Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Rich_Guy, Apr 12, 2017.
FX 5200 16gb edition, super duper overclocked @ 2ghz Equipped with HBM2 memory, LOL, J.K.!!!
This has a whole lot less to do with graphics card makers and a lot more to do with targeting by console makers
Video cards (back in the day?) were able to do higher resolutions then consoles not because consoles could not do them, but because PCs generally had higher resolution displays, and consoles, which relied on TVs, did not have higher resolution displays to connect to. This meant that throughout the console years they have pretty much been stuck to targeting whatever the resolution of current TVs are. That just so happens to be 4K TVs currently. A console manufacturer can do whatever they want with targeting a resolution, and to claim GPU manufacturers are at fault for not having GPUs do 4K that well, where console makers just have to cut stuff away from their games to allow games to more easily adopt 4K, isn't fair.
For instance, you state "consoles are reaching 4k faster than the gross of pc gamers with their gimped cards." but realistically speaking, how does that make sense? Most $150 cards and up can play any new game at 4K just fine, if you don't have the highest quality set, which is many times what consoles do. Take the PS4 pro, many games that support 4K, have an option to do one of three things:
Enable higher resolution then 1080p (generally not 4K, as example FF15 is 1800p, not 2160p)
Disable higher resolution and get more graphical affects.
Disable higher resolution and get 60fps rather then 30fps.
Not to mention, the idea that consoles are supporting higher resolutions such as 4K faster then PCs is a little absurd when you think about the fact that those higher resolutions are almost always 30fps, max, and many times dips down to less, which by far is not what PC gamers want. For that matter, $150 cards an up being able to do 4K games at different image qualities can manage to get 60FPS a lot easier then a console can.
But again, in the end, it has a whole lot less to do with GPU manufacturers, and a lot more to do with console makers targeting a resolution based off of whatever is the current or common TV resolution
Well, for you Monchis, I think the time is right for you to move over to console gaming. Rules of diminishing returns is going to be prevalent with PC hardware. There's no point in you trying to be a PC gamer when you compromise on critical pieces of hardware like the GPU. There's also no point buying the lowest-end hardware and complaining it doesn't perform like you want it to, especially vs consoles. Time to move on.
Meh, there's diminishing returns in everything around us, not just PC hardware. The higher end you go, the less value for money you get. It's up to each individual to decide whether they're happy to go with value for money or go for the best out there and pay through their nose, right?
This kind of elitist bull**** is what makes everyone consider PC gamers retarded children. No, it isn't time for him to move on. Maybe it's time for PC developers to give a bit more time in optimization. We have examples like DOOM (that perform exceptionally in even very low end hardware), and crap like Dishonored 2. Ironically both from the same publisher.
This is like a stupid PCMasterRace argument. The PC ecosystem isn't great because people are content in shelling out $400+ just for a component, it's great because it's flexible and capable.
Monchis has a point about performance really being console-level performance. What we get as extras on the PC are usually just higher-fidelity post processing and resolution, and when a game is optimized for a 30fps delivery on the console, it's usually a disaster on the PC. What we really need is more of a performance focus and the adoption of lower level APIs. Which won't happen as fast as it should due to Intel still selling quads and NVIDIA still having issues with their DX12 arch.
Consoles with scorpio will do 4k at 30fps, but 30fps and medium-high settings is within their own terms, games are designed to perform smoothly at such fps. Pc side 30fps isn´t the norm since the 90´s I think, and $700 worth of throttling gfx wont hold pc gaming standards at 4k, it´s more like an exercise of frustration, for what this guy is going through I´ve replaced my low end video cards in the past:
I always bought cheapo cards and they always used to hold better against consoles, I can give you examples like how a $80 bucks hd4670 could run lost planet, assassin´s creed, dead space, etc on 50% higher resolution than the xbox360... so there´s nothing extraordinary in pointing this out, I´m not going to start buying stuff like the x70 now that they are getting more gimped than ever (470<480 20%, 570<580 20%, 670<680 10%, 770<780ti 35%, 970<980ti 50% gtx1070<1080ti: 65%). If you are happy with that I really don´t care, I´m not going to tell you what to do.
I hope you are not taking that at face value.
Guys, why continually go down this path and expect things to change? What's going to change exactly? Do you honestly expect that games made for fixed console hardware will run better on PC? It will...if you buy more powerful hardware. Taa daa!
The Xbox Scorpio has over 60 optimisations for the hardware combination they went for to get the most out of it. We aren't going to see those on PC, which means even if we could technically buy the same cpu, gpu, mb, memory etc as the Scorpio for PC, we still wouldn't get the same performance (and that's not even considering OS over-head). It's not comparable. That's why moving forward for PC, we have to "brute-force" it with more powerful hardware. Low-level api's and octacore cpu's will not make-up for the difference, only more powerful hardware will do it. This is obvious. You can't implement something on PC that physical isn't there.
In effect, if you continue to pursue low-end PC hardware, then, you know what to expect. People who decide to stick with PC who want a "higher-quality than console" experience will mostly pay the premium. Also, there's no point in pointing out what's happened with the high-end when that's not the market you're in either, nevermind comparing 70 series and 80ti to make the difference higher than what it would be if you only compared 70 to 80 throughout the generations of cards.
Finally, on PC, we don't have a big corporation subsidising the console by making a loss on the console hardware and hoping to make it back on software sales. If we removed this, then, consoles vs pc would look less favourable. However, it still wouldn't take anything away from the fact consoles are made for (low-cost) gaming while a PC is a jack of all trades.
