Probably via optical cable to the receiver. At least, that's how my nephew has his PS4 setup done. He told me it took a while to sort out and make it work.
Yeah it seems like you need seperate cables coming from each console. Not an ideal solution.
It would have been easier if the PS4 came with an optical port. I was under the impression it did.
FPS isn't noticeable? I went from playing the Batman Arkham games on consoles at 30 fps to playing them on the PC at 60 fps. The difference was night and day.
When it comes to gameplay, 60 fps before all else imo. Then you can worry about sound and other fancy settings.
You can play at 30 fps but that doesn't mean it's to be done. As Chris Rock said "You could drive a car with your feet if want to, that don't make it a good f**kin idea".
@R4gn4r0k:
You simply plug the hdmi cable from the console into any of the hdmi ports on your receiver and your away, the video signal will be sent to the tv whilst the receiver will handle the sound.
Just switch to whichever hdmi input you want with the remote.
If you're looking for an immersive, lifelike and richly-detailed presentation, adding Dolby Atmos, UHD and HDR will give you much more bang-for-the-buck than bumping framerate from 30 to 60 or going from High to Ultra graphics. Game developers understand this, which is why they so often target 30fps and High graphics, even on Xbox One X and PS4 Pro.
Gamers who prioritize 60fps are a vocal minority, and developers know this, which is why they don't cater to them as often.
I love HDR, honestly it is a HUGE difference. But so it is 30 Vs 60 FPS. I don't mind playing most games at 30 but it is very noticeable.
If you're looking for an immersive, lifelike and richly-detailed presentation, adding Dolby Atmos, UHD and HDR will give you much more bang-for-the-buck than bumping framerate from 30 to 60 or going from High to Ultra graphics. Game developers understand this, which is why they so often target 30fps and High graphics, even on Xbox One X and PS4 Pro.
Gamers who prioritize 60fps are a vocal minority.
I get it, you're crappy 30 fps sucks. Lower settings sucks. Lower resolution sucks. All of this results in objectively worse looking and running games. A worse experience.
The first part was pure opinion or just objectively untrue, so lets tackle this:
Gamers who prioritize 60fps are a vocal minority.
[Citation Needed]
Polls,
http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/poll-1080p-30fps-vs-720p-60fps.454162401/
https://www.gamespot.com/forums/system-wars-314159282/do-you-prefer-30-fps-over-60-fps-32172149/
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.932265-Poll-60fps-vs-30fps-opinions
https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/691087-playstation-4/72193527
https://www.giantbomb.com/forums/general-discussion-30/30fps-vs-60fps-1799859/
The same can be said of frame rate between 57-60 fps, you won't notice those small frame dips. But the difference between 30 and 60 fps is significant and dramatically noticeable. That isn't even debatable.
Just another sour grapes attitude towards frame rate for platforms where it isn't consistently available.
@zaryia: Your polls don't represent average gamers, since they're all conducted on sites frequented by videogame enthusiasts.
Game studios frequently conduct focus groups where they bring regular gamers in to provide opinions on games in progress. Decisions like target framerates are made based in large part on the results of these focus groups.
Plus there's the simple fact that 30fps doesn't hurt sales in many cases, as demonstrated by blockbuster titles like PUBG, Horizon Zero Dawn, Uncharted: Lost Legacy, Forza Horizon 3 and more.
Atmos equipment is way too expensive for me. My setup is basically a 5.1 set, 3 speakers in the soundbar, a separate sub and two back speakers. Been the first time I experience surround sound at home and I love it, my PC, PRO and X support it, so YAY! The only machine I haven't tried to hook up to it is my Switch.
How do you hook up the consoles to a 5.1 set ? Is it with a seperate cable ?
All consoles are connected to TV, sound system is connected to TV with ARC-connection, nothing else.
@AdobeArtist: I can't speak for everyone else in this thread, but I couldn't care less if a game is in 30fps or 60fps, as long as the framerate is stable and playable.
Ultimately though, I trust developers to make the right decisions for their games. For example, Forza Motorsport 7 runs at a locked 60fps framerate, at 1080p on Xbox One S and at UHD on Xbox One X. They target 60fps to improve the feeling of the racing simulation. But Forza Horizon 3 (same engine, same console) runs at 30fps, because they are more focused on creating a beautiful open-world automotive playground, and the racing feel doesn't matter as much.
The people who insist on 60fps above all else always seem to forget that such a high framerate always comes at a cost, and sometimes the cost is just not worth paying. It doesn't matter how powerful the console is; the same tradeoff will always exist, and ultimately, the developers will try to make the best decisions for their games.
