Alien I: Ps4 struggles to get 30fps, 750TI maxes at 60 min.

Then you were thrown into a nightmare finding out that they dont have access to that 8gb but only 4.5 gb....

So basically a bad port?

yeah maybe this games need a GDDR5 patch for PS4 and MS will eventually rain on our parade with the clouds.

How did you arrive at the 60% figure?

it doesn't matter. Steam surveys don't mean anything and don't prove any meaningful points. Just back out of the conversation and call it a day.

These consoles get worse and worse.

If the Steam surveys are useless then why does valve continue to do them?

How did you conclude that the Steam survey is meaningless?

Damn jimmies already rustled, cranler has started the steam survey defense.

Lol pos consoles.

Putting in a much cheaper CPU would likely have very little impact on framerate. The reason they use a high end CPU is to ensure none of the GPU are being bottlenecked during testing, so that the results reflect the maximum performance of those GPUs.

It seems you actually believe that, lol.

Not cranler and where did you see me starting the steam survey defense?

This should be a relatively easy 60 FPS title on both consoles. At highest in game setting running 1080p even shitty cards like the 7770 can get 38 minimums. The CPU scaling is such that even really poor CPUs will not bottleneck the level of GPU in the consoles. The fact the consoles are struggling to give us a locked 30FPS suggests that these devs totally dropped the ball on the console version, they have enough hardware power to get 60 FPS at 1080p with a slight difference in settings, PS4 max Xbox One a notch below, and they failed.

He means they're useless because they're optional, so if the survey says there are 30% with a GTX 780 then that's not 30% of the 100mil active Steam accounts but 30% of the people who did the survey. In the end we don't know how many people did that survey, so 30% might be 30mil gamers or it also might be just 3mil gamers.

Lol, not this again. Most surveys are optional.

According to this site you only need about 16,500 respondents to get an accurate survey for 100 million customers.

http://www.custominsight.com/articles/random-sample-calculator.asp

If valve isn't getting enough participants for an accurate survey then they would send requests more often. Steam hasn't asked me to do a survey in about 3-4 months.

Still waiting for your answer on how you arrived at 60%.

When looking at the cpu benchmarks it's obvious that this game loves single core performance and doesn't multi thread very well as the quad core fx-4100 beats the six core fx-6100 since it has a higher core frequency. And even the dual core i3 4330 outperforms the eight core fx-9590.
Which might explain why it performs so poorly on the next-gen consoles since they are heavily dependant on multi threading because of their low single core performance.

An i5 would do plenty even for a GTX980. The only reason they use those massive CPU's is to remove any chance of a bottleneck. You forgot how little CPU's do play in multiplat titles.

@mikhail: A PS4 would smoke a 750 in most games I love how hermits cherry pick shitty pc ports.

PS4 still only has 4.5gb of physical memory to use. Now with ND they must have asked for some of the 1gb flexible memory, now do we know what part of it they are using?, because when they allocate 512mb from the physical reserve one or more features are disabled from the OS while in game.

top kek

Seeing as how there are 100million steam users and there's 10million PS4's sold... all you need is 10% to be more PC gamers gaming in 1080p than PS4 Users.
More than 10% also have more ram, better CPU, better GPU etc...

lol PS4 cant smoke a 750ti if the games are cpu bound....

@04dcarraher: How is alien isolation cpu bound? It runs virtually no AI in a linear environment.

The game relies more on clockrate, the processing power per clock instead of forcing 100% usage along all available threads. This is why you see AMD FX 4300 out performing FX6100 or seeing FX 6300 performing as well as a FX 8150. And even seeing an i3 2100 performing better then FX 8350 at 4 ghz. The games does make use of all threads available however usage on my i5 for example only hovers in 30% range along all cores. The 60 fps target may not have been not stable enough because reliance on performance per cock. Also Im wondering now if they kept the 30 fps lock because of the Xbox 360 and PS3 trying to maintain parity between all console versions.

