You know you are troubled when the system other people prefer to game on causes you to behave like
Linus attempts to build a $500 PC that will outperform XSX
@appariti0n said:
@SolidGame_basic said:
@appariti0n said:
@Random_Matt said:
@appariti0n said:
@SolidGame_basic: Nope, because yet again, the cost of being able to play games online which is free on PC, is not factored into the console side. Pretty much like every time this topic has come up.
And you assume everyone does, that is an entirely different matter. To the OP, Linus is a complete clown, pay no attention to him.
Nah, I prefer to take into consideration all factors if one is to actually make a legit comparison.
You can't on one hand simply gloss over the cost of online for consoles for example, yet also gloss over the fact that that not every PC gamer needs to buy all parts from scratch each time.
I've been using the same Case/PSU for well over a decade, my slow storage drive is almost 7 years old. Yet for some reason some consolites love to pretend that online costs aren't a factor, and that every PC user throws his old rig away and buys everything new from scratch each time.
Yea, but you're cherry picking. I can say that PC games are all digital, which has an added cost to them. I can say that XBL and PS+ go on sale all the time (I can easily find PS+ for $30 a year). Meanwhile the above set up does not include a 4K player which will cost you extra, has a quarter of space, etc etc. Also, there are plenty of people who don't play online, so he's right, it's optional.
What % of people don't play online vs those that do? Doesn't seem like cherry picking to me. The ability to play multiplayer games online kinda seems like a core feature in 2021.
Meanwhile, a blue ray player really isn't, at least not in the PC world. Are you not cherry picking as well by making that out to be something important? Not everyone cares about a blu ray player you know.
You guys keep calling it a blu ray player 😄 It's a 4K player. If we take that out of the equation, that's basically a PS5 digital system which goes for $400. You can get a PS+ membership for $30 from CDkeys right now. So for 7 years, that's $210. So altogether, $610. Now what?
PC will never beat the price to performance of a consoles on the first two years of release... Its just never been possible ever.
They are just making fun content, Linus and every PC gamer knows its not possible... You console boys are special breed of desperate.
PC is more expensive but can also be a LOT more powerful... Water is wet, sand is dry.
@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:
PC will never beat the price to performance of a consoles on the first two years of release... Its just never been possible ever.
They are just making fun content, Linus and every PC gamer knows its not possible... You console boys are special breed of desperate.
PC is more expensive but can also be a LOT more powerful... Water is wet, sand is dry.
And when the consoles release a mid-gen refresh PC gamers be like, but but, we have da Titan XXX! I spent $3000!! 😆
@SolidGame_basic said:
@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:
PC will never beat the price to performance of a consoles on the first two years of release... Its just never been possible ever.
They are just making fun content, Linus and every PC gamer knows its not possible... You console boys are special breed of desperate.
PC is more expensive but can also be a LOT more powerful... Water is wet, sand is dry.
And when the consoles release a mid-gen refresh PC gamers be like, but but, we have da Titan XXX! I spent $3000!! 😆
Not really the mid gen refresh like the X1X and PS4 Pro where running cards equivalent to a RX 590 and RX 460... They were beaten by PC's with i3's and GTX 1060's in 2/3'rds of the games tested by DF these are $800 PC's.
You console gamers love living in some fantasy land.
You win on price to performance, enjoy but stop acting like its 10x the price for the love of God, you console gamers never change. The older I get the less I come to forums.
You think a guy driving past you in a Ferrari cares about your opinion of his car and how much it costs compared to you Ford Focus?... Stop it. Grow up.
You would think that what's happening in the world would wake people up... Guess not you guys.
@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:
@SolidGame_basic said:
@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:
PC will never beat the price to performance of a consoles on the first two years of release... Its just never been possible ever.
They are just making fun content, Linus and every PC gamer knows its not possible... You console boys are special breed of desperate.
PC is more expensive but can also be a LOT more powerful... Water is wet, sand is dry.
And when the consoles release a mid-gen refresh PC gamers be like, but but, we have da Titan XXX! I spent $3000!! 😆
Not really the mid gen refresh like the X1X and PS4 Pro where running cards equivalent to a RX 590 and RX 460... They were beaten by PC's with i3's and GTX 1060's in 2/3'rds of the games tested by DF these are $800 PC's.
