How my current Gaming PC compares to 2020 Consoles

[Archaea]

The 2020 consoles are equivalent to 1080ti/2080 level GPU and Ryzen 3700 processor with a NVME hard drive, and 16GB of RAM.

For gaming purposes solely:
How does the performance on your current PC compare right now?

 

[criccio]

2080S/2700x so.. equivalent to worse?

 

[Flogger23m]

RTX 2070, 32GB RAM, Ryzen 3700X with SSDs. Pretty much on par, maybe a bit worse.

 

[goodrob]

yeah my gaming rig is getting old now and is worse than 2020 consoles. but I do plan on building a new one later this year or early next depending on parts availability

 

[vegeta535]

3950x with a 1080ti. Both under water and currently waiting to put a new GPU in there.

 

[Cmustang87]

GTX1070 w/ Ryzen 3700X.

Worse.

 

[M76]

Better,
3700X (water cooled)
2080Ti, with OC
32GB Ram
3.5TB NVME SSD.

 

[Westwood]

3600 and a 1060.

Plan on a 3070 when they come out and the stupidity calms down a bit.

 

[exlink]

Ryzen 3700X (very soon to be Zen 3) and a RTX 3090. Definitely better.

 

[zamardii12]

i7-8700 + RTX 2080ti. Better.

 

[Domingo]

OC'd 8700K + 3090. Definitely better, but due to how consoles work...probably not as much as it should be on paper.

 

[RogueTrip]

4790k / 1070ti 16gb ddr3. So worse. Cyberpunk 2077 says it will run on my rig and the only demanding game I have interest in.

 

[renswic]

Mine would be somewhat equal. But I'll count the potability of a gaming laptop as a major plus

 

[bigdogchris]

No comparisons can be made right now because both consoles utilize GPUDirect Storage technology which is not available on PC.

But even if you were, while they may have 16GB of ram, that is shared between CPU and GPU task, so it would be more equivalent of 8GB of system ram and 8GB of GPU memory (plus direct storage). An even closer comparison (architecturally) would be an AMD APU with 16GB of system ram (which is shared between both CPU and GPU), however, no system ram is available that is as fast as GDDR6 and no APU is the equivalent to the performance of those consoles.

Point is, you can ask 3 people, and get 3 fairly different configuration recommendations for how to compare to current consoles and each recommendation would perform differently.

I think once Big Navi is released you could make a good comparison - Why? Well, new consoles use RDNA2 cards. You could get a 6000 series AMD card that is close to the compute units as consoles and clock it similar to consoles, use a tool to carve out a ram disk from GPU memory leaving only 8GB for gaming, and also use 8GB of decent speed system memory and a Zen 2 based chip like the 3700x and clock that down to console speeds. That's probably the closest your going to get IMO.

 

[Hornet]

My current PC is better on the CPU front (3950x, more cores and faster clock speed)
But my GTX 1080 is certainly worse. This will be addressed once I get my hands on a RTX 3080

 

[[Paragon]]

2080ti, 32gb ram, nvme drives, 3900x. Better

 

[harmattan]

Desktop: Better on the GPU front. Subtly worse on CPU. 3080, 3600x, 2xnvme RAID 0.

Laptop: Similar on GPU front (to PS5). Worse on CPU. 2070 mobile, i7-8750H, nvme

 

[Jumpem]

I just want monitors to become on par with the high quality QLED/OLED televisions that console users get.

 

[defaultluser]

I just want monitors to become on par with the high quality QLED/OLED televisions that console users get.

Says the fool who doesn't realize you can hook-up any video card with an HDMI port to any new TV.

You have the exact same burn-in issues playing hours of fixed video game huds on consoles as you do on the Pc games, and you're also stuck with whatever fixed side menu interfaces their OSes might have.

On PC you can set the Windows Taskbar to auto-hide. Turn on Windows Dark Mode, add in a black screensaver, and delete all desktop icons. there: burn-in free HTPC!

