Console XBOX ONE X Series or pc ?What faster

[Perfect_Chaos]

The only good thing about the console is that in cases the games run better later on, where it might not on a lesser (then previous gen) GPU. Best way around that would be to upgrade every 2-3 years or so especially if on a xx60 or xx70, by that point you'll probably be needing better performance and optimisations of the newer generation card anyway. Depending on game/resolution of course as well

 

[Calin Banc]

Games without loading screens will be the most significant change and once it becomes the norm then it will soon feel ancient gaming on anything not capable of that.

Well, Gothic 3 had a huge open world without closed cities and houses, like Bethesda still has. It's also about the technology used and the willingness to optimize/build for the PC as well. Small advancements are mostly due to consoles.

 

[Panos]

If you use PS4 as a comparison, the base PS4 had a gpu equivalent to a 660ti. This cost around £230 with the PS4 launch price at £329 (normal prices not RRP). This works out at roughly 70% of the cost of the console.

If the XSX cost £500, then an equivalent GPU (say 3060) would cost £350 at 70% fraction, thats about the same as the xx60 mid-range costs right now, so actually it should work out as "usual".

I made a pc with 660ti just before ps4 came out and it held up well for about 4 years when i "had to" upgrade to 1060 to keep good 1080p/60fps performance. It looks like its going to turn out exactly the same with 3000 series being really good for the next 3-4 years, but will need to be upgraded at this point.

You make an assumption that Nvidia will make a £350 RTX3060 12GB GDDR6 with the grunt power of the 2080S and better ray tracing capabilities than the 2080Ti (almost twice as fast actually).
The leap of the upcoming consoles over PC hardware is pretty significant.

 

[Deleted User 456458]

The leap of the upcoming consoles over PC hardware is pretty significant.

No it isn’t. I showed you in your own post that your numbers are not valid as you got confused between software and hardware. I noticed you chose to ignore it out of convenience.

 

[Calin Banc]

You make an assumption that Nvidia will make a £350 RTX3060 12GB GDDR6 with the grunt power of the 2080S and better ray tracing capabilities than the 2080Ti (almost twice as fast actually).
The leap of the upcoming consoles over PC hardware is pretty significant.

We don't know at what price what cards will be available at that time and neither the price of the consoles + how games behave. For instance, a r290 was the same as a PS 4 and destroyed it in pretty much everything, offering great performance from start to finish.

 

[Hedge]

No it isn’t. I showed you in your own post that your numbers are not valid as you got confused between software and hardware. I noticed you chose to ignore it out of convenience.

It is though?

Haven't you watched any Digital Foundry analysis of the Xbox Series X. DF are huge PC advocates but even they are very impressed / excited for what's to come.

 

[jigger]

We don't know at what price what cards will be available at that time and neither the price of the consoles + how games behave. For instance, a r290 was the same as a PS 4 and destroyed it in pretty much everything, offering great performance from start to finish.

The PS4 was around a R7 265 IIRC.

 

[Calin Banc]

The PS4 was around a R7 265 IIRC.

I meant the same in price.

 

[Grim5]

The PS4 was around a R7 265 IIRC.

The PS4 GPU is a HD7790

An R7 265 is 30% faster than this

An R9 290 is 250% faster than this

An Xbox Series X seems to be 700% faster than this.

 

[Panos]

I meant the same in price.

As said you extrapolate from the past and shouldn't.
7790 was low-mid GPU on an era where we got +50% between generations and came out 6+ months before the PS4.

By the same extrapolation, PS5/Xbox could be using something like a 5600XT/GTX1660

Yet we do not have GPU yet in that low-mid range that does native 4K60 with full RT ON. Hell even the top of the range cannot do it in native 4K hence the example from the DX12 YT showing the 2080Ti could keep up only at 1440p.

 

[Grim5]

Yet we do not have GPU yet in that low-mid range that does native 4K60 with full RT ON.

And neither will consoles, the mine craft full ray tracing demo did not come anywhere close to the numbers needed to indicate it could handle 4K 60fps ray tracing and its performance is still a fair bit behind the 2080ti.

If you want Ray Tracing with proper performance, PC is your only choice - big Navi and Ampere is coming and I will bet your $100 they blow away the consoles in Ray Tracing, while the Xbox struggles to hit 30fps, PCs will do 60fps+

 

[tyler_jrb]

And neither will consoles, the mine craft full ray tracing demo did not come anywhere close to the numbers needed to indicate it could handle 4K 60fps ray tracing and its performance is still a fair bit behind the 2080ti.

