-
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.
If next year's consoles do 4k/60..
- Thread starter Hedge
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,449
The key thing here is base hardware.
PC gamers can say "Oh we've had SSD's for over a decade - Which is correct, but the only real benefit we've had is faster load times or helping with stuttering in games that have bad streaming (Arkham Knight for example)
But games developers have never been able to assume that 100% of the platforms they are developing for have an SSD. With Xbox Series X and PS5 they can make this assumption
Linus made this same mistake in a video recently, dismissing SSD's as nothing new. But if you are developing a game for a system with an SSD, then you can do a lot more than just speed up the load times:
This is what I was saying before when I said you can optimise games so much better for a closed/static system. A few posters dismissed the fact that developers even do console optimisation, but of course they do. It's one of the main reasons Cyberpunk 2077 has been delayed.
Caporegime
What's going to happen to the GPU market when you've got RTX2080 or even Ti performance in a £500 console, currently the same GPU performance is around £600+ and then you've got CPU, Ram, Mobo, Case, Storage etc...
The Series X is a whole console! Surely a 2080Ti will be around £700 and 2080 around 300?
The Series X is a whole console! Surely a 2080Ti will be around £700 and 2080 around 300?
Soldato
This has been said about every single Xbox console release does not happen it will always be Xbox first because of ££££££££££££££. Can't see it happening much this time.
Correct this is widely known and has been done for years and years and years way back to the Megadrives and SNES. They have to because of the "limitations" of the hardware. They have more to play with on the new Xbox than previous systems but devs who are so used to eeking out every single bit of performance on a console are not going to turn round and said sod it we dont need to do this anymore. Its more prevalent on consoles that later games are better IQ wise etc as in a year or two devs have learnt the good and bad of the console and can compensate with optimisations due to the platform never changing hardware. To the uninitiated the SSD marketing blurb sounds wonderful but to those in the know its more of "meh about time" response or one of ridicule because we know the benefits. Understandable reaction.
Soldato
When this comes out the 2xxx series will be EOL so it wont matter to Nvidia as they will be pushing the 3xxx series no one can predict what will happen other than hope what will happen.
Look at it another way Xbox with 2080ti performance for £500 or a 3080ti with 30% more performance and a big improvement on Ray Tracing than a 2080ti for £1200 ? Then factor in Xbox games at £49.99 a pop (they have to claw back their loss making hardware somehow as for that console at that price they must be losing money)
Last edited:
Caporegime
I guess, the XBOX One X is around 1060 performance, so the Series X should be around 3060 performance? That means a 3060 needs to be around 2080 performance
Soldato
So if you had a PC with a 1060 what would you do buy a Xbox One X or buy a 3060 for say £450 ?
Which ever one you do is still a win win.
As said before you cant really compare a console with a PC as its just a different product, a different consumer mindset, this forum is just made up of people with a different viewpoint from the console consumer of the general public variety as many have experienced both products and it just comes down to personal preference.
The notion of getting a "2080ti" in a £500 console makes it sound like a wonder machine whereas it would have set you back £1000+ for just the GPU. I can understand that but its probably not quite true in reality. I would personally spend the cash (£750 whatever) on a 3080 if it gives me a nice boost. I've bought consoles before and I get bored with them and they just dont get used. My kids have had experience of console's and they much prefer a PC for gaming, plus they like the "advantage" the PC gives them in Fortnite over console owners....
Which ever one you do is still a win win.
As said before you cant really compare a console with a PC as its just a different product, a different consumer mindset, this forum is just made up of people with a different viewpoint from the console consumer of the general public variety as many have experienced both products and it just comes down to personal preference.
The notion of getting a "2080ti" in a £500 console makes it sound like a wonder machine whereas it would have set you back £1000+ for just the GPU. I can understand that but its probably not quite true in reality. I would personally spend the cash (£750 whatever) on a 3080 if it gives me a nice boost. I've bought consoles before and I get bored with them and they just dont get used. My kids have had experience of console's and they much prefer a PC for gaming, plus they like the "advantage" the PC gives them in Fortnite over console owners....
Soldato
I think you get better value in terms of whats in the console (lets say its on par with a 5700 factory spec wise) however when you apply the shared resources and the development teams forced limitations, its hard to accept that a £300 component is punching blows with a £1200 discrete. This is what probably gets the goat up.
Caporegime
So if you had a PC with a 1060 what would you do buy a Xbox One X or buy a 3060 for say £450 ?
Which ever one you do is still a win win.
As said before you cant really compare a console with a PC as its just a different product, a different consumer mindset, this forum is just made up of people with a different viewpoint from the console consumer of the general public variety as many have experienced both products and it just comes down to personal preference.
The notion of getting a "2080ti" in a £500 console makes it sound like a wonder machine whereas it would have set you back £1000+ for just the GPU. I can understand that but its probably not quite true in reality. I would personally spend the cash (£750 whatever) on a 3080 if it gives me a nice boost. I've bought consoles before and I get bored with them and they just dont get used. My kids have had experience of console's and they much prefer a PC for gaming, plus they like the "advantage" the PC gives them in Fortnite over console owners....
