Because modern games are too heavy on rasterisation, the more rasters you have in a scene the more rays you have to trace. don't be surprised if increasingly RTX games start looking more like 10 / 20 year old games going forward, IMO Control already looks like something from 2012 and that would be an insult to Crysis 3.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
DON'T Waste Your Money On RTX!! "video title"
- Thread starter shankly1985
- Start date
Because modern games are too heavy on rasterisation, the more rasters you have in a scene the more rays you have to trace. don't be surprised if increasingly RTX games start looking more like 10 / 20 year old games going forward, IMO Control already looks like something from 2012 and that would be an insult to Crysis 3.
Associate
- Joined
- 29 May 2014
- Posts
- 402
Not sure about the 760, but I wouldn't compare the GTX 760 with the ps4 because of the different gpu architecture, the ps4 have the same gpu architecture with the GCN, and have similar specs to the HD7870 4GB version. From what I can remember the HD7870 and ps4 had similar performance in games back then.
From what I can see today a HD7870(2GB version) play RDR 2 at 1080p & medium settings with avg 30fps, basically you get a similar experience with the ps4 version.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddNPsg5IqdI&ab_channel=zWORMzGaming
I thought spiderman looked good but i expect most people around here to not have played it since its a console only title .
Sry, but it's a bit different;
PS4 operated with a 800 mhz clock due to power efficiency reasons, it also had two CUs disabled (18).
HD 7870 boasts a 1 ghz clock and 20 CU.
This actually makes the 7870 nearly %40 faster than a PS4. It was actually %35-40 faster than a PS4 back in the time. It's not anymore. That's what I'm trying to convey here.
Plus, it doesn't seem to be able to lock to 30 as opposed to a PS4 so... PS4 still performs better in terms of GPU horsepower/efficiency in modern games.
I was getting a bit better framerate in Witcher 3 compared to a PS4 with a R7 265. Because at that time, R7 265/HD7850 had disparity with the actual PS4.
I was practically playing the GTA 5 a tad bit better than PS4.
Everything turned upside down in especially 2017 for some reason.
Once newer GPUs are released, disparity shifted to newer GPUs all of a sudden. Of course almightier card such a r9 290 might've survived the hit.
I'm one of them, don't know. But you can make almost any game look good with good lighting, the complexity and detail in the scene becomes less important but its something you would notice if it was there and then removed.
On the subject of Consoles, right now they are comparatively pretty powerful, the GPU in them is more powerful than mine and it is no slouch.
They have pretty much literally this CPU https://www.overclockers.co.uk/amd-...hz-socket-am4-processor-retail-cp-3b7-am.html
And this GPU https://www.overclockers.co.uk/sapp...ddr6-pci-express-graphics-card-gx-39j-sp.html
That's some serious muscle.
They have pretty much literally this CPU https://www.overclockers.co.uk/amd-...hz-socket-am4-processor-retail-cp-3b7-am.html
And this GPU https://www.overclockers.co.uk/sapp...ddr6-pci-express-graphics-card-gx-39j-sp.html
That's some serious muscle.
Oh, the CPU topic is also fun! I would boldly claim that, even at lower resolutions due to GPU power limiting, they will manage to hit rock solid 60 FPS in an AAA game 5 years later with these console CPUs.
But I really, reastically, don't expect a desktop 3700x to hit "rock solid" 60 FPS in an AAA title 5 years later. Not even 3 years later, actually. Heck, it can't lock to rock solid 60 in Cyberpunk these days if you don't do heavy OC and RAM OC. Yet, consoles have no trouble, lmfao.
SX and PS5 really runs the CP2077 locked 60 and that's a really testament how strong these CPUs will perform in the "special" sauce console optimization space. I would even go to the lenghts of claiming 3700x will have trouble barely getting 35-45 FPS in an AAA game just 2-3 years later. Why? Because 5800x exists. And 3 years later, a wild 7800x with fast DDR5 RAM will exist. And then again, vicious cycle of "upgrading" will happen. All of a sudden, so called "console equiavelent CPU" that is called 3700x will somewhat feel like an FX chip compared to consoles despite having higher "clocks".That CPU will have the advantage of directly seeping from a fast GDRR6 memory space while on PC, unless you have a 5000 series CPU, you will be still tied to weird infinity fabric gimmicks that can only scale with DDR4 as of now.
