So since getting my PS4 I had to keep it upstairs in the living room cus i dont hav an hd connector...and i thought, wouldnt it be cool to compare the two (PC and Ps4) on HD. Then I thought nah, after stumbling on this video....
Thats rayman 2 at 60fps on HD. Then I thought, wait...I was tricked. HD just makes graphics look cleaner. I hav a small HD, and its def differnt. So maybe I will give it a try, and compare these2 games which are installed...injustice and dcuo the hd and ps4 version then take some cam pics when available. So I might update this blog later. To show you why HD enhances games, whether its PS4 or fucking dreamcast! I will be using a Sony HD monitor at 60 inches. I recorded with PS3 without a capture card on facebook, so I think i will just use a way to record if possible.
Here are the systems that I will use if the tv becomes readily available for the day:
ps4, PC, xbox 360 and dreamcast. Xbox 360 and dreamcast will just confirm my sources, that they infact just make games larger with polygons. But PS4 and PC will be interesting in the account of a 2010 PC beating