And in most cases, they choose to go with 30fps so that they can deliver better-quality graphics. That tells me 60fps doesn't matter nearly as much as you think it does.
All consoles are connected to TV, sound system is connected to TV with ARC-connection, nothing else.
Can you show me a picture of what this ARC-connection is ? Or a picture of the cable used ? :)
I'm kind of an audiophile, but I've never heard of such a setup.
@AdobeArtist: I can't speak for everyone else in this thread, but I couldn't care less if a game is in 30fps or 60fps, as long as the framerate is stable and playable.
Ultimately though, I trust developers to make the right decisions for their games. For example, Forza Motorsport 7 runs at a locked 60fps framerate, at 1080p on Xbox One S and at UHD on Xbox One X. They target 60fps to improve the feeling of the racing simulation. But Forza Horizon 3 (same engine, same console) runs at 30fps, because they are more focused on creating a beautiful open-world automotive playground, and the racing feel doesn't matter as much.
The people who insist on 60fps above all else always seem to forget that such a high framerate always comes at a cost, and sometimes the cost is just not worth paying. It doesn't matter how powerful the console is; the same tradeoff will always exist, and ultimately, the developers will try to make the best decisions for their games.
And in most cases, they choose to go with 30fps so that they can deliver better-quality graphics. That tells me 60fps doesn't matter nearly as much as you think it does.
Developers make games 30fps so that they can double the gpus graphical performance. In other words, game looks pretty, easier to market, it's as simple as that. 30 FPS is playable. But that's where it ends.
Console gamers could accept worse graphics for better frame rate, but choose not to. I'd easily let graphics AND resolution slide to get those 60 FPS. Gameplay first always, it's not a question for me.
All consoles are connected to TV, sound system is connected to TV with ARC-connection, nothing else.
Can you show me a picture of what this ARC-connection is ? Or a picture of the cable used ? :)
I'm kind of an audiophile, but I've never heard of such a setup.
One of the HDMI ports on my TV is an ARC port, looks just like any other HDMI port. My soundbar has an ARC out, so I connect it using that. No need for separate optical cables, it supports Dolby Digital, haven't researched anything else much. Get proper surround sound that way, it's not uncompressed sound, but it's fine for me at the moment.
All consoles are connected to TV, sound system is connected to TV with ARC-connection, nothing else.
Can you show me a picture of what this ARC-connection is ? Or a picture of the cable used ? :)
I'm kind of an audiophile, but I've never heard of such a setup.
It's just a standard HDMI connection, but instead of video signals going from the AV receiver to the TV, it carries audio signals from the TV to the AV receiver. All modern TVs, AV receivers and soundbars support it.
@AdobeArtist: I can't speak for everyone else in this thread, but I couldn't care less if a game is in 30fps or 60fps, as long as the framerate is stable and playable.
Ultimately though, I trust developers to make the right decisions for their games. For example, Forza Motorsport 7 runs at a locked 60fps framerate, at 1080p on Xbox One S and at UHD on Xbox One X. They target 60fps to improve the feeling of the racing simulation. But Forza Horizon 3 (same engine, same console) runs at 30fps, because they are more focused on creating a beautiful open-world automotive playground, and the racing feel doesn't matter as much.
The people who insist on 60fps above all else always seem to forget that such a high framerate always comes at a cost, and sometimes the cost is just not worth paying. It doesn't matter how powerful the console is; the same tradeoff will always exist, and ultimately, the developers will try to make the best decisions for their games.
And in most cases, they choose to go with 30fps so that they can deliver better-quality graphics. That tells me 60fps doesn't matter nearly as much as you think it does.
Developers make games 30fps so that they can double the gpus graphical performance. In other words, game looks pretty, easier to market, it's as simple as that. 30 FPS is playable. But that's where it ends.
Console gamers could accept worse graphics for better frame rate, but choose not to. I'd easily let graphics AND resolution slide to get those 60 FPS. Gameplay first always, it's not a question for me.
Here's the other thing: most average gamers don't sit there analyzing individual aspects of a game's presentation. They don't sit there analyzing a game's framerate, or shadow detail, or LOD levels, or AA implementation. They judge how much they enjoy the game as a whole. That includes framerate, resolution, lighting, AA, everything else, taken together. Individual things like framerate only become an issue if it goes below a certain threshold. I don't know what that threshold is, but I'd imagine it's around 24fps since that's lowest framerate we are regularly exposed to in film.
On top of that, humans are quite adaptable. You say 30fps is playable. For most people, that's enough. If you started playing a game like Horizon Zero Dawn tomorrow, you'd probably complain about 30fps for maybe the first minute or two, but then you'll adapt. And as soon as you have to fight some giant robot, you'll be having too much fun to care about 30fps. It's playable, and that's enough.