And of course, a 5600x nearly costs as much as a Series S that has the same CPu configuration explained above.
This generation they really went all-in. If they can nail a mediocre image quality with their upscalers, they can comfortably stay at 1296-1440p and happily output to 4K with acceptable IQ even 5 years later.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 2,890
- Location
- Exmouth, Devon
You mention the cost of scalped gfx cards but not the scalped consoles in your comparison. An oversight I know but all fair and equal the 3060 is about the same I don't reckon 'way ahead' - you also don't buy a CPU etc every time you buy a GPU.
Guess if my budget for a GPU was £3-400 then a console would look more inviting. And really for a modern console you need a high hz and VRR TV so there's £1k+ on a TV to warrant the console - though it wont run 120fps @ 4k so a bit of a waste really.
RT aside - and whilst it isn't the b all and end all, high refresh rate is one of the biggest visual upgrades you can do, plus with a GPU, even cheap ones you can adjust graphical settings to get the performance and visuals you are happy with.
A true gamer will adjust EVERY game using all the settings. I'm still amazed those that have expensive gfx cards then waste processing power turning up ALL the options, many of which are legacy options designed to make lower resolutions look better.
Dunno why CP2077 keeps getting a mention - only the developers said it was the best for ray tracing - then release a game that one of the consoles in the end rejected. A game that is probably beta in it's current state at best. All games get released in a sorry state - hence why I wait a year before buying them - fixed and cheap.
Oh, the CPU topic is also fun! I would boldly claim that, even at lower resolutions due to GPU power limiting, they will manage to hit rock solid 60 FPS in an AAA game 5 years later with these console CPUs.
But I really, reastically, don't expect a desktop 3700x to hit "rock solid" 60 FPS in an AAA title 5 years later. Not even 3 years later, actually. Heck, it can't lock to rock solid 60 in Cyberpunk these days if you don't do heavy OC and RAM OC. Yet, consoles have no trouble, lmfao.
That CPU will have the advantage of directly seeping from a fast GDRR6 memory space while on PC, unless you have a 5000 series CPU, you will be still tied to weird infinity fabric gimmicks that can only scale with DDR4 as of now.
And of course, a 5600x nearly costs as much as a Series S that has the same CPu configuration explained above.
This generation they really went all-in. If they can nail a mediocre image quality with their upscalers, they can comfortably stay at 1296-1440p and happily output to 4K with acceptable IQ even 5 years later.
I paid £440 for my 5800X, but it totally monsters the 3700X.
This is the thing about Consoles, they are PC's, there is no other way to describe them, that is what they are, its the same components, the ones i linked, in fact. And when they are new they are so much better value, you're getting a £1200 PC for £500, i mean wow.
But console cycles are 4 / 5 years, you take the CPU and GPU from the PS4 or the last XBox, also stuffed with AMD PC components, and try to run a triple AAA PC title on it at PC resolutions, you'd be lucky to get 6 FPS.
And if you could sit one on your desk, plug in a keyboard and mouse and play ANY game using that input method, they'd be absolutely tremendous for PC-equivalent gaming. I hope that day comes one day soon, because I could just see a Series X in that exact role.
I always wonder why they can't do that yet. I can understand the support not being there for competitive shooters.
How about Doom Eternal, Far Cry and Cyberpunk type games? Practically, there's no advantage to be gained against other players in these games with K/M.
I hope this generation shifts things into a different shape in this regard.
Hmm, I remember PS4 getting bashed on for being equal to a 750ti in terms of GPU power and having tablet-1.6 ghz-jaguar cores.