You console gamers love living in some fantasy land.
You win on price to performance, enjoy but stop acting like its 10x the price for the love of God, you console gamers never change. The older I get the less I come to forums.
You think a guy driving past you in a Ferrari cares about your opinion of his car and how much it costs compared to you Ford Focus?... Stop it. Grow up.
You would think that what's happening in the world would wake people up... Guess not you guys.
Lol, why are you talking about last gen systems? Are you admitting that consoles have caught up?
It was never going to happen. People have to be silly to believe this is possible.
@Grey_Eyed_Elf: cmon, everyone knows pc gamers are always trying to downplay the price/performance advantage of consoles, it's everywhere.
@eoten said:
I am curious how the people who admit they buy online subscriptions every year demand we not include the cost of those subscription when comparing the overall costs of the console? Getting screwed over like that has got to suck.
Online subscriptions add to the cost if you're an online player. But to say that somehow that is the equalizer is to ignore all other factors. Like I told the guy above you, I can get PS+ right now off CD Keys for $30 https://www.cdkeys.com/1-year-playstation-plus-membership-ps3-ps4-ps-vita-digital-code With PS+, you get at least 2 games a month, plus exclusive discounts on buying games. So for 7 years, that's $210. Plus $400 PS5 all digital since we're not including 4k player, and that's $610. PS+ has tons of value. I got Man Eater, Tomb Raider and Godfall just last month. This month I'm getting Control Ultimate Edition, Destruction AllStars, and Conrete Genie. It seems like you're the one that's ignoring the value there.
It's nearly impossible to build a $500 pc that'll beat the entire console generation at the start of that console generation. You can most certainly build one that can match that generation at the start and stay competitive with it throughout if you chose your parts correctly. You might even beat it if you manage to win a decedent GPU or CPU from a drawing/giveaway or competition.
Now building a $500 gaming rig toward the latter middle or even tail end of a generation that'll dust that generation's console is rather easy if you know carefully research your parts. Provided you exclude the OS and extra hard drive space from that cost.
That being said, even a build with a GT 1030 and a modern hyperthreaded intel dual-core or non-hyperthreaded quad-core processor paired with 8 GB of ram can certainly give you a vast library of games to play even if if you can't play the more modern AAA games of today on it.
@goldenelementxl said:
Linus set Herms back with this one. He cheated on the price in a few ways and kinda proved Lems and Cows point.
At $400, the digital PS5 is an insane value. And at $500 the Xbox Series X is as well. But this pigeonhole argument of consoles vs PCs at the same price is tiring. This is the only hobby I’ve come across where this is a thing. How many gear heads are out there staning for the $15,000 Chevy Spark?
Cars yes, that would be a silly argument.
There are some hobbies where this argument can work, like audio set ups and home theater. Technology for Home Theater has gotten so good and cost efficient a $400 AV Receiver can sound almost as good as $2000 one, with the $400 one having more features. (Companies like Yamaha and Sony can sell their AV Receivers in bulk, so it gives them an advantage to pack in better quality equipment VS a company like Marantz who can't sell nearly as many units). Back in the 90's this wouldn't be the case.
So the argument is really "Is spending an additional $1600 on an AV Receiver going to get me $1600 of extra value in sound quality?" And TODAY the answer is no.
So the argument WE GAMERS should be having is this "Does Spending $1300 on a gaming PC give me an $800 increase in value compared to a $500 console?" This is a lot more tricky to answer. For some yes....others no.
Trying to say a $500 PC is as good as the equivalent console is not the point, and it's not the reason people game on PC in the first place. They see it as increased Value over a console because they have all the things Windows allows them to do, plus better performance in games and a potentially bigger library of games to play. BUT the downside can be time spent on maintaining and troubleshooting issues on your PC.
@eoten said:
I am curious how the people who admit they buy online subscriptions every year demand we not include the cost of those subscription when comparing the overall costs of the console? Getting screwed over like that has got to suck.
