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

And yet you ignore the fact the PS4 has more foliage rendered which is also dynamic, superior particle effects and better textures on the main characters . Somehow having more animated items rendered in an environment count for nothing now.

Nope, Ive already stated that the new console version introduced sub surface scattering to the game etc. Also changing character's textures but lower other texture quality is a compromise, Fact is that the Ps4 cant run the game with all the bells and whistles even with the updated TressFX or other compromises made.

"A direct comparison with the PC version set to the ultimate quality preset reveals some large discrepancies between the Definitive Editions compared with the full-fat PC experience. Aspects 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. On the flip side, all the Definitive Edition graphical extras - such as the dynamic foliage and the impressive sub-surface scattering - are absent from the PC, which represents another (albeit smaller) compromise."

""The Definitive Edition includes effects not found on the PC game, but lacks key high-end rendering effects only computer users get to enjoy."

The effects like tessellation and AO is much more demanding then dynamic foliage and slightly better npc textures and some added particle effects. TressFX 2.0 is much easier to run then 1.0 hence the reason why Pc version lags behind with a similar gpu because of TressFX 1.0 and he graphical effects not included on console version.

2DS master race

the order is neither 800p nor 1080p.

it's native render is 1920x800.

I would disagree with this. Even with GPUs jumping in price lately you can still score deals and build something that would take on the PS4 for ~$550.

Digital foundry comparison wasn't based in Ultimate setting on a top of the line GPU,it was based on a R9 270,which wasn't running the game in ultimate and still wasn't getting 60 FPS,so once again no DF say so you can't beat the PS4 for its price and on PC you need something like the 760GTX which is like $250 minimum $290 maximum alone,PC has much worse variable frames than consoles and their comparison prove it,not only on Tomb Raider but also on BF4 as well,setting the game to 1080p on the R270 cause the game to drop below PS4 performance levels,so yeah while it can go to 1080p the frames drop below the PS4,maybe now you know why BF4 is 900p on PS4.

For what it is the PS4 is working fine and is impossible to beat price wise by PC.

Still not seeing point eh? We are talking about the fact that the PS4 isnt even close in maxing out the game, also to point out at 1080 with 16x AF with a 7870ghz with ultimate settings, tessellation on, SSAO on ultra with tressfx averages 40 fps. While the PS4 does not run SSAO on ultra, not using max texture settings nor is it using a more inefficient and more demanding version of TressFX let alone not even using same amount of motion blur nor even has tessellation. The PS4 averages 40's to low 50's same realm as a 7870/R270 with less demand from the updated TressFX then pc version of the game.

Also it does not take a $250 card to beat the PS4 in multiplats sorry your tomb raider example is bias since pc version did not see an updated version as well. Look at AC4,BF4 or another game PS4 does not match the r270 or 7870+. If your willing not to "max" out the game you can have a PS4 experience or better, fact is that your ignoring is that the PS4 does not run games at maximum settings, and it uses a slew of custom settings and assets along with toned down and cut out features too. If the PS4 was all powerful why not run BF4 at 1080 with all high settings or even Tomb raider with tessellation or max SSAO etc, because it cant.

frames are as variable as you want them to be on PC though. If you were to lower the resolution to 900p with a R9 270 you will never see a frame below 55. If you turn off AA (not a huge deal when you are at 1080p or higher) you will again never see a frame below 55 if it even gets that low. You can down sample (not sure if this is even the term) to 95% of the resolution and run the game at slightly lower than 1080p and again see better framerates. Settings are not set in stone on PC. You can run the game at a higher graphical level and still get a steady 60fps than the PS4 relatively easy on a wide variety of hardware. Most PC players adjust their settings till they achieve the performance they want. For me I can run the game with everything turned up and average like 54fps. I aint bout that sub 60fps life. So I run on ultra with 2xMSAA so I can average 59.5fps.

If your going to make a claim, make sure it's backed-up with facts. Unlike your claims, my comments are in-line 2014 era PC SKUs.

Your concession is accepted.

DF should also downgrade SSAO and turn-off tessletaion.

Like all console exclusives, sometime in the distant future (distant future) those games will be archived and played mostly on PCs like most games of past generations. That's why an open platform like PC is great when the old closed platforms, consoles, are broken and no longer working you can still find older gems from Atari, Nintendo, Sega, and Sony games that use to have the word exclusive to their respective systems as descriptors. You cannot archive things on a closed platform and that's the downfall of consoles, especially moving into consoles that rely heavily on networks like PSN and XBL all the games exclusive to XBLA will be wiped from existence once 360's servers are gone.

