PS4 graphics are pretty good - don't you agree?

Well it's only one game, but still, it's true, you can look other bench sites

Sure "GPGPU" is PS' secret sauce lol

@Jankarcop: Exactly how do they look different when all the assets are identical. Your picture didn't look any better then his so please explain how they look NOTHING alike as you say.

@EducatingU_PCMR: Thats one bad port.

Doubt it, it's more probable the culprit is PS4's CPU, a CPU that weak can't hold a steady 60fps, so they just locked it to 30fps.

How many current gen (not remasters) games are 1080p60 on PS4?

The game didn't even use deferred workloads on the cpu to help feed gpu data. So basically all the gpu data was handled by one core. At least with deferred workloads other cores can handle non priority 2nd pass based work then send it to the main core then send to the gpu. But that did not happen with this game one core did it all gpu handling.

I don't know about that, but the game runs really well on PC, even an FX4100 can keep a 295X2 above 90fps

Besides he implied the PS4 game is a port, which we don't know unless he has some inside info.

The point stands, you can't call a game "bad" just because is not running at the golden standard, there is no current gen game (no remaster/indie) that runs at 1080p60 on PS4. But I guess it's easier to just call a game unoptimized than accept your favorite plastic box is not up to task.

Gallery

Your eyes suck. Second place gfx (third place games) must have fucked your brain up.

@EducatingU_PCMR said:

@AM-Gamer said:

@EducatingU_PCMR: Thats absolutely BS. The PS4 almost always beats a 6850 and sometimes a 7850. Once GPU compute is used it will see further gains.

Well it's only one game, but still, it's true, you can look other bench sites

Sure "GPGPU" is PS' secret sauce lol

Demolished.

@Jankarcop: I wasn't referring to the shitty cherry picked shots you keep posting you little troll. DC is the best looking racing game period so stay butthurt and salty.

@EducatingU_PCMR said:

@04dcarraher said:

@EducatingU_PCMR said:

@AM-Gamer said:

@EducatingU_PCMR: Thats one bad port.

Doubt it, it's more probable the culprit is PS4's CPU, a CPU that weak can't hold a steady 60fps, so they just locked it to 30fps.

How many current gen (not remasters) games are 1080p60 on PS4?

The game didn't even use deferred workloads on the cpu to help feed gpu data. So basically all the gpu data was handled by one core. At least with deferred workloads other cores can handle non priority 2nd pass based work then send it to the main core then send to the gpu. But that did not happen with this game one core did it all gpu handling.

I don't know about that, but the game runs really well on PC, even an FX4100 can keep a 295X2 above 90fps

Besides he implied the PS4 game is a port, which we don't know unless he has some inside info.

The point stands, you can't call a game "bad" just because is not running at the golden standard, there is no current gen game (no remaster/indie) that runs at 1080p60 on PS4. But I guess it's easier to just call a game unoptimized than accept your favorite plastic box is not up to task.

Its easy to call a game unoptimized when we know one cpu core was responsible for feeding the GPU and the fact that there are games that look better on the console that are more cpu intensive that run at double the framerate. Im sorry you are so delusional you think a 6850 will outperform a PS4 yet you can only post a link of one benchmark on a game that really shouldn't be that cpu intensive.

@Krelian-co said:

@m3dude1 said:

@Jankarcop said:

lol photomode.

no photo mode needed

even the screens show an insane amount of motion blur, it looks blurred on movement, and we are talking about a corridor racing game here, it is the same as second son, they had to give up a lot of shadows and distance of view to achieve decent graphics, point is, ps4 is not a magic box, its hardware is pathetic and any modern gaming pc absolutely destroys it, we are talking about pcs that are 3-4 times stringer, or even more, that fact won't change no matter screens you post.

You say Infamous SS has decent visuals? But graphically it blows most open world games out of the water. Also when things move they tend to have motion blur. That's kind of how things are supposed to work. I have yet to see a racing game that rivals DC so please post pictures to back it up. It doesn't matter how much stronger a high end PC is the fact is it has yet to have a racing game that matches DC..... at least visually.

That isn't true, both Sony and MS took a small loss at launch. It was nothing like last gen but you will never see companies take a loss like that again, it almost tanked the console industry.

On the brightside, at least you aren't lying and saying that they are edited/resized like last time. You now see that game can look like absolute shit.

On the road to reducing that denial. Very good my child.

How about this guys, give me 30 minutes or so, I will go to multiple locations in the game and take identical screen shots from the same perspective looking at the same things. Both sets will be in photomode, one set will be with all of the processing effects in place and the other will be taken before they get a chance to fall into effect.

By doing this we will be able to see what the game actually looks like more or less. Also bear in mind that we're viewing static screenshots on small displays with extremely condensed pixel density, anything will look better on these displays versus that of the actual game being played on a television.

You fool nobody. We all know you are an Lemming trying to hide in a hermits container. Atleast try to hide your bitterness.