OK, let's include the cost of an online subscription. $60/yr for five years is $300. I would love to see you try to build a "console-killer" PC for $800. 😂
@Star67 said:
Cars yes, that would be a silly argument.
There are some hobbies where this argument can work, like audio set ups and home theater. Technology for Home Theater has gotten so good and cost efficient a $400 AV Receiver can sound almost as good as $2000 one, with the $400 one having more features. (Companies like Yamaha and Sony can sell their AV Receivers in bulk, so it gives them an advantage to pack in better quality equipment VS a company like Marantz who can't sell nearly as many units). Back in the 90's this wouldn't be the case.
So the argument is really "Is spending an additional $1600 on an AV Receiver going to get me $1600 of extra value in sound quality?" And TODAY the answer is no.
So the argument WE GAMERS should be having is this "Does Spending $1300 on a gaming PC give me an $800 increase in value compared to a $500 console?" This is a lot more tricky to answer. For some yes....others no.
Trying to say a $500 PC is as good as the equivalent console is not the point, and it's not the reason people game on PC in the first place. They see it as increased Value over a console because they have all the things Windows allows them to do, plus better performance in games and a potentially bigger library of games to play. BUT the downside can be time spent on maintaining and troubleshooting issues on your PC.
I think gaming is closer to cars than AV hardware. (my home theater setup is all Sony instead of Klipsch so I know what you mean)
Lets look at the things console fanboys are hyping right now with the new consoles.
Higher framerates
Ray tracing
SSD speed
Higher resolutions
All of these things, outside of ray tracing, have been common among PC gaming for well over a decade. The customization of PC gaming comes at a cost, but the impact of these features are abundantly clear. Just ask the Cows and Lems, they'll tell you how great 60fps is and how great SSDs are now that they have them. A few years ago? Nah...
But on PC, there are still very obvious advantages for the money. There will still be 30FPS games this gen. 60FPS vs 120FPS modes will be dictated by visual compromises that the console gamer can't control. Ray tracing has been a mixed bag because of the performance impact and AMD's inability to match Nvidia with the tech. On the PC side, 144FPS-240FPS is more and more popular, with 360FPS monitors hitting the market. There are faster SSDs on the market than what the consoles have, CPUs are faster with more cores etc etc etc. All of these things have a bigger impact than Sony vs Marantz audio equipment.
A 10FPS difference or a 1440p vs 1800p gap between a PlayStation and Xbox game sets the console gaming community on fire. Show them a PC running the game 120FPS faster than both, or at native 4K and they don't care? That's the epitome of hypocrisy. The same with a console comparison with a missing texture, or one having more pop-in or worse AA.
As for maintaining and troubleshooting a PC. It's incredibly easy these days. At any point, you're just a google search or YouTube video away from solving your issue vs having to send the console in for repairs. Maintaining both just requires a can of air. And heaven forbid, folks actually learn something about the stuff they claim to be "enthusiasts" of...
@goldenelementxl: Those are some valid points, and I agree with just about all of that.
And you are 100% correct, console fanboys would love to have all the SSD, 4K 120FPS that some PCs can do, and I would say more so than an audiophile comparing a Sony to a Marantz (Since the difference in quality is really small today)
BUT
There is still a "Is this worth the extra cost for X amount of performance gains and Windows headaches" (I know a PC is easy to maintain and play games on today, but there's still issues, it's Windows dude)
Is a $500 console with an SSD, 4K 30/60FPS comparable to a $1300 PC with 4K 120FPS SSD? Yes....and no considering the gap in performance will widen as the console ages.
BUT
Considering people still buy consoles, there is still a perceived lack of value in performance gains for that extra money.
For me personally, I'll stick with consoles. I really hate Windows
Hermits are pretty mad at this one.
@eoten: you're not forced to get into the subscriptions. It's not that hard to understand.
@UnnDunn said:
@eoten said:
I am curious how the people who admit they buy online subscriptions every year demand we not include the cost of those subscription when comparing the overall costs of the console? Getting screwed over like that has got to suck.