Developers are focused on making fun and immersive games, not on hitting unnecessarily high framerate targets.
Atmos equipment is way too expensive for me. My setup is basically a 5.1 set, 3 speakers in the soundbar, a separate sub and two back speakers. Been the first time I experience surround sound at home and I love it, my PC, PRO and X support it, so YAY! The only machine I haven't tried to hook up to it is my Switch.
It’s not that expensive, my 9 Speakers, subwoofer, and Receiver were only about 1000 USD
Atmos equipment is way too expensive for me. My setup is basically a 5.1 set, 3 speakers in the soundbar, a separate sub and two back speakers. Been the first time I experience surround sound at home and I love it, my PC, PRO and X support it, so YAY! The only machine I haven't tried to hook up to it is my Switch.
It’s not that expensive, my 9 Speakers, subwoofer, and Receiver were only about 1000 USD
Lol, all that talk about sound superiority and that's all you spend on speakers?
@AdobeArtist: I can't speak for everyone else in this thread, but I couldn't care less if a game is in 30fps or 60fps, as long as the framerate is stable and playable.
Ultimately though, I trust developers to make the right decisions for their games. For example, Forza Motorsport 7 runs at a locked 60fps framerate, at 1080p on Xbox One S and at UHD on Xbox One X. They target 60fps to improve the feeling of the racing simulation. But Forza Horizon 3 (same engine, same console) runs at 30fps, because they are more focused on creating a beautiful open-world automotive playground, and the racing feel doesn't matter as much.
The people who insist on 60fps above all else always seem to forget that such a high framerate always comes at a cost, and sometimes the cost is just not worth paying. It doesn't matter how powerful the console is; the same tradeoff will always exist, and ultimately, the developers will try to make the best decisions for their games.
And in most cases, they choose to go with 30fps so that they can deliver better-quality graphics. That tells me 60fps doesn't matter nearly as much as you think it does.
Developers make games 30fps so that they can double the gpus graphical performance. In other words, game looks pretty, easier to market, it's as simple as that. 30 FPS is playable. But that's where it ends.
Console gamers could accept worse graphics for better frame rate, but choose not to. I'd easily let graphics AND resolution slide to get those 60 FPS. Gameplay first always, it's not a question for me.
Here's the other thing: most average gamers don't sit there analyzing individual aspects of a game's presentation. They don't sit there analyzing a game's framerate, or shadow detail, or LOD levels, or AA implementation. They judge how much they enjoy the game as a whole. That includes framerate, resolution, lighting, AA, everything else, taken together. Individual things like framerate only become an issue if it goes below a certain threshold. I don't know what that threshold is, but I'd imagine it's around 24fps since that's lowest framerate we are regularly exposed to in film.
On top of that, humans are quite adaptable. You say 30fps is playable. For most people, that's enough. If you started playing a game like Horizon Zero Dawn tomorrow, you'd probably complain about 30fps for maybe the first minute or two, but as soon as you have to fight some giant robot, you'll be having too much fun to care about 30fps. It's playable, and that's enough.
Frame rate as an issue or a pleasure are two different things.
Can someone notice the difference between 30fps and 60fps. Of course. Just because games are playable and fun at 30fps, it doesn't mean they aren't better at 60fps.
I feel like you're trying to justify 30 fps. People who have the choice don't settle, so I disagree that it's 'enough'. If I'm playing on a console, sure, what can I do. But with the choice, everything on the PC I can, I'll set at 60 fps.
Isn't the priorities you emphasize part of the problem? '30fps... It effects gameplay, that'll do. But graphics, sound... WOW'. Perhaps that is why developers are okay with these settings on consoles, because of those types of sentiments.
I don’t see how anyone can deny this.
FPS is only noticeable when the frame rates are all over the place, if the frames are locked at 28-30 FPS nobody will notice the lower FPS.
Ultra Settings vs Very High Settings is very hard to notice unless professionals like Digital Foundry are pausing/slowing videos and telling you exactly what to look for.
Where as 9 speaker Surround Sound and HDR is immediately perceived by the user vs SDR and Stereo Sound.
It really doesn’t get any better than an Xbox One X Game with HDR and Atmos, at least not from a smack you in your face check this out sort of way.
I still prefer the higher quality sound from my pc over the x-box. Thanks though.
@AdobeArtist: I can't speak for everyone else in this thread, but I couldn't care less if a game is in 30fps or 60fps, as long as the framerate is stable and playable.