@04dcarraher: But most games will rely on multithreading in the future. This is a definition of a sloppy port. They did a good jobs at maintaining the best asset quality but took no effort in making it run. This reminds me of the Prey port on 360.

Multithreading is not a easy thing to do. Even if you have 8 cores, you will still the limits of clock speed.

What magical future time is this when games will rely on multithreading? We've been hearing this for years and years, and here we are in 2014 with most PC gamers still selecting 4 core, 4 thread i5 processors as the gaming CPU of choice.

Anything using more then one thread is multithreading.... This game uses all available threads just does not force 100% usage because their is no need too.

Thats because games still prefer clock speed over cores. The difference between an i7 4790K and i5 what the **** they are now is minimal.

i7 and i5 core's processing performance are virtually the same the only real thing that separates i5 from i7 is cache and HT. Now if your going with 6 or 8 core i7's then its a different story since then you have a extra 2-4 cores feeding more threads.

Thats why I said 4790K, the 1150 are mainstream. I've seen though that in some games the difference between a 4790K and the new 5960x is very small, in some cases the 4790K actually beats the 5960X. It should be noted that this was done at stock speeds.

Exactly...which is why the consoles are such dog shit. I have no doubt that the PS4 and Xbox One had dual core Intel CPUs at 3.4+ghz rather than the garbage they shipped with.

@MonsieurX: It may be similar on BF 4 but that is also a launch port. Look at Wolfenstein for an example which runs at almost half the framerate at equivalent settings.

No, I'm glad that these consoles have the CPU's they do. It forces devs to use those threads rather than relying solely on clock speed.

@mikhail: Lol a duel core won't outperform either of the consoles cpu. It may take more effort to use proper multithreading but it will happen, this generation just started.

See you in like five years when PC hardware has grown exponentially and you're still waiting for your magic optimization to happen and sitting on hardware that was already outdated when it came out in 2013...and you're still years away from a new console announcement.

Actually intel dual cores with HT cream the console jaguar's 6 cores at 1.6 ghz. As long as games dont *require* 6+ threads to run intel dual cores will mop the console's cpu's because of sheer amount of processing power they have per clock. This is why we are seeing modern i3's with games that can use 4-8 threads performing as well or better then AMD's 4 or 8 cored cpu's. Because intel's haswell icore performance per clock is 2x faster then AMD's. Which means that a 1.5 ghz intel quad core can nearly process same amount of data as a 3 ghz AMD quad core could.

@mikhail: Your PC hardware is outdated right now. So what's your point? Bang for your buck is what a console offers. And it won't take 5 years, more like next year even If it's just exclusives.

Infamous SS already did a great job at multithreading and its still a first gen port.

LOL...no, it isn't. I can play every game at minimum 1080p/60 with all kinds of post processing and anti-aliasing, and most games at 144hz or 1440p.

How do we know? Its not like we can have the resource monitor open while we play on consoles? ISS, yes its pretty but there isn't a lot going on CPU wise, its all about the GPU. People seem to forgot that those GPU's, certainly the PS4's one is a rather good one even now.

@mikhail: If it's not the latest it's outdated.

Just stop...you're a pathetic console apologist. What you're trying to do is equate your severely obsolete and outdated, laughably underpowered console hardware to PC hardware from this year that outperforms your precious console fivefold, and it won't work.

@04dcarraher: As long as they do they would still destroy a duel core processor. If you used both processors to there best capabilities the consoles cpu would outperform any duel core.

@mikhail: And you are a pathetic butthurt hermit who's pissed he paid 3x the cost for barely any difference.

Barely any difference...says the guy who is locked into low settings at 30 fps. Fucking LOL!

That would make sense if we would have the numbers in which those Steam survey percentages are based on. Since we don't have them, the Steam survey is mostly useless.

So wrong, the performance of a jaguar with six cores at 1.6 ghz is slower then an intel dual core with HT at 3ghz.

@04dcarraher: It has three times the cores to work with.