Not even that. This gen, both consoles are rocking APU's quite similar to the archetecture of the PC. Unlike last gen, where consoles were there own thing, consoles this gen are literally PC's with limited operating systems. I really wouldn't be surprised if emulators started popping up in a year or so.

Well then that sounds great, I have limited knowledge on how much power is needed to run an emulator, especially for games of PS4/XboxOne caliber. I know 360/PS3 games were a lot of trouble to emulate on PCs, but I guess that was mostly due to the console infrastructure. I know the Wii games have successfully been emulated using the Dolphin and upresed to 1080p.

The problem with this, though, is that you're implying that the PS4 runs games at the quality of the PC Ultra settings. If you want an accurate representation, you'd have to dial the settings to medium/high, turn a lot of effects off, and set the resolution to whatever the PS4 is at (I'm not sure). What a lot of console gamers don't realize is that you don't need a PC to run the game on ultra to get a good expirience. For a lot of new games, running them on medium.high and lowering the resolution will give you the exact same image as on a console, with much better frames and a much better price. You can't compare a console running a mediocre version of a game like BF4, to a PC running with max AA, 1080p, Ultra settings with shaders and everything.

Also, yes you can beat the PS4. It's harder to beat than the Xbox but if you google "PS4 killer PC build", you'll get lots of results.

http://puu.sh/7s6AY.png

The tressfx on PC is of higher quality than the one used on consoles which makes it much more demanding.

Also the console versions of BF4 are at lower settings compared to absolute maxed settings on PC.

And both consoles were below 1080p.

The PS4 was 1600x900 and had large frame rate drops in multiplayer.

It was a far cry from 60fps on either consoles during multiplayer.

You can also overclock your CPU or GPU for a performance boost.

I overclocked my GTX 570 to perform better than a base clocked GTX 580.

Going from the base core clock 732 mhz of the GTX 570 to 834mhz and it will match a GTX 580 in benchmarks in most cases.

I overclocked my GTX 570 from 732mhz to 950mhz so it performs even better.

I could probably go higher but I was content with 950mhz.

Yes and that involves a trade off,just like DF did but then again how is that any better than running BF4 in 900p on PS4.? You are giving up something to be able to run that game on the frames you like,that my friend is a trade off,when you turn off TressFX for frames you are making a thread off,just like the PS4 gave up 44% resolution to be able to be where it was,and just like the xbox one version which is even lower 720 and still trail the PS4 version frames wise,imagine if Dice actually wanted parity in frames with the PS4.? The game would be sub 720p on xbox.

Yeah and it will also cut the life of your CPU and GPU short,the higher you go the shorter the life of your GPU will be,if it was going to last you 5 years it would probably last you 3.

Also in most cases that involves having a better cooling to,which mean more money.

Yeah and it had a 32 FPS hit to performance,the console version was optimized and looked great,much better than the PC version without it.

And even with tress FX on the hair looked very close considering the console version doesn't have such an abusive hit to performance i say they did a great job.

The test done by DF here wasn't done on max out settings,so again you didn't read the article and your shooting from the holster.

It was done on High setting,which is higher than the PS4 but not quite max setting,and several of the effects the PS4 were similar to max out on PC stated by DF in their first test on November.

So yeah we know is 1080p vs 900p because the article stated it,but they say that when things got high the frames drop below PS4 version which wasn't even a steady 60 either,so you can only imagine why they jumped to the 760GTX to get more frames.

Read the article is on page 1...

Read the damn article is on page one and stop talking nonsense,the test done by DF were not make on Ultimate setting it was done on High in BF and the R9 270 could not keep up the frames at 1080p,it wasn't even very high,so yeah read the damn article and then reply,and no you can't beat the PS4 on PC for the same price of less than the PS4 cost,alto you can beat the xbox one for less than $500.

They are both midrange PCs. If you had a friend with a PC with the Xbox One specs, and you had a PC with the PS4 specs, you wouldn't sit around trash talking how crappy his experience was compared to yours unless you were incredibly insecure. Consoles seem to bring out knit-picking tendencies.

no that wouldn't be right either. but if that was true it would be hilarious.

i don't think it can be quickly described with a 'p' suffix, because that implies a 16:9 aspect ratio, and the order doesn't have that.

Ps4 is a powerful PC from 3yrs ago that takes advantage of these old engines but gonna need extra in the long run and the X1 is a PC from the year 2015 traveled from a distant star and is just starting to show power but not its true power because it would be the end of mankind.

You can pick up the GPU equivalent to the xboxone for 75 dollars. I think Midrange is 150-200 dollars. Pending on your definition of mid range, PS4 might be under a mid-range computer as well.

yes that's correct soldaat, it does. your use of 'simply' is important.

for example. 1080P. We "know" that the width of a proper 1080P scene will be 1920. Why? because there's an implication that the aspect ratio will be 16:9.

