When a Console is better than your PC...

Random Guy Esq. · 18 Jun 2017 at 22:31

I do feel I miss out on some great games by sticking solely with PC, but I just don't have the time/money to have a gaming PC and a console or two. I choose PC because consoles simply don't do strategy games and, until recently, modding was impossible/impractical.

tyler_jrb · 18 Jun 2017 at 22:45

zornyan said:
you need to factor in that that's 4k/30 and the one x is promising 4k/60. console optimizations do seem to push hardware far harder than what a comparable pc can do.

I mean, if you look at what gpu was mid range when ps4 came out like the 770, that's probably not aged as well as the ps4 has in terms of gaming performance I would say.

Not that far they don't. You can see that with how the XB1 performs with it's identicle Gpu in a PC. Identicle.

Like I said in a prev post. Nvidia isn't the best for supporting old gen GPU's. Although they still perform reasonably well. AMD spends a lot of time on old gen cards and getting every ounce of performance from them. Hense why they still run extremely well today.

Lets not forget it's not all perfect for console either. There have been quite a few games with general poor performance on both PC and console and bugs to go with it.

They are promising 4k60 on forza. If you look online you will see all the AAA titles that actually require some power will run at 4k30.

TonyTurbo78 · 18 Jun 2017 at 23:24

tyler_jrb said:
8gb RX 580 (£235), micro atx board (£40), case (£35), Intel g3258 (£70), 8GB RAM(£50), 500w PSU(£40) and 1TB HDD(£40).

That leaves plenty for OS(£10), blue ray drive and extras.

How good will it be? As fast as the Xbox one X, essentially the exact same chip (6.2tflops)

As long as you wanted it to last. You will just have to reduce settings, like the XB1X will be doing for new titles in 1-2 years.

bravo for your attempts, but the only thing you'll be playing in 4k on that machine is Pac man.....come on lol. And you still missed out a case, case fans, cpu cooler.

Nexus18 · 18 Jun 2017 at 23:30

Most of the titles shown on the Xbox 1 X will be 30fps at 4k given that it was only specifically stated that forza was running at 60 FPS @ 4k, if the other titles were capable of 60 fps at 4k, you can be damn sure that microsoft would have said 60 fps for them too.

aoaaron said:
snip

I highly doubt that a 670 is cutting it today, surely you are having to significantly drop settings in modern new titles now? Even at 1080P if you want to achieve a constant 60 fps? The absolute minimum GPU required for 1080P @ 60 fps these days is a 290 imo as this is where I'm having to start dropping a few settings such as shadows to medium in order to keep a constant 50+ fps.

IMO, if you want to do PC gaming and make it worth while over consoles then you have to do it right, no point using an old/weak system only to not get the full experience of PC gaming i.e. constant 60+ fps and better graphics etc. as a ps 4 pro and xbox one x would be better in this comparison unless you want to tweak the settings/graphics lower than them and get a higher FPS than the consoles? (and of course other reasons such as m + k, modding or whatever)

Also, 1080, 1440, 4k aren't aspect ratios, they are resolutions.

tyler_jrb said:
8gb RX 580 (£235), micro atx board (£40), case (£35), Intel g3258 (£70), 8GB RAM(£50), 500w PSU(£40) and 1TB HDD(£40).

That leaves plenty for OS(£10), blue ray drive and extras.

How good will it be? As fast as the Xbox one X, essentially the exact same chip (6.2tflops)

As long as you wanted it to last. You will just have to reduce settings, like the XB1X will be doing for new titles in 1-2 years.

I would take a ps 4 pro and Xbox 1 X over that build any day of the week, pc may be ok for now but in a 2 years time or so, it won't run games as well as the consoles, the g3258 has terrible min fps in some modern titles such as bf 1 and 8GB RAM is starting to already get a bit dated now, it certainly is not a 4k build that's for sure.

The only way it will last and do well is if the low level APIs take of.

Consoles get a lot more out of them than what PCs do, again, developers only have 1/2 possible combinations to optimise for rather than the thousands of combinations for PC out there.

Also, the cheapest 580 I can see is £250?

And what PSU is that? That is one thing no one should ever cheap out on.

V F · 18 Jun 2017 at 23:42

A PSU for £40? :eek:

DONOHUE07 · 19 Jun 2017 at 00:36

tyler_jrb said:
8gb RX 580 (£235), micro atx board (£40), case (£35), Intel g3258 (£70), 8GB RAM(£50), 500w PSU(£40) and 1TB HDD(£40).

That leaves plenty for OS(£10), blue ray drive and extras.

How good will it be? As fast as the Xbox one X, essentially the exact same chip (6.2tflops)

As long as you wanted it to last. You will just have to reduce settings, like the XB1X will be doing for new titles in 1-2 years.

