PS4 = slightly bellow Mid range PC. Xbone = entry level PC

They aren't for gaming tho, nor are they upgradeable to be for gaming?

If he posts on GS from a tablet, how would that affect his point of not wanting to pay for a PC?

I like to play games in my family-oriented living room. Mouse and keyboard are awkward for couch use. I haven't bought a desktop in 10+ years. However, I also want to enjoy the higher resolution/frame rate on my 4K TV. Maybe once 55+ inch touchscreen TV or monitor becomes common and affordable (or Kinect for PC is released and work well to navigate Windows), I will get build a PC and get another TV.

I'm not referring to want. Rather, it's about capabilities.

When I'm on my gaming PC, I don't need to open up another device just to post here like what you're (and the other poster) is probably doing.

If I have a console only, I'd need a non-gaming PC/laptop/netbook as well for posting here. When I have to total up the bills it cost to have equal capabilities if I was in camp or the other (console-only or gaming PC), they would be comparable.

Part of my gaming lifestyle is being here or checking out game reviews. That's something very few console gamers take into account which they really should consider.

Sure, that's all fine. Thought you were saying he already had a desktop PC that could be upgraded for the same cost as a console, which is an argument I see sometimes.

Ah, tormentos the desperate again trying to pull the 'prentending card' to deflect the attention, let's say I'm, would that still change anything I say? You still can't prove them false, can you, LOOSER? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Okay, I don't know why you're laughing. That's true. Because you should be crying in a situation you are in but then again consololites are the bright bunch so, oh well..........HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Actually i was laughing because DF call the difference between 900p on BF4 on PS4 vs the PC version at 1080p as massive,but when they compare COD ghost and a barrage of games on xbox one that are 900p vs 1080p version or even extreme cases like ghost 720p vs 1080p they actually downplayed the resolution advantage of the PS4.

Is about consistency if you say 44% resolution gap is massive fu** man you can't downplay a 100% difference or that same difference when you are comparing other hardware.

So basically DF own it self again...

This is like when Anandtech say the resolution difference wasn't much downplaying the PS4 advantages,and claim it was barely visible on a 42 inch screen,but they had an article saying how you could see the difference between 720p and 1080p on a damn 4 to 5 phone inch screen..

You read things like that from the so call experts and it just make you want to laugh because it show they are been apologist to a certain hardware maker or developers.

@tormentos: I think it's because it's not just the resolution they are referencing but the framerate as well. Steady 60fps is far greater difference than resolution. I think that is why they said it was a big difference.

PS4 might even be considered significantly below midrange.

Its using a lowend CPU (even by standards of 3-4 years ago) and even with prices skyrocketing recently, the current midrange GPU standard (GTX 760 SC) is almost twice as strong as the PS4's gpu..... (hell a sub $200 7870XT with an overclock on stock volts is twice as fast as the consoles GPU).

Also to point out that the Jaguar CPU the consoles are only at 1.6-1.7 ghz, while they may be 8 core cpu only 6 are usable for gaming. The architecture behind the jaguar puts its processing abilities on par with AMD ol Athlon X2's. So these console's cpu abilities are limited and it shows with framerate issues in games like BF4 MP. Even Athlon 2 X4's at 2.6 ghz are still a tad faster. Also The GTX 760 when overclocked beyond 1.25ghz is on par with 770 which is well beyond 2x the speed.

Exactly, but that wouldn't sit well with tormentos so why would he mention it.

No when they say that is when they openly compare the PC version at 1080p vs the PS4 version running on R270.

The results are clear enough. The 270/270X mostly delivers the 1080p60 experience we crave, but under stress both cards fall behind the PS4 performance.

Bearing in mind that the AMD cards are still delivering a massive 44 per cent boost in resolution over the PS4 game.

So yeah they are clearly talking about the difference between 1080p and 900p as something massive,and they blame it as the reason for the PC version running on the R270 falling behind.