720p has a 16:9 aspect ratio, so does 1080P, 1440P, 2160P etc.

I take your point though. this is exactly why I specified it's not 800p, nor 1080p, and instead I listed both the width and height.

you get me?

Unlike X1's GCN solution, 7770 GE (~1.3 TFLOPS) can't go further than it's 72 GB/s memory bandwidth limits.

From http://pcpartpicker.com/parts/video-card/#c=79,109,131,161,162&sort=a7

The cheapest 7770 GE cost around $89.98 USD.

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

PS4's GPU solution is roughly equivalent to RRP $149 R7-265 2GB GDDR5. Another 6 GB GDDR5 adds another cost on top of 2 GB VRAM. PS4's GPU solution is like "Radeon HD R7-265 6 GB GDDR5". I picked 6 GB for game's VRAM access.

PC owners using the same brand GPUs generally stays together and nitpicks the other GPU brand, hence you have PC's AMD vs NVIDIA GPU wars.

Well my friend has an AMD and I have an NVIDIA, and we play Borderlands 2 together nada it never comes up, probably because we are able to play together. I'll say this, though... I do dislike Apple, but not for its specs.

r7 265 = roughly a 7850.

I think the ps4 gpu is equavalent to a 7870. So its inbetween the r7 265 and r9 270

I don't harbor brand loyalty towards nvidia/amd. I have a 780ti coming in next week thru the step up program (upgraded my 780). I recommended my friend an r9 270x which he just picked up yesterday.

@walloftruth: that is a good question. i have a strong suspicion the rendering workflow would take place within the 1920x800 scene, and the end image is vertically centred, and the empty space is populated with 'free black'.

what I consider unlikely, is a full 1920x1080 render, then occluding the top and bottom 140 horizontal lines of pixels with free black. that would be pretty inefficient, especially if their goal is to show off 'graphics'. because the gpu would be doing redundant work.

this is all really interesting for me. that 1920x800 render will be ~74% of the pixels of full 1080P, and given the ps4 is the most powerful gaming console in the world, i think the order's game scene has no excuse but to turn out stunning. and i think they'll achieve a good result.

7850 = 1.76 TFLOPS with 153.6 GB/s memory bandwidth.

PS4's GCN = 1.84 TFLOPS with 176 GB/s memory bandwidth.

R7-265 = 1.89 TFLOPS with 179 GB/s memory bandwidth.

7870 GE = 2.56 TFLOPS with 153.6 memory bandwidth.

R9-270 = 2.39 TFLOPS with 179 GB/s memory bandwidth.

R9-270X = = 2.68 TFLOPS with 179 GB/s memory bandwidth.

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

PS4's GCN solution is closer to R7-265.

all the r7 265 is 7850 with higher clocks and minor modifications

It is essentially the 7970m or roughly a downclocked 7870. The people who took apart the ps4 at clockworks essentially confirmed it.

It puts ps4 barely at a midrange level (people can argue that it is below) and the xboxone at a below mid-range level

I was really hoping to see more out of consoles.

So, again a flip flop?

Infamous:SS has no shadows from any dynamic light. Go and watch the videos or even the dev interview. Deep Down look like ass compare to what was shown at the reveal? Wanna deny that? And, what about you bragging that it's an exclusive now? Weren't you the one who's saying that it won't be an exclusive while I was saying that it is and suddenly it's become an ownage point?

Do you want me to link to all the posts you have been owned?

My almost 7 year old 8800gt still runs fine and I had it overclocked the moment I got it.

So the overclock certainly didn't effect my GPU's lifespan.

The GTX 570 I have is the ASUS Direct CU II and yes it has a nice heatsink on it but it was only 15USD more than the stock heatsink version when I got it at release.

My GTX 570 has been running fine for these last few years as well.

And once again, the OS costs $0.

You got lucky my GT240 die because of it the and i only over clock it 50 mhz.

It is well know that over clocking will reduce the life of your GPU is not new stop pretending.

Your GT240 may not have headroom for overclocking e.g. the power regulator may have failed.

I have been operating my 7950 at 950Mhz since nearly it's release date. Reference 7950 has 800 Mhz clock speed and it was later firmware update to Boost Edition with 850mhz base with 925Mhz Turbo.

7950 BE's 925Mhz matches the reference 7970's 925Mhz clock speed i.e. 7950 BE is still within it's design spec when it's compared to it's higher SKU model.

7970 BE was renamed to 8950-OEM and later to R9-280 with 933Mhz clock speed. The fastest 7950 AIB has 950Mhz clock speed.