It's doesn't seem to work that way though, with games coded for console, and especially the Xbox 1X in mind, a console will perform better than the equivalent PC, every time

tommybhoy · 19 Jun 2017 at 02:58

tyler_jrb said:
Intel g3258 (£70)

Made a cheap g3258 build for a friends kid years back and found out the hard way it couldn't launch games@1080p never mind 4K.

EA is encouraging Dragon Age: Inquisition users who can’t launch the game on a dual-core machine to ask for a refund. Ubisoft is expected to push out a Far Cry 4 patch imminently that fixes a black-screen “failure to launch” issue that occurs when you try to load the game with certain USB peripherals plugged in. Reddit users are hoping the same patch fixes the dual-core woes as well.

Tute · 19 Jun 2017 at 08:54

Pretty sure Microsoft take a loss on the console though so that they can rinse you for £10-20 per game, plus peripherals etc.

That's where PC gaming wins for me. Higher cost to entry but once in, far cheaper with more games.

Hedge · 19 Jun 2017 at 08:57

Tute said:
Pretty sure Microsoft take a loss on the console though so that they can rinse you for £10-20 per game, plus peripherals etc.

That's where PC gaming wins for me. Higher cost to entry but once in, far cheaper with more games.

The abundance of cheap games has a negative impact on me. I find them all too disposable now and rarely dedicate time to them. 200+ games on my steam plus about 20 on other platforms and I'd say only about ten of them have given me enough playtime to justify owning them.

Tute · 19 Jun 2017 at 09:00

Hedge said:
The abundance of cheap games has a negative impact on me. I find them all too disposable now and rarely dedicate time to them. 200+ games on my steam plus about 20 on other platforms and I'd say only about ten of them have given me enough playtime to justify owning them.

Well yes, i'll admit to the same but it doesn't change the size of the catalogue available to you.

tyler_jrb · 19 Jun 2017 at 10:20

TonyTurbo78 said:
bravo for your attempts, but the only thing you'll be playing in 4k on that machine is Pac man.....come on lol. And you still missed out a case, case fans, cpu cooler.

When it's has a slightly more powerful GPU and CPU??

Included the case which comes with fans. CPU comes with its own cooler.

tyler_jrb · 19 Jun 2017 at 10:24

tommybhoy said:
Made a cheap g3258 build for a friends kid years back and found out the hard way it couldn't launch games@1080p never mind 4K.

4K is far less CPU demanding hense why the Xbx can ever run 4K at all as it's CPU is the equivalent of a low end i3.

tyler_jrb · 19 Jun 2017 at 10:34

Nexus18 said:
I would take a ps 4 pro and Xbox 1 X over that build any day of the week, pc may be ok for now but in a 2 years time or so, it won't run games as well as the consoles, the g3258 has terrible min fps in some modern titles such as bf 1 and 8GB RAM is starting to already get a bit dated now, it certainly is not a 4k build that's for sure.

The only way it will last and do well is if the low level APIs take of.

Consoles get a lot more out of them than what PCs do, again, developers only have 1/2 possible combinations to optimise for rather than the thousands of combinations for PC out there.

Also, the cheapest 580 I can see is £250?

And what PSU is that? That is one thing no one should ever cheap out on.

Not mention where but it was a gigabyte gaming rx580 8G.

PSU was an EVGA 500w. Plenty reputable.

I'd agree the g3258 is not brilliant. But then again neither is the Xbx CPU, it will hold it back now and in years to come.

I was just showing it could be done, which it can for a similar cheap amount.

You will get slightly better optimisation on console yes. But how much is the question?

Current Gen-Gen, not a lot.

Last gen-new Gen, then we maybe talking a little

zornyan · 19 Jun 2017 at 10:51

tyler_jrb said:
When it's has a slightly more powerful GPU and CPU??

Included the case which comes with fans. CPU comes with its own cooler.

I thought the Xbox gpu was more between a 1070 and 580 power wise?

don't forget it has dx12 hardware baked in, so the cpu has to do much less work with draw calls etc

Nexus18 · 19 Jun 2017 at 11:59

tyler_jrb said:
Not mention where but it was a gigabyte gaming rx580 8G.

PSU was an EVGA 500w. Plenty reputable.

I'd agree the g3258 is not brilliant. But then again neither is the Xbx CPU, it will hold it back now and in years to come.

I was just showing it could be done, which it can for a similar cheap amount.

You will get slightly better optimisation on console yes. But how much is the question?

Current Gen-Gen, not a lot.

Last gen-new Gen, then we maybe talking a little

Just because it is by a certain brand doesn't automatically mean it is a good product, for all you know they could be using some crappy manufacturer. Toms hardware does a decent table showing who uses want:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/power-supply-psu-brands,review-33002.html

But yes, generally EVGA are good regardless.

The xbox one x CPU is far more future proof, may not be super powerful IPC/clock speed wise but 8 cores is the way gaming is heading and as mentioned above with dx 12 baked in, games will get more out of that cpu than a dual core especially when developers will only have the one platform to optimise for.