This also prove a point i have been saying for a long time,1080p 60 FPS is not for all PC and all cards,the R270 is actually like 4 to 5 frames faster at times than the 7870 which is faster than the PS4,and still can't get steady 1080p 60 FPS.

In the here and now, we're wondering whether we did achieve a truly transformative gameplay experience over PlayStation 4 and Xbox One? In a number of cases, we categorically did not. Need for Speed: Rivals boasts only minor refinements over the console versions and was pegged to the same 30fps, while Call of Duty: Ghosts is a genuinely poor experience on PC. With Assassin's Creed 4, we had a great deal of leeway in exploring higher-quality visual settings, but again, the feeling of the game was very similar. On Tomb Raider, we could beat the 1080p performance of the PS4 game, but only with careful settings management - and the disabling of the showcase TressFX technology.

Hahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa..1080p without tressFX to beat the PS4 frame wise

1/2 TressFX on both PC and console incurs a highly significant GPU hit. It's especially an issue at close-range. Turning it off helps, but we're still not at the frame-rate we want on PC.

2/2 Turning down the shadows from ultra to normal frees up a huge amount of GPU time in places, getting us to the performance level we demand from the game. As you can see, dialing back hair and shadows almost doubles performance.

No...

@uninspiredcup:

Rust > any linear 10 hour movie with tacked on multiplayer

The game where you spawn naked and get chased by guys with rocks?... Or the game where you build shelter only to come back the next day and find out someone has taken the time to build a fence around your shelter and requests that you sing a song for him or he will shoot you?... I agree.

@NFJSupreme: I care more about games then specs. Many Ps4 and XB1 exclusive will never be on the PC. So I could care less.

The example of TR is funny because the latest version on consoles are using a updated and slimmed down.version of TressFX Pc version is still running 1.0.

@tormentos said:

@NFJSupreme said:

@tormentos: I think it's because it's not just the resolution they are referencing but the framerate as well. Steady 60fps is far greater difference than resolution. I think that is why they said it was a big difference.

No when they say that is when they openly compare the PC version at 1080p vs the PS4 version running on R270.

The results are clear enough. The 270/270X mostly delivers the 1080p60 experience we crave, but under stress both cards fall behind the PS4 performance.

Bearing in mind that the AMD cards are still delivering a massive 44 per cent boost in resolution over the PS4 game.

So yeah they are clearly talking about the difference between 1080p and 900p as something massive,and they blame it as the reason for the PC version running on the R270 falling behind.

This also prove a point i have been saying for a long time,1080p 60 FPS is not for all PC and all cards,the R270 is actually like 4 to 5 frames faster at times than the 7870 which is faster than the PS4,and still can't get steady 1080p 60 FPS.

@mastershake575 said:

PS4 might even be considered significantly below midrange.

Its using a lowend CPU (even by standards of 3-4 years ago) and even with prices skyrocketing recently, the current midrange GPU standard (GTX 760 SC) is almost twice as strong as the PS4's gpu..... (hell a sub $200 7870XT with an overclock on stock volts is twice as fast as the consoles GPU).

In the here and now, we're wondering whether we did achieve a truly transformative gameplay experience over PlayStation 4 and Xbox One? In a number of cases, we categorically did not. Need for Speed: Rivals boasts only minor refinements over the console versions and was pegged to the same 30fps, while Call of Duty: Ghosts is a genuinely poor experience on PC. With Assassin's Creed 4, we had a great deal of leeway in exploring higher-quality visual settings, but again, the feeling of the game was very similar. On Tomb Raider, we could beat the 1080p performance of the PS4 game, but only with careful settings management - and the disabling of the showcase TressFX technology.

Hahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa..1080p without tressFX to beat the PS4 frame wise

1/2 TressFX on both PC and console incurs a highly significant GPU hit. It's especially an issue at close-range. Turning it off helps, but we're still not at the frame-rate we want on PC.