The lower priced 7950 with 933 Mhz Turbo would have nullified 7970 at 925 Mhz.

The safe overclocking is usually just under the highest SKU model in the same family.

Come on Ron do i have to find the post where you admit to other poster that over clocking can lower the life of your GPU,when he asked you about the xbox one.?

I know experience may vary hell my GPU could have die of something totally irrelevant to over clocking,but you know over clocking shorten the lifespan of GPU and CPU to.

See, thats the thing with you console peasants, You guys want to settle for some Mcdonalds fast food dogshit meal, meanwhile we settle for nothing less than a steak from a 5 star restaurant.

5 star restaurant > McDonalds. DEAL WITH IT

Boost Edition firmware is AMD's official update for reference 7950-800Mhz i.e. AMD was waiting for NVIDIA to release their Kepler SKUs. AMD already designed the extra clock speed headroom for 7950.

Your GT240 wasn't designed with overclocking headroom.

My point is you can't make a general claim for overclocking = shorten life when 570 has a higher rated SKU model i.e. reference 580 and it's overclocked AIBs.

RyviusARC's 570 position is similar to 7950 and both has higher rated SKUs.

Well my old 8800gt was a standard BFG model and it still runs fine.
It was a cheap single slot cooler card that would easily get up to 84C when playing demanding games when oced.

The fact we're even discussing the PS4/X1 alongside £100 GPUs and entry level CPUs within the first few months of the new generation is just pathetic.

its so nice to play bf4 with ultra settings and crappy frame rate (little bit below ps4) on my U$400 PC

This is true. You can see in some of the comparison videos that when Lara is hanging upside down in the first part of the game her ponytail hangs downward as it should in the PC version whereas in the PS4 version it magically stays pointing upwards. This is just one example. TressFX in the PC version is more accurate and demanding.

Consoles only appear to hold out better as the dev locks you out of all the high settings. ps3 and x360 ended up running most games in sub 720p many below 600p with the setting all on pc low settings. 2007's 8800gt can run every game from that gen much better. It has no problem running 720p and some games in 1080p ok. Consoles are great if you want something that just works, but you never get better performance and they only have around 1-2 years running high - med pc settings. For the rest they are low - low med.

This.

@People claiming PS4/Xbone are cheaper understand these factors that affect the total cost of ownership :

Games

- Consoles usually come with no games while GPUs often include free steam codes for "big studio" games and besides there is much more quality free games on PC (ex. TF2,Dota...)

- Games costs more on consoles be it a hardcopy or digital.

- Live / PS+ registration is required for fully featured online play meaning another extra cost

- There is way less free, quality games on consoles

- Steam sales and owning your games > PS+ "free" rental

Hardware/Warranty, ...

- PC in the test is running at 1080p and still holds higher framerate compared to consoles running at 900p/720p meaning you could settle for even cheaper card to get equal performance to consoles

- PC components usually have 2-3 year warranties w/ no extra cost....consoles come with 1 year warranty and require (surprise, surprise) paying extra for extended warranty. What if your console malfunctions after a year? First year models are especially prone to problems.

- This test does not include Mantle which would further increase the games performance (if you own equivalent AMD GPU )

- You probably still need a computer for other tasks alongside your gaming hobby which consoles probably can't do

What's important to remember about a console is that it only needs to push a single 1080p panel display, whereas you can be dual screening or triple screening on a PC or using much higher resolutions than 1920x1080 on a single display let alone multiple.

Unless you want $600 consoles to make a comeback, it seems pretty silly to compare the power of consoles directly to PC (percentagewise or with a median average) because they do very different things.

I think $600 is too much but I would have preferred beefier $500 consoles. Had Sony and MS given them perhaps 12 Jaguar CPU cores instead of 8 and bumped up the GPU side of the APUs to 24 working compute units rather than 12-18 I would have been a lot happier with them even at $100 more. And they would have been far more future proof as well. And considering that games have to be installed the HDDs should have probably been a terabyte.

The console version features a mix of Ultra and high textures. Do you honestly mean to tell me you don't think the PS4 could max all settings ? Here you go again, its like saying the 360 couldn't handle quake lmao. These are launch window multiplats, and even there it best the pc version in several areas. And no TressFX 1.0 offers no graphical effects over 2.0. Its just more demanding and looks far worse. Please tell me how unrealistic horse hair is a benefit in any way shape or form? The 2.0 version introduced in the console version looks superior nobody would debate that. Not to mention if the console version wasn't running better subsurface scattering, better particle effects, dynamic foliage and more foliage there is a possibility they could have just done the default max settings of the pc.