Is the PC closer graphically compared to "Next Gen" this time round than ever before?

None of the xbone's games are running at native 1080.

Only around 50% of the PS4's games have been confirmed to be native 1080p.

Meanwhile us console gamers are looking towards 4k res, while consoles can't even handle a 6 year old resolution standard.

No, consoles are not even close, which is a shame because I genuinely wanted them to come out and surprise me with decent tech that wont hold good games back.
 
Last edited:
Yeah true, I just used it as an example of the way things are going for PC gaming and that we are currently looking to expand to higher resolutions. It's kinda pitiful that "1080p" is being used as a selling point in 2013/2014.

1440p/1600p make 1080p look like a relatively low resolution, to think they're still mostly on 720p/900p while claiming "next gen" is a bit silly IMO.

Edit: ^ is the game above The Witcher?
 
Xbox One and PS4 can compete with an average spec gaming Pc quite easily. It's the enthusiast level that is represented here that it cannot. The average person would not consider spending £400+ on a GPU and then the rest of the system. So a console gives them a decent gaming device for reasonable cost.

Consoles fill a gap but will never compete with Nerds with deep pockets or credit cards....:D
 
2 people I know bought an Xbone and a few games for over £500, and in the last year have also bought a pc and a laptop for however much (Yes, apparently people still buy til laptops:eek::p)....and they say to me that PC gaming would be too expensive!

I had a go on one of them, and it's not bad. Fifa looked pretty good, though fifa looked good enough years ago so I don't really care about graphics for that, and Forza didn't look bad. Assassin's Creed 4 was nowhere near, and I can't even max it.
 
Omaeka said:
Yes, it is. Any game currently out that will not run at 60fps, 1080p+ maxed out on an i5/7xxGTX combo is badly optimised, simple as that. Until we start seeing graphics on the same level as Squeenix or Nvidia's tech demo, there is no reason for games to drop frames other than laziness.
Click to expand...

I think we've had similar debates before (perhaps with others) but the major flaw in that argument is that "maxed out" means completely different things depending on the game.

In fact, one could argue it is the other way round - that the only reason some games can run the way you described is down to laziness, because they were too conservative with their graphical options and didn't bother putting anything in there for future hardware. In other words, games running at 60fps+ 1080p maxed out is a sign of lazy developers :p Tongue in cheek, but unless the game looks AMAZING you could argue there needs to be another higher tier of settings available.
Crysis is the classic example - Crytek got lambasted for people not being able to max it out because they were very forward thinking and said they were putting in stuff that current hardware shouldn't be able to run smoothly. But the reality was that Crysis on say 'medium' type settings (or a slight variant of) would still look better than 99% of games on the market.
Seriously, if Crytek had simply stripped out Ultra/Very High etc and labelled Medium "SUPER-DOOPER-ULTRA-HIGH-MAXXXX" settings, then they'd have released an inferior product but ironically kept more people happy who think they have a divine right to crank everything up without giving any consideration whatsoever to the visuals, they are just looking at what a label in a menu says.

I commonly see people put forward the theory that "BAD PERFORMANCE = BADLY OPTIMISED" but they are only looking at half the equation. You need to factor in visuals too, if game X runs slower than game Y on 'max' settings then it doesn't necessarily mean it has worse optimisation, in fact it may have better optimisation if it looks a lot better. Maybe if you set game X to medium settings it will still look better than game Y and now run faster.
For me, bad optimisation usually means games where you can't improve performance by lowering settings (assuming one has a reasonably well balanced system of course i.e. not massively cpu limited).
 
Last edited:
TonyTurbo78 said:
A quick comparison here with a next gen title on XB1 and PC. Not sure you can call it next gen for PC because the PC is always improving month after month.

It is a different shot, but just look at the definition difference. That where the difference really shows up. XB1/PS4 just will not be able to use high levels of AA/AF.
Click to expand...

You should compare PC to a 1080P PS4 shot, Xbox One is just upscaling 720P (1280x720) which is why it isn't as sharp.

AA/AF will probably still be a bit lacking but PS4 doesn't have a £300 GPU so that's to be expected.
 
TonyTurbo78 said:
yeah its closer but still a very long way off. Next Gen consoles are already so far behind what PC is capable of at lunch, it's rather embarrassing. I know they both had to stick to a price range, but I still think they should have raised the bar even higher. IMO I think it was a bad move for MS/Sony to aim for just 1080p, that res is already moving on in PC gaming, in a year or so 1440p will more than likely be the norm funds permitting. Can you imagine how far behind 1080p will be at the end of XB1/PS4 cycle.