OK, let's include the cost of an online subscription. $60/yr for five years is $300. I would love to see you try to build a "console-killer" PC for $800. 😂
5 years? A typical console generation is about 7. 2006-2013 for the PS3, 2013-2020 for the PS4, It'll likely be 2020-2027 for the PS5 as well. That's $420. And yeah, it doesn't take much for an $800 PC built now using something like a 3060 and a Ryzen 5 to kill a PS5/XSX.
You really believed console makers were going to sell you hardware and services at a loss? And you actually believed integrated graphics were going to best even a modest dedicated GPU? LMFAO!
@glez13 said:
Sadly right now is the worst time to build a PC.
@NathanDrakeSwag said:
The PS5 and XSX are 4K consoles for $400-500. A true 4K PC card (3080) is $700 minimum alone. You're looking at needing at least a $2000 PC to compete with these consoles in performance.
That makes no f*cking sense. If the 3080 is a "true" 4K card then there is no way that the consoles are "true" 4K. Just make the games have raytracing and even a 3060 will match or even beat both consoles, and forget about 4K at that point.
Entirely true. When we're looking at ray tracing, these consoles fall down to 1080p much of the time. A huge downfall from 4k. Whereas the 3080 can do 4k/ray tracing/DLSS in a number of games.
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@glez13 said:
Sadly right now is the worst time to build a PC.
@NathanDrakeSwag said:
The PS5 and XSX are 4K consoles for $400-500. A true 4K PC card (3080) is $700 minimum alone. You're looking at needing at least a $2000 PC to compete with these consoles in performance.
That makes no f*cking sense. If the 3080 is a "true" 4K card then there is no way that the consoles are "true" 4K. Just make the games have raytracing and even a 3060 will match or even beat both consoles, and forget about 4K at that point.
Entirely true. When we're looking at ray tracing, these consoles fall down to 1080p much of the time. A huge downfall from 4k. Whereas the 3080 can do 4k/ray tracing/DLSS in a number of games.
CP2077 the 3080 only got about 25fps trying that, so I would say no, the 3080 isn't really a 4K card either, at least, not with ray tracing, but I see both features as highly gimmicky anyway so it doesn't matter. One has marginal, at best improvements over 1080P only noticed in larger screen sizes the likes of which most people don't use, and the other has marginal improvements, if that, over rasterized rendering at a cost of about half your frame rate. Neither one has any real value to gaming IMO, and that's likely why neither tech was ever utilized or hyped for that purpose until console and GPU makers ran out of valuable features to sell.
But, I still have faith that some day people will realize that people who manufacturer products have a tendency to overexaggerate the capabilities of those products as far as they can stretch the truth without getting sued for false advertisement. Like some infomercial promising their knives will stay sharper than anyone else's the longest, to some diet pill promising you can lose weight without exercising, to someone simply bottling piss and telling people it can regrow hair.
@eoten said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@glez13 said:
Sadly right now is the worst time to build a PC.
@NathanDrakeSwag said:
The PS5 and XSX are 4K consoles for $400-500. A true 4K PC card (3080) is $700 minimum alone. You're looking at needing at least a $2000 PC to compete with these consoles in performance.
That makes no f*cking sense. If the 3080 is a "true" 4K card then there is no way that the consoles are "true" 4K. Just make the games have raytracing and even a 3060 will match or even beat both consoles, and forget about 4K at that point.
Entirely true. When we're looking at ray tracing, these consoles fall down to 1080p much of the time. A huge downfall from 4k. Whereas the 3080 can do 4k/ray tracing/DLSS in a number of games.
CP2077 the 3080 only got about 25fps trying that, so I would say no, the 3080 isn't really a 4K card either, at least, not with ray tracing, but I see both features as highly gimmicky anyway so it doesn't matter. One has marginal, at best improvements over 1080P only noticed in larger screen sizes the likes of which most people don't use, and the other has marginal improvements, if that, over rasterized rendering at a cost of about half your frame rate. Neither one has any real value to gaming IMO, and that's likely why neither tech was ever utilized or hyped for that purpose until console and GPU makers ran out of valuable features to sell.