2/2 Turning down the shadows from ultra to normal frees up a huge amount of GPU time in places, getting us to the performance level we demand from the game. As you can see, dialing back hair and shadows almost doubles performance.

No...

Ouch, tormentos dropping bombs of ownage in this thread.

Nope latest version on consoles are using a updated and slimmed down.version of TressFX aka 2.0 , Pc version is still running full blown 1.0.

Also The developers of both PS4 and Xbox One versions of Tomb Raider have made some sacrifices to allow for their versions to be playable, Against Pc Ultra settings console version lack things such as tessellation are missing on the characters and environments, with some of these elements appearing more blocky on the PS4 and Xbox One as a result. Meanwhile, motion blur is used much more sparingly, while texture resolution is noticeably lower in some cases. While the new version introduces some goodies like sub surface scattering. They downgraded other aspects to make it work with TressFX 2.0.

No entry level PC can play Forza 5. Cow turds always thinking they know PC hardware.

i love when I get called a Cow or Lem for posting the truth about a console. For the record I'm talking about entry level gaming PC which is obviously what we are talking about here since this is a gaming site. I build a lot of PCs for work and play. For myself and others. If someone came to me right now and asked me to help them build a PC the minimum I would suggest to them would be something on par with the xbone in terms of power. This is where the term entry level comes from. I would recommend that they build something along the power of the PS4 because I always recommend a mid range build. I would also tell them that if they want to pay for the optimal experience they should get something as powerful as my computer or stronger. So yes an entry level gaming PC can run Forza 5 and honestly probably better than the xbone since it would have a much stronger processor (not that the xbone runs Forza 5 badly or anything it's one of the few 1080p true 60fps games on nextgen consoles so far). No need for the name calling or butthurt.

Well, You got me there. That seriously wasn't on my mind. But anyways, why I quote you was you asked for a $400 PC. Looks like DF built one for you.

why do you guys care so much?

When are you going to stop flip flopping with your fanboyism?

To quote the great George Carlin:

"Coveting thy neighbor's goods is what keeps the economy going! Coveting creates jobs,leave it alone." George Carlin

We can't have people being happy with what they already have. Otherwise how will we improve EA's stock price? Heck isn't the point of System Wars not being completely happy with what we have while needing to convince other people what we have is the greatest thing since sliced bread?

Shadow falls MP is sub HD, the SP is still 1080p. The order 1886 is 1080p . And now you are going to go off rumors for the Witcher 3? They haven't cut any corners on the PS4 and later titles are looking better and running better then ever before. If a tablet beats the PS4 in 4 to 5 years that's ok because there will be a PS5 out by then and you will have already upgraded your PC 3 times. That's the way tech is evolving. If you think a console that launched for $400 is going to have a 7 year life span you are a fool.

The console version TressFX still looks far better even DF says so. It looked horrible on PC.

Who upgrades his PC 3 times in 4 years? Well, you can buy your console this many times if it goes KAPUT. And it's terrible if tablets outperform your consolole in mere 4 years time. And the Order is not 1080p. Quit lying. The Order is 800p. So, the 900pStation already have three games in <= 900p and two from the first party not just 'ONE' game and the 900pStation isn't even out for what less than 6 months? Pathetic.

I have lost count how many times you have been owned over 900pStation. Crapzone: Shadow Fail, Infamous: SS missing Shadows, Deep downgrade, 900pStation games cutting corners, 900pStation having 2010 hardware. Can you even list a single instance you have stood your ground?

This very thread is all about how terrible the hardware is in 900pStation that even a $500 PC outperforms it today, I don't want to think how would be a situation a year from now.

Highest Intel Haswell IGP would not match Radeon HD 7770 or prototype 7850 with 12 CU (1.3 TFLOPS) and 153.6GB/s GDDR5.