If you want Ray Tracing with proper performance, PC is your only choice - big Navi and Ampere is coming and I will bet your $100 they blow away the consoles in Ray Tracing, while the Xbox struggles to hit 30fps, PCs will do 60fps+

I think consoles may do it at 4k 60 with Raytracing but as usual likely a lot lesser features and details than the pc counterparts.

That’s mainly down to better performance on new GPU’s. I still think ampere will be doing it far better than what AMD can provide. I’d be surprised if AMD can keep up with Turing.

There is no chance console will be doing full scene Raytracing with all the bells and whistles at full 4k 60hz.

 

[jigger]

I meant the same in price.

Well its the price of one a single component.

 

[Calin Banc]

As said you extrapolate from the past and shouldn't.
7790 was low-mid GPU on an era where we got +50% between generations and came out 6+ months before the PS4.

By the same extrapolation, PS5/Xbox could be using something like a 5600XT/GTX1660

Yet we do not have GPU yet in that low-mid range that does native 4K60 with full RT ON. Hell even the top of the range cannot do it in native 4K hence the example from the DX12 YT showing the 2080Ti could keep up only at 1440p.

Do you really believe 4k@60fps in modern and future games on the new consoles? I don't. Metro Exodus on a RTX2080 drops under 60fps at 1080p without RT in some cases if I push up the settings.

Moreover, whoever had a 1080ti or similar card from rtx2xxx series, would have enjoyed a great level of performance way before the consoles would hit and some time after, with probably no real need to upgrade (a console would not offer much more). Add DLRSS 2.0 on top (hopefully something similar will come from AMD) and once more, the need to upgrade is pushed further away until good performance is available at lower prices.

Sure, you'll have the rest of the PC crowd, but most game on lower res screen where middle or low end cards are still enough at 1080p if you don't push the details all the way up.

I think consoles may do it at 4k 60 with Raytracing but as usual likely a lot lesser features and details than the pc counterparts.

It will depend how good the RT hardware is. See Quake 2 and how poorly it runs even on 2080ti. I think at best will be 1080p@30/60fps.

Well its the price of one a single component.

Indeed, but as a PC gamer you'd already have some base to build on, but even starting from scratch, you didn't need some expensive hardware to match the console performance - plus you don't pay for the MP part.
With the new ones, being Zen architecture and games being optimized for all its quirks, should allow even 1st gen Zen(s) to perform well. Moreover, Microsoft said that for 2 years newer games will be supported all the way back to 1st gen Xbox One, meaning the chances of a game that would not run fine on middle range PCs is almost zero.

Overall it depends very much from person to person, what expectations, hardware and resources they have. The good part is that the new consoles will be miles faster than what the previous ones were at launch, so hopefully the devs will actually bring something new to the table when it comes to games. If not, I couldn't care less about what hardware is in each of the boxes.

 

[Boot_Loop]

Xbox Series X is better than 98% of gaming PC's on Steam so it is not going to be "mid range" by the time they come out. 3070 will likely be faster but it's not mid range, if Nvidia increase prices again then the 3070 GPU alone will probably cost more than a Series X.

Doesn't matter really as it will have no exclusives (everything is on PC) and I read to make things worse, all Series X games will have to also run on the netbook-tier Xbox One.

So I fully expect the PS5 to have games that will make it look a level ahead, as it will have exclusives. Which means, devs for the first time will be able to create games where the baseline spec is a Ryzen 8-core, 2080-level GPU and bonkers fast SSD.

It's gonna lead to mind blowing stuff as opposed to essentially Xbox One games upscaled to 4K running 60fps on Series X. There's a vast difference under the hood between the two realities.

 

[pingu666]

to me the "new" sound stuff, haptic feedback, sound is more interesting than just raw performance..

 

[Panos]

to me the "new" sound stuff, haptic feedback, sound is more interesting than just raw performance..

Yep. And anyone who has PSVR or used headphones playing Thief with 290/290X/295x2/390/390X would understand how big matter this soundchip is.
And in the case of PSVR the sound chip is pretty weak compared to the 1.9Tflop GPU-soundchip the PS5 has and if you ask anyone who has PSVR will tell you how amazing is the sound experience with those 2 dirty cheap headphones coming with.

 

[Grim5]

Do you really believe 4k@60fps in modern and future games on the new consoles? I don't. Metro Exodus on a RTX2080 drops under 60fps at 1080p without RT in some cases if I push up the settings.