PS4, needs more POWAAA

@Jankarcop said:

PS4, needs more POWAAA

It's like 2d compared to 3d. lol consoles

It's not a huge difference but they do spruce up the image quite a lot, a lot AA is added, a lot of AF is added, reflections become defined and not a blur, level of detail increases everywhere, foliage density increases etc. The game looks good but not nearly as much as it's made out to be, it's got some shortcomings.

Top images will be the before effects screen shots. Please also bear in mind that you're looking at these on a computer monitor with very condensed pixel density, the problems look much worse at proper scale on a 40"+ TV.

The FX 4100 is also a 3.6 ghz cpu that is around 40% faster then the Jaguar architecture clock per clock. So which means that single core of that FX4100 can supply nearly 3x the data to the gpu. Which is why all i5's and i7 are able to run circles around all FX series around 3.5 ghz powering that R9 295x2. Because they are much faster then FX series clock per clock. i5 4690k at 3.5 ghz vs that FX 4100 there is a 85% difference in minimum framerates

Agreed. Those days are over. And I cant blame any company for not wanting to manufacture at $700 and sell for $400. That's fucking stupid business in todays market.

@Jankarcop: Wtf are you talking about? You post one pic to discredit it. There's multiple pics not even from the photo mode that look better then what you posted. There's not a single game available where you couldn't find a shitty pic if you wanted. It's amazing how butthurt DC has you. Post a racing game that looks better or stfu. You can't because it doesn't exist.

Pretty much dead on, the per core performance of AMD CPU's even at 4.0Ghz is pretty atrocious, at 1.6Ghz that is just an abomination...

This place is a gathering thread for jealous hermits and butthurt lems. Anyone saying the Order or Driveclub don't look good is on drugs or blind. Thank God I own a good PC and PS4 and don't have to lie to myself about PS4's obviously good graphics. PS4, PC, and even Xbone are all capable of producing good graphics. Anyone can make any game look bad by cherrypicking bad screenshots.

no motion blur, 60 fps, and no, no game is "supposed" to be blurry, is just something they add to hide fps drops, as for infamous second son, PLEASE, just look at skyrim with mods on pc to know what a truly open world with good graphics is like, infamous as i said does look good, but it had to make a lot of sacrifices to do so. Again no matter how much you want to spin it or make bs about, ps4 just CAN'T COMPETE with machines that are 3-4 times stronger, period.

You can also make a game look better than it actually does by cherry picking all the same, e.g. most Driveclub screen shots.

Best gfx ever:

@nyadc said:

It's not a huge difference but they do spruce up the image quite a lot, a lot AA is added, a lot of AF is added, reflections become defined and not a blur, level of detail increases everywhere, foliage density increases etc. The game looks good but not nearly as much as it's made out to be, it's got some shortcomings.

Top images will be the before effects screen shots. Please also bear in mind that you're looking at these on a computer monitor with very condensed pixel density, the problems look much worse at proper scale on a 40"+ TV.

You can't honestly tell me with a straight face that there is any difference in those screens outside of AA. The LOD looks identical on both shots.

Driveclub actually looks good in gameplay though so my point still stands...

I wouldn't expect you to know this though since you've never actually played the game. All fanboys like you do is compare screenshots instead of actually playing the game for yourselves and judging it.

HAHA you think that looks better then DC, Motion blur should have been used in that game to hide the hideously low poly trees which appear to be card-bored cutouts. And you can talk about the PC not competing all you like but the fact of the matter is there is gameplay videos of both games in this very thread and I don't think anyone with common logic or decent eye sight would say anything other then the fact that DC looks far better. The only advantage F1 has is double the frame rate but it comes at the cost of much lower assets.

And Skyrim is what a open world should look like? Infamous SS is a far superior looking game especially compared to the extremely low poly models in sky-rim as well as the low poly environments.

Save all of these pictures to a folder and switch back and forth through them using windows image viewer, you can see it quite obviously.

http://imgur.com/K1KhIFa,4VZcstD,a0eLxw4,zgthjAM,7El402N,Qr0YTLK,j8b0HPO,Dv7YICq,a4T9eCv,C4ET95Q,ga1eXdY,0ZLGn03#0

Are you brain dead? I took those screen shots posted above, I've owned this game since 7am the day it came out...

>Accuses me of being brain dead

>Makes brain dead claims.

Show me any racing game with better looking rain or environments than DC. You can't because there aren't any. Therefore my point still stands, it's a glorious looking game and you are a butthurt brain dead hermit.

I did and outside of AA i dont see it. You said more foliage? Really?

And if I recall the devs specifically said all they added was AA.

The trees thicken and more pop up at distance, the grass becomes more dense and longer, more plants come into view etc.

Hey baby brain, do you see me comparing this to any other game? Oh yeah, because I'm fucking not, I'm comparing to itself and the stupid photomode bullshots that people post up everywhere trying to misrepresent the way the game actually looks in play...

