Gamespot : 500$ PC outperforms both PS4 and X1

those games look promising, but so did bf4 until that shit heap actually came out and u find everything other than the small bit of content they previewed was garbage. and of course the all the downgrades that happened

Ugh I hate that kind of articles, Sure you could build something that could compete with the consoles at that pricepoint, but it is hardly the thing to do if you want to get into PC gaming, or has gaming as a hobby. Saddest part is that someone will likely build such a PC, and then have to get explained that those are pretty shit PCs from the getgo, when the experiences they get is seriously sub par.

me getting 80+ fps in bf4 is poor? K, better sell my PC

It is headline worthy. Every gen prior to this you would need a much more expensive pc to match a console.

6 months after the 360 launched you would have needed a $1000 or more pc to match the 360.

specs and settings?

BF4 is actually one of the better optimized games. FPS usually stays above 100, and can spike up to 150. But sometimes I can see drops to 80's on my EVGA 780 Ti. Depends what map you're playing.

That's ultra and 8xMSAA btw.

@Cloud_imperium: I think i'll set a price of around £400 and probably go with that CPU, it's pretty iffy for Rome 2 but i'm on a budget and it's really the only RTS i play, as long as it's fine for Civ then i'm good really. I'll probably do it over the summer so will try and pick up parts on offers over the coming months.

If you invest into a aftermarket cooler you can get that FX 6300 to 4+ghz will help alot its just sad about the total war games cpu utilization usage.

@m3dude1:

Well you would like to dream it look and runs poorly, since a 260x can muster a PS4-level performance. The game is also equally rated here on GS, and maintains a superior Metacritic rating according to GS. My quick gfx comparisons show it doesn't pale in comparison to SS in either IQ or performance.

Sorry you cannot not be objective and provide tangible backing to your random musings.

@AM-Gamer:

PS4 cannot even run BF4 at 1080p, even at barely high settings with drops into the 40s. Frostbite 3 is easily one of the most advanced engines around.

This is without Mantle:

"We couldn't help but expect more from the new platforms - especially from PS4, where the GPU architecture offers a range of advantages over the Bonaire core at the heart of the R7 260X (though to be fair, at 1.9TF, the R7 260X marginally out-scores PS4's overall compute power)." -digital foundry

On a side note:

"As it turns out, you can build a gaming PC for around the cost of an Xbox One that will outperform both next-gen consoles given the current stock of cross-platform games. You'll also enjoy a massive library that neither the PlayStation 4 nor the Xbox One will ever be able to match from a pure numbers standpoint. Plus, your PC is upgradable, and its functionality in non-gaming areas only adds to its value." -Gamespot

Bow before your god...

have you tried the 337 drivers yet? Seen higher minimum FPS and around 5 fps higher average.

Do you have BF4 on the PC? Because you really sound like you're pulling random statements out of your ass. The game is still good. Unlike your previous comments, the game's well optimized and even on my midranged 760, I get 60 frames. The game is perfectly fine. The only thing that sucks is netcode.

Edit- 60 frames on ultra, 4X

lol...clueless kid just making shit up. i dont think you have bf4 or a 780ti. but plz post some screens showing your magic fps, oh and a tutorial showing us how to enable 8xaa in bf4

I heard there was a patch that improved multi threading recently though but i dunno how much that helps.

Overclockers uk have the same set up for £500 so i might just lump for that and save the hassle, i was expecting to pay £400 for the parts so it seems an ok deal. There's also "turbo" to 4.1ghz which seems to slip it up to 4.1ghz under load.

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=FS-020-OG

Haha, yeah forgot that it didn't have 8xMSAA, seems like it was 4XMSAA. You can check any youtube video for 780 ti and fps is almost always above 100. I don't really play the game that much. i.imgur.com/0GpOxOq.jpg

EDIT: how about that?

@04dcarraher You running those, much better performance, gotta love nvidia.

with tons of drops far below 60. yes i have bf4, runs poorly for the mediocre visuals it produces

your in windowed mode champ...pc gamers...smh. just checked a bunch of benchmarks, couldnt find a single one that corroborates your claimed performance, not to mention i have a 780ti. maybe 2 or 3 maps(that are barren and look bad even by bf4 standards) youll get those framerates.

Hard to prove it's my PC while in fullscreen, anyway, if you do have good gaming PC. Why such a hate for PC gaming, and defending of peasantry?

EDIT: Anyway, here is a video of similar system to mine.

With the 3000$ AV cabinet,right?

I get 60fps with dips into the 50s on my 7950 with Ultra and 4xMSAA. I average 59 fps on most maps. This is with vsync on. The game performs fine. A more solid 60fps than the PS4's claim to 60fps which is really in the 40s and 50s during combat. I stay at 60 unless something crazy is going on and it might dip to 50 somthing. You don't know what you are talking about or you don't know how to optimize your settings.

What do you think is going to happen? Is the PS4 going to somehow magically blow away the PC for all eternity? Wake up and smell the coffee. The PS4 will get some really fantastic looking games, there's no doubt about that, but the very best looking games will still be found on the PC and the best looking versions of multiplats will still be found on the PC.

Look, you Sony fanboys did the same thing last generation--you hyped most PS3 exclusives' graphics to the moon--but that didn't change the fact that the very best looking games of the "generation" were all PC games.

Another video, just deal with it. PC destroys this game while PS4 can barely hold 60 fps.

Is it really surprising? PC's will always be better...

Yeah I think Patch 10 did alot of fixing. That system looks like it has a hefty cpu cooler on it but you can get something better then for roughly same price HERE

the "turbo" is based on core usage less cores being used = higher clockrates.

@m3dude1 just got fucking murdered, lmao trolls have no quarter at this site. They are just fodder.

So another of so many topics where PC gamers post actual proofs/links/screenshot comparisons that "PC is the way to go"/"PC is superior " and consolites use childish terms and Infamous SSs? xD

console gamers, console gamers never change...:D

@04dcarraher: Thanks that does look better.

@m3dude1 said:

@gamecubepad said:

@m3dude1 said:

@scottpsfan14 said:

What even is your argument for Infamous SS?

looks better than any currently available pc game and this 500$ pc will never get you a ps4 matching experience in anything but the worst multiplatform games(bf4 for example)

Naturally since BF4 is the most demanding multiplat to land on all systems, the cows hate it because, well running at 260x performance levels goes against their fantasy that PS4 is high-end, has all the games, and all other systems are unworthy.

So then, the "worst multiplatform game(bf4)" vs infamous ss: 60fps vs 30fps

nah everyone hates bf4 because it looks/runs poor(even on pc) and the game itself is completely broken. those screens further back that statement, even considering the fps difference

It doesn't look poor or run badly on my system. Rock solid 60fps and it looks fantastic. I don't know what game you are playing. Multiplayer has a few issues, but once again you way overexaggerate. If it was "completely broken", as you claim, it would be impossible to enjoy and there wouldn't be anybody playing it. Neither of those things are true.

Infamous Second Son does not use TXAA x2, it uses SMAA T2x, which is the same form of anti-aliasing used in the console versions of Crysis 3. TXAA is an Nvidia exclusive technology only available to owners of Nvidia graphics cards.

@kalipekona said:

@m3dude1 said:

@gamecubepad said:

@m3dude1 said:

@scottpsfan14 said:

What even is your argument for Infamous SS?

looks better than any currently available pc game and this 500$ pc will never get you a ps4 matching experience in anything but the worst multiplatform games(bf4 for example)

Naturally since BF4 is the most demanding multiplat to land on all systems, the cows hate it because, well running at 260x performance levels goes against their fantasy that PS4 is high-end, has all the games, and all other systems are unworthy.

So then, the "worst multiplatform game(bf4)" vs infamous ss: 60fps vs 30fps

nah everyone hates bf4 because it looks/runs poor(even on pc) and the game itself is completely broken. those screens further back that statement, even considering the fps difference

It doesn't look poor or run badly on my system. Rock solid 60fps and it looks fantastic. I don't know what game you are playing. Multiplayer has a few issues, but once again you way overexaggerate. If it was "completely broken", as you claim, it would be impossible to enjoy and there wouldn't be anybody playing it. Neither of those things are true.

ir runs bad relative to its visual output. theres no reason a 7850 shouldnt run this game at 1080p ultra 60+ fps with the occasional dip below.

@kalipekona: your right, regardless it's far more impressive then the fxaa not to mention the higher res and asset quality.

So I'm going to assume you have a shit computer then. Because noone who invests money into a decent PC would spend hours upon hours arguing that PC's "not that powerful" and constantly defends the PS4.

I have a fucking 760, I run at an average of 70. When I said 60, that's the lowest I ever get.

@gamecubepad: It will run games that look significantly better then BF4. A launch window title has never pushed a console, I don't see why you think somehow this generation is different.

Sure, games later in the gen will look better but this gen is different though due to the consoles being much simpler to develop for. This means the graphical peak should get hit quite quickly.

Because optimization was a thing last gen. Console architecture was weird as **** and efficiency improved later on through the gen as devs figured out how to code in the most efficient manner possible. This gen, the architecture is so similar to PC, devs are most likely already coding close to their max potential. You will get an improvement throughout the years but very minor. This guys explains it very well.

yeah minimum framerate of 60 fps on ultra...suuuuuuuure. too bad every benchmark on the web disagrees

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2014/03/10/amd_radeon_r9_270x_270_video_card_review/5

not even full ultra and fps is under 60 roughly half the time. not even close to the most demanding MP map either. AND thats an oc model with a custom cooler that will always be at max boost clocks

Perhaps, but do you really think this peak was hit by multi-platform companies rushing to get games out for launch?

Ok, let me see If I understand what you're saying here. You think AMD with Mantle, Nvidia with their driver updates, MS with DX 12 and who knows who else, are just wasting millions of dollars and precious time because x86 is old hat and there can be no significant gains in efficiency or other software optimization. Is this accurate?

@asylumni: Yup. Somehow you connected me saying DEVELOPERS are coding at near max efficiency on CONSOLE is the same as saying Mantle and GeForce expirience are a waste of time. Mantle and Nvidia drivers increase performance ever so slightly maybe a nice 5-10 fps boost.

Again, i'm not saying consoles will forever be at a standstill. Sure, new drivers might free up some power for a quick fps/ resolution bump. What I said was, we won't see the crazy optimization we saw last gen. Look at the difference between Mass Effect 1 and 3. That is not the result of new drivers. That is the effect of completely new algorithms and such that were created as the gen went on. That isn't happening this gen, where console are pretty much PC's with shitty OS's

Ummm, that's why I said games later in the gen will look better. Just don't expect to see graphical evolutions like we've seen in previous gens.

@m3dude1: 1080p, 2x, Ultra. I average 70. Lol. I just did a quick google search. I suggest you check again.

regardless, you're trying to tie this back to how PS4 is better than PC. However you want to go about trying to yell about poor optimization and stastics, it doesn't change the fact that PS4 runs BF4 on what are medium-high settings

Also to point out that last gen and every one before hand had to wait and design the software and code to make use the hardware that they had at hand. for example the xbox 360 in 2005 had a triple core cpu and the first unified shader based gpu and yet had to wait more then a year before games were designed to make use of all three cores and be more shader heavily designed to make use of the gpu. Then the PS3 was a mix mash of a all in one processor aka the Cell and older architecture based gpu design. It took years before developers in general to code and make use of the unused SPE's from the Cell to augment the RSX and PPE core to allow the PS3 to become on par with the 360.

This time around all the hardware is pc based, the API's are based on code founded on pc's on these new consoles. The allocation of hardware and resources are known from the start they know whats in front of them and know their limits. Their is no magic sauce, no magic coding that will allow these consoles perform better using same assets and settings as faster pc hardware. fact is that the hardware in these consoles were outclassed nearly two years before their release unlike in the past where the companies went all out on latest tech and performance at that time.

While with time they will learn more efficient ways to handle resources and squeeze abit more out of the hardware. the bottom line is that the physical processing abilities of the hardware is not up to the task to have all the bells and whistles. You will see a quicker plateau in graphics this time vs the PS3.

These consoles are only sporting an low clocked 8 core AMD jaguar based cpu (where the processing power clock per clock is slower then 6 year old pc cpu's) where two of the cores are reserved (allocated) for OS and features meaning only 6 cores available for the games. Then we have the OS and features with a memory allocation eating nearly half the shared memory pool of 8gb leaving 4.5-5gb for both the game cache and video buffer. and moving along to the gpu's the X1 packing a gpu of entry level gaming of today. then the PS4 is only packing a gpu that's a medium tier gpu at best. These consoles didnt stand a chance from the start,.

@04dcarraher: Thank you for saying everything i wanted to say but couldn't word. That was a great post.

PC is always going to shit on consoles. Anyone who thinks otherwise belongs competing in the Special Olympics.

The consoles are stripped down pc hardware that does not improve during its lifetime. PC's have multiple uses far exceeding consoles.

There isn't a comparison. PC is backwards compatible and does not make you pay a subscription service to stream it. What a joke. Keep getting milked and paying for online.

This is a good topic to delve into, I'm glad you brought it up.

---

You must understand that I do not think BF4 is the best, or most efficient visuals we'll see on PS4. It's simply a metric by which to judge apples-to-apples against the PS4 and X1. This gen there is no unified shader paradigm shift, nor the need to run gfx code across whatever spe's were left after the Cell was done being, you know, a CPU.

We have like-for-like. X1 = R7 250(7770 GHz ed), and the PS4 = r7 265(7850). 1.2tflops and 1.8tflops respectively. We have the exact benchmarks for their CPUs, we know the GPU performance from 2 gens(1.5? hawaii, etc). Before Mantle drivers were released, DF proved that a 260x can run neck-and-neck with the PS4 in all but 1 benchmark. So after all the 8GB GDDR5 and 7950 talk from cows, what really happened was a $100 GPU with superior raw performance and only 1GB of VRAM beat the PS4.

This gen will be different. Devs will not cater to the lowest common denominator(X1/Consoles). They have no need to specialize code to degree required last gen. They will build from the top down. It may be beyond belief that games are coming very soon that are designed around 4-5TFLOPS GPUs, and PS4/X1 will be outperformed by sub $100 GPUs.

The consoles will get dusted and cows will spam the boards with pics from photomodes of Uncharted and Infamous.

---

Let me ask you a simple question, do you believe the 1.84TFLOPS PS4 with 6 1.6GHz juiced tablet cores will perform as well as a 7870/270X with slight core/mem bumps paired with FX-6300 OC'd to 4GHz in even half of the multiplat comparisons in the next few yrs?

should point out that his "proof" was using version 1.0,0.1 of BF4

@Vecna: You see, someone with common sense would see this and think "wow. pC is objectively superior, I'll return my PS4 and switch ASAP" However, console fanboys have some stramge alligeance to Sony and Microsoft and don't recognise they are major corpprations just after their money (see DRM and pay for online).

However, they'll always come up with some way to justify consoles. They just refuse to switch for some reason. They sympathize with all of Sony and MS's flaws and will defend them to the death. Previously, the excuse was "just you wait till next gen comes out". Now that we see how pathetically underpowered next gen is, it's "haha no GOTY for PC from console centric sites. I just prefer exclusives ok??"

Lol 5 straight posts of stastics and proper evidence to back up a point. Now thats something I haven't seen consolites do in awhile.

i think you should email all these hardware portals and tell them they need to learn how to configure their system, because your performance on a 760 is 60 fps WORST CASE at 1080p ultra settings(which mandates 4xaa).

@04dcarraher the bench i linked to was posted in march, its not like the most recent patch released at the end of march changed the performance of the game.

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/battlefield-4-naval-strike-test-gpu.html

nope

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_750_Ti_OC/10.html

nope

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2014/03/03/asus-radeon-r9-290-directcu-ii-oc-review/3

nope

http://www.computerbase.de/2014-02/amd-radeon-r7-265-test/4/#diagramm-battlefield-4-1920-1080

NOPE.