and lesser CPU's we had Nixxes putting purehair in-game in ROTTR on the PS4. Brute forcing effects is the quickest way to have people splooge cash for the latest effect, that don't even look all that realistic in the first place.
In the end there's always an effect that's really costly on the PC, so big budget GPU spenders can say the game looks like trash without it, or it's a whole other game and all that Jazz. Whether that be hairworks, vxao or any other SS effect that the vendors will come up with, to keep that high end GPU market spinning.
Only twice as fast? but much more than twice the price I'd imagine? I wonder how many 480's I'd be able to buy for the price of one titan X......
So you see, price is important in the conversation, if I'm going to buy something so expensive, performance, resolution, effects should all be exponentially better at a much higher standard. So when some people crap on the Jaguars for being cheap and notebooky (hell, even cell phone status). It's always surprising to me when I see comments like the "i7 CPU is being taxed" hence why it's not doing much more than the Jaguar with A.I and physics or DD in (Watchdogs 2 as an example). With all the shit-isms I've seen used to describe Jaguar here, and the fact that it is said that WD2 is CPU intensive, you would have never thought it would run Watchdogs 2 so sublime....Or maybe it is, Ubisoft is the only third party using GPGPU the way it was meant to, which is something I've always suggested.........
One thing is sure. UBI had a rough start, but they are the best third party developer on consoles right now, bar none....
Lister
Banned
Are you seeing the frame rates?
They are in the 60-80 range, at the very high preset. The poster you quoted is probably right in that it's likely those GPUs could run the game at PS4 pro settings at 4K at around 30 FPS.
Sad Affleck
Member
Gaming is a fun hobby and it's not that expensive as hobbies go. While many people are satisfied by the performance offered by a console and others are satisfied by the performance of a gaming PC, there are those who want to enjoy gaming at its best and can afford to do so. It doesn't matter if you or I think that the difference between low end and high end hardware isn't worth the extra cost, these people want the best possible gaming experience and they are willing to pay for it. The point of paying all this money is to enjoy games such as Watch Dogs 2 at the best quality and framerate possible. If I had the money to pay for it I too would own a beastly rig because why not?
As I said, diminishing returns. You don't buy a Titan X for its good bang-for-the-buck ratio, you buy it because you want the fastest single card available at the time. If you have to ask how much it costs, it's not for you.
thelastword
Banned
With a better CPU I'd Imagine......
capitalCORN
Member
So the 4k test is at 33%+ resolution, at least twice the framerate, and certain higher settings. It's best not to draw apples to apples.
thelastword
Banned
Well it's certainly not apples to apples. One GPU can be had for less than $200.00 and the other is within a range of $1500.00 to 3000.00 on Amazon. That's cost....now specs says that the titan x GPU is at least 11 TF against 4.2TF and that CPU is just going to Usain Bolt that Jaguar in a CPU test even with a handicap.......
It must also be known that the GPU and CPU can be overclocked as it's often done in those DF tests. They overclock the i7 often and the GPU was overclocked to run Horizon 3 at 4k 60fps where it still dipped below 60fps.... if i remember correctly. So that 11TF can be potentially much more with a slider in tweaksoftware. How's them apples...?
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
Nvidia price gouges on the Titan because AMD can't compete with it. It's primarily intended for compute tasks rather than gaming. A factory overclocked 1080 would have most of the gaming performance at a fraction of the price.
capitalCORN
Member
Unless you're doing some mystery shopping, I don't see any 480 at less than $200. The Titan X is the dickwave card you get for minimum benefit over a 1080.
LelouchZero
Member
Yes of course, I forgot to mention that.
What are you even trying to say? The options are there for people to use them if they want to, that's what PC Gaming is about.
You're complaining about them for the sake of complaining. Or are you complaining about them because they're not featured on consoles?
PureHair is the successor to TressFX that was first introduced in Tomb Raider 2013, a PC exclusive feature that was only possible on PC until the next generation of consoles, it was also GPU accelerated on PC there. So it's pretty pointless to bring up PureHair and talk about it being possible on consoles with their "lesser CPU's".
30 fps is sublime? If the Jaguar is so capable then was is it not running Watch Dogs 2 at 1080p 60 fps? Or Rise of the Tomb Raider at 60 fps?
You can sugar-coat the Jaguar CPUs all you want but facts are facts, they are simply less capable than i7 processors. Why do you feel the need to spin things by mentioning the ability to have "millions of fodder A.I" and "expensive and unoptimized effects (GPU)" when things are done on PC but not on consoles?
Equanimity
Member
Yeah it's hovering between 55-70fps during gameplay between the two cards.
RX 480 drops below 60fps indoors and the settings range between high to very high at 1080p. And the person I quoted did not say the two cards in question can run the game at 4K and 30fps at console presets.
That's alright
Karak
Member
How did you guys accomplish the side by side same controlled video? A number of us kept running into roadblocks getting something set up like that.
dr_rus
Member
PS4Pro doesn't run 4K native either.