As for how much better optimization will be down the line, I be willing to say quite a bit better as games still look very good on the normal ps 4 now especially the exclusives such as HZD, LOU.

If you where to take a PC that matched a PS 4 back in 2013, which would probably consist of what.... a 7850, Athlon X4 760K (probably more powerful than the PS 4)? And then look at how it performs in games nowadays @ 1080P, it would not be doing very well at all. I came from a 7850 to a 290 due to having to reduce a ton of settings just to be able to get near 60 fps and that was 3/4 years ago so imagine what it must be like for all the titles from the last year or 2....

No doubt if you want a PC for gaming for whatever reason like badly wanting free/g sync, high refresh rate, 21.9 or something else that PC offers over consoles then what you specced is a great gaming machine for 1080P but to me..... if you want to do PC gaming then you do it properly to get the main advantages of better graphics and/or better performance and in order to do that, you need to be spending a min of £800 imo.

VincentHanna · 19 Jun 2017 at 12:57

Xbox One X supports Freesync.

Lol @ a Dual core g3258 being equivalent to an 8 core CPU.

tyler_jrb · 19 Jun 2017 at 13:08

Nexus18 said:
Just because it is by a certain brand doesn't automatically mean it is a good product, for all you know they could be using some crappy manufacturer. Toms hardware does a decent table showing who uses want:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/power-supply-psu-brands,review-33002.html

But yes, generally EVGA are good regardless.

The xbox one x CPU is far more future proof, may not be super powerful IPC/clock speed wise but 8 cores is the way gaming is heading and as mentioned above with dx 12 baked in, games will get more out of that cpu than a dual core especially when developers will only have the one platform to optimise for.

As for how much better optimization will be down the line, I be willing to say quite a bit better as games still look very good on the normal ps 4 now especially the exclusives such as HZD, LOU.

If you where to take a PC that matched a PS 4 back in 2013, which would probably consist of what.... a 7850, Athlon X4 760K (probably more powerful than the PS 4)? And then look at how it performs in games nowadays @ 1080P, it would not be doing very well at all. I came from a 7850 to a 290 due to having to reduce a ton of settings just to be able to get near 60 fps and that was 3/4 years ago so imagine what it must be like for all the titles from the last year or 2....

No doubt if you want a PC for gaming for whatever reason like badly wanting free/g sync, high refresh rate, 21.9 or something else that PC offers over consoles then what you specced is a great gaming machine for 1080P but to me..... if you want to do PC gaming then you do it properly to get the main advantages of better graphics and/or better performance and in order to do that, you need to be spending a min of £800 imo.

Agreed but like I said I was pricing for now and similar specs. in honesty it wouldn't be too bad in a year or two's time.

And yeah if I was speccing a 4K pc it would be quite a bit more to run the 60frames and better settings. But i was just showing how much it would cost to run similar settings to the xb1x.

All in all the xb1x is great value, no doubt of that. It's just the posts saying it can't be done or cost 2-3times more for the same performance. Which isn't true.

VincentHanna · 19 Jun 2017 at 13:18

We'll know exactly what spec PC is needed when Forza 7 launches for Windows 10 on October 3rd, because we know that game is 4k/60hz locked on XBox One X

And a g3258 with an RX580 and 8GB Ram isn't going to cut it.

EsaT · 19 Jun 2017 at 13:31

Nexus18 said:
The xbox one x CPU is far more future proof, may not be super powerful IPC/clock speed wise but 8 cores

Those CPU cores are still just mobile level cores.
Two cores of modern Intel CPU or Ryzen has basically same class of raw processing power.
Way games run in any reasonable way in consoles is lot better optimizing of code than in PC games.

Also there's always been that "30 fps is enough" line when game developers/publishers know there just isn't enought CPU horse power to calculate game state more often...
Regardless if they cut down texture resolution/graphical effects...
Because sequential execution parts (next step depending on previous) of code can't ever benefit from additional threads and single core performance requirement rises linearly with frame rate.

Hence:

tyler_jrb said:
If you look online you will see all the AAA titles that actually require some power will run at 4k30.

TonyTurbo78 · 19 Jun 2017 at 13:42

tyler_jrb said:
When it's has a slightly more powerful GPU and CPU??

Included the case which comes with fans. CPU comes with its own cooler.

I'll reply because I've a notification that you replied to me but I'm not going to go to as far with this discussion as far as that machine will go when playing games. Trying to think of the word giving to someone that goes to unrealistic extremes to prove or win an argument/discussion in their favour....cant think now but come on. A 40 quid PSU , a 40 quid motherboard, a 70quid extreme budget cpu??? Your crazy if you think that machine will even do 1080p gaming let alone 4k. It don't work like that and I'm sure your not silly enough to actually believe what you wrote there in tallying up that rig for 600 quid.