To feed X1's GPU's TMUs and ROPs at 1080p with ESRAM, it will need to use tiling tricks. Prototype 7850's 153.6GB/s GDDR5 is rough approximation for ESRAM+Tiling tricks.

One of my friends has a PC he built in 2006 that still runs newer games fine just at lower settings.

It still runs them a lot better than the 360 and PS3.

My old 2007 PC build still does the same.

This gen consoles don't have the tech advantage like last gen did with unified shaders.

The PS4 and Xbox One barely match up with a 2010 GPU.

Hell a 2006 overclocked intel QX6700 would perform better than either CPU in the current consoles.

No, they keep winning because they are simply the best games.

Yeah no:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Game_of_the_Year_awards

Games win Game of the Year because they are crafted to be accessible to every kind of gamer. They are designed to be generic retreads. That is why the overwhelming majority are a) multiplats b) extremely straight forward and c) have huge marketing budgets. The Call of Duty franchise doesn't have fifteen to twenty game of the year awards because it consistently delivers quality and depth. It doesn't deliver in cutting edge graphics, stories that keep you on the edge of your seat, or any some such.

Heck, the average fanboy doesn't even bother playing the campaign until they get bored with multiplayer, because the story and characters are far less important then power leveling a prestige rank to unlock new gun skins.

No actually you also got that wrong.

Did you read the article.?

Let me brake it down for you..

The PC they build wasn't $400 dollars it was £449 pounds which is totally difference

£449 pounds = $745 dollars at the current exchange rate,so they build a PC with almost twice as expensive as the PS4.

Not only that it doesn't include blu-ray for movies,we all know netflix and other movie streaming services has sh** on Blu-ray quality and sound wise so that PC is at a disadvantage already,and it didn't include Windows either which isn't free by the way.

With windows the PC was£500 pounds which would rise the price to more than double of what the PS4 cost.

£500 pounds = $830 dollars.

Right now, nothing is going to beat the power offered by PlayStation 4 at £350, so we've increased the budget - the aim being to affect a truly transformative gameplay experience.

Told you so..

Their Tomb Raider comparison says it all PC had to turn off Tress effect to keep frames up,because the PC version would drop to 28 FPS on a GPU that is suppose to be more powerful than the PS4,i guess the real killer for PC was the CPU,a console can pass with a low end one,but running a game on windows isn't the same and require more CPU juice.

The results are clear enough. The 270/270X mostly delivers the 1080p60 experience we crave, but under stress both cards fall behind the PS4 performance. Bearing in mind that the AMD cards are still delivering a massive 44 per cent boost in resolution over the PS4 game, it's clear that they remain the sweet spot in terms of price vs performance. However, the experience is just that much smoother and better on the more expensive GTX 760.

Did you read the article.?

So even with a R9 270 which is like 4 to 5 frames faster than the 7870 they fell under PS4 performance in 1080p,they say you need something more expensive and name the 760gtx,the number of people with GPU on PC higher than the R9 270 is abysmally low and you know it,those are a huge minority.

Oh and they had a 6 core FX-6300 3.5GHz by no means equal to the PS4 GPU,kind of make you think how a PC with an 6 core jaguar will run those same test with a R9 270..

Read the article.

Oh please even the 7770 can run that crap better..

Another one who didn't read the article...

Read it please is official you can't beat the PS4 for its price,and even the R9 270 has problems with 1080p 60 FPS on BF4,not only that on PC to beat the PS4 on Tomb Raider frame wise DF had to turn off tresseffex,because with it on the PC version even with a R9 270 it would fall way behind the PS4 version performance wise.

Even when using a stronger CPU and GPU.

They're both low end with the PS4 being slightly less so.

Your comparing apple vs oranges.

From http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-battlefield-4-next-gen-face-off

"Sadly, both next-gen platforms fall short of toppling the PC's ultra quality shadow setting"(1)

...