Ultimately though, I trust developers to make the right decisions for their games. For example, Forza Motorsport 7 runs at a locked 60fps framerate, at 1080p on Xbox One S and at UHD on Xbox One X. They target 60fps to improve the feeling of the racing simulation. But Forza Horizon 3 (same engine, same console) runs at 30fps, because they are more focused on creating a beautiful open-world automotive playground, and the racing feel doesn't matter as much.
The people who insist on 60fps above all else always seem to forget that such a high framerate always comes at a cost, and sometimes the cost is just not worth paying. It doesn't matter how powerful the console is; the same tradeoff will always exist, and ultimately, the developers will try to make the best decisions for their games.
And in most cases, they choose to go with 30fps so that they can deliver better-quality graphics. That tells me 60fps doesn't matter nearly as much as you think it does.
Developers make games 30fps so that they can double the gpus graphical performance. In other words, game looks pretty, easier to market, it's as simple as that. 30 FPS is playable. But that's where it ends.
Console gamers could accept worse graphics for better frame rate, but choose not to. I'd easily let graphics AND resolution slide to get those 60 FPS. Gameplay first always, it's not a question for me.
Here's the other thing: most average gamers don't sit there analyzing individual aspects of a game's presentation. They don't sit there analyzing a game's framerate, or shadow detail, or LOD levels, or AA implementation. They judge how much they enjoy the game as a whole. That includes framerate, resolution, lighting, AA, everything else, taken together. Individual things like framerate only become an issue if it goes below a certain threshold. I don't know what that threshold is, but I'd imagine it's around 24fps since that's lowest framerate we are regularly exposed to in film.
On top of that, humans are quite adaptable. You say 30fps is playable. For most people, that's enough. If you started playing a game like Horizon Zero Dawn tomorrow, you'd probably complain about 30fps for maybe the first minute or two, but then you'll adapt. And as soon as you have to fight some giant robot, you'll be having too much fun to care about 30fps. It's playable, and that's enough.
Developers are focused on making fun and immersive games, not on hitting unnecessarily high framerate targets.
They don't sit there analyzing HDR or Atmos either.
One system clearly has the far better performance and better gfx. Quantifiable. PC wins this argument.
One of the HDMI ports on my TV is an ARC port, looks just like any other HDMI port. My soundbar has an ARC out, so I connect it using that. No need for separate optical cables, it supports Dolby Digital, haven't researched anything else much. Get proper surround sound that way, it's not uncompressed sound, but it's fine for me at the moment.
It's just a standard HDMI connection, but instead of video signals going from the AV receiver to the TV, it carries audio signals from the TV to the AV receiver. All modern TVs, AV receivers and soundbars support it.
Oh ok, so I need a TV and a soundbar that supports this ARC port.
I'll check it out, thnx :)
I don’t see how anyone can deny this.
FPS is only noticeable when the frame rates are all over the place, if the frames are locked at 28-30 FPS nobody will notice the lower FPS.
Ultra Settings vs Very High Settings is very hard to notice unless professionals like Digital Foundry are pausing/slowing videos and telling you exactly what to look for.
Where as 9 speaker Surround Sound and HDR is immediately perceived by the user vs SDR and Stereo Sound.
It really doesn’t get any better than an Xbox One X Game with HDR and Atmos, at least not from a smack you in your face check this out sort of way.
I still prefer the higher quality sound from my pc over the x-box. Thanks though.
Stereo
SAD
Frame rate as an issue or a pleasure are two different things.
Can someone notice the difference between 30fps and 60fps. Of course. Just because games are playable and fun at 30fps, it doesn't mean they aren't better at 60fps.
I feel like you're trying to justify 30 fps. People who have the choice don't settle, so I disagree that it's 'enough'. If I'm playing on a console, sure, what can I do. But with the choice, everything on the PC I can, I'll set at 60 fps.
Isn't the priorities you emphasize part of the problem? '30fps... It effects gameplay, that'll do. But graphics, sound... WOW'. Perhaps that is why developers are okay with these settings on consoles, because of those types of sentiments.
Once again, you've forgotten that going from 30fps to 60fps always incurs a cost to the game's presentation quality, which often makes the game less enjoyable.
Here's an extreme example: you're building a large scale military combat game. It's fun and playable at 30fps UHD with great draw distances that let snipers pick off targets a mile away and use ghillie suits to hide in foliage. But there comes a mandate to make the game run at 60fps. Now your rendering budget has been cut in half. What do you do? Do you drop the resolution to 1080p? You'll get 60fps, but now your players will not be able to acquire targets at range, because the pixels aren't small enough. Do you keep it at UHD but reduce the draw distance? Now the game won't even render targets at long range. Do you reduce the foliage draw distance? Now your snipers might as well not be wearing ghillie suits, because the foliage around them isn't being rendered, so they have no camo.