A quick comparison here with a next gen title on XB1 and PC. Not sure you can call it next gen for PC because the PC is always improving month after month.

It is a different shot, but just look at the definition difference. That where the difference really shows up. XB1/PS4 just will not be able to use high levels of AA/AF. We've already seen the horrible jaggies in FM5. Games will get better for XB1/PS4 for sure, but where it's started I personally think is to far back. And as a gamer on both PC and a console lover, that saddens me quite a bit, because I totally envisage the consoles yet again holding the PC back.

XB1
10948429066_6a2f989899_o.jpg


PC
10914666224_c2a1900fcf_h.jpg
Click to expand...

shows downsized image to look better on pc. people who do this should be banned tbh. check hi res screenshot thread oh look i been playing skyrim and modded it heres a 800x600 image it looks so great :p

same like for like or ban ! :D
 
the bigger image was not mine, only reason I didn't make it that big was because its not great forum practice to have such big pics and would have got removed. But if you wanna be an anal annie about it lol. ammended now, all same size, all same place, although pc one is slightly different time of day. Like Moogleys said, its not bad on the surface but its the enthusiastic settings that makes the difference between console and PC. Shadow quality, smooth edges, no pixel breakup at distance etc.

And I kept the PC screenie at 2xMSAA which is probably around the same as the better PS4 version uses. Of course the PC can go way higher, this is where the difference in visuals comes in. But for the average joe, they don't look at the finer details.
 
Last edited:
no anal about it ! how can you argue a point when you have different sized media to compare rofl.

as said earlier a 800x600 image will look a lot tighter and detailed than a 1920x1080 image and thats why many do it in the hi res screenshots thread. a lot argue its the pic size even on dial up to upload a jpeg 1080 shot is like 300-600 meg and thats seconds.

so ideally you would have shown like for like images to compare. thats not being unreasonable and you know it isnt.

at the same res upto 1080 there is little difference.
 
Last edited:
there you go, changed them and hid behind spoilers to not upset the mods..that's the only reason I kept them slightly smaller so don't try to mug me off.

And I could have made my point a lot stronger by running 16xAA/16xAF but kept it to where I think the console would be (2xaa I reckon) and you know that because I left the OSD up...with 16xAA and 16xAF frames would be half that on this poorly optimized game and you know it.
 
Last edited:
at 1080 do you think there is a big difference ? bearing in mind majority of gamers dont game above 1080 ?

even with higher aa you wont notice much. so the consoles do as intended. thing is what so many dont get they dont guess at this do they ? they have teams and are investing hundreds of millions into these products. they know what to do and what is to be expected. the new consoles do cater for the people aimed at and will do for a long time.

if the majority of games which it will be is console ports at 1080 you wont see any difference for a good while.
 
If I had more money I would own a console, they do have some really cool games you can't get on PC and it's fun split screen for sure. I still want to play Heavy Rain and Uncharted, oh and The Last of Us.

I just have the problem that I already own a PC so the extra £500 I would rather upgrade the PC then buy the console. If I had a ton of cash I would for sure own a console. I need my Wii and Wii U for Zelda and Mario. I grew up on Nintendo so I'll just keep buying them! <3
 
arc@css said:
Look like more or less full sized shots to me.
Click to expand...

the ones i quoted wernt the xbox one was a fullsize and the pc one was smaller. after he posted all at the same res or screen size look at the difference literally nothing. even if he adds whatever it wont be much different.
 
If MS cared about PC gaming then Direct X would be much improved by now.....sadly hasn't moved on nor have developers making the most from it. Us PC gamers have to put up with ports.......

What ever happened to future of Open GL
 
^ That first screenshot you posted there TonyTurbo78 is from a Playstation console as opposed to X1 (presumably PS4) - see playstation buttons at top right.

I've been playing AC4 this weekend on my fairly moderate spec of Phenom II 965/AMD 6870/4GB RAM that i built 4 years ago - card upgraded 3 years ago.
I'm just playing with FXAA and high textures/env detail, normal shadows, HBAO(low), volumetric on etc. It runs more than well enough and still looks great!, always feels smooth staying above 30 in busy towns and 50-60 in the open and less detailed areas and 'at sea'.
Taking into account that the next gen console versions run at a capped 30fps in single player, I think you can still get a experience close or maybe even better on mid-range/older PC setups if you are willing to turn off settings like deferred aa and soft shadows.

some screens from my setup with the settings mentioned above:
v0hwVQc.jpg.png


Bm9nkPv.jpg.png


WeCvIZT.jpg.png


VrOWCyD.jpg.png
 
The think the pc could move on in terms of control systems....however much i hate consoles i think the pc could do with a device which is similar or mainstream...as kinect
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom