Support NeoGAF

[Tenebrous]

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.

Legit windows keys don't cost £100 and you don't need to buy an AV.

 

[AkuMifune]

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.

I guess much faster is subjective. I did it just for Bloodborne and really found it helped a ton.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-bloodborne-performance-analysis

Above, we've expanded our test range across more areas, where we see Old Yharnam particularly suffering. This lasts as long as 54 seconds for each respawn on the PS4's stock HDD, making any death in this area particularly punitive. By comparison, a 1TB SSHD brings that number down to 39 seconds, while an SSD shaves it a little further to 36.8 seconds. The PS4's stock drive is a 5,400rpm model with slow seek times that delivers the worst results. Next best is the 7,200rpm HDD, which is sharply improved by the SSHD and SSD drives.

Almost 20 seconds on Bloodborne is much faster. To me, at least.

 

[alexandros]

I really don't understand these threads.

Why enter them then?

 

[IAmRandom31]

PS4 version is extremely beautiful. I am mostly surprised by the excellent IQ. I thought I would be seeing all kinds of technical issues on screen due to the massive amount of RAM that must be used for this open world game along with the technical stuff happening all over. Physics on the hair and clothes and the varying winds on the trees and the shadowing and the high amount of grass and vegetation all over the place ( unless its a barren wasteland of death on a battlefield ). But nah, I'm hard pressed to find an annoying jaggie or a distant shimmering object. The most noticeable issue would be the tops of the water in the distance as it all kinds of blends together and causing some unsightly issues but other then that, very clean IQ.

Framerate is also strong when it matters. Could care less if it hitches for a nanosecond entering a room or theres a momentary stutter during a cutscene. When I'm walking through town or in the deep woods and suddenly a Bear jumps out of nowhere and almost takes my arm off, im able to react and move without a hitch. So yeh, where it matters, the PS4 version seems to be ultra-smooth.

 

[Lockjaw333]

This thread lol...

Here I was constantly in awe in how beautiful the game is playing on my PS4, I'd be liable to think it's the worst shit this gen going by these posts. Embarrassing.

Exactly. Without being being TOLD what exactly the console version is lacking, they are able to appreciate the visuals and enjoy it. Then when the DF faceoff comes out the game suddenly looks like shit on consoles. Same thing every time.

 

[Denton]

I love that Witcher loads in about 5 seconds while sporting zero loadings inside zones bigger than Skyrim.

 

[Beerman462]

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?



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.

1. No, but some people are interested in seeing the differences in graphics features. Also they did some testing with a bargain PC(i3/750Ti) and proved that it runs the game just as well as a PS4. That was very interesting to me.


2. No one ever said a vast majority are playing it at 60fps, but the opportunity is there unlike on consoles.

 

[Freshmaker]

If anything, the two screenshots between the PS4 and PC here signify to me that the differences are pretty minimal aside from the slightly crisper textures on the PC side.

Opening up the images in separate tabs and switching between them, I really don't see the so-called gulf in quality. Not at all.

The PS4 version has almost nobody in the town in those screens.

 

[alexandros]

Exactly. Without being being TOLD what exactly the console version is lacking, they are able to appreciate the visuals and enjoy it. Then when the DF faceoff comes out the game suddenly looks like shit on consoles. Same thing every time.

You can appreciate a game's visuals and art direction while also being aware of its shortcomings. Look guys, it's really simple: if you don't care about technical details or how different platforms stack up against each other, why are you even clicking the thread? Play the game, have fun, go and post on the OTs and let those who do care about that stuff discuss them in peace.

 

[omonimo]

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

Frame rate drops 40-20fps in different moments. That's what DF face off said. So...not sure what's exactly it's better on xbone version. It's just uncapped.

 

[Beerman462]

You can appreciate a game's visuals and art direction while also being aware of its shortcomings. Look guys, it's really simple: if you don't care about technical details or how different platforms stack up against each other, why are you even clicking the thread? Play the game, have fun, go and post on the OTs and let those who do care about that stuff discuss them in peace.

I think quite a few people came in hoping the PS4=PC high settings was true.

 

[The Inventor]

They don't mention horrible and constant camera judder/stuttering on PS4 (I don't know if it's also present on XOne) ._.

I captured a video using share on my PS4.
Take a look at the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0bdLblqI04&feature=youtu.be&t=2m30s

Notice just how bad the camera is stuttering all the time

I don't feel it THAT much on X1, honestly. I can totally see it in your vídeo.

 

[Kezen]

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

I know that but you are limited by sata 2 on PS4.

 

[Obliterator]

By the way guys I wasn't trying to trash the PS4 version with what I posted, the PS4 port is solid. Its just this IS a comparison thread and I've had experience with both. I just think this game in particular is the biggest gap between PC and console

 

[chromatic9]

I think quite a few people came in hoping the PS4=PC high settings was true.

Probably be mostly ultra and some high in the NX gamer video

 

[ANDS]

Why enter them then?

To see a comparison of the technical merits of the versions, not see people rehash the same system wars nonsense that seeps into all of these threads.

 

[thelastword]

How do you know if they didn't use the memory for something else? PS4 memory is unified so I'm sure they have a budget on how much memory they can use for textures.

Which games?

Other open world games have used the best textures on PS4, similar to the PC version. I'm talking games with good foliage, good AA and lots of effects too.

As for games with HBAO; BF4, Need For Speed Rivals, Dying Light, Watchdogs, Dragon Age, Far Cry 4 just to name a few. I won't even use exclusives.

CDPR got the most out of the ps4 as they could is what I meant. Obviously.

I mean, maybe they could have pushed it a little more if they're concentrated solely on the ps4, but it wouldn't have been that different to what we have now. Maybe a few setting a nudged a little higher here and there and better overall performance, but nothing huge.

They would be able to do much more if multiplat development didn't cut their time so thin. Multiplats are also never good indicators of what's possible on a console, you have several versions of games you have to cater to and you may just get most of them to a good enough level in the time you've got. If they were such good indicators then RE2 Revelations would state that the XBONE is more powerful than the PS4, this is not how things work in the console space. Even the developer have accepted that they have further work to do in bringing the console versions to a better state.

^DA:I looks better in terms of IQ and assets, imagine at 4k. But this has nice bloom...apart from the shitty stain effect. At 1080p, the vegetation is godawful though. It looks nice overall at least on 1440p. Pretty atmospheric apart from the appalling lack of raindrops in a thunderstorm.

I think DA.I looks excellent too, the locations the art. General textures and foliage are a bit disappointing in W3, but we got a hint about it a while before it released. Armor etc..especially in cutscenes look pretty good though.

You should be aware of the fact that Ultra Textures are the same as High except that room is allocated for them in VRAM. It should also be noted that this game eats tons of RAM, more than the 5.5 available for vram+ram on the ps4.

I know that, but DF alluded to textures even lower than high which is why I made my statement. Mordor was an open game and handled high textures pretty well.

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.

I don't know why a console beating experience is so important, but it seems that the specs you've described would normally just match the consoles or be slightly more consistent in framerate and it's still a more expensive setup than the PS4 as a whole.

The Titan X was just recently released, even with hairworks, W3 is no type advancement in terms of raw visuals and effects like Crysis or Far Cry was back in the day. These built for PC type games are now a rare breed. I don't see how someone buying a Titan X won't have such expectations for it, it's not a $200.00 card, not even $300 or $400 card even. There's just something pretty distasteful about Nvidia hardware, their technologies, their prices and the performance return even with their own technologies, it's very slippery slope for the PC gpu scene tbh.

 

[Skyzard]

I'm impressed console versions manage high foliage. That makes a big difference to the feel from medium and it's demanding on PCs. Though I don't know how much grass density affects it.

I think DA.I looks excellent too, the locations the art. General textures and foliage are a bit disappointing in W3, but we got a hint about it a while before it released. Armor etc..especially in cutscenes look pretty good though.

Yep, W3 isn't shabby at all. Graphics are still decent and quite often impressive or at least atmospheric.

 

[Zakalwe]

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

I don't understand this at all. I've seen both (max pc and ps4) next to each other and the difference is significant.

Sorry, but saying they're near identical is just ridiculous.

 

[UpDownLeftRight]

Legit windows keys don't cost £100 and you don't need to buy an AV.

Perhaps it's got cheaper but the last time I bought Windows 7 it cost me £90 which was certainly the larger portion of £100. Very true that you don't need to buy AV though, that's probably more of a habit I've grown into where I always get a premium AV for any expensive rig.

Checking Overclockers now it seems Windows is still £79.99 for an OEM though so it's not exactly far off the £100 mark.

 

[alexandros]

To see a comparison of the technical merits of the versions, not see people rehash the same system wars nonsense that seeps into all of these threads.

If you want to see that comparison you should read the article. The forum thread is for discussing the findings of the article.

 

[swnny]

Offtopic, but I really want to know what's the name of the melody/sound in the PS4vsPC video. Really nice and smooth.

 

[Neofire]

I don't understand this at all. I've seen both (max pc and ps4) next to each other and the difference is significant.

Sorry, but saying it's near identical is just ridiculous.

imo so is comparing a 800 dollar plus rig to a 400 console....

 

[Zakalwe]

imo so is comparing a 800 dollar plus rig to a 400 console....

The /entire/ point this thread and the article in the OP is to make these comparisons.

 

[Kezen]

O
I don't know why a console beating experience is so important, but it seems that the specs you've described would normally just match the consoles or be slightly more consistent in framerate and it's still a more expensive setup than the PS4 as a whole.

It's important to understand scalability, sure any PC multiplats can bring a very high end GPU to 30fps territory but at the same time it can also run superbly on much, much less capable hardware. I believe such a setup would end up costing more than either console at the moment but everyone's situation and expectations are different, I don't think 7850/7870/760 owners expected to run this game better than the PS4, yet it does, albeit by a slim margin.

The Titan X was just recently released, even with hairworks, W3 is no type advancement in terms of raw visuals and effects like Crysis or Far Cry was back in the day. These built for PC type games are now a rare breed. I don't see how someone buying a Titan X won't have such expectations for it, it's not a $200.00 card, not even $300 or $400 card even. There's just something pretty distasteful about Nvidia hardware, their technologies, their prices and the performance return even with their own technologies, it's very slippery slope for the PC gpu scene tbh.

I can't speak for Titan X owners but I would never, ever expect X piece of hardware to run Y game at 60fps/max settings, it's a great thing Hairworks exists and it looks really superb, if you haven't seen in on many monsters and assets take a look at some footage on Youtube. You will clearly understand why even a Titan X can't run it at 60fps consistently.

Everybody oughts to understand what scalability means, I don't want PC gaming ceiling to capped at what a Titan X can achieve at 60fps.

Looking at this very well made Face Off I'm even more impressed by the PC version, I didn't expect to be such leages ahead. And we are only in 2015 and PC versions offer settings much beyond what either console can seemingly handle, PC gpus are still stuck on the 2012 28nm, I'll let that sink in.

I'm more than ever looking forward Face Off between consoles and max PC settings in 2016 with Pascal and the Radeon 400 series.

 

[cgcg]

I don't feel it THAT much on X1, honestly. I can totally see it in your vídeo.

That's because he's purposely manipulating the camera in a way to give false impressions. He's doing a constant rotate, stop, rotate, stop camera movement. The camera in this game is a little off with it's physics and I bet its the same with all versions if you rotate the camera the way he did. It has nothing to do with performance like he's implying with that YouTube title lol.

 

[Dictator93]

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.

Actually there are tons considering how low the settings on the PS4 version actually are.

 

[qa_engineer]

imo so is comparing a 800 dollar plus rig to a 400 console....

My rig is closer to 3k

Everyone is getting butthurt over this comparison meanwhile I'm just amazed that a 400 dollar box can run a game like the witcher 3 at the fidelity that it does.

 

[finalflame]

I guess much faster is subjective. I did it just for Bloodborne and really found it helped a ton.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-bloodborne-performance-analysis



Almost 20 seconds on Bloodborne is much faster. To me, at least.

Fair enough, I wasn't aware that it had such an impact on Bloodborne loading times. Actually makes me consider getting that 1TB SSHD now.

 

[RoboPlato]

As for games with HBAO; BF4, Need For Speed Rivals, Dying Light, Watchdogs, Dragon Age, Far Cry 4 just to name a few. I won't even use exclusives.

For the record, HBAO and HBAO+ are different things.

 

[Kezen]

For the record, HBAO and HBAO+ are different things.

Indeed. HBAO+ is much better.
But HBAO would have been better than the consoles' low quality AO. Maybe they will enhance it sometimes down the line.

 

[ANDS]

If you want to see that comparison you should read the article. The forum thread is for discussing the findings of the article.

"System wars" and "discussing the findings of the article" are not even close to the same thing. Are you even reading people's posts?

The /entire/ point this thread and the article in the OP is to make these comparisons.

Maybe I'm missing something, but the IQ in the PS4 vs PC video wasn't like comparing apples to oranges. Individuals are coming in with high end rigs crowing about how great a disparity their exists, when that isn't what folks like the individual you are responding to are comparing. At all.