And if you want to take the easy way out, QLED screens also work exactly the same with any Pc (but you don't have to customize shit).

And staying on-topic, the most demanding game I want to play this year is Cyberpunk. I can play that just fine at 1080p on my 4790k plus 1060.

I don't care that my current PC is behind consoles because all the games I actually want RIGHT NOW play fine (Star Wars Galaxies, Borderlands 3 as two examples). The new, more-enhanced versions of console games will take us a few yeas to appear (ad by that time I will have upgraded).

Also, you can get competitive performance upgrades from PC closouts several years earlier than you can pick-up a PS5 for less than $350,

 

[Jumpem]

Says the fool who doesn't realize you can hook-up any video card with an HDMI port to any new TV.

You have the exact same burn-in issues playing hours of fixed video game huds on consoles as you do on the Pc games, and you're also stuck with whatever fixed side menu interfaces their OSes might have.

On PC you can set the Windows Taskbar to auto-hide. Turn on Windows Dark Mode, add in a black screensaver, and delete all desktop icons. there: burn-in free HTPC!

And if you want to take the easy way out, QLED screens also work exactly the same with any Pc (but you don't have to customize shit).

And staying on-topic, the most demanding game I want to play this year is Cyberpunk. I can play that just fine at 1080p on my 4790k plus 1060.

I don't care that my current PC is behind consoles because all the games I actually want RIGHT NOW play fine (Star Wars Galaxies, Borderlands 3 as two examples). The new, more-enhanced versions of console games will take us a few yeas to appear (ad by that time I will have upgraded).

Also, you can get competitive performance upgrades from PC closouts several years earlier than you can pick-up a PS5 for less than $350,

Yes, you can hook up a PC to a television. The point is that PC monitors are in a terrible state compared to televisions.

A 4K QLED monitor, particularly with G-Sync, is near impossible to find.

With PC gaming, you get a lot of frames per second all being output to a subpar display. I am primarily a PC gamer, simply unhappy with the state of it.

 

[Seyumi]

My computer is slightly better, but sadly it costs what...10x more than a 2020 console?

i9-10900k (overclocked) - under AIO water
2080Ti (overclocked) - under AIO water
32GB (@4000mhz) Ram
NVME Hard Drive (2TB)

The RTX 3000 series and even Zen 3 aren't the answer. You still have to build a computer that's like 4x more expensive than 2020 console just to meet the specs. Sad year for PC gaming really especially since the average PC gamer has a computer that's woefully underpowered compared to a 2020 console.

 

[Aurelius]

My computer is slightly better, but sadly it costs what...10x more than a 2020 console?

i9-10900k (overclocked) - under AIO water
2080Ti (overclocked) - under AIO water
32GB (@4000mhz) Ram
NVME Hard Drive (2TB)

The RTX 3000 series and even Zen 3 aren't the answer. You still have to build a computer that's like 4x more expensive than 2020 console just to meet the specs. Sad year for PC gaming really especially since the average PC gamer has a computer that's woefully underpowered compared to a 2020 console.

And even then, there are areas where the PS5 and XSX will fare better, like raw storage speed (unless you have a brand new PCIe 4 SSD) and the overhead for ray tracing. Folks forget that it's not a conventional fight, and that many people aren't willing to drop more than the price of a console on a GPU (let alone the rest of the PC) just so they can maybe play the same games at a higher frame rate or resolution. It's like a car enthusiast wondering why people don't buy Porsches to finish their commutes slightly faster... the gain isn't worth the cost for most, and there may be areas where the lower-priced option is better.

 

[zamardii12]

And even then, there are areas where the PS5 and XSX will fare better, like raw storage speed (unless you have a brand new PCIe 4 SSD) and the overhead for ray tracing. Folks forget that it's not a conventional fight, and that many people aren't willing to drop more than the price of a console on a GPU (let alone the rest of the PC) just so they can maybe play the same games at a higher frame rate or resolution. It's like a car enthusiast wondering why people don't buy Porsches to finish their commutes slightly faster... the gain isn't worth the cost for most, and there may be areas where the lower-priced option is better.