Or do you just leave it at 30fps, which is still fun and playable?
Yes, it's an extreme example, but it serves to illustrate the kinds of decisions game developers constantly have to make in order to optimize a game for a fixed platform like a console. Going from 30fps to 60fps always requires tradeoffs. Developers decide whether the tradeoffs are worth it. More often than not, they aren't.
Frame rate as an issue or a pleasure are two different things.
Can someone notice the difference between 30fps and 60fps. Of course. Just because games are playable and fun at 30fps, it doesn't mean they aren't better at 60fps.
I feel like you're trying to justify 30 fps. People who have the choice don't settle, so I disagree that it's 'enough'. If I'm playing on a console, sure, what can I do. But with the choice, everything on the PC I can, I'll set at 60 fps.
Isn't the priorities you emphasize part of the problem? '30fps... It effects gameplay, that'll do. But graphics, sound... WOW'. Perhaps that is why developers are okay with these settings on consoles, because of those types of sentiments.
Once again, you've forgotten that going from 30fps to 60fps always incurs a cost to the game's presentation quality, which often makes the game less enjoyable.
Here's an extreme example: you're building a large scale military combat game. It's fun and playable at 30fps UHD with great draw distances that let snipers pick off targets a mile away and use ghillie suits to hide in foliage. But there comes a mandate to make the game run at 60fps. Now your rendering budget has been cut in half. What do you do? Do you drop the resolution to 1080p? You'll get 60fps, but now your players will not be able to acquire targets at range, because the pixels aren't small enough. Do you keep it at UHD but reduce the draw distance? Now the game won't even render targets at long range. Do you reduce the foliage draw distance? Now your snipers might as well not be wearing ghillie suits, because the foliage around them isn't being rendered, so they have no camo. Or do you just leave it at 30fps, which is still fun and playable?
Yes, it's an extreme example, but it serves to illustrate the kinds of decisions game developers constantly have to make in order to optimize a game for a fixed platform like a console. Going from 30fps to 60fps always requires tradeoffs. Developers decide whether the tradeoffs are worth it. More often than not, they aren't.
But that's just an example. Most of the time they do choose 30fps, it's just for general graphics. There's hardly ever a specific reason like that. It's because they need that selling point and graphics are not in itself a good enough reason to me.
I don’t see how anyone can deny this.
FPS is only noticeable when the frame rates are all over the place, if the frames are locked at 28-30 FPS nobody will notice the lower FPS.
Ultra Settings vs Very High Settings is very hard to notice unless professionals like Digital Foundry are pausing/slowing videos and telling you exactly what to look for.
Where as 9 speaker Surround Sound and HDR is immediately perceived by the user vs SDR and Stereo Sound.
It really doesn’t get any better than an Xbox One X Game with HDR and Atmos, at least not from a smack you in your face check this out sort of way.
I still prefer the higher quality sound from my pc over the x-box. Thanks though.
Stereo
SAD
Stereo? Maybe on my headphones, which mind you would sound better than the setup you currently have.
But no, 7.1 on my old ass setup.
Pretty sure 7.1 is now standard on most motherboards anyway.
But I am talking about quality of sound, beyond 16-bit 48kHz X-box quality / MP3 player from 10 years ago.
Frame rate as an issue or a pleasure are two different things.
Can someone notice the difference between 30fps and 60fps. Of course. Just because games are playable and fun at 30fps, it doesn't mean they aren't better at 60fps.
I feel like you're trying to justify 30 fps. People who have the choice don't settle, so I disagree that it's 'enough'. If I'm playing on a console, sure, what can I do. But with the choice, everything on the PC I can, I'll set at 60 fps.
Isn't the priorities you emphasize part of the problem? '30fps... It effects gameplay, that'll do. But graphics, sound... WOW'. Perhaps that is why developers are okay with these settings on consoles, because of those types of sentiments.
Once again, you've forgotten that going from 30fps to 60fps always incurs a cost to the game's presentation quality, which often makes the game less enjoyable.
Here's an extreme example: you're building a large scale military combat game. It's fun and playable at 30fps UHD with great draw distances that let snipers pick off targets a mile away and use ghillie suits to hide in foliage. But there comes a mandate to make the game run at 60fps. Now your rendering budget has been cut in half. What do you do? Do you drop the resolution to 1080p? You'll get 60fps, but now your players will not be able to acquire targets at range, because the pixels aren't small enough. Do you keep it at UHD but reduce the draw distance? Now the game won't even render targets at long range. Do you reduce the foliage draw distance? Now your snipers might as well not be wearing ghillie suits, because the foliage around them isn't being rendered, so they have no camo.