But, I still have faith that some day people will realize that people who manufacturer products have a tendency to overexaggerate the capabilities of those products as far as they can stretch the truth without getting sued for false advertisement. Like some infomercial promising their knives will stay sharper than anyone else's the longest, to some diet pill promising you can lose weight without exercising, to someone simply bottling piss and telling people it can regrow hair.
Interesting, because this guy gets an avg of 45-50 fps with ray tracing and DLSS at 4k. That's at the psycho setting. Be aware that going to medium ray tracing would improve fps by at least 10 fps or more. https://youtu.be/Zz4AxZEv424?t=1005
Lol marginal improvements. Nice work on the attempt, anyway.
Do you always lie or is this just a one-off?
I just bought a $500 PC on Black Friday. Got a 10th gen i5 (hyper threading is back, yay) and a GTX 1650. While technically capable of 4K, no one in their right mind would use this rig for that. It can however play most modern games at 1080p with high-ultra settings, and that is fine with me. I don't have a 4K TV yet, but when I get one, I will get a new GPU and more RAM. Hell, with a few upgrades here and there, this thing will last me 2 console generations. Plus it plays all of my old games, so there's that too.
A lot of master racers would think I'm crazy for bothering with this setup (everyone shits on the 1650 card), but i love it. It's small, quiet, energy efficient (seriously, it barely heats up at all), and runs everything I own at a smooth 1080p 60. It does what I wanted at a price I was willing to pay.
And that is how you should feel about your console. Who gives a shit if you could get a few more Ps or Ks for an extra $1,000? Consoles are great. They're cheap, easy to use, everything works. I own lots of consoles and love them all. Game on whatever makes you happy. Anyone with something to say about it can go to Hell.
@Star67 said:
@goldenelementxl said:
Linus set Herms back with this one. He cheated on the price in a few ways and kinda proved Lems and Cows point.
At $400, the digital PS5 is an insane value. And at $500 the Xbox Series X is as well. But this pigeonhole argument of consoles vs PCs at the same price is tiring. This is the only hobby I’ve come across where this is a thing. How many gear heads are out there staning for the $15,000 Chevy Spark?
Cars yes, that would be a silly argument.
There are some hobbies where this argument can work, like audio set ups and home theater. Technology for Home Theater has gotten so good and cost efficient a $400 AV Receiver can sound almost as good as $2000 one, with the $400 one having more features. (Companies like Yamaha and Sony can sell their AV Receivers in bulk, so it gives them an advantage to pack in better quality equipment VS a company like Marantz who can't sell nearly as many units). Back in the 90's this wouldn't be the case.
So the argument is really "Is spending an additional $1600 on an AV Receiver going to get me $1600 of extra value in sound quality?" And TODAY the answer is no.
So the argument WE GAMERS should be having is this "Does Spending $1300 on a gaming PC give me an $800 increase in value compared to a $500 console?" This is a lot more tricky to answer. For some yes....others no.
Trying to say a $500 PC is as good as the equivalent console is not the point, and it's not the reason people game on PC in the first place. They see it as increased Value over a console because they have all the things Windows allows them to do, plus better performance in games and a potentially bigger library of games to play. BUT the downside can be time spent on maintaining and troubleshooting issues on your PC.
Great post and I think a lot of console players think that way. I already have a gaming PC, but it's aged over the years. So how much would I have to spend to see a noticeable difference over console? A lot of console developers don't really put the work into taking advantage of high end PC hardware. So what you end up with is a console game with just higher FPS and resolution. Have you seen Demon Soul's on PS5? Game looks amazing. Does it really matter to me that it isn't native 4k 60 fps? Not really. And I don't think your average consumer cares either.
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@eoten said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@glez13 said:
Sadly right now is the worst time to build a PC.
@NathanDrakeSwag said:
The PS5 and XSX are 4K consoles for $400-500. A true 4K PC card (3080) is $700 minimum alone. You're looking at needing at least a $2000 PC to compete with these consoles in performance.
That makes no f*cking sense. If the 3080 is a "true" 4K card then there is no way that the consoles are "true" 4K. Just make the games have raytracing and even a 3060 will match or even beat both consoles, and forget about 4K at that point.