 

[DirtyManos]

Game is staggeringly gorgeous at so many points; however, the one thing that bugs me still is I guess pop-in(?) that happens especially in Novigrad.

Whether details in architecture or citizens themselves, it's jarring to have it be a common occurrence.

I don't know if that's something that would be fixed by having it on a SSD, or is there some ini tweak that could be made?

 

[Zakalwe]

Maybe I'm missing something, but the IQ in the PS4 vs PC video wasn't like comparing apples to oranges. Individuals are coming in with high end rigs crowing about how great a disparity their exists, when that isn't what folks like the individual you are responding to are comparing. At all.

What are they comparing then?

The individual I was responding to said PC ultra settings and ps4 are "near identical". Ultra settings are ultra settings whatever the system is running them.

 

[chromatic9]

I know that but you are limited by sata 2 on PS4.

Sata II is pretty fast at 300mb/s. HDD specs are stuck around 50-140mb/s and the stock drives in consoles would probably be around 50-100. For whatever reason the consoles this gen and last don't show much improvement when you add an SSD. They don't saturate sata II by the looks of it. You still get typical HDD speeds with a SSD.

You get 0-20% improvement over a stock 100mb/s 5400 rpm drive found in a ps4 and mostly on the lower side.

SSD on PC are now 600mb/s and even more on PCIE getting 1-2gb.

 

[BlackNinja]

Other open world games have used the best textures on PS4, similar to the PC version. I'm talking games with good foliage, good AA and lots of effects too.

Other open world games don't have as much content as W3 on a per-frame basis. That RAM has to be used for something.

As for games with HBAO; BF4, Need For Speed Rivals, Dying Light, Watchdogs, Dragon Age, Far Cry 4 just to name a few. I won't even use exclusives.

Where are you getting your information from?

Digital Foundry

FarCry 4 Faceoff:

The core artwork is also given a boost on PC via deployment of higher-resolution textures and improved levels of anisotropic filtering, which bestows a greater amount of high frequency detail to rocks, brickwork, car dashboards and other elements. Detailed texture layers are present on consoles, although these appear to be used more liberally on PC, adding an extra intricate touch to various surfaces. Other upgrades are a little more subtle but nonetheless effective at helping to deliver a more refined look to to the way locations are presented throughout the game. In particular, PCSS (percentage closer soft shadows) give these elements a more natural appearance that changes depending on the positioning and distance from the casting light source, while the use of HBAO+ results in accurate ambient shadows that look smoother and feature better coverage across foliage.

Dying Light:

Outside of limited anti-aliasing options, the PC version of Dying Light is reasonably tweakable, with a range of adjustments available including shadow and texture quality, view distance, motion blur, and a pair of Nvidia Gameworks features: HBAO+ and Nvidia depth of field.

WatchDogs:

Ambient occlusion is probably the next most noticeable difference, especially in the rather stark midday sunlit environments, where it comes into its own in adding depth to the scene. MHBAO is Ubisoft's in-house solution, described by Nvidia as a "half-resolution, console quality... technique" and seems to be in place on both PS4 and Xbox One, and it's also the standard solution for PC out of the box. However, the strength of the effect is significantly lowered on the Microsoft console, reducing the impact of the effect somewhat. PC owners get the real benefit with the inclusion of Nvidia's HBAO+,

Dragon Age: Inquisition:

Both versions also utilize HBAO and implement decent anisotropic filtering,

Battlefield 4:

In all, it's our first chance to see Battlefield 4's multiplayer mode in action on Xbox One, and to witness either version of the game running on final retail hardware. On the visual side, HBAO is indeed added to the Xbox One version,

NFS:Rivals:

Based on direct confirmation from Ghost Studios' rendering engineer, Andreas Brinck, the PS4 also gives us the more accurate horizon-based ambient occlusion (HBAO), as seen on the PC's maximum settings. By comparison, the Xbox One relies on an approximate measure with its screen-space approach to shading (SSAO),

All those names you listed and only a small number actually implements HBAO.

 

[Gleethor]

My biggest gripe with the game's visuals on PS4 is how underwhelming it looks during night time. I find myself meditating til dawn once the sun goes down. The way the sunlight peaks through the branches while you're walking through a forest looks great though. The sunsets are also stunning.

 

[Qassim]

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?