Well from that point, if you've already got a PC, for example 3700X like myself, the base is more powerful than a PS5 or Series X full stop, and it would indeed be more cost effective to swap out the GPU for a 550 quid GPU and pocket the cash from selling the 2070S.
But I was viewing more from someone who has neither and is exploring each avenue, and it just seems hard to justify a PC over a console in that respect.
Soldato
If you think back though you could say the same for the first Xbox right upto present and same for the PS. Yet the PC is arguably in a better position than when the first Xbox came out gaming wise.
In the same breath consoles outsell the PC by vast numbers so you are also right.
Everytime a new console comes out with wonder specs its the death of the PC. Yet it is not true.
Caporegime
We shall see, I'm not sure if I will upgrade GPU or go console route, really undecided.
I have controller companion set up so I can entirely control the PC via the XBOX One wireless controller, also use GOG Galaxy 2 which unifies the choice of games so I don't have to look over multiple launchers. But there is still the easy of use of a console that is superior, all sort of little niggles with PC like ensuring HDR support is working properly, has to be disabled on the desktop, sometimes doesn't auto active in some games such as Forza 4, you've then got updates for games, launchers and the OS which seems to happen on a much more frequent basis than that of a console.
I absolutely got slated on Facebook with the same sort of justifications, like Lul wut PC FTW u mad bro.
I have controller companion set up so I can entirely control the PC via the XBOX One wireless controller, also use GOG Galaxy 2 which unifies the choice of games so I don't have to look over multiple launchers. But there is still the easy of use of a console that is superior, all sort of little niggles with PC like ensuring HDR support is working properly, has to be disabled on the desktop, sometimes doesn't auto active in some games such as Forza 4, you've then got updates for games, launchers and the OS which seems to happen on a much more frequent basis than that of a console.
I absolutely got slated on Facebook with the same sort of justifications, like Lul wut PC FTW u mad bro.
Caporegime
PC games won't all require a NVME SSD suddenly just as most PC games won't 100% require a 8 core CPU. Developers will need to address the market and for the next few years,most of the console market in installed userbase will be the previous generation of consoles,and most average gamers might have a 6C CPU by then,and if they have an SSD it will be a SATA SSD,or maybe a QLC NVME SSD as they are cheap.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,158
PC gaming imo was way better back when the first xbox came out. Back then the PC had so many exclusives that were real AAA pc only games. These days PC just doesn't get that kind of attention from big developers. There is probably more people playing on PC now but the standard of games and what is being played has changed.
Caporegime
Agreed and the biggest PC games regarding revenue are twitch shooters and MMOs. Phone and tablet games AFAIK make more revenue than PC games - casual gamers are the biggest sources of computer gaming revenue on mobile,console and PC.
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 1,340
Very sure that just because we got the standard PC stuff like enhanced resolution and FPS (it would have been even more of a travesty if we didn't) doesn't mean we weren't missing out on LOD distance, volumetric smoke and fog, and complex meshes shown at E3 / Computex but not in the final game. They admitted they "changed the "renderer" midway through production only after the game had released. The motivation? Consoles weren't as powerful as they were hoping, and PC didn't turn out to be lead platform after all.How sure are you about that? And does 120 fps also count as minor differences vs 30 fps.
Caporegime
Also as a normal PC would have not been powerful enough too - the Witcher 3 in its finished form was still very hard to run even with the recently launched Maxwell GPUs. Remember,we should have had a new node by then but TSMC 20NM was a failure,so designs probably had to be backported onto 28NM.
The problem is that the spectre of the Xbone is going to linger on for at least a couple more years after the new consoles launch, due to Microsoft's silly mandate that all Series X games have to run on Xbone too for at least the first two years. Meaning that any multi-platform game appearing on XSX is still going to have to be developed with a 1.75GHz Jaguar garbage fire CPU, an underclocked HD 7770 and mechanical storage in mind. So don't expect to see any games pushing new boundaries thanks to SSDs until at least 2023, at least outside of PS5 exclusives (assuming Sony don't go down the same stupid path).
The major change that happened was vis-a-vis lighting, and that's only because what they had initially was unworkable for the whole game. That's different than just down-grading. There's no doubt that we could have had a much more advanced game if consoles were stronger but that's always the case. I don't think that looking at those pictures (which btw, the PC version isn't even majorly modded as it could be) you can look at it and say 'there's little difference between that and what's on consoles'.
There's just no way to look at these pics and think the differences are minor. No chance!
And certainly not if you take the E3 version to be radically different than release, it's just not:
Soldato
780/780Ti in 3way SLI and then 980/980Ti 3way SLI back in the day.
Fully capable of running 4k 60hz on titles back in 2012+
I had 4k 60hz for a number of years before moving to high refresh.
So 3 way 780/780Ti’s and then 980/980Ti’s couldn’t do it?
Ran through the entirety of many big name titles without issue at 4k 60.
980Ti SLI is practically as quick as a single 2080Ti.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,449
They didn't even have 4k monitors available in 2012.
I believe the first consumer 4k monitor was released mid 2013? And used tiling
I believe the first consumer 4k monitor was released mid 2013? And used tiling