Entirely true. When we're looking at ray tracing, these consoles fall down to 1080p much of the time. A huge downfall from 4k. Whereas the 3080 can do 4k/ray tracing/DLSS in a number of games.
CP2077 the 3080 only got about 25fps trying that, so I would say no, the 3080 isn't really a 4K card either, at least, not with ray tracing, but I see both features as highly gimmicky anyway so it doesn't matter. One has marginal, at best improvements over 1080P only noticed in larger screen sizes the likes of which most people don't use, and the other has marginal improvements, if that, over rasterized rendering at a cost of about half your frame rate. Neither one has any real value to gaming IMO, and that's likely why neither tech was ever utilized or hyped for that purpose until console and GPU makers ran out of valuable features to sell.
But, I still have faith that some day people will realize that people who manufacturer products have a tendency to overexaggerate the capabilities of those products as far as they can stretch the truth without getting sued for false advertisement. Like some infomercial promising their knives will stay sharper than anyone else's the longest, to some diet pill promising you can lose weight without exercising, to someone simply bottling piss and telling people it can regrow hair.
Interesting, because this guy gets an avg of 45-50 fps with ray tracing and DLSS at 4k. That's at the psycho setting. Be aware that going to medium ray tracing would improve fps by at least 10 fps or more. https://youtu.be/Zz4AxZEv424?t=1005
Lol marginal improvements. Nice work on the attempt, anyway.
Do you always lie or is this just a one-off?
Neither DLSS nor dynamic resolution are 4K.
@eoten said:
@UnnDunn said:
@eoten said:
I am curious how the people who admit they buy online subscriptions every year demand we not include the cost of those subscription when comparing the overall costs of the console? Getting screwed over like that has got to suck.
OK, let's include the cost of an online subscription. $60/yr for five years is $300. I would love to see you try to build a "console-killer" PC for $800. 😂
5 years? A typical console generation is about 7. 2006-2013 for the PS3, 2013-2020 for the PS4, It'll likely be 2020-2027 for the PS5 as well. That's $420. And yeah, it doesn't take much for an $800 PC built now using something like a 3060 and a Ryzen 5 to kill a PS5/XSX.
You really believed console makers were going to sell you hardware and services at a loss? And you actually believed integrated graphics were going to best even a modest dedicated GPU? LMFAO!
You really think a dedicated single-purpose device with ecosystem lock-in can't be more efficient and cheaper than a general-purpose PC without ecosystem lock-in? LMFAO!
Also LOL at "Integrated graphics". Is that what you call it? 😂
@UnnDunn said:
@eoten said:
@UnnDunn said:
@eoten said:
I am curious how the people who admit they buy online subscriptions every year demand we not include the cost of those subscription when comparing the overall costs of the console? Getting screwed over like that has got to suck.
OK, let's include the cost of an online subscription. $60/yr for five years is $300. I would love to see you try to build a "console-killer" PC for $800. 😂
5 years? A typical console generation is about 7. 2006-2013 for the PS3, 2013-2020 for the PS4, It'll likely be 2020-2027 for the PS5 as well. That's $420. And yeah, it doesn't take much for an $800 PC built now using something like a 3060 and a Ryzen 5 to kill a PS5/XSX.
You really believed console makers were going to sell you hardware and services at a loss? And you actually believed integrated graphics were going to best even a modest dedicated GPU? LMFAO!
You really think a dedicated single-purpose device with ecosystem lock-in can't be more efficient and cheaper than a general-purpose PC without ecosystem lock-in? LMFAO!
Also LOL at "Integrated graphics". Is that what you call it? 😂
It is integrated graphics. It's an APU, the same type of hardware they use in AMD powered laptops. And you seem like one of those people who believe "console optimization" is actually a thing they do to make games run better on console. Guess what? They reduce settings when they optimize for console and they are already reducing settings for games on the PS5 and XSS.
@eoten said:
@UnnDunn said:
@eoten said:
@UnnDunn said:
@eoten said:
I am curious how the people who admit they buy online subscriptions every year demand we not include the cost of those subscription when comparing the overall costs of the console? Getting screwed over like that has got to suck.