You're right, you don't understand these articles. Just because there is a comparison, it doesn't mean the point of the comparison is to find out "Will a high end PC outperform consoles".

It's interesting to know the differences between each versions, that's all. I don't come into these threads with the aim finding out which is the better system, I come into these threads and read these articles because I find it interesting as to what the PC version can scale to (both high and low), how those settings relate to the fixed platforms of the consoles, and what compromises and/or special techniques they made use of on the consoles to reach their desired experience.

 

[thelastword]

All those names you listed and only a small number actually implements HBAO.

Nice one, only if you did read, you would realize that I said HBAO and not the NVIDIA coined HBAO+. You do realize that there are many versions of HBAO right?

Edit: BTW I saw your entire post before that edit. Too bad I didn't quote you before the change, as I was reading the thread.

 

[ANDS]

You're right, you don't understand these articles.

My post said nothing about the article. Maybe read it before jumping to hit reply?

 

[joecanada]

Between this and reports of constant judder I'll happily pick this up used for PS4... Still need to pick up mordor anyway... Great to be a few months behind with games

 

[alexandros]

"System wars" and "discussing the findings of the article" are not even close to the same thing. Are you even reading people's posts?

I will admit I am often having difficulty in determining what constitutes system wars as it seems like a bit of a moving target. This is a thread discussing an article about the differences between platforms in a specific game. Comparisons are inevitable, so are talks about technical details and hardware performance. I don't see how you can discuss a topic like this in any other way.

 

[Putty]

I'm about 7 hrs or so in and the FR is begging to big down quite badly on PS4 version, generally around boggy/marshy areas. Prolonged aswell. I can see a patch somewhere down the line improving but certainly not at a constant 30fps. In the main it's pretty solid, especially given how lush and dense the foliage is.

 

[Neofire]

The /entire/ point this thread and the article in the OP is to make these comparisons.

I never said the thread didn't have a point I was merely stating a fact.

 

[Anarki]

I've just started playing this on my HTPC - i5 2500 (non k), 8GB DDR3, 750Ti (stock), 256GB SSD, etc.

Playing with the following settings I'm getting an average of around 32fps-33fps, occasional dips to 27fps, occasional spikes to 37fps. I thought fraps would of captured the fps display as I was taking screenshots but it didn't.

All PP settings on, ambient occlusion - SSAO.
VSYNC - on. fps - 60 lock. 1080p resolution. Hairworks - off. Background characters - medium. Shadows - medium. Terrain - high. Water - medium. Grass - medium. Textures - high. Foliage - medium. Detail - high. Hardware cursor - off??? don't know what that is.

I'm yet to overclock my 750Ti and play around with the graphics settings but I'm happy so far.

 

[Skyzard]

With this game it feels like you have to put in exponentially higher power to get a little bit more of an impact in quality out of it. I know something similar can be said of all games and graphics in general, but it's particularly bad in this for me.

That power could have been used for much more impactful effects and additions, but why would they bother with that if the consoles can't run them.

 

[Draper]

Yeah, I can only speak for the PS4 version, but damn does the lighting look flat and terrible and the blurring and shadow reduction on all things remotely far away makes the game visually very underwhelming.

 

[Omega]

Looks like an awful job for how the game looks on consoles. I miss the original style of the art. Not impressive for me.

People keep trying to tell me these are some of the best graphics, but this is my PS4:

http://i.imgur.com/anDQ7ir.jpg


Pine needles all but disappear into blurred textures at just a couple dozen feet away on the left bush.

That looks really bad..

 

[Qassim]

My post said nothing about the article. Maybe read it before jumping to hit reply?

The point of the thread is aligned with the article.

 

[alexandros]

I've just started playing this on my HTPC - i5 2500 (non k), 8GB DDR3, 750Ti (stock), 256GB SSD, etc.

Playing with the following settings I'm getting an average of around 32fps-33fps, occasional dips to 27fps, occasional spikes to 37fps. I thought fraps would of captured the fps display as I was taking screenshots but it didn't.

All PP settings on, ambient occlusion - SSAO.
VSYNC - on. fps - 60 lock. 1080p resolution. Hairworks - off. Background characters - medium. Shadows - medium. Terrain - high. Water - medium. Grass - medium. Textures - high. Foliage - medium. Detail - high. Hardware cursor - off??? don't know what that is.

I'm yet to overclock my 750Ti and play around with the graphics settings but I'm happy so far.

Thanks for the details, the shots look great. At which points did you experience the framedrops?