So you say 750ti+1.6 ghz jaguar cores were the norm in 2013? I remember people rocking 4+ ghz 2500ks, 2600ks, gtx 770s, 780s, hd7970s and such.
This time, PS5 is comparable to the 6700xt (new sensation upper mid range GPU, no?), a 1.5 year old high end cpu (3700x), with respectable clocks 3.6-3.7(?).
A true gamerwill adjust EVERY game using all the settings. I'm still amazed those that have expensive gfx cards then waste processing power turning up ALL the options, many of which are legacy options designed to make lower resolutions look better.
plays video games*
*Does not include mobile gamers, they aren't real gamers
FTFY
I always wonder why they can't do that yet. I can understand the support not being there for competitive shooters.
How about Doom Eternal, Far Cry and Cyberpunk type games? Practically, there's no advantage to be gained against other players in these games with K/M.
I hope this generation shifts things into a different shape in this regard.
Thing is a console is and will always be seen as a lounge product in front of the TV with a controller. Only have to look at the ads to see this. Its sold as a device the family can get round and join in. This is marketing as they then see potentially several family members purchasing games, where as if its just aimed at a solo person they potentially are limiting the revenue. Add a keyboard and mouse and its solo play and takes the "family" out of it. If they did go down the keyboard/mouse route it will be sold as an after purchase item but I cant see it.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,309
- Location
- Dormanstown.
Hmm, I remember PS4 getting bashed on for being equal to a 750ti in terms of GPU power and having tablet-1.6 ghz-jaguar cores.
So you say 750ti+1.6 ghz jaguar cores were the norm in 2013? I remember people rocking 4+ ghz 2500ks, 2600ks, gtx 770s, 780s, hd7970s and such.
This time, PS5 is comparable to the 6700xt (new sensation upper mid range GPU, no?), a 1.5 year old high end cpu (3700x), with respectable clocks 3.6-3.7(?).
I don't think the PS4 ever got bashed for its GPU performance, the Xbox one certainly did.
They both got bashed for their poor CPU's though and rightly so.
Playing Last Of Us 2 on my base PS4 on a 4K OLED, I don't really think there was any real issue with the PS4 GPU wise.
I had and sold an XBox Series X because I didn't like the controllers. It was a great piece of kit and if I could have sat it on my desk and plugged in all my PC peripherals, it would have been amazing.
Yeah, but Microsoft seems like in an attempt of making Xbox also appealing to PC gamers that are accustomed to K/M (mind you, despite being a PC player, I mainly play singleplayer TPS games with a gamepad as i find it to be more enjoyable, but I also always play FPS games with k/m as i find it to be more comfortable).
Recently, I remember COD Warzone and Cold War having keyboard mouse support. I think Apex Legends was also supported? Dunno. I never managed to play properly a FPS game with a gamepad so I'm very cold to the idea
Hmm, I remember PS4 getting bashed on for being equal to a 750ti in terms of GPU power and having tablet-1.6 ghz-jaguar cores.
So you say 750ti+1.6 ghz jaguar cores were the norm in 2013? I remember people rocking 4+ ghz 2500ks, 2600ks, gtx 770s, 780s, hd7970s and such.
This time, PS5 is comparable to the 6700xt (new sensation upper mid range GPU, no?), a 1.5 year old high end cpu (3700x), with respectable clocks 3.6-3.7(?).
It was a general statement not every generation but it does happen and its been said many times in this forum over the last 20 years.
Different with Microsoft though I was thinking more of PS and Nintendo. We often wonder what the hell Microsoft are upto they can't seem to decide which camp they are pushing for. Its not that long ago that the PC was suffering big time (Windows Live anyone?) and they were pushing Xbox like mad. In recent years its been turned round largely due to success of the Xbox Game Pass and I agree the clue is in the title. "Xbox" Game Pass for the PC
Well i could, and i don't deny it, believe me its tempting, but there is more to PC's than CPU's and GPU's, some game are PC exclusive, designed for high end PC's.
Talking about complexity and detail in a scene
This video was made by a player using the in game camera...