OK, let's include the cost of an online subscription. $60/yr for five years is $300. I would love to see you try to build a "console-killer" PC for $800. 😂
5 years? A typical console generation is about 7. 2006-2013 for the PS3, 2013-2020 for the PS4, It'll likely be 2020-2027 for the PS5 as well. That's $420. And yeah, it doesn't take much for an $800 PC built now using something like a 3060 and a Ryzen 5 to kill a PS5/XSX.
You really believed console makers were going to sell you hardware and services at a loss? And you actually believed integrated graphics were going to best even a modest dedicated GPU? LMFAO!
You really think a dedicated single-purpose device with ecosystem lock-in can't be more efficient and cheaper than a general-purpose PC without ecosystem lock-in? LMFAO!
Also LOL at "Integrated graphics". Is that what you call it? 😂
It is integrated graphics. It's an APU, the same type of hardware they use in AMD powered laptops. And you seem like one of those people who believe "console optimization" is actually a thing they do to make games run better on console. Guess what? They reduce settings when they optimize for console and they are already reducing settings for games on the PS5 and XSS.
Yes it's an APU. Yes, it has a GPU on the same die as the CPU. No it isn't "integrated graphics" the way you're trying to use the phrase. Stop trying to be clever about it.
Yes console optimization is a thing on two levels:
- Removing all sorts of needless overhead on the system level (cut-down operating system, no needless background processes, tight control of multi-tasking)
- Knowing exactly what the hardware target is, and therefore being able to hit that target much more efficiently.
You may not believe in such things. They still exist.
You think games run more efficiently on consoles? Is that why console games get "optimized" to use lower settings when compared to equivalent prices gaming PCs, and still end up being locked to lower frame rates? Taking a next gen game, reducing render distance, shadows, lighting effects, and other features, then locking the frame rate to 30fps to "optimize" isn't exploiting some kind of magical characteristic that allegedly exists on console.
If I was willing to play games on the lowest settings, and lock frame rates to 30, I could stretch the number of years my hardware is good for to far many years than consoles last. But, like most PC gamers, I have the option of not settling for that.
Software has gotten so much better over time that "console optimization" is hardly a thing in this day and age. They often run equivalent to a similarly specced PC.
Now we know COD Cold War and AC: Valhalla drop bandwidth-intensive effects to a level below the lowest available on PC to run properly. This explains their good performance.
I don't get the point of these videos. Of course you can't compete with a brand new console with a similarly priced PC, that's just basic economics...
Are some PC gamers still trying to argue that PC gaming doesn't have a higher upfront cost? It's a senseless comparison anyway since a PC does a lot more than just gaming and media playback, which is basically all a console does.
@eoten said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@eoten said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@glez13 said:
Sadly right now is the worst time to build a PC.
That makes no f*cking sense. If the 3080 is a "true" 4K card then there is no way that the consoles are "true" 4K. Just make the games have raytracing and even a 3060 will match or even beat both consoles, and forget about 4K at that point.
Entirely true. When we're looking at ray tracing, these consoles fall down to 1080p much of the time. A huge downfall from 4k. Whereas the 3080 can do 4k/ray tracing/DLSS in a number of games.
CP2077 the 3080 only got about 25fps trying that, so I would say no, the 3080 isn't really a 4K card either, at least, not with ray tracing, but I see both features as highly gimmicky anyway so it doesn't matter. One has marginal, at best improvements over 1080P only noticed in larger screen sizes the likes of which most people don't use, and the other has marginal improvements, if that, over rasterized rendering at a cost of about half your frame rate. Neither one has any real value to gaming IMO, and that's likely why neither tech was ever utilized or hyped for that purpose until console and GPU makers ran out of valuable features to sell.
But, I still have faith that some day people will realize that people who manufacturer products have a tendency to overexaggerate the capabilities of those products as far as they can stretch the truth without getting sued for false advertisement. Like some infomercial promising their knives will stay sharper than anyone else's the longest, to some diet pill promising you can lose weight without exercising, to someone simply bottling piss and telling people it can regrow hair.