Ps4 doesn't cost over a 1000 either
Anyway that's really good for ps4 pro.
Can't wait for ps5. The idea of getting games without jaggies is pretty amazing. Loving the iq on ps4 pro.
Definitely at day time!
Equanimity
Member
Yep, it's a much better CPU.
thelastword
Banned
Most people use their titans for gaming, saying it's used for compute tasks means nothing really. Any GPU can be used for compute tasks... I'm pretty sure you do much more with your GPU than gaming, well most people do anyway. Also, the titan X is the absolute gaming standard for a single core GPU atm and it's used in every PC gaming benchmark as noteworthy.
The 1080 is below the titan X in performance and does not hit 4k 60fps as often as the titan x in many games at ultra settings, overclocked or not. As a matter of fact, even the mighty titan x which you buy for a fortune, has to be overclocked in some games and settings lowered and still does not attain 4k 60fps in some games.
Well the 4 GB's could be had for below 200.00 and the 8GB's have gone on sale below that too. Also, lets not forget that the Pro's 480 is still lower clocked than the 5.8TF GPU at retail. So putting all that into perspective and comparing the results here against a titan. I think it's mighty impressive coupled with a Jaguar CPU.
Purehair looks much better now and it used to be a resource hog at first light, it's running in-game on a Jaguar CPU, not only in cutscenes. The hair looked great in cutscenes and now it looks great in-game. It looks more realistic now over version 1.0, yet it's running a better looking hair on lesser CPU's. The point is, bruteforcing effects does not mean an effect is accurate or could not be done better with less resources.
Well a 1080p 60fps option was not provided so we don't know how well it would run. Do you know how well it would run without stats? Also ROTTR seems to be holding 60fps quite well in smaller levels and fight scenes and runs about 40-50fps in much larger scenes with lots of A.I. I'll say that's pretty impressive still for Jaguars.
Yeah, well Doctor, you should know better.......The PS4.PRO does not sport an 11TF GPU, but even then, the 11TF GPU does not run it native at max settings. It runs it checkerboarded with reduced settings from ultra to hit 60fps. Also, it has the benefit of a beast CPU too.
Titan X is not good value for money. But poeple don't buy it because it's value for money, they buy it because they want the best and can afford it.
With many PC game engines, the top 'ultra' settings for things like shadows, reflections, AO are disproportionately expensive in terms of power needed vs visual benefit.
That creates an environment where if you cherry pick your settings carefully, you can deliver 'good enough' visual quality on something like a pro. That should be applauded. Hopefully it also encourages more PC engines to look at 'cost saving' measures like checkerboard rendering so that more people can appreciate higher resolution gaming on the more mainstream GPUs
With many PC game engines, the top 'ultra' settings for things like shadows, reflections, AO are disproportionately expensive in terms of power needed vs visual benefit.
That creates an environment where if you cherry pick your settings carefully, you can deliver 'good enough' visual quality on something like a pro. That should be applauded. Hopefully it also encourages more PC engines to look at 'cost saving' measures like checkerboard rendering so that more people can appreciate higher resolution gaming on the more mainstream GPUs
Trying to hold a steady 60 FPS always seems like it requires a lot more than simply double the GPU power.
Things like CPU speed and memory bandwidth start to play a far bigger role for one thing.
I can easily run many games at a perfect 4K30 on my system (GTX 1070, 2500K@4.5GHz) but then it will struggle to hold a solid 1080p60.
A lot of PC-specific graphical options are very demanding too.
Things like increased ambient occlusion quality can be massive performance hits but something like that is not likely to demo well in a YouTube video.
A lot of very high/ultra settings are things which look subtle in isolation but add up to really making the image look a lot more refined.
It seems like developers just sometimes throw these options in because some day in the future you will be able to turn them all on without worrying about the performance, rather than intending for people to use them now.
I'm still surprised that Richard used the temporal filtering option in WD2 though.
I can run the game at native 4K at a solid 30 FPS on my system with a mixture of settings from high to ultra.
I would think that their system could handle native 4K60 without having to resort to the temporal filtering.
It really hurts image quality as soon as you start to move the camera. Edges get a sawtooth appearance not too dissimilar to an interlaced display.
It's a shame they don't also include a more typical TAA option like most new games are using now. NVIDIA's TXAA is a massive performance hit, and results in weird image artifacting at times.
No-one ever said that high-end hardware was good value. That's not the point of it.
Just look at the number of CUDA Cores any given NVIDIA GPU has versus how much it costs.
- Titan XP:  3584 cores, $1200. $0.33/core.
- GTX 1080: 2560 cores, $699.  $0.27/core.
- GTX 1070: 1920 cores, $449.  $0.23/core.
- GTX 1060: 1280 cores, $299.  $0.23/core.
- 1050 Ti:    768 cores, $139.  $0.18/core.
But value doesn't mean anything if the card doesn't offer the performance that you want.
And it doesn't account for the fact that a higher-end card could last you longer if you don't intend on replacing it immediately.
High-end PC gaming isn't for everybody. PC gaming isn't for everybody.
If you just care about being able to play the games without much consideration for performance or image quality, a console is probably going to win on "value" most of the time.
Value doesn't mean anything to me when gaming at 30 FPS with a low FoV makes me nauseous.
I've always gone for mid-range parts like the GTX 1070 and i5 CPUs instead of i7s because I find that they struck a good balance between performance and value for my budget, but I understand why many people buy high-end hardware.
It's really not that expensive compared to many other adult hobbies/pastimes, especially if you're only upgrading every few years.
That really hasn't been true since the original Titan/Titan Black.
Current Titans may be suitable as rendering cards due to the amount of VRAM they have, but they're not for compute.
LelouchZero
Member
Lowering settings is irrelevant, and I said in a previous post all games are not made equally so expecting games to perform to an arbitrary performance level at max settings is silly. The settings are also higher than what the consoles are capable of.
PureHair looks and runs better because optimizations were made.
Also, where did you hear that PureHair runs on the CPU?
Dips to 40-50 fps is not impressive at all, a 5 years and 10 months+ old CPU can do 60 fps with minor fluctuations below at stock clocks.
Two new PlayStation 4s and an Xbox have been released since this CPU was released in Janauary 2011.
I'm speechless, utterly speechless. Why must you try so hard to sell the PlayStation 4 Pro on fallacies? No one's hating on the machine, and various members have expressed that they're impressed with how it holds up in this game.
The comparisons you're making regarding the PC hardware and the PS4 Pro make no sense when the PC is running the game at a higher resolution, twice the frame-rate and higher graphical settings then the PS4 Pro ever could.
Complaining about the pricing of the Titan X Pascal is futile, Titans have never really been good value for money, however they hold their value pretty well and can be sold on months or years later for a considerable amount compared to other hardware.
Yes definitely.
Saucycarpdog
Member
You're talking to someone has complained about PC being included in DF discussions, accused DF of having a Microsoft bias, and made his own comparison threads so he could continue spouting his nonsensical conclusions.
I'm not even sure why there's a debate going on in this thread. The video was pretty complimentary of both versions and was simply offering a point of reference between the most mass market high resolution mode, PS4 Pro, and a high end PC experience. I was very impressed by both.
Yes, this as well. Some games are harder to run than others so maxing them at 4k and 60FPS would be tough. Not to mention 4k is always demanding no matter what gpu or even rig you have now, maybe in 3-5 years 4k will be easier to handle.
thelastword
Is it really a question your asking an answer for though? It should be obvious that thelastword has a Playstation agenda and essentially tries to run with it every time PC is brought into the conversation at any point.
Its just sad i think.
I'm most peeved at the fact that the native 4K mode was not tested on PC. I want to see how the real experience stacks up to the synthetic
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Should be useful on high end hardware for supersampling on a 4K display.
The PS4 and XB1's jaguar are weaker than the weakest i3 equivalent CPU line that came out in 2011.
I don't think that an overclock like Pro has gets it any closer to the amount of power high end CPU's have in today's arena.
With that in mind, we should understand that the issue these high end components are having are the extremely crazy performance hogs a lot of these much higher settings require.
Its not as simple as just saying they should be maxing out everything all the time. Especially in a PC like environment where specs are definitely not fully tailored to.
In that way, Pro has an unfair advantage in this comparison, despite it being legitimately good for Pro owners that the Pro version holds up so well.
I don't think that an overclock like Pro has gets it any closer to the amount of power high end CPU's have in today's arena.
With that in mind, we should understand that the issue these high end components are having are the extremely crazy performance hogs a lot of these much higher settings require.
Its not as simple as just saying they should be maxing out everything all the time. Especially in a PC like environment where specs are definitely not fully tailored to.
In that way, Pro has an unfair advantage in this comparison, despite it being legitimately good for Pro owners that the Pro version holds up so well.
Aztechnology
Member
Seems like a very poor test setup if I'm being honest. The PS4 Pro is an impressive machine but I feel like this is very very misrepresentative of what you should expect from the PS4 Pro. The highest end settings on PC often are massive performance drains for very little appreciable differences in performance, I'm fact I would argue net negative benefits. A PC setup with a 480 and a decent CPU is still going to run games much better for an entire machine that costs less than a Titan X.
Sad Affleck
Member
Of course, but it is still interesting to see how consoles stack up and how much horsepower you need to max the game out.
Kaleinc
Banned
Bugatti Chiron being 100+ times more expensive than Toyota Camry doesn't mean it's 100 times faster.
Pro optimization should be a huge priority for Sony to convince players to resist the call of the master race. As a PC player I find the results here most impressive - on the Pro side. I know that exclusives will roll nicely and it would appear that I use the PS4 solely for those.
Kudos to the team of WD2!
Kudos to the team of WD2!