"However, draw distances for plants and geometry are noticeably better-rounded on PC: appearing in higher density when up close, we see buildings rendered in during cut-scenes that simply don't manifest on next-gen platforms. This is backed up by a more liberal use of particle effects on PC around explosions, and while alpha(2) for fire is comparable up close, flames in the distance suffer from a downgrade in quality on PS4 and Xbox One"

...

"Neither (consoles) can match the upscale-free 1080p output of the PC for handling tiny water shader details"

--------------------------------

1. Very large memory bandwidth consumer.

2. Alpha based effects impacts memory bandwidth and ROPS.

Unlike Battlefield 4, PC's Tomb Raider 2013 doesn't run the same codebase as console's Tomb Raider DE e.g. TressFX version is different, consoles doesn't have tessellation.

From http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/zardon/sapphire-r7-265-dual-x-graphics-card-review/14/

R7-265 has 43 fps average at ultimate settings.

Not correct since there are latest desktop PCs lower than 7750 GPU.

For example, my Intel Core i7-4770K is equipped with Intel HD 4600 IGP.

Low end =/= lowest end. low end, mid end and high end are broad categories no need to be anal about it.

AMD classifies R7-2xx as mid-range with R5-2xx as low end. If your going to claim something, do it right.

AMD's model decoder

R5 = low end.

R7 = mid range. PS4 slots into the highest mid-range Radeon HD R7 SKU i.e. R7-265. X1 slots between R7-250X and R7-260X

R9 = high end.

I'll do what i like thanks, if you don't like what i post, ignore it an keep your anal shit to yourself.

The anal $hit is your post.

Intel Haswell, Qualcomm Adreno 420 and AMD GCN supports Feature Level 11_1, while NVIDIA is the oddball with just Feature Level 11_0 i.e. that's including NVIDIA GTX 750 Ti "Maxwell" and Titan Black.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct3D#Feature_levels

NVIDIA Tegra 4 with Feature Level 9_1 is a joke. It's feature level is worst than year 2005's Xbox 360. Qualcomm is probably laughing at NVIDIA's handset SoC efforts.

^This.

But Tormentos, you're still my friend :D

You guys are forgetting that consoles are optimized better for gaming than any PC out there, allowing them to do more with less. A ps4 can get a lot more out of a hd 7770 than a PC can. I have a high end PC and while it destroys the ps4 in performance, it's easily as good as a mid range PC based on performance for games like Killzone and battlefield 4. You cannot directly compare hardware from PC and consoles because you have to consider the fact that consoles are getting more out of that hardware than a PC is even capable of.

The term anal retentive (also anally retentive), commonly abbreviated to anal,^[1] is used to describe a person who pays such attention to detail that the obsession becomes an annoyance to others, potentially to the detriment of the anal-retentive person. The term derives from Freudianpsychoanalysis.

Wiki

Yeah and the PC version has almost zero wind simulation,which was show very clear on consoles alone with stuff blowing in the win.

Read the article with Tresseffex the frames dropped to 28 on the PC version,without it and changing the shadows to normal they achieve 60 almost rock solid.

So yeah better Tresseffex 2.0 than non at all so yeah advantage for console.

See you have a terrible understanding of the english language,i suggest you use Rosseta Stone or something like it because you always argue sh** that is totally irrelevant..

The comparison i use was BF4 running on a R9 270 which was what DF use for THAT TEST,when DF compare the xbox one,PS4 and PC code on November it wasn't using a R9 270 it was using a top of the line GPU which could go way higher in resolution,frames,and image quality.

So yeah the argument use by DF here is based on code of the PS4 vs the R9 270 where the latter was able to run BF4 at 1080p but frames dropped lower than PS4 when things got hot.

Look at the video comparing Tomb Raider the video show almost identical quality but hair does look better on PS4 because they dropped Tress effex for PC because on it would drop the performance below PS4 level and below xbox one level to,28 FPS actually..

The post is on this same page let me quote it again...

