Proof current high-end PC's are already fast enough for next-gen ports?

J

JoeUser

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
3,919
http://www.joystiq.com/2013/03/30/ps4-elemental-demo-of-unreal-engine-4-gets-an-extension/

Here is a video of the PS4 running, in real time, the Unreal Engine 4 tech demo we all know and love.

So what did I see in this demo running real time on PS4?

1. Some what proof that current high-end PC GPU's (GTX 680/7970) seemingly are enough already to max out next-gen console ports.

2. Blurry textures. What is that 8GB DDR5 being used for?!

3. Less particles that last a shorter amount of time than the PC demo.

4. Frame rate drop. Looked at or below 30fps.

5. Low geometry detail on certain parts of character models. Doesn't look good for more than one character on screen at once.

Other than that this still looks rather impressive all things considered. Plus, who is to say how much of the PS4 is truly being utilized? However, as I said in point #1, it seems they're already having to cut back on stuff that the PC version did no problem using a single GTX 680 (which Epic said was running it when they first demo'ed it).

Thoughts?
 
Just fyi, look it side by side with the pc version and you will notice that the textures are the same, so that isn't a valid point.

My thoughts would be "a high end video card, like the 680 used on the same demo on pc, costs more than the expected price of the total console".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dD9CPqSKjTU

^^ that is the pc version. About the rest, i think that you are sorely mistaken about the point of consoles vs pc's, and this same thing happened with each prior generation of consoles.
 
Hardware-wise a $1,000 PC should easily beat a $400 console (even though console makers are making a loss of the console itself).
Of course, PCs get faster over time while consoles specifications are frozen for a while.
 
The PC version was more stable frame rate, and also had better lighting and post-processing.

Anyways, I don't think anyone is doubting that a current generation PC GPU isn't exceptionally more powerful than anything you will see in a PS4. The GDDR5 memory only helps to keep the PS4 GPU at full potential, it's not going to increase the performance of the GPU, which itself is much weaker than current gen pc. It is an APU...
 
The PC version was better yes, but considering this is what the "current" consoles will be able to do, I'm actually quite pleased. I can't wait to see what developers can do once they become intimately familiar with the hardware and start to streamline code down to the metal. That just means PC games will continue to evolve graphics-wise for the next 4 years if not more. I also hope all the extra processing power means better AI and more expansive game settings. I think back to what MS first envisioned Halo to be with sprawling nearly endless landscapes, but it got cut down to fit the 256MB limit of the XBOX to ensure a successful launch.
 
Comparing ANY console to PC gaming rigs is silly.

So, to me, the very fact you're comparing the PS4 to a PC signals that the PS4 is one hell of a powerhouse.
 
RadXge said:
Hardware-wise a $1,000 PC should easily beat a $400 console (even though console makers are making a loss of the console itself).
Of course, PCs get faster over time while consoles specifications are frozen for a while.
Click to expand...

The consoles are frozen forever, not for a while. The only exception I am aware of was the N64 and its ram pack upgrade.

The PS4 will look great, heck even the PS3 looks great even now as I play Tomb Raider. I'd pick one up at launch if there was a worthy game that launches with it, like maybe Dark Souls 2.

That UT engine demo is okay. I would like to see how it would handle outdoor environments besides snowy mountain ridges. Some trees, grass, flowers, wind, water, clouds. Now that would be a real test demo!
 
I would bet $10,000 my pc with a gefore titan any it is faster than the ps4 and new xbox.
 
Cube said:
I would bet $10,000 my pc with a gefore titan any it is faster than the ps4 and new xbox.
Click to expand...

Thats what most people don't get, i've got a pretty nice rig, pretty pricey also, will it be faster then next gens on release day? You bet it will. Its the price/performance comparison people don't look at. These new consoles will be way ahead of last gen and close to pc, but no where near this gen of PC building.
 
JayJapanB said:
"PC"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dD9CPqSKjTU

"PS4"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tn607OoVoRw

Less slow loading poor quality versions.
Click to expand...

1:28 (1:22 PC): PS4 has no shadows being cast from the smoke like PC, lighting is considerably different.
1:50: PS4's depth of field effect looks lower quality, the knights back / silhouette is really strangely blurred
2:09 (2:20 PC): Outside, the lighting is considerably different on the PS4, and the framerate is pretty chuggy. Also the PS4 is somehow missing the door frame texture? The lighting looks much harsher / unnatural on the PS4, this could be from the lack of realtime global illumination. They've switched to statically baking it on the consoles for now.

I can't think of a better way to put it than: the lighting often looks considerably more plausible on the PC than it does the PS4 to me.

TLDR; PC has the hardware advantage, has some dials turned up in response.
 
You can't really price/performance ratio on consoles though because their growth is limited technology wise and can't match a PC's price/performance on a somewhat level playing field. I.E there is no $1,500 console, and obviously a ~$400 PC is going to be gimped as hell. Also, thread title is just begging for flame lol.
 
RadXge said:
Hardware-wise a $1,000 PC should easily beat a $400 console (even though console makers are making a loss of the console itself).
Of course, PCs get faster over time while consoles specifications are frozen for a while.
Click to expand...