Or do you just leave it at 30fps, which is still fun and playable?
Yes, it's an extreme example, but it serves to illustrate the kinds of decisions game developers constantly have to make in order to optimize a game for a fixed platform like a console. Going from 30fps to 60fps always requires tradeoffs. Developers decide whether the tradeoffs are worth it. More often than not, they aren't.
Soooooo, why are consoles simultaneously having lower frame rates and worse graphics again??
I don’t see how anyone can deny this.
FPS is only noticeable when the frame rates are all over the place, if the frames are locked at 28-30 FPS nobody will notice the lower FPS.
Ultra Settings vs Very High Settings is very hard to notice unless professionals like Digital Foundry are pausing/slowing videos and telling you exactly what to look for.
Where as 9 speaker Surround Sound and HDR is immediately perceived by the user vs SDR and Stereo Sound.
It really doesn’t get any better than an Xbox One X Game with HDR and Atmos, at least not from a smack you in your face check this out sort of way.
I still prefer the higher quality sound from my pc over the x-box. Thanks though.
Stereo
SAD
What is your receiver? I want to do a quick compare with my pc.
They don't sit there analyzing HDR or Atmos either.
One system clearly has the far better performance and better gfx. Quantifiable. PC wins this argument.
To those who own compatible hardware, HDR and Atmos are things to look out for, since they will usually pop up a light or an on-screen graphic indicating that HDR and Atmos are active. I for one know that when I see that HDR symbol pop up on my OLED screen, it's going to be a real treat for the eyeballs, unlike SDR which looks dull and flat in comparison. I don't have an Atmos system yet, though.
And yes, a decent gaming PC has better performance and graphics. It also costs three times as much as a console.
@GioVela2010: Nah thanks mate. I enjoy my world class exclusives on PS4 and my freedom, mods, 60-120FPS on PC.
They don't sit there analyzing HDR or Atmos either.
One system clearly has the far better performance and better gfx. Quantifiable. PC wins this argument.
To those who own compatible hardware, HDR and Atmos are things to look out for, since they will usually pop up a light or an on-screen graphic indicating that HDR and Atmos are active. I for one know that when I see that HDR symbol pop up on my OLED screen, it's going to be a real treat for the eyeballs, unlike SDR which looks dull and flat in comparison. I don't have an Atmos system yet, though.
And yes, a decent gaming PC has better performance and graphics. It also costs three times as much as a console.
Maybe 1.5x to beat out the consoles, maybe.
Decent for 3x, debatable.
They don't sit there analyzing HDR or Atmos either.
One system clearly has the far better performance and better gfx. Quantifiable. PC wins this argument.
To those who own compatible hardware, HDR and Atmos are things to look out for, since they will usually pop up a light or an on-screen graphic indicating that HDR and Atmos are active. I for one know that when I see that HDR symbol pop up on my OLED screen, it's going to be a real treat for the eyeballs, unlike SDR which looks dull and flat in comparison. I don't have an Atmos system yet, though.
And yes, a decent gaming PC has better performance and graphics. It also costs three times as much as a console.
Maybe 1.5x to beat out the consoles, maybe.
Decent for 3x, debatable.
At today's GPU prices, you'd probably have to sell a kidney to afford a PC that can beat out the consoles. ?
(Sorry, that was a low blow.)
Soooooo, why are consoles simultaneously having lower frame rates and worse graphics again??
Because they're being compared against PCs costing three times as much.
Nice, didn't even have to argue or anything.
In reality, most "gaming PCs" are way, way over-specced for the games they will run (except for VR titles.)
Most games have "recommended" (not "minimum") hardware requirements that will let them run at 1080p, 30fps on medium-high settings. For example, Assassin's Creed Origins recommends an i7-3770, GTX 760 and 8GB RAM. That was state-of-the-art hardware... four years ago.
But PC gamers today will scoff at you if you buy anything less than a GTX 1060, i5-8600 and 16GB RAM. Why? "Framerates, bruh. Gotta get 120fps on ultra, bruh!" Why? "Because, bruh!"
PC gamers read so many benchmark tests with their multicolored bar charts, and they will do and pay anything to get the longest bar on the chart, forget everything else. Overclocking, water-cooling, multiple GPUs, the works. I know, because I used to be one of those people.
It's a giant instrument-measuring(?) contest. It has very little to do with playing fun games.
But it does let PC gamers feel superior to console gamers. Because 60fps, bruh!
They don't sit there analyzing HDR or Atmos either.
One system clearly has the far better performance and better gfx. Quantifiable. PC wins this argument.
To those who own compatible hardware, HDR and Atmos are things to look out for, since they will usually pop up a light or an on-screen graphic indicating that HDR and Atmos are active. I for one know that when I see that HDR symbol pop up on my OLED screen, it's going to be a real treat for the eyeballs, unlike SDR which looks dull and flat in comparison. I don't have an Atmos system yet, though.
And yes, a decent gaming PC has better performance and graphics. It also costs three times as much as a console.
Maybe 1.5x to beat out the consoles, maybe.
Decent for 3x, debatable.
At today's GPU prices, you'd probably have to sell a kidney to afford a PC that can beat out the consoles. ?
(Sorry, that was a low blow.)
Errr, no I don't?? Consoles are still quite under powered.
PC GPU's are not that expensive.
At today's GPU prices, you'd probably have to sell a kidney to afford a PC that can beat out the consoles. ?
(Sorry, that was a low blow.)
Errr, no I don't?? Consoles are still quite under powered.
PC GPU's are not that expensive.
I'm guessing you haven't priced any GPUs lately. You go do that. Start with... oh, I dunno, a GTX 1060. A nice midrange card. Don't worry, I'll wait. ?
Soooooo, why are consoles simultaneously having lower frame rates and worse graphics again??
Because they're being compared against PCs costing three times as much.
Nice, didn't even have to argue or anything.
In reality, most "gaming PCs" are way, way over-specced for the games they will run (except for VR titles.)
Most games have "recommended" (not "minimum") hardware requirements that will let them run at 1080p, 30fps on medium-high settings. For example, Assassin's Creed Origins recommends an i7-3770, GTX 760 and 8GB RAM. That was state-of-the-art hardware... four years ago.
But PC gamers today will scoff at you if you buy anything less than a GTX 1060, i5-8600 and 16GB RAM. Why? "Framerates, bruh. Gotta get 120fps on ultra, bruh!" Why? "Because, bruh!"
PC gamers read so many benchmark tests with their multicolored bar charts, and they will do and pay anything to get the longest bar on the chart, forget everything else. Overclocking, water-cooling, multiple GPUs, the works. I know, because I used to be one of those people.
It's a giant instrument-measuring(?) contest. It has very little to do with playing fun games.
But it does let PC gamers feel superior to console gamers. Because 60fps, bruh!
Yeah, bruh! BRHU BURH!
Cool, you used to be someone who wanted to build the fastest most decked out PC, good for you. That's not everyone by a long shot, that's the minority. Don't be a tool bruh.
No ones' scoffing at anything other than the arguments that consoles are better than PC's that come up every other thread.
Seems to me the biggest crowd trying to wave their d*cks in everyones' face comes from consoles. Just look at this one, "HDR + ATMOS = Better than PC" *Waves d*ck*.
At today's GPU prices, you'd probably have to sell a kidney to afford a PC that can beat out the consoles. ?
(Sorry, that was a low blow.)
Errr, no I don't?? Consoles are still quite under powered.
PC GPU's are not that expensive.
I'm guessing you haven't priced any GPUs lately. You go do that. Start with... oh, I dunno, a GTX 1060. A nice midrange card. Don't worry, I'll wait. ?
How about I keep my 980ti from my old build and spend, oh I dunno. $0??
I don’t see how anyone can deny this.
FPS is only noticeable when the frame rates are all over the place, if the frames are locked at 28-30 FPS nobody will notice the lower FPS.
Ultra Settings vs Very High Settings is very hard to notice unless professionals like Digital Foundry are pausing/slowing videos and telling you exactly what to look for.
Where as 9 speaker Surround Sound and HDR is immediately perceived by the user vs SDR and Stereo Sound.
It really doesn’t get any better than an Xbox One X Game with HDR and Atmos, at least not from a smack you in your face check this out sort of way.
I still prefer the higher quality sound from my pc over the x-box. Thanks though.
Stereo
SAD
What is your receiver? I want to do a quick compare with my pc.
Yamaha RXV381
This is the per where all you do is compare DAC’s right
At today's GPU prices, you'd probably have to sell a kidney to afford a PC that can beat out the consoles. ?
(Sorry, that was a low blow.)
Errr, no I don't?? Consoles are still quite under powered.
PC GPU's are not that expensive.
I'm guessing you haven't priced any GPUs lately. You go do that. Start with... oh, I dunno, a GTX 1060. A nice midrange card. Don't worry, I'll wait. ?