Im sorry to tell you but high quality motion blur is actually quite taxing on the GPU. If they took it out completely im sure higher framerates could be achieved. The thing is high quality motion blur actually makes the game look really good. As for skyrim mods the only one that really impressed me was pretty much unplayable on modern PCs.

I don't give a shit about your stupid photomode/gameplay comparison. You're pointing out the obvious.

Devs already said all they added to the photomode is AA and everyone has known that since day one. The game still looks spectacular in gameplay. You're just a butthurt hermit like I said earlier.

lmao at the moving goal post of this thread:

-PS4 has the best gfx.

-I mean DC has the best gfx.

-I mean DC has the best racing game gfx.

-I mean DC has the best racing game environments and rain.

Second Place Race. Keep posting photomodes, the in-game shit looks so silver medal.

The foliage on the top and bottom screens all look identical so what are you talking about exactly? That is not what I would call a misrepresentation of the game when really all they seemed to add was AA. I would say the game looks better in motion because the few jaggies you see with non photo mode pics are hard to see in motion due to the high quality per object motion blur. You act as if there doctored up 4k screenshots and the difference is minimal at best..... stop the hyperbole.

Not to mention the photo mode in other games add less then DC most don't even add AA.

Either blind or delusional, I can't believe I have to make a video for you people when I've already posted stacked screen shots...

^Holy shit, this guy just took the kids to school. I'm gonna love their damage control against actual videos.

@AM-Gamer has yet again been exposed as piece of shit liar. You can't accept that PS4 is a distant second in gfx against PC, and have to lie about DC's capabilities by only posting photo-mode shots. Minimal at best? Fucking idiot, there is a reason you goons only use photomode shots of blurry mess PS4 games, and never real gameplay,

Versus:

@Jankarcop said:

Best gfx ever:

That's not even my intent, I just want people to remain honest and not exaggerate things which seems so hard for them to do. Driveclub has features that can make it a truly good looking game, but it's also got core aspects that can greatly detract from it and ruin that visual experience. What these guys don't seem to understand or won't admit is that most of what makes Driveclub look good are visual effects and features which mask the issues with the core of the game graphically.

Notice how most if not all of the images they post are during weather sequences? That weather which looks fantastic masks so many issues with the game, it's like an entirely new level of motion blur that makes everything look ten times better than it actually is. If you play it without the weather it just looks bland, drab and unimpressive, they know this, because when you really get down to it it's not THAT impressive looking of a game.

Why are people touting Drive Club for graphics? It looks like shit.

Has that horrible covered on Vaseline look to it and can look over saturated at times.

The game assets at a distance so fucking piss poor and you can literally see the copy and paste square grids for the foliage and tree's.

Normal maps on the scenery are often a joke and look like they were done on PS3....

Honestly Drive Club = Amazing lighting, Shit everything else.

@SolidGame_basic:

PS4's graphic results are fine but it's seems to be a yesteryear gaming PC. If I have just a very slim laptop or Surface 3 Pro tablet (can run fast Android X86 with AMIDuOS software) without a gaming GPU, PS4 would be my console choice.

Running Android X86 native build on Windows from http://www.amiduos.com/

'And yes you are a raving anti PS4 troll who somehow thought his argument was more logical then mine.'

Funny , cos i never even mentioned his argument, you sort out your reading comprehension sunshine.

My post was PURELY about the fact that you called him a dumb troll whilst contradicting yourself in one sentence.

I have no interest in his argument or yours, my only interest was pointing you out for the idiot you are but you don't need my help, this post is enough with you spouting on about things i never even mentioned in my posts.

where did i actually say his argument held more weight than yours?

I didn't so stop making up shit in your deluded ,immature fanboy brain sunshine.

I was merely pointing out the Irony that somebody like you, who is obviously lacking in the brains dept and is an obvious troll, would call someone else a Dumb Troll.

Pot calling kettle black really.

@Chozofication:

Your FLOPS number is pointless.

PS3's CELL ~= PS4's CPU .

Intel Core i7-2600 is faster than 8 AMD Jaguar cores at 1.6 Ghz.

Being CISC, X86 has instruction fusion or instruction compression.

RISC instructions are simplistic which requires several instructions to equal a CISC instruction.

On modern X86 CPUs, CISC instructions gets broken down to several RISC instructions hence X86 instruction set acts as instruction compression i.e. do more with less.

X86's win over RISC competitors are backed with design.

ARM has it's 16 bit instruction set (decodes to 32bit instruction set) for instruction compression. ARM is the only CPU ISA that can compete against X86.

I was joking. It's as pointless as the RSX flop number given by who I responded to.

there is no difference in environmental lod, you just have no idea how supersampling works.

Well done.

Nothing on PC or Xbone can top The Order, Drive Club and Infamous.

You need to get your eyes checked, don't try to get smart with me boy...