Moreover, whoever had a 1080ti or similar card from rtx2xxx series, would have enjoyed a great level of performance way before the consoles would hit and some time after, with probably no real need to upgrade (a console would not offer much more). Add DLRSS 2.0 on top (hopefully something similar will come from AMD) and once more, the need to upgrade is pushed further away until good performance is available at lower prices.

Sure, you'll have the rest of the PC crowd, but most game on lower res screen where middle or low end cards are still enough at 1080p if you don't push the details all the way up.



It will depend how good the RT hardware is. See Quake 2 and how poorly it runs even on 2080ti. I think at best will be 1080p@30/60fps.



Indeed, but as a PC gamer you'd already have some base to build on, but even starting from scratch, you didn't need some expensive hardware to match the console performance - plus you don't pay for the MP part.
With the new ones, being Zen architecture and games being optimized for all its quirks, should allow even 1st gen Zen(s) to perform well. Moreover, Microsoft said that for 2 years newer games will be supported all the way back to 1st gen Xbox One, meaning the chances of a game that would not run fine on middle range PCs is almost zero.

Overall it depends very much from person to person, what expectations, hardware and resources they have. The good part is that the new consoles will be miles faster than what the previous ones were at launch, so hopefully the devs will actually bring something new to the table when it comes to games. If not, I couldn't care less about what hardware is in each of the boxes.

Metro Exodus' highest tier Ultra settings is quite unreasonably expensive though to be fair. From memory I think Ultra causes a 40% performance drop compared to High and when comparing the visuals side my side it's difficult to tell which is which at face value.

console games will never use such ridiculous graphics settings, only PCs can achieve this. For consoles it's all about striking the balance between visuals and performance - developers are happy to drop performance but only to the point where the visuals are still improving at a good rate, once the visual differences drop off there is no reason to push further and sacrifice more performance.

 

[Grim5]

Doesn't matter really as it will have no exclusives (everything is on PC) and I read to make things worse, all Series X games will have to also run on the netbook-tier Xbox One.

So I fully expect the PS5 to have games that will make it look a level ahead, as it will have exclusives. Which means, devs for the first time will be able to create games where the baseline spec is a Ryzen 8-core, 2080-level GPU and bonkers fast SSD.

It's gonna lead to mind blowing stuff as opposed to essentially Xbox One games upscaled to 4K running 60fps on Series X. There's a vast difference under the hood between the two realities.

very well said. Unfortunately without real exclusives for the series X, all games on the series x are Multiplatform and this heavily restricts how developers design their game worlds - they can't make a star citizen sized world if the game still needs to run on a 1.3tflop Xbox one and the average steam PC. While on the ps5 first party developers will make games just for the mighty full power of the ps5 with no limitations.

It should be safe to say that without any real exclusives - PS5 exclusives are going to smoke the xbox multiplatform games in scope and graphics

 

[Calin Banc]

Metro Exodus' highest tier Ultra settings is quite unreasonably expensive though to be fair. From memory I think Ultra causes a 40% performance drop compared to High and when comparing the visuals side my side it's difficult to tell which is which at face value.

console games will never use such ridiculous graphics settings, only PCs can achieve this. For consoles it's all about striking the balance between visuals and performance - developers are happy to drop performance but only to the point where the visuals are still improving at a good rate, once the visual differences drop off there is no reason to push further and sacrifice more performance.

Actually is Extreme, one step above Ultra and indeed, the difference is not that big. However, even with the lowest of settings (without going with shader rate under 1.0 - meaning lower res, but without tessellation, hairworks and hardware physics), with the lowest amount of RT (high, not ultra), I could not get 60fps with a rtx2080 at around 75% of 4k (3x1080p displays). And in that difficult scenario from the desert, 60fps at that res, without RT, was possible only on medium settings (with the others turned on: physics, hair, tessellation).

For sure you can optimize a lot on a fixed hardware, you can create new settings or even have dynamic resolution used (maybe they can do their own DLSS), but we have to keep in mind is still 4k and hitting 60fps is not easy. The exception would be if they can do what nVIDIA has demoed with DLSS v2.: 1080p up scaled to 4k with ok image quality. Native 4k is and will be difficult; more so when games will evolve from a visual stand point.

Of course, maybe nVIDIA has overdone it with RT so far like it has overdone it with tessellation or AMD has found a vastly more efficient way of doing it. Time will tell.