Interesting, because this guy gets an avg of 45-50 fps with ray tracing and DLSS at 4k. That's at the psycho setting. Be aware that going to medium ray tracing would improve fps by at least 10 fps or more. https://youtu.be/Zz4AxZEv424?t=1005
Lol marginal improvements. Nice work on the attempt, anyway.
Do you always lie or is this just a one-off?
Neither DLSS nor dynamic resolution are 4K.
Dynamic res is completely different from DLSS, and I mentioned DLSS in my original post. So are you trying to twist my argument or what?
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@eoten said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@eoten said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
Entirely true. When we're looking at ray tracing, these consoles fall down to 1080p much of the time. A huge downfall from 4k. Whereas the 3080 can do 4k/ray tracing/DLSS in a number of games.
CP2077 the 3080 only got about 25fps trying that, so I would say no, the 3080 isn't really a 4K card either, at least, not with ray tracing, but I see both features as highly gimmicky anyway so it doesn't matter. One has marginal, at best improvements over 1080P only noticed in larger screen sizes the likes of which most people don't use, and the other has marginal improvements, if that, over rasterized rendering at a cost of about half your frame rate. Neither one has any real value to gaming IMO, and that's likely why neither tech was ever utilized or hyped for that purpose until console and GPU makers ran out of valuable features to sell.
But, I still have faith that some day people will realize that people who manufacturer products have a tendency to overexaggerate the capabilities of those products as far as they can stretch the truth without getting sued for false advertisement. Like some infomercial promising their knives will stay sharper than anyone else's the longest, to some diet pill promising you can lose weight without exercising, to someone simply bottling piss and telling people it can regrow hair.
Interesting, because this guy gets an avg of 45-50 fps with ray tracing and DLSS at 4k. That's at the psycho setting. Be aware that going to medium ray tracing would improve fps by at least 10 fps or more. https://youtu.be/Zz4AxZEv424?t=1005
Lol marginal improvements. Nice work on the attempt, anyway.
Do you always lie or is this just a one-off?
Neither DLSS nor dynamic resolution are 4K.
Dynamic res is completely different from DLSS, and I mentioned DLSS in my original post. So are you trying to twist my argument or what?
Neither are 4K.
@PernicioEnigma: from what I've been reading, they really don't like being called out.
@Juub1990 said:
Software has gotten so much better over time that "console optimization" is hardly a thing in this day and age. They often run equivalent to a similarly specced PC.
Now we know COD Cold War and AC: Valhalla drop bandwidth-intensive effects to a level below the lowest available on PC to run properly. This explains their good performance.
Yeah, console players do not realize those "optimizations" mean dropping to settings sometimes even lower than what is available on PC just to make a game playable. They think there must be some kind of magic going on to make games run better than they can on PC (while the opposite is actually true) because what? Consoles aren't running Windows 10?
Even if pc is a little more, it has thousands of more games, better controls for shooters, better options, free online, free or cheaper games, emulation, and mods. It's still superior, deal with it
@Bond007uk said:
They should have increased the budget by another 150-200 USD as MS makes these things for a huge loss and makes it back on online subs.
And that's the one thing console gamers fail to understand. They're not taking a financial loss, no company would do that. They will earn their money back by other means and paid online services are one of them. Whether you pay $800 for a PC and get online for free or spend $400 on a console and another $400 for online services, nobody is accepting any losses. If you own a console you WILL make up the additional cost one way or another.
And that's not even mentioning just how low quality the components in consoles actually are. From the capacitors they use, to the fans they choose, and the pitifully low amount of material in their tiny heatsinks, it's hard to find parts that low quality in a PC build. Even the stock CPU cooler that comes with a Ryzen surpasses a console for cooling capacity.
@gtx021 said:
rtx 2080ti,$$$$ pc vs xbox one x,ps4 pro,comparison.on youtube,similar quality..
shame on pc,
---------
rtx 3090
10900k,
32gb ram $$$$$ pc vs $499 ps5,xbox series x/s comparison,similar quality..
shame on pc.
You are one of the worst trolls, and not just for however that post read.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment