Mass Effect Andromeda Xbox One Frame Rate Test (Pre-Release)

@quadknight: It'll be 4K /HDR, 30fps on the Scorpio. Probably 1440P/60fps as well.

Was this performance for the original XB1 or the XB1S? I'd love to see that comparison.

Game still runs at 30fps on the PS4 Pro. Wow.. Best version is still the PC right now.

I'm in no rush to get this game anyways.

From https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_1060_STRIX_OC/6.html

For R9-390X with 5.9 TFLOPS.

Assassin Creed: Syndicate: 4K at 30 fps, Nvidia Gameworks

Battlefield 4: 4K at 30 fps

Batman Arkham Knight: 4K at 37.3 fps, Nvidia Gameworks

Doom 2016: 4K at 35.6 fps

F1 2016: 4K at 36.4 fps

Fallout 4: 4K at 35 fps, Nvidia Gameworks

Far Cry Primal: 4K at 29.1 fps, Nvidia Gameworks

GTA 5: 4K at 35.6 fps

Hitman: 4K at 33.5 fps

Just Cause 3: 4K at 32.8 fps, Nvidia Gameworks

Rainbow Six Siege: 4K at 42.2 fps, Nvidia Gameworks

That's a sample of 16 games that are available on game consoles, 10 games reach about 30 fps. I haven't included 4K Resident Evil 7, Forza 6 Apex, Forza Horizon 3, Gears of War 4, Killer Instinct and ReCore.

Lmao ouch.

I really hope 60fps is standard next gen for consoles. The dream. God I'm glad I didn't go along with the console upgrade crap. What a waste.

You claimed "30 fps. lol upscaled 4k. lol medium settings." which is not correct.

The two Nvidia Gameworks effects Screen Space Reflections and Depth of Field bloated Gears of War 4 PC build.

@ronvalencia

30 FPS is pretty much a deal breaker for me though. Maybe next gen right?

BTW: I look forward to Digital Foundry's review stating "PC is the definitive version", like 99% of multiplats so far this gen!

More examples of xbone's irrelevancy. Well it seems the game kind of sucks anyways.

You claimed "30 fps. lol upscaled 4k. lol medium settings." which is not correct.

Vega NCU enabled Scorpio could gimp current PC GPUs without double rate FP16 feature.

GP104's native FP16 is 1/64 the speed of FP32.

Your GP104 has the following SM features

1. 2.4X rate integer 8 bit

2. 1.2X rate integer 16 bit... Think of DirectX 8 era pixel shaders.

3. single rate FP16 via FP32 emulation. No memory bandwidth reduction with Fp16 usage.

4. single rate FP32.

Heavy optimized NVIDIA Gameworks games would be geared towards Maxwell/Pascal strength.

All GCN version 1.0 to 1.3 has the following CU features

1. single rate integer 8 bit

2. single rate integer 16 bit

3. single rate FP16 via FP32 emulation for GCN 1.0/1.1. It's naïve FP16 on GCN 1.2 and 1.3, hence reduce memory bandwidth usage.

4. single rate FP32

GCN 1.1 e.g. R7-360 and R9-390X

GCN 1.2 e.g. R9-380X and Fury X

CGN 1.3 e.g. RX-480.

Vega architecture has the following NCU features.

1. quad rate integer 8 bit

2. double rate integer 16 bit

3. double rate FP16.

4. single rate FP32.

Current AMD GPUs needs very high FP32 TFLOPS to speed up other data types, while Maxwell/lesser Pascal GPU with lower TFLOPS hides their higher integer performance.

TressFX running on Vega's double rate FP16 feature.

R9-390X estimate is only for baseline performance if Scorpio recycles GCN version 1.1/1.2/1.3 architecture. If Scorpio has Vega NCU, it would be faster than R9-390X.

Scorpio with 6TFLOPS FP32 GPU and Vega NCU

1. 4X rate integer 8 bit = 24 TIOPS. Scorpio exceeds GTX 1080, GTX 1070, Fury X, 980 Ti

2. 2X rate integer 16 bit = 12 TIOPS. Scorpio exceeds GTX 1080, GTX 1070, Fury X, 980 Ti

3. 2X rate FP16 = 12 TFLOPS. Scorpio exceeds GTX 1080, GTX 1070, Fury X, 980 Ti

4. 1X rate FP32 = 6 TFLOPS. GTX 1080 is superior to Scorpio with FP32. GTX 1070 has 6.4 TFLOPS FP32.