How about I keep my 980ti from my old build and spend, oh I dunno. $0??
But I thought PC GPUs are not that expensive. That's what you said, isn't it?
I don’t see how anyone can deny this.
FPS is only noticeable when the frame rates are all over the place, if the frames are locked at 28-30 FPS nobody will notice the lower FPS.
Ultra Settings vs Very High Settings is very hard to notice unless professionals like Digital Foundry are pausing/slowing videos and telling you exactly what to look for.
Where as 9 speaker Surround Sound and HDR is immediately perceived by the user vs SDR and Stereo Sound.
It really doesn’t get any better than an Xbox One X Game with HDR and Atmos, at least not from a smack you in your face check this out sort of way.
I still prefer the higher quality sound from my pc over the x-box. Thanks though.
Stereo
SAD
What is your receiver? I want to do a quick compare with my pc.
Yamaha RXV381
This is the per where all you do is compare DAC’s right
You realise the quality of the DAC is one of if not the most important part of the sound reproduction at the amplifier stage for digital audio right??
But if you want some feedback.
https://au.yamaha.com/en/products/audio_visual/av_receivers_amps/rx-v381/specs.html#product-tabs
The THD on it isn't that great, I've listened to a quite a few systems with the THD at and around 10% at max power, they tend to sound like you are listening to music from the other side of a wall when cranked out, not bad at lower (normal) volume though. Certainly not audiophile.
Something I noticed is that the receiver is 5.1? No mention of dolby atmos either?
https://www.cnet.com/news/yamaha-announces-affordable-dolby-atmos-receivers-for-2016/
Have you got the X-box straight into that receiver or are you decoding the atmos through something else?
At today's GPU prices, you'd probably have to sell a kidney to afford a PC that can beat out the consoles. ?
(Sorry, that was a low blow.)
Errr, no I don't?? Consoles are still quite under powered.
PC GPU's are not that expensive.
I'm guessing you haven't priced any GPUs lately. You go do that. Start with... oh, I dunno, a GTX 1060. A nice midrange card. Don't worry, I'll wait. ?
How about I keep my 980ti from my old build and spend, oh I dunno. $0??
But I thought PC GPUs are not that expensive. That's what you said, isn't it?
They aren't? How much did you think they were going to cost??
"Sell a kidney to afford a PC to beat consoles". Err no, you said it yourself and so did I, 3x for a decent PC. I'm thinking about 1.5x for a PC to beat console.
Reckon I could probably do it?
https://www.jbhifi.com.au/games-consoles/games/gaming-consoles/xbox-one-console/xbox-one-x-1tb-console/500339/
Because they're being compared against PCs costing three times as much.
Nice, didn't even have to argue or anything.
In reality, most "gaming PCs" are way, way over-specced for the games they will run (except for VR titles.)
Most games have "recommended" (not "minimum") hardware requirements that will let them run at 1080p, 30fps on medium-high settings. For example, Assassin's Creed Origins recommends an i7-3770, GTX 760 and 8GB RAM. That was state-of-the-art hardware... four years ago.
But PC gamers today will scoff at you if you buy anything less than a GTX 1060, i5-8600 and 16GB RAM. Why? "Framerates, bruh. Gotta get 120fps on ultra, bruh!" Why? "Because, bruh!"
PC gamers read so many benchmark tests with their multicolored bar charts, and they will do and pay anything to get the longest bar on the chart, forget everything else. Overclocking, water-cooling, multiple GPUs, the works. I know, because I used to be one of those people.
It's a giant instrument-measuring(?) contest. It has very little to do with playing fun games.
But it does let PC gamers feel superior to console gamers. Because 60fps, bruh!
Yeah, bruh! BRHU BURH!
Cool, you used to be someone who wanted to build the fastest most decked out PC, good for you. That's not everyone by a long shot, that's the minority. Don't be a tool bruh.
No ones' scoffing at anything other than the arguments that consoles are better than PC's that come up every other thread.
Seems to me the biggest crowd trying to wave their d*cks in everyones' face comes from consoles. Just look at this one, "HDR + ATMOS = Better than PC" *Waves d*ck*.
I don't know which thread you're reading, but this one says "HDR + Atmos does more to make games better than FPS + Higher Settings". It doesn't compare PC to console at all. PCs are capable of HDR and Atmos in games as well.
Of course, PC gamers are so bound to the idea that increased framerate and settings is the only way to make a game better (and since PC lets you get higher framerates and settings, that must make it objectively better than console,) that they can't help but fight any argument that suggests anything different.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment