FF XV on PC is a generation ahead(lolconsoles)

Sad thing is that 15% over the GTX 1060 will only be on paper, because in the real world we will never see that number, thanks to the CPU bottlenecking the hell out of if and there is nothing anyone can do about it (And then Xplode likes to talk about how great APUs are...)

Anyway 5% below a GTX 1080 is a VERY interesting performance level, my 980 ti is at stock at the moment (and see no reason to bother OCing since I'm slaughtering every game at 1080p as it is) but once I get a 4k TV or monitor (most likely a TV) then I'll be looking forward to some serious overclocking so i can push in the extra performance for higher resolution, even if its 10% below a GTX 1080 I would be VERY happy.

It's gonna pull ahead in high-resolution games whereas the 1060 will choke.

Yeah OC'ing a 980 Ti at 1080p is pretty useless unless you're gunning for 100fps+. Which one do you have? I had the Gold Edition and could get pretty insane performance. If you have something like a Strix or a Poseidon you can get crazy boosts with OC.

That's my 980 Ti. 20,725 graphics score. It's heavily overclocked.

That's a 1080 at stock speeds.

21,905 Graphics score. 5% lead only. That's on air too. If you get yourself on a good chip, flash the BIOS and water cool you can reasonably beat a 1080 but at that point you're better off buying a 1080 lol. The 980 Ti is an overclocking monster. One of the best overclockers since Kepler.

Only problem is the lack of vRAM on the 980ti. I play at 4k so I needed a 1080ti and I see some games get close to maxing out the vRAM on the 1080ti.

Before that I had 2 970s in SLI and loved how I could get them to overclock to close to 1600mhz on air.

Too bad they had low vRAM which had them suffer in certain games at higher resolutions despite being more capable than a single 980ti.

Great game, Bad ending chapter

Just wait for the nudity mod to hit the scene. When it does - it'll turn the quartet of bros into... something else.

And Tabata really thinks modders are going to "behave" themselves.

@Juub1990: I have a Palit GTX 980 Ti Super Jetstream Edition, its supposed to be good at OCing according to 3dGuru: http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/palit_geforce_gtx_980_ti_super_jetstream_review,35.html

This is what they were able to achieve, can't say I comprehend the numbers, you mind explaining it to me? specifically how far away is it in % from a stock GTX 1080 performance?

@RyviusARC: Yeah, 6GB for proper native 4k gaming is cutting it short, but good thing 4k isn't my target, rather 1440p, so I wouldn't mind a 1440p down scaling from a 4k monitor (it would still look way better than 1080p from what I can imagine), for me frame rate is far more important, anything below 60 is unacceptable for me, and so far no card in existence is good enough for 4k gaming as far as I'm concerned, not even a GTX 1080 Ti, I will only be satisfied if a GPU that is capable of outputting native 4k at demanding games (eg AC Origins, Witcher 3, Crysis 3, etc) at very high quality presets and achieve stable 80fps with them (at stock and single GPU configuration ONLY, I don't want mutiple setting), as far as I'm concerned its too early for 4k gaming, but I think its time I left 1080p and went up to 1440p.

@Dark_sageX What you need to look at is the graphics score. There are 4 tests in the suite. The first an second test stress the graphics card to see how much it can push. It's heavily GPU-bound. The third test stress the CPU and is almost entirely CPU dependent. The fourth and final test does a combination of both. Look at your overall graphics card if you run the bench. If you look at the Combined or Physics score, more than likely your CPU is bottlenecking the 980 Ti in the benchmark at the very least.

The combined graphics score in both graphics tests in your image is 20,662 which puts it I believe within 10% of the 1080 but that's at 1080p. I believe the gap widens the further up you go in resolution but not that much. The 1080 would probably be around 15% faster in 4K or maybe even less.

@Juub1990:

If those graphics are next gen, then next gen is gonna suck.

lol consoles that's why they call it PCMR.

His point is that when you're a fanboy, you have to be unreasonable and inconsistent. If it was an XBONE exclusive being ported to PC it would be incredibly relevant to his "XBOX has no exclusives" narrative.

And a PS4 Pro is better than a PC with a GTX 970.

My Zotac GTX 980Ti Amp Extreme certainly trades blows with a Founders edition GTX 1080. The only reason it's in my wife's PC is because I got two 1080's for free.

A 970 running around 1450mhz would eat it alive.

lol nope

Crazy people here... The PS4 Pro is a RX 470 and aftermarket RX 470's get destroyed by stock GTX 970's, and the PS4 Pro runs it at lower clocks along with a weak CPU. A i5 with a aftermarket 970 will undoubtedly give you better performance.

At 4K the X1X is more capable than a 1060, and bottleneckiNg has yet to be shown

And yet Horizon Zero Dawn on a 4K Display looks better than anything a 970 can spit out on a 4K Display

So that’s your definition of close? One game? And a game that obviously has Dynamic Resolution so you already put yourself in a no lose situation...

And than it needs to average 30 FPS? When you know damn well it’s vsync locked to 30 because nobody wants screen tearing. Wouldn’t minimum be the fairer barometer If it’s vsync locked to 30 max...

oh of course not because a 980ti dips to 24 FPS on “High” at 4K, a setting that could very well be higher on X1X

@m3Boarder32 said:

So that’s your definition of close? One game? And a game that obviously has Dynamic Resolution so you already put yourself in a no lose situation...

And than it needs to average 30 FPS? When you know damn well it’s vsync locked to 30 because nobody wants screen tearing. Wouldn’t minimum be the fairer barometer If it’s vsync locked to 30 max...

oh of course not because a 980ti dips to 24 FPS on “High” at 4K, a setting that could very well be higher on X1X

The X1X doesn't run Wildlands at 4K.

They don't realize how crappy those boxes really are.

@m3Boarder32 said:

So that’s your definition of close? One game? And a game that obviously has Dynamic Resolution so you already put yourself in a no lose situation...

And than it needs to average 30 FPS? When you know damn well it’s vsync locked to 30 because nobody wants screen tearing. Wouldn’t minimum be the fairer barometer If it’s vsync locked to 30 max...

oh of course not because a 980ti dips to 24 FPS on “High” at 4K, a setting that could very well be higher on X1X

I'm hung up on the fact that you actually think that consoles play games at a PC "high" equivalent or better regardless of resolution.

A qualitative argument.

Because it's locked at 30 FPS. You can't see a "bottleneck" when software is locked at a stable frame rate.

This makes zero sense, with that logic a ps4 pro is even better then a xbox one x.

@Johnny-n-Roger said:

@m3Boarder32 said:

So that’s your definition of close? One game? And a game that obviously has Dynamic Resolution so you already put yourself in a no lose situation...

And than it needs to average 30 FPS? When you know damn well it’s vsync locked to 30 because nobody wants screen tearing. Wouldn’t minimum be the fairer barometer If it’s vsync locked to 30 max...

oh of course not because a 980ti dips to 24 FPS on “High” at 4K, a setting that could very well be higher on X1X

I'm hung up on the fact that you actually think that consoles play games at a PC "high" equivalent or better regardless of resolution.

You been living under a rock?

xbox one x clearly does in most games.

gears

forza 7

forza H 3

witcher 3

care to tell me which game is medium Settings on X1X?

@Juub1990 said:

@m3Boarder32 said:

So that’s your definition of close? One game? And a game that obviously has Dynamic Resolution so you already put yourself in a no lose situation...

And than it needs to average 30 FPS? When you know damn well it’s vsync locked to 30 because nobody wants screen tearing. Wouldn’t minimum be the fairer barometer If it’s vsync locked to 30 max...

oh of course not because a 980ti dips to 24 FPS on “High” at 4K, a setting that could very well be higher on X1X

The X1X doesn't run Wildlands at 4K.

It also doesn’t dip to 24 FPS, and likely is a mix of ultra and high settings

More like top kek. what a clown show.

It's the "4k" thing that's important. The performance impact of Ultra settings on 1080p is negligible compared to the impact of raising the resolution to 'actual' 4k at even medium-low settings.

@m3Boarder32 said:

@Johnny-n-Roger said:

@m3Boarder32 said:

So that’s your definition of close? One game? And a game that obviously has Dynamic Resolution so you already put yourself in a no lose situation...

