Do the next gen consoles have better value than PC?

Playing outside with a ball is even better value !

Repeat after me kids: "PC is superior to console." Got it? Okay. I've been a console gamer for over 20 years, built a PC about 3 years ago. It's not even a competition, PC absolutely smokes Xbox/PS. Yea the new consoles might be a little cheaper AT FIRST and is pretty strong for about a year or two but PC is better and cheaper in the long run. Way more games, better graphics, better performance, mod support, emulation for almost every console or game, better customization, free online, cheaper games or free entirely, use any controller, upgradeable, and all Xbox games plus probably some PS games are going to PC. You can do anything on PC, console only allows what big brother wants. There is way more freedom and possibilities on PC so PC is still the better value in the long run

Value is always subjective. PC will always be a better value to me, but not to everyone.

RX Vega 56 at ~1627 Mhz OC (11.662 TFLOPS GCN) can do 8K 60 fps Forza Motorsport 7 (dry tracks)

Also in https://youtu.be/YlxVKuda6MI

RX Vega 56's HBM2 can be OC to Vega 64's 483.8 GB/s

XSX GPU has 12.147 TFLOPS RDNA v2 and up to 560 GB/s memory bandwidth.

----

With fast SSD storage, game developers have the option for high resolution and high frame rates with high-resolution pre-bake texture effects.

Furthermore, Variable Rate Shading (VRS) and Geometry Engines (GE aka mesh shaders) can reduce compute and memory usage.

Matt Hargett= formerly Principal Software Engineer on PS5

NVIDIA's Turing GPU's mesh shaders and variable rate shaders are not used in combination, hence it remains untapped at this in time.

From https://www.tomsguide.com/news/first-xbox-series-x-gameplay-may-be-revealed-today-with-forza-motorsport-8

Forza Horizon 4

The demo show will reportedly continue with Forza Horizon 4. Here we will see how variable rate shading works on the Xbox Series X. VRS is a technique that allows the GPU to boost detail and quality in complex parts of the images while lowering its power needs in simpler areas.

The reasoning behind VRS is that our eyes and brain can’t focus on the totality of an image. If you are paying attention to the screen, your eyes will be focused on where the action is, which typically is the more complex part of the image. The graphics engine doesn’t have to spend so much power on the less complex, peripherals parts of the image. That results in power optimization that allows to boost detail even more or increase the frame rate.

The results? Playground Games — who develop the Forza Horizon series — added VRS to Forza Horizon 4 when it received its Xbox Series X development kits in December. That increased the frame rate in the game by a whooping 32% with “no optimizations, just using VRS in parts with motion blur.” According to the redditor, “VRS changes the way they design games (VRS as motion blur replacement),” pointing out that the” lead engineer says they can reach 4K/120 today on XSX thanks to RDNA2 architecture and the combined effort of AMD and Microsoft.”

Yeah, 4K and 120 frames per second.

Swapping FH4's blur motion into VRS version enables XSX's FH4 to reach 120 fps 4K.

If VRS improves the frame rate by 32 percent which yields 120 fps 4K, then non-VRS version would be 81.6 fps 4K, hence raw XSX GPU power is about 2.72 times better than X1X GPU's FH4 results.

The non-optimized version could mean, running on GCN wave64 instructions instead of RDNA wave32 instructions

XSX GPU is effectively 16.32 TFLOPS Vega GCN

FH4 doesn't use rapid pack math, mech shaders with VRS combo to further optimize for RDNA 2 and Turing RTX class GPUs.

Imagine buying AMD GPU's i feel sorry for anybody that has to sit with that garbage.

Just like fools buying 1200$ gpu, thinking they are smart!!!

To each their own!!!

Both RDNA 2 and Turing RTX support DirectX12_2 features aka DirectX12 Ultimate.

Pascal, Turing GTX (shader software emulated RT), Polaris/Vega GCN, RDNA v1 are hardware feature set obsolete.

PCs will always be a better value because while the initial outlay might be higher compared to a console, you're getting better quality tech that will be viable for many, many years and can be upgraded piecemeal for a fraction of the cost of buying a new console, and the backwards compatibility (not to mention emulators) giving you access to thousands of older games is unbeatable. Plus, PCs can do considerably more than just play games.

Fraction of the cost of buying a new console? With the next gen consoles, you're paying $500 for a console with a GPU that can hit 10tflops, a state of the art SSD, controller, etc etc. As time goes by, the prices will down as well.

Context is important: I said that PC components "can be upgraded piecemeal for a fraction of the cost of buying a new console" and not that you can buy a brand new PC for a faction of the cost of a new console. And, no, you don't have to upgrade everything at once. For instance, you can replace an old graphics card with a new one capable of maxing out any game on the market for around $300 and have a PC that will last you several years before you have to think about upgrading again. Heck, you could add a 1TB SSD to that and still leave the store paying less than you would for a "next generation" console.

Prices are immensely inflated in Canada and to top it all off a laptop is even more expensive than a desktop which for equal parts is more expensive than a console.

That and you can't seriously compare a laptop to a desktop/console because y'know, a console isn't a portable device.

A PC lets me do what I want, so no.

I was at your stage in 2007 when I purchased my ASUS G1S ($1,929) gaming laptop, I later switch to ITX gaming PC for any LAN party activities.

Laptop parts have extra premium profit padding.

I prefer Ultrabooks while I travel overseas.

Not even a debate. PC has always been and will always be the superior value.

@ronvalencia: OK, there may be very rare exceptions, but what I am saying is that 99.99% of all modern AAA games will not be running at 8K period not at 30 or 60 FPS. Future games should also require even more GPU and CPU power which should reduce this number even greater. Thanks for the info though as I have seen that before but simply forgot about it.

I make a living with my PC. Can I do that with shitsole? No.