But did you run them at the same graphical settings as them? You cant compare the games without making sure that you run the games at the same (as best you can) settings the console is doing them at, and at what resolution, and see if they have the same, better or worse performance
Same settings or better because unlike the guy of the 4k 1080ti video that spent dozens of hours wrestling the gfx to end with 45-50fps areas, I only had to turn off Msaa. One of the best looking games at that time was Bioshock and the hd4670 was doing 50-60fps at 1280x1024 easily on dx9, 50% higher res than the xbox 360.
You must be new to pc gaming or you never touched budget cards like the 660, 460, gtx260, 8800gt, hd4770, 6600gt, 9500, ti4400.
My second home PC had an Ati Rage LT that barely played Q3. My first card that I bought myself was a tnt2. The next card I bought after that was a GF2 Ultra as part of a brand new PC. I've also had GF4 4200Ti and GTX460 for lower tier. The difference between me and you is that I know what I'm buying, especially in relation to the games available at the time.
I certainly don't need to hold up the Xbox Scorpio to s*** on PC gaming (and I have nothing against the XS). If you like what the Scorpio is offering, then, go for it. However, if you're not willing to pay for a decent graphics card, then, I fail to see how you would get the XS either tbh.
For the money that I've saved by being a PC gamer, I have zero problem with what I paid for my GTX1070. Heck, I've had nearly a year of use out of it already.
I also believe there are plenty of people who have no choice, but, to buy budget hardware and make do. That's fine. However, for someone like you, who's apparently "experienced", I think you did yourself a disservice by getting the GTX950 when people were telling you to get something better.
This becomes less about the hardware vendors and instead, it's more about the choices you made along with your past expectations skewing the current reality.
The problem is, you're stating the GPU is at fault, where as, again, the console makers are the ones who are targeting higher resolutions and doing what they can to do it, be it lowering image quality or upscaling.
You can't look at these diagrams and claim something such as what you are claiming. Want to put in the 900 series and 1000 series since these do not provide them? Note that the 900 series peaked at 6.1TFLOPS and the 1000 series peaked at 12TFLOPS (which, incase you don't notice, is twice the performance)
Now you may state "well, that's not mid-range cards"
Ok, well i'll make a graph for you on the x50 nvidia series cards in the last 6 generations...
If anything, the console makers decided NOT to gimp their systems so much. I mean cmon, the xbox 360 has 512mb of TOTAL ram for both system and memory, yet you're trying to compare your 4670 that had 512-1024MB itself, let alone the 1-4gb of ram you had at the time.
For comparisons sake, this chart from your "golden years" looks basically the same to todays charts, which disproves your theory.
Just give me that 10" gaming tablet I have been wating for since the first shield. FFS
That should be expected, but up to a point of difference between them.
The Scorpio has either Vega itself, or some kind of Vega hybrid, and not only we'll get all those pieces of hardware, we'll probably get even more.
Again, all the GPUs we have are extremely capable. All the tricks that the PS4 Pro is using, for example, are inside Polaris. Vega will have a quite larger superset of what the Scorpio has, all that combined with at least double the ROP/shader count, and at higher frequencies. The overhead on the PC isn't that big as it used to be any more.
No matter the sh*t they get left and right, Windows 10 is a very lightweight and capable OS. In itself, it runs better than Android on ancient phones with 1GB of RAM. It also runs on the Xbox itself. Same for DX12, it is a very very low overhead API. It will still not hit console numbers still (that's impossible), but look at games like Forza Apex, or even Horizon 3.
Two factors that most people forget when comparing PC to console performance is:
a) Console-like quality settings. Most people compare console performance vs the PC on Ultra. Ultra that the developers don't really test or care for.
b) What the underlying engine of the game is made to deliver. I don't mean the renderer only, but the whole package. If a game is written from zero with a 33,3ms update in mind, it's extremely hard to move the target from there.
With these things in mind, I can see a system with a quad Ryzen with 8 threads, and a smaller Vega GPU, accomplish similar stuff to what the Scorpio accomplishes.
As for the Scorpio not running on native 4k, it will. The premise of the console is that you get at minimum the same quality settings and frame rate as a normal Xbox One game, at native 4k.
Yep, would love a 10 Inch NVIDIA Tablet.
Would mean i could finally replace my ancient Galaxy Tab 3 10.1 Inch.
Not sure i would, i have the original Shield and even the "fixed" one and it's awful.
Saying that, i never used it for games but as a device to use for anything non gaming it's a frustrating poor device.
That was the premise of the PS4 Pro, as well. Didn't turn out that way.
The PS4 Pro was never meant to run at native 4k. They even put silicone there that facilitates upscaling. Their hardware specs won't allow it. The numbers on the Scorpio make sense for native 4k in Xbox One quality settings and frame rate. Microsoft will also offer automatic supersampling antialiasing for people running the Scorpio in 1080p displays.
This system is at least +50% faster than the PS4 Pro. I can't see why it can't do what everybody says it already does.
Look at some 1050 vs 950 charts, 960 vs 760, or something like that and tell me they are doing their best.
Me?, I´m glad I cancelled that 970 order because it turned out to be crappy for forza horizon 3, too carefully gimped of a card, I would have ended up refunding the game just the same as if I had bought it for my 950... the rest of my racing and fighting games run great on my 950 at 1080p. That´s the problem, cards aren´t made with power to spare and last any more... and some people is happy to pay that muyc for a 65% gimped 1070, blows my mind.