And than it needs to average 30 FPS? When you know damn well it’s vsync locked to 30 because nobody wants screen tearing. Wouldn’t minimum be the fairer barometer If it’s vsync locked to 30 max...

oh of course not because a 980ti dips to 24 FPS on “High” at 4K, a setting that could very well be higher on X1X

I'm hung up on the fact that you actually think that consoles play games at a PC "high" equivalent or better regardless of resolution.

You been living under a rock?

xbox one x clearly does in most games.

gears

forza 7

forza H 3

witcher 3

care to tell me which game is medium Settings on X1X?

PUBG & 12 fps. lol

@Diddies said:

@m3Boarder32 said:

@Johnny-n-Roger said:

@m3Boarder32 said:

So that’s your definition of close? One game? And a game that obviously has Dynamic Resolution so you already put yourself in a no lose situation...

And than it needs to average 30 FPS? When you know damn well it’s vsync locked to 30 because nobody wants screen tearing. Wouldn’t minimum be the fairer barometer If it’s vsync locked to 30 max...

oh of course not because a 980ti dips to 24 FPS on “High” at 4K, a setting that could very well be higher on X1X

I'm hung up on the fact that you actually think that consoles play games at a PC "high" equivalent or better regardless of resolution.

You been living under a rock?

xbox one x clearly does in most games.

gears

forza 7

forza H 3

witcher 3

care to tell me which game is medium Settings on X1X?

PUBG & 12 fps. lol

Still in development, good effort

Those games are native 4K

"Native" 4k. As opposed to consolelol 4k. They're medium-high settings at best. You don't know what Ultra graphics look like. And no, Wildlands would not run better on an XBox One X than on a 980ti.

@m3Boarder32 said:

@Diddies said:

@m3Boarder32 said:

@Johnny-n-Roger said:

@m3Boarder32 said:

So that’s your definition of close? One game? And a game that obviously has Dynamic Resolution so you already put yourself in a no lose situation...

And than it needs to average 30 FPS? When you know damn well it’s vsync locked to 30 because nobody wants screen tearing. Wouldn’t minimum be the fairer barometer If it’s vsync locked to 30 max...

oh of course not because a 980ti dips to 24 FPS on “High” at 4K, a setting that could very well be higher on X1X

I'm hung up on the fact that you actually think that consoles play games at a PC "high" equivalent or better regardless of resolution.

You been living under a rock?

xbox one x clearly does in most games.

gears

forza 7

forza H 3

witcher 3

care to tell me which game is medium Settings on X1X?

PUBG & 12 fps. lol

Still in development, good effort

It is still a game that I can go buy that barely does medium settings.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/xbox-one-x-pc-and-xbox-one-graphics-comparison-gea/1100-6454615/

While discussing Gears of War 4, reviewer Jimmy Thang said, "In terms of pure image fidelity, it surprisingly looked better than our high-end gaming PC equippued with a GTX 1080 running the game maxed out, as it offered extra dynamic shadows that don't seem to be available on the PC.”

And still in development? Confirm/Deny

Did you just quote an analysis of a different game, Giovela?

because MS went back and patched the game for the XBOX One X. This is what they do, and why PC gamers don't play shitty console ports like GoW. Surprise.

@lundy86_4: A game made for the Xbox to boot. Maybe he should start comparing the 1080 to the X1X’s GPU.

His argument is all games right now

Or a 1080ti SLI setup. It probably doesn't have the "dynamic shadows" either. No GPU is going to render effects that don't exist in the games code.

Incredibly disingenuous. You're not going to triple your FPS at this point without building a new game from the ground up.

You’re all over the place, from “not 4K” to “medium Settings”

X1X Gears of War is higher than PC Ultra. X1X plays Gears of War at higher settings and similar franerates to a 980ti

The notion that X1X can never compete with a 980ti is fanboy hog wash

Pretty sure "Ultra" on PC doesn't have this turned on like the X1X does:

https://www.geforce.com/whats-new/guides/gears-of-war-4-graphics-and-performance-guide#gears-of-war-4-dynamic-resolution-scaling.

But I'd love to see another benchmark with it turned on, for an apples to apples comparison.

@m3Boarder32 said:

@Johnny-n-Roger said:

@m3Boarder32 said:

@Johnny-n-Roger said:

"Native" 4k. As opposed to consolelol 4k. They're medium-high settings at best. You don't know what Ultra graphics look like. And no, Wildlands would not run better on an XBox One X than on a 980ti.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/xbox-one-x-pc-and-xbox-one-graphics-comparison-gea/1100-6454615/

While discussing Gears of War 4, reviewer Jimmy Thang said, "In terms of pure image fidelity, it surprisingly looked better than our high-end gaming PC equippued with a GTX 1080 running the game maxed out, as it offered extra dynamic shadows that don't seem to be available on the PC.”

because MS went back and patched the game for the XBOX One X. This is what they do, and why PC gamers don't play shitty console ports like GoW. Surprise.

You’re all over the place, from “not 4K” to “medium Settings”

X1X Gears of War is higher than PC Ultra. X1X plays Gears of War at higher settings and similar franerates to a 980ti

The notion that X1X can never compete with a 980ti is fanboy hog wash

Gears of War 4 does not have Dynamic Resolution on X1X, it's Native 4k

@appariti0n said:

Pretty sure "Ultra" on PC doesn't have this turned on like the X1X does:

https://www.geforce.com/whats-new/guides/gears-of-war-4-graphics-and-performance-guide#gears-of-war-4-dynamic-resolution-scaling.

But I'd love to see another benchmark with it turned on, for an apples to apples comparison.

@m3Boarder32 said:

@Johnny-n-Roger said:

@m3Boarder32 said:

@Johnny-n-Roger said:

"Native" 4k. As opposed to consolelol 4k. They're medium-high settings at best. You don't know what Ultra graphics look like. And no, Wildlands would not run better on an XBox One X than on a 980ti.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/xbox-one-x-pc-and-xbox-one-graphics-comparison-gea/1100-6454615/

While discussing Gears of War 4, reviewer Jimmy Thang said, "In terms of pure image fidelity, it surprisingly looked better than our high-end gaming PC equippued with a GTX 1080 running the game maxed out, as it offered extra dynamic shadows that don't seem to be available on the PC.”

because MS went back and patched the game for the XBOX One X. This is what they do, and why PC gamers don't play shitty console ports like GoW. Surprise.

You’re all over the place, from “not 4K” to “medium Settings”

X1X Gears of War is higher than PC Ultra. X1X plays Gears of War at higher settings and similar franerates to a 980ti

The notion that X1X can never compete with a 980ti is fanboy hog wash

@m3Boarder32 said:

You’re all over the place, from “not 4K” to “medium Settings”

X1X Gears of War is higher than PC Ultra. X1X plays Gears of War at higher settings and similar franerates to a 980ti

The notion that X1X can never compete with a 980ti is fanboy hog wash

Because my position that XBOX One X graphics aren't "uncompromised" isn't absolute. Pointing out a single game that's designed specifically as a benchmark for XBOX One X hardware doesn't exemplify a hardware comparison. You Gish Gallop, provide one reasonable claim, then assume that your entire position is inherently valid.

@Johnny-n-Roger said:

@m3Boarder32 said:

You’re all over the place, from “not 4K” to “medium Settings”

X1X Gears of War is higher than PC Ultra. X1X plays Gears of War at higher settings and similar franerates to a 980ti

The notion that X1X can never compete with a 980ti is fanboy hog wash

Because my position that XBOX One X graphics aren't "uncompromised" isn't absolute. Pointing out a single game that's designed specifically as a benchmark for XBOX One X hardware doesn't exemplify a hardware comparison. You Gish Gallop, provide one reasonable claim, then assume that your entire position is inherently valid.

When fanboys position is "NEVER" all i need is 1 game to disprove the "NEVER" notion.

NEXT

That's the irony. My position wasn't that there are never exceptions. My position was that Ghost Recon: Wildlands and other games that use fake 4k on the XBOX One X use fake 4k because the poor man's RX 580 can't handle the actual resolution without sacrifices to graphics. GoW is incredibly irrelevant because it's a first party title. You don't make a hardware comparison using a first party title. That's asinine.

@m3Boarder32: Oh well that proves you correct indisputably. Nothing can beat a random statement in bold with large font size.

Too bad it's like the worst Final Fantasy. :(