VS

R9-390X with 5.9 TFLOPS FP32 GPU and normal CU

1. 1X rate integer 8 bit = 5.9 TIOPS

2. 1X rate integer 16 bit = 5.9 TIOPS

3. 1X rate FP16 = 5.9 TFLOPS.

4. 1X rate FP32 = 5.9 TFLOP

VS

Fury X with 8.6 TFLOPS FP32 GPU and normal CU

1. 1X rate integer 8 bit = 8.6 TIOPS. Scorpio exceeds Fury X.

2. 1X rate integer 16 bit = 8.6 TIOPS. Scorpio exceeds Fury X.

3. 1X rate FP16 = 8.6 TFLOPS. Scorpio exceeds Fury X

4. 1X rate FP32 = 8.6 TFLOPS. Fury X is superior to Scorpio in FP32.

VS

GP104 (GTX 1070) has the following SM features

1. 2.4X rate integer 8 bit, 15.616 TIOPS

2. 1.2X rate integer 16 bit... 7.68 TIOPS,

3. 1X rate FP16 via FP32 emulation. 6.4 TFLOPS.

4. 1X rate FP32. 6.4 TFLOPS.

VS

GP104 (GTX 1080) has the following SM features

1. 2.4X rate integer 8 bit, 21.6 TIOPS

2. 1.2X rate integer 16 bit... 10.8 TIOPS,

3. 1X rate FP16 via FP32 emulation. 9 TFLOPS.

4. 1X rate FP32. 9 TFLOPS.

http://wccftech.com/343i-frank-o-connor-xbox-scorpio-beefy/

although I probably "know" in that I might have seen it in a slide or something, it's literally not something I have time to think about now and I actually couldn't remember whatever specs I've been exposed to even if I was tortured. I literally couldn't leak or answer a question that went beyond "Can I do this? Does it support that? How many of these could it render?"

What I do remember is that it's beefier than I expected.

PROJECT SCORPIO IS A "FULL BLOWN NEXT-GEN MACHINE" SAYS XBOX DEV

Creator of Ori and the Blind Forest, Thomas Mahler took to NeoGAF to answer a question about whether Scorpio is a PS4 Pro style console update, or a whole new generation of Xbox console. His answer - it's sort of both:

"Scorpio isn't just a half-assed upgrade (which the PS4 Pro kinda is...), but a full blown next-gen machine that's just backwards-compatible to your current library."

That's a little outside of the company line - Microsoft has previously downplayed the idea of a separation between its consoles, even saying that Scorpio will put an end to the idea of console generations altogether.

Mahler also reiterated his point on backwards compatibility, saying that, "from this point on, similar to PCs, you'll not lose your library when you buy a next-gen system."

Xbox's Phil Spencer - who played the first games on the new system this week - has previously made this point clear, but has also said that all games released on Scorpio will be playable on Xbox One, a point Mahler doesn't cover in his post.

http://wccftech.com/phil-spencer-xbox-scorpio-teraflops/

Phil Spencer correctly identifies AMD GPU issues with it's high TFLOPS i.e. memory bandwidth.

When you talk to me about Scorpio, the term I use about the architecture isn’t the six teraflops which is obviously what we’ve announced, it’s balance. Really what it is, is you want a platform that is balanced between memory bandwidth, GPU power, you know, your ability to move memory and [an] amount of memory around in many ways is more inhibiting to the performance of your game than absolute teraflops on any one of the individual pieces, and when we designed Scorpio we really thought about this balanced rig that could come together at a price-point. Like, I want Scorpio to be at a console price-point, I’m not trying to go and compete with a high-end rig. And because we’re building one spec, we’re able to look at the balance between all the components and make sure that it’s something we really hit that matters to consumers and gamers.

The lesson from Nvidia Maxwell/Pascal designs are increasing memory bandwidth while increasing TFLOPS.

Vega's tile cache render to reduce external memory bandwidth usage is a step towards the right direction.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11002/the-amd-vega-gpu-architecture-teaser/3

ROPs & Rasterizers: Binning for the Win(ning)

We’ll suitably round-out our overview of AMD’s Vega teaser with a look at the front and back-ends of the GPU architecture. While AMD has clearly put quite a bit of effort into the shader core, shader engines, and memory, they have not ignored the rasterizers at the front-end or the ROPs at the back-end. In fact this could be one of the most important changes to the architecture from an efficiency standpoint.

Back in August, our pal David Kanter discovered one of the important ingredients of the secret sauce that is NVIDIA’s efficiency optimizations. As it turns out, NVIDIA has been doing tile based rasterization and binning since Maxwell, and that this was likely one of the big reasons Maxwell’s efficiency increased by so much. Though NVIDIA still refuses to comment on the matter, from what we can ascertain, breaking up a scene into tiles has allowed NVIDIA to keep a lot more traffic on-chip, which saves memory bandwidth, but also cuts down on very expensive accesses to VRAM.

For Vega, AMD will be doing something similar.The architecture will add support for what AMD calls the Draw Stream Binning Rasterizer, which true to its name, will give Vega the ability to bin polygons by tile. By doing so, AMD will cut down on the amount of memory accesses by working with smaller tiles that can stay-on chip. This will also allow AMD to do a better job of culling hidden pixels, keeping them from making it to the pixel shaders and consuming resources there.

As we have almost no detail on how AMD or NVIDIA are doing tiling and binning, it’s impossible to say with any degree of certainty just how close their implementations are, so I’ll refrain from any speculation on which might be better. But I’m not going to be too surprised if in the future we find out both implementations are quite similar. The important thing to take away from this right now is that AMD is following a very similar path to where we think NVIDIA captured some of their greatest efficiency gains on Maxwell, and that in turn bodes well for Vega.

Meanwhile, on the ROP side of matters, besides baking in the necessary support for the aforementioned binning technology, AMD is also making one other change to cut down on the amount of data that has to go off-chip to VRAM. AMD has significantly reworked how the ROPs (or as they like to call them, the Render Back-Ends) interact with their L2 cache. Starting with Vega, the ROPs are now clients of the L2 cache rather than the memory controller, allowing them to better and more directly use the relatively spacious L2 cache.

This is especially significant for a specific graphics task, which is rendering to a texture (as opposed to a frame buffer to be immediately displayed). Render to texture is an especially common operation for deferred shading, and while deferred shading itself isn’t new, its usage is increasing. With this change to Vega, the ROPs can now send a scene rendered to a texture to the L2 cache, which can in turn be fetched by the texture units for reuse in the next stage of the rendering process. Any potential performance improvements from this change are going to be especially game-specific since not every game uses deferred shading, but it’s one of those corner cases that is important for AMD to address in order to ensure more consistent performance.

---------

And I'm telling you 30 fps is a big deal breaker for me when it occurs. I understand not ALL inferior console multiplats are upscaled or at low settings. Or even 30 fps.

ME4 on console to me is a huge bust. Unacceptable.

Can't wait for Digital Foundry to tell you ME4 is best on PC! Like 99% of other titles!

Worst than Wii U's install base with PC GPU costing greater than $348.

Tile cache render with high TFLOPS GPU wins MEA.

Effective memory bandwidth nearly mirrors frame rate difference with MEA.

NVIDIA's tiled cache render GPUs smashed AMD's non-tile cache GPUs.

The effective memory bandwidth difference between Fury X and GTX 1080 is 1.49X

Apply 1.49X on Fury X's 46 fps, it would yields 68 fps estimate. GTX 1080's real frame rate is 68 fps.

This is why Vega's tile cache render feature is very important.

http://wccftech.com/phil-spencer-xbox-scorpio-teraflops/

Phil Spencer correctly identifies AMD GPU issues with it's high TFLOPS i.e. memory bandwidth.

When you talk to me about Scorpio, the term I use about the architecture isn’t the six teraflops which is obviously what we’ve announced, it’s balance. Really what it is, is you want a platform that is balanced between memory bandwidth, GPU power, you know, your ability to move memory and [an] amount of memory around in many ways is more inhibiting to the performance of your game than absolute teraflops on any one of the individual pieces, and when we designed Scorpio we really thought about this balanced rig that could come together at a price-point. Like, I want Scorpio to be at a console price-point, I’m not trying to go and compete with a high-end rig. And because we’re building one spec, we’re able to look at the balance between all the components and make sure that it’s something we really hit that matters to consumers and gamers.

Mass Effect: Andromeda PC build is optimized with NVIDIA Gameworks.

------------------------------

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Mass-...55712/Specials/Mass-Effect-Andromeda-1223325/

970, 1060 and 480 all running the exact same.

Looks like they went nuts with Tessellation, PCGH found that turning it to AMD Recommended bumped FPS 13-18% and turning it all the way off gave upto 26% more performance.

It can be worthwhile for Radeon owners to play around with the "Tessellation Mode" option because the effects on the frame rate are quite remarkable. In our test scene, the tessellation profile in the driver (setting "AMD optimized") leads to an image rate of 44 / 53.2 Fps (min./avg.) Instead of 40 / 47.2 - an increase of almost 13 percent. If the driver completely disables the Tessellation (setting "Off"), the picture rate even increases to 51 / 59.5 Fps, +12% compared to the standard driver and +26% to the Tessellation required by the game .

On a Radeon R9 390 (Asus Strix, 1.050 MHz Kerntakt) the Tessellationoptimierung in the driver has a slightly stronger effect, we measure in Full HD at our benchmark the following values: 34 / 41.6 Fps (min./avg.) Instead Of 30 / 35.2 Fps. This corresponds to a gain of 18 percent. If you are using a graphics card with Hawaii GPU (R9 290 [X], 390 [X]), you should definitely pay attention to the tessellation switch in the driver to get higher picture rates.

I don't think the changes are noticeable, anyone see anything major different?

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/scree...a-Tessellation-AUS-via-Radeon-Driver-pcgh.png

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/scree...meda-Tessellation-Default-Maximumpng-pcgh.png

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/scree...ation-Optimization-via-Radeon-Driver-pcgh.png

NVIDIA's Tile cache render with polygon binning feature is very important.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11002/the-amd-vega-gpu-architecture-teaser/3

ROPs & Rasterizers: Binning for the Win(ning)

We’ll suitably round-out our overview of AMD’s Vega teaser with a look at the front and back-ends of the GPU architecture. While AMD has clearly put quite a bit of effort into the shader core, shader engines, and memory, they have not ignored the rasterizers at the front-end or the ROPs at the back-end. In fact this could be one of the most important changes to the architecture from an efficiency standpoint.

Back in August, our pal David Kanter discovered one of the important ingredients of the secret sauce that is NVIDIA’s efficiency optimizations. As it turns out, NVIDIA has been doing tile based rasterization and binning since Maxwell, and that this was likely one of the big reasons Maxwell’s efficiency increased by so much. Though NVIDIA still refuses to comment on the matter, from what we can ascertain, breaking up a scene into tiles has allowed NVIDIA to keep a lot more traffic on-chip, which saves memory bandwidth, but also cuts down on very expensive accesses to VRAM.

For Vega, AMD will be doing something similar.The architecture will add support for what AMD calls the Draw Stream Binning Rasterizer, which true to its name, will give Vega the ability to bin polygons by tile. By doing so, AMD will cut down on the amount of memory accesses by working with smaller tiles that can stay-on chip. This will also allow AMD to do a better job of culling hidden pixels, keeping them from making it to the pixel shaders and consuming resources there.

As we have almost no detail on how AMD or NVIDIA are doing tiling and binning, it’s impossible to say with any degree of certainty just how close their implementations are, so I’ll refrain from any speculation on which might be better. But I’m not going to be too surprised if in the future we find out both implementations are quite similar. The important thing to take away from this right now is that AMD is following a very similar path to where we think NVIDIA captured some of their greatest efficiency gains on Maxwell, and that in turn bodes well for Vega.

Meanwhile, on the ROP side of matters, besides baking in the necessary support for the aforementioned binning technology, AMD is also making one other change to cut down on the amount of data that has to go off-chip to VRAM. AMD has significantly reworked how the ROPs (or as they like to call them, the Render Back-Ends) interact with their L2 cache. Starting with Vega, the ROPs are now clients of the L2 cache rather than the memory controller, allowing them to better and more directly use the relatively spacious L2 cache.

This is especially significant for a specific graphics task, which is rendering to a texture (as opposed to a frame buffer to be immediately displayed). Render to texture is an especially common operation for deferred shading, and while deferred shading itself isn’t new, its usage is increasing. With this change to Vega, the ROPs can now send a scene rendered to a texture to the L2 cache, which can in turn be fetched by the texture units for reuse in the next stage of the rendering process. Any potential performance improvements from this change are going to be especially game-specific since not every game uses deferred shading, but it’s one of those corner cases that is important for AMD to address in order to ensure more consistent performance.

@ronvalencia

LOL.....What do video card sales have to do with 30 fps? None of what you wrote refuted what I wrote. I think you are just randomly posting graphs to make System Wars noobs feel like you are doing some heavy debating when in fact you are completely and utterly posting spam.

Mass Effect 4 will factually be better on PC, like over 90% of multi-platform titles (aka most video games). This is mostly due to the fact that Mass Effect 4 will run at 30 fps on console. (Feel free to cite counter claims.)

I can't play games at a terrible 30 fps anymore.

This isn't rocket science. Can you directly refute any of the above facts? Will you keep deflecting? Are you open to healthy concession once I post the Digital Foundry verdict pretty much stating that the PC version is the definitive version as they have in the past?

I await the links and proof refuting the bolded.

In the meanwhile, here are some DF verdicts in recent memory with PS PRO in the picture, Most of them end like this:

However, as things stand, if you're looking for a locked 60fps Sniper Elite 4 experience, the PC release may well be the best option

PlayStation 4 equivalents, again occupying a mid-point between the existing consoles and the top-end PC experience. Terrain quality also receives a bump: this resolves to a curious hybrid of low and medium settings on base hardware - the Pro sees this locked to an equivalent to the PC's medium preset.

It's also disappointing that there isn't a dedicated 1080p mode with visuals matching the PC's ultra preset, especially as the PS4 Pro could easily handle the inclusion of higher resolution shadows, improved volumetric lighting and expanded draw distances that found in that version. In that respect, more could have been done to provide a better 1080p experience - perhaps swapping out supersampling from 4K for higher quality visuals in other areas. In this regard, those wanting a smoother experience would be better served by the base PS4 game, though you do forgo slightly improved image quality as a result.

But it's the PC version that proves most fascinating here, and ultimately, it's the version of For Honor that offers genuine improvements that go beyond the cosmetic. There's a reason why gamers covet 60fps gameplay: the silky-smooth visuals of course, along with input lag savings that usually start at 50ms below the console equivalents. The additional temporal resolution seems to offer a crisper experience in the controls and in a game where timing in both attack and defence is so fundamental, For Honor simply feels better to play.

The PC is the only way to play at much higher resolutions, and certainly delivers the most refined presentation available, with added motion blur effects and the highest quality anti-aliasing.

That's about every multiplat on PRO since release, lol. Better luck next gen!

@zaryia:

.What do video card sales have to do with 30 fps?

Your views are part of the noisy minority. The world doesn't revolves around you.

What stops you from buying NVIDIA GTX 1080 Ti?

http://www.pcgamer.com/mass-effect-andromeda-pc-performance-analysis/

After the 17.3.2 driver update, AMD performance improved by 10-15 percent on the RX series.

@zaryia:

In the meanwhile, here are some DF verdicts in recent memory with PS PRO in the picture, Most of them end like this:

PS4 Pro's 5.5 GB barely improved it's memory storage from PS4's 5 GB!!!!

Digital Foundry didn't factor in memory storage factors to support PC's higher settings e.g. higher resolution shadows needs additional memory storage.

Scorpio has an additional 4 GB of memory storage over PS4.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Performance_Analysis/Sniper_Elite_4/

RX-470 4 GB with 4.9 TFLOPS didn't reach 1920x1080p 60 fps average at ultra settings!!!

PS4 Pro's GPU has 4.2 TFLOPS which is slower than RX-470!!!!

Sometime in April 2017, RX-570 replaces RX-470 while RX-580 replaces RX-480.

RX-480 (5.8 TFLOPS) ---> RX-580 (6.17 TFLOPS), No memory bandwidth improvements.

RX-470 (4.9 TFLOPS) ---> RX-570 (5.1 TFLOPS)

First of all thanks for that graph, more proof that PC version is the best. Ultra at 115 fps. TWICE as good as the crapsoles!

But You deflected again. No one is discussing sales or popularity. As your data proves, It will be superior. This is a matter of FACT, and can not be refuted.

ME4 is objectively better on PC. ME4 objectively runs at 30 fps on Consoles. 30 fps SUCKS.

(P.S. You seem to be arguing just to argue. I'm simply stating facts, instead of refuting said facts you present new data sets on a completely different subject. Can you say ME4 will not be best on PC?)

So Xbox one wasn't next gen because Forza Horizon 2 was on the 360 also, Sega Saturn wasn't next gen because Virtua Fighter was also on the Sega Megadrive. You will never go from one gen to the next with games that won't be able to be ported back a gen, now sure they will be missing some assets, but still will be very playable back a gen.

So going from XB1's 1. whatever flops to Scorpio's 6 is not a generational leap?

PC version's visual quality is dependent on end user's PC hardware capability and there's no flat standards on gaming PCs. This is a matter of FACT, and can not be refuted. This is why I posted PC GPU sales.

PS4 Pro results are around RX-470D (4.5 TFLOPS) level SKU i.e. lowest Polaris 10 SKU which are sold in east Asia. The big performance difference between RX-470D and PS4 Pro is with Pro's double rate Fp16 feature which is important for future games i.e. PS4 Pro will age better than RX-470/RX-470D.

SW has always assumed a high end rig, unless it is a sales thread that states otherwise. For over a decade now. Just like Gamespot reviews do. Just like Digital Foundry does. Just like any other forum like this does. Just Stop.

This game will objectively be best played on PC. lol 30 fps.

Who are you to stop me? Where's the GS rule for "SW has always assumed a high end rig"?

I'm a member since June 29, 2008.

@zaryia said:

This game will objectively be best played on PC. lol 30 fps.

Again, PC version's visual quality is dependent on end user's PC hardware capability and there's no flat standards on gaming PCs. This is why posted PC GPU sales.

GS reviews games with High End PC as default. This is a gamespot forum. (Digital Foundry also uses high end rig as default, the other site we use.)

Check Mate.

If you think I'm going to put "high end" in front of PC every time I mention the system, when no one has had to do that in over 10 years of SW, just because you're getting creamed this gen...think again. No one is changing behavior because of one second place loser.

"GS reviews games with High End PC as default" argument is flawed since it's not representative for the current gen mainstream gaming PC GPUs. Proper PC gaming websites shows difference results for different PC GPUs.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-battlefield-1-face-off

These are considerations that we don't have to make on the PC version, and with the scalable nature of the Frostbite engine, Battlefield 1 is well equipped to run smoothly across a wide range of hardware configurations, especially when the resolution scaler is utilised. The latest mid-range GPUs deliver a great experience at 1080p targeting 60fps, while 1440p and even 4K gaming is within reach - where DICE's top-notch technology simply looks sensational.

DF face-off has factored in the latest mid-range GPUs.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-hitman-face-off

DF face-off has factored in the latest mid-range GPUs.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-no-mans-sky-face-off

Our first port of call is a test of the successors to mainstream champions GTX 970 and R9 390 - the GTX 1060 and RX 480

DF face-off has factored in the latest mid-range GPUs.

DF factors in PC's latest mid-range GPUs.

Try again. Your "check mate" assertion is LOL.

3 face offs out of hundreds....Check Mate indeed. And even those all stated PC version is the best. Almost every GS PC review uses a high end PC. This is a gamespot forum. Since 2004 we have discussed high end gaming rigs. Almost every review site uses a high end rig. This is a forum that discusses video game reviews.

PC has the best version of almost every multiplat, especially ME4. That is a fact. I'll never stop stating it, because it'll likely never stop being true.

Heres a simple way to end our "disagreement" (aka you trying to enforce a new SW rule), pretend whenever I say PC, I mean "high end PC". Boom. We're all good now. Thanks for your time, 2nd placer.

That Batman PC port was great a few years ago.

For DF's face off with PC, they usually comment about mid-range gaming PC GPU results. There are also hundreds of PC gaming review sites that shows different GPU results.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-categories/game-reviews.html has both game reviews and benchmarks.

There is no new rule. Your argument is flawed since it omits the full results.

1. We've always discussed high end PCs here. You're one of the VERY few posters over a span of a decade who turned PC into a variable range, making it seem like we might be discussing a mid/low end PC. That's simply disingenuous when a majority if reviews at GS and MC will be using high end.

2. I said there was a simple end to this "arguement" we are having. Imagine I am saying "HIGH END PC" whenever I say "PC". Doesn't that fix all of this? Why are we still going at it after this?

Mass Effect 4 will objectively be best on PC(See #2).

I stated almost. I'm aware of a few slip ups. Gaming is better on PC, generally.

1. That's BS. The latest GS Mass Effect 4 review was with PS4. The arguments is at least within similar cost of buying the gaming experience i.e. upgrade the PC GPU for existing PC or buy the game console and DF uses this argument.

2. Your argument omits the full PC gaming situation. Proper PC game review sites has shown both game structure review and different GPU results.

Assume I'm talking about a high end gaming rig whenever I (and most others) mention PC*. Situation resolved. There is no reason for us to continue this argument after that has been made clear. I guess I"ll have to make it "extra" clear for someone special like you.

PC* is the best for multiplats. Fact.

@moistcarrot: lmao, that was hilarious!

This game will run at 0 fps on my PS4 pro and Scorpio because it looks like rehashed garbage to begin with.

In references to 30 fps argument, you still omitting the full picture with gaming PCs.