When I started at my job my co-worker was a avid PC gamer. Never owned a console since the original Xbox. I personally am a PC gamer but I also own all the consoles, and the more we talked the more he switched to console gaming. So now his setup at home is a micro-tower which is basically just a POS-sized computer for Office and web browsing, and the consoles for gaming. I can see why this would be an intriguing setup for people because it just is very cost-effective, and also game developers optimize to the best of their abilities for the consoles and really utilize the full capabilities for the hardware so it's no surprise how console games look better during the last half of their lives. I will say with these new consoles I think they are the closest in parity to top-end gaming PCs as far as raw horsepower that I can ever remember there being when a console launches. You always have the inevitable PC comparisons when a new generation of consoles released, but this is the first generation of new consoles that is pretty damn close to the current gen capabilities of higher-end gaming PCs. In the past with Xbox 360, PS3, PS4, etc it always seemed the consoles were just a couple generations behind the high end PCs of the time but that doesn't seem to be the case for this upcoming generation. So I think PC gaming is still the best place to get the best performance and visuals, but if you aren't REALLY hardcore about needing a keyboard and mouse then the new consoles I would say are insanely powerful and capable to carry the generation for the years to come until the mid-life refreshes... it is just absolutely impossible to build a PC with the same performance of the next-gen consoles anywhere near the price they are asking for them.

I remember telling people in these forums that even the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X were insanely capable and impressive for what they could do at their price-point and the next-gen consoles are even more so.

 

[Domingo]

While it's absolutely true that the consoles are modern marvels in terms of bang-for-the-buck, you're also at their mercy. "30fps is good enough" has been the mantra for developers on both of the major consoles. That drives me nuts. I'd rather have them lower the resolution/details or whatever to shoot for 60, but very few devs actually do that.
I'd honestly re-think being a console-only gamer if that was their priority. It's looking like the new ones might actually finally be shifting in that direction (at least as an option), which makes me really happy.

 

[zamardii12]

While it's absolutely true that the consoles are modern marvels in terms of bang-for-the-buck, you're also at their mercy. "30fps is good enough" has been the mantra for developers on both of the major consoles. That drives me nuts. I'd rather have them lower the resolution/details or whatever to shoot for 60, but very few devs actually do that.
I'd honestly re-think being a console-only gamer if that was their priority. It's looking like the new ones might actually finally be shifting in that direction (at least as an option), which makes me really happy.

The new consoles are 100% targeting at least 60fps for everything. Hell, I just saw a video the other day where on the Xbox Series X Dirt 5 even has a 120fps mode. So yeah I think it's safe to say we won't be seeing any 30fps games this upcoming generation, and if we do it would really come down to a artistic choice for cinematic reasons is the only thing I can guess.

 

[Domingo]

The new consoles are 100% targeting at least 60fps for everything. Hell, I just saw a video the other day where on the Xbox Series X Dirt 5 even has a 120fps mode. So yeah I think it's safe to say we won't be seeing any 30fps games this upcoming generation, and if we do it would really come down to a artistic choice for cinematic reasons is the only thing I can guess.

That's what I'm hoping. Detroit: Become Human might be the only game from this generation where I felt 30fps was good enough and it wouldn't have benefitted from additional fps. Outside of that pretty narrow genre (narrative-style games with lots of fixed perspectives), I'd always favor more fps and slightly lower resolution/detail.

I guess we'll know the reality of things in a few weeks.

 

[Deleted member 83233]

Mine's equivalent or just under in some regards. However, I still don't own a game that pushes it beyond what it's capable of, for me to play the game at the settings that I enjoy. Sooooo.... I suppose I'm just not going to worry until I hit a game that won't run the way I like. We'll see what Cyberpunk and Atomic Heart have to say about that.

 

[Will V]

1080ti 7700k 16gb, 4tb of ssd