In the here and now, we're wondering whether we did achieve a truly transformative gameplay experience over PlayStation 4 and Xbox One? In a number of cases, we categorically did not. Need for Speed: Rivals boasts only minor refinements over the console versions and was pegged to the same 30fps, while Call of Duty: Ghosts is a genuinely poor experience on PC. With Assassin's Creed 4, we had a great deal of leeway in exploring higher-quality visual settings, but again, the feeling of the game was very similar. On Tomb Raider, we could beat the 1080p performance of the PS4 game, but only with careful settings management - and the disabling of the showcase TressFX technology.

1/2 TressFX on both PC and console incurs a highly significant GPU hit. It's especially an issue at close-range. Turning it off helps, but we're still not at the frame-rate we want on PC.

2/2 Turning down the shadows from ultra to normal frees up a huge amount of GPU time in places, getting us to the performance level we demand from the game. As you can see, dialing back hair and shadows almost doubles performance.

@tormentos:

O yes lets ignore

version on consoles are using a updated and slimmed down.version of TressFX aka 2.0 , Pc version is still running full blown 1.0.

Also The developers of both PS4 and Xbox One versions of Tomb Raider have made some sacrifices to allow for their versions to be playable, Against Pc Ultra settings console version lack things such as tessellation are missing on the characters and environments, with some of these elements appearing more blocky on the PS4 and Xbox One as a result. Meanwhile, motion blur is used much more sparingly, while texture resolution is noticeably lower in some cases. While the new version introduces some goodies like sub surface scattering or dynamic foliage. They downgraded other aspects to make it work with TressFX 2.0.

version on consoles are using a updated and slimmed down.version of TressFX aka 2.0 , Pc version is still running full blown 1.0. So I would hope it would look and react better..... But TR on consoles had to cut things out and tone down to allow TressFX, and even then both consoles suffer from inconsistent framrates.

@tormentos: Didn't the ps4 version lack tessellation? Also from the looks of this gif there doesn't seem to be any form of AO on the ps4. It makes the comparison quite unfair considering how much tessellation and AO affect performance.

If anything it shows X1 is overpriced and Kinect 2 is a poor excuse. PS4 does fine, but it doesn't seem to be exceeding expectations.

They basically are 7790 and 7850 in a lunchbox. Which is fine at the $400 pricepoint, hard to swallow with online fees included, but free rented games is a good kickback for the trouble.

PC is offering much more value at similar pricepoint. Steam handles the gen switch seamlessly and upgradeable hardware saves money in the long run. PC wins in price, performance, and games.

Let's call it a day, gentlemen.

Fact is to play with TressFX on,you need something stronger than the R9 270 to get 60 FPS.

I know what the PC version is running and as you can see DF also say they have do downgrade shadows on PC to PS4 level as well as turning off TressFX to be able to hit 60 FPS,that is call a trade off and it isn't better than what any console is doing.

I have been telling you this for ages,a great GPU today is a good GPU tomorrow and a ok GPU after tomorrow,at one point or another a trade off will be made,just like DF did to beat the PS4 version.

Funny things is like i have been saying for a long time you can't beat the PS4 performance wise with the money the PS4 on PC,DF say so to..

Yet your still ignoring every other fact , that the console version has also sacrificed other aspects too such as no tessellation, lower texture resolutions, no AO etc then them using using TressFX 2.0 which is more efficient then version 1.0. less demanding which helps alot but to the point is that the fact is PS4 cant run at a steady 60 fps neither.

You cant count how many times I have been owned because it never happened. Infamous SS has shadows perhaps you should read the dev interview before you just keep making yourself look like a complete ass. Deep down downgrade? LMAO the latest build of Deep down looks amazing , i wonder how it will look on pc........ O wait. When haven't I stood my ground? Arguing with you is like talking to a wall as you just make crap up as you move along. And no a $500 dollar pc isn't even close to the PS4 now . You are a joke at this point.