Well when you put it that way the extra $600 purely for gaming is actually not that great. If you doubled the PS4's computing power for games (since its relative to the cost in this example) than you would have games that would require you to spend even more than doubling that factor.

PC's are more than just gaming and that's where the biggest differences come into effect. Also PC's get features WAY before they land on consoles.

There is going to come a point where the graphical difference won't be enough for the average consumer to discern. When that peak is reached than PC gaming might be in for an actual downturn instead of a bullshit news story claiming its dying.
 
Wait a minute.... Are you saying a $1,000+ gaming computer can perform the same or better than a $400 console???

1341858117_You-Dont-Say-Meme-Rage-Face-Nicolas.png
 
we should like the next gen consoles because they will give games - even pc games - a nice forward push in the gfx department. we have all the time to hate them later when they push the gfx back.
 
guitarguy6 said:
Wait a minute.... Are you saying a $1,000+ gaming computer can perform the same or better than a $400 console???
Click to expand...

Are you really buying a brand new EVERYTHING every single time you upgrade? I can use the same case, same drives, cables, PSU... plus games are generally cheaper on PC, not paying for XBL or anything -- and the console is selling for a loss as is.

I've gotten a lot of games for $40~ on launch whereas the console equivalents were $60. I got Borderlands 2 for like $32. I've probably saved hundreds from that alone over the years.
 
I kinda wish that new UE4 tech demo was a new IP from Epic...it looked interesting. Instead, I guess we will just get more crappy next-gen xbox-exclusive Gears of War games shovelled out by B-name developers like People Can Fly, like the newly-released Gears Of War: Judgement.
 
I kind of wish there was an updated video of the elemental demo running on PC on the current engine build. In its current state, it looks a lot more similar to the PS4 demo, and in video form would look indistinguishable.

General changes to the engine and lighting system in the last year have brought the PC engine into a more scaleable state, which has resulted in the removal of the voxel lighting system used in last year's PC demo (link), and going back to a newer version of Lightmass and the deferred renderer seen in the Samaritan demo a couple years back.
 
Reminds me of current gen consoles when they came out... PC's were already far ahead, and always will be.
 
RedTalon19 said:
The PC version was better yes, but considering this is what the "current" consoles will be able to do, I'm actually quite pleased. I can't wait to see what developers can do once they become intimately familiar with the hardware and start to streamline code down to the metal. That just means PC games will continue to evolve graphics-wise for the next 4 years if not more. I also hope all the extra processing power means better AI and more expansive game settings. I think back to what MS first envisioned Halo to be with sprawling nearly endless landscapes, but it got cut down to fit the 256MB limit of the XBOX to ensure a successful launch.
Click to expand...

Seeing what they are able to do with 360/PS3 now a days is just incredible. The performance/quality they are getting out of these dated machines is impressive. If you did some comparisons, you would think that the games coming out now a days were for a completely different system.

Also, yes, ports. There have been some really horrible ones, but seeing some decent ones really gives you the idea of how PC games can benefit from the optimizations and knowledge coming out of developing for consoles in general. Games that run smoother and look better than you think they would have are a result of this, and as the gap between PC and consoles gets smaller and smaller, things will only look and run better and better.
 
schenksmill said:
General changes to the engine and lighting system in the last year have brought the PC engine into a more scaleable state, which has resulted in the removal of the voxel lighting system used in last year's PC demo (link), and going back to a newer version of Lightmass and the deferred renderer seen in the Samaritan demo a couple years back.
Click to expand...

So the single most important and foreword thinking aspect of the new engine has been removed to improve scalability on shitty next-gen consoles...
 
KazeoHin said:
So the single most important and foreword thinking aspect of the new engine has been removed to improve scalability on shitty next-gen consoles...
Click to expand...

Kind of. It wasn't particularly practical for PCs right now either. Having your target machine be a high end quad core i7, 680+, and 8+ gigs of RAM at 30 FPS isn't practical for the PC market. Looking at Steam hardware surveys, next-gen consoles are probably even at the higher end of average as it is.
 
schenksmill said:
Kind of. It wasn't particularly practical for PCs right now either. Having your target machine be a high end quad core i7, 680+, and 8+ gigs of RAM at 30 FPS isn't practical for the PC market. Looking at Steam hardware surveys, next-gen consoles are probably even at the higher end of average as it is.
Click to expand...

Software drags hardware forward, not the other way around.
 
There is going to come a point where the graphical difference won't be enough for the average consumer to discern. When that peak is reached than PC gaming might be in for an actual downturn instead of a bullshit news story claiming its dying.
Click to expand...

We reached this point early in the PS3/Xbox 360 cycle. PC gaming didn't have any big downturn. What could and will likely hurt PC gaming is the new generation that's into social media and causal games on tablets and the like.

On the plus side while I think we might lose a few players (Nintendo or Sony) in the next round of the console wars PCs will remain pretty safe because they are awesome content creation/productivity devices.

You simply cannot beat a PC with large mutiple monitors for getting actual real work done (Photoshop, CAD etc etc). Whereas you don't actually need consoles for anything.. This general purpose utlity keeps the 'excuse' alive for buying gaming worthy PCs.
 
The PS4 spent a significant amount of time at 15 fps. This is something I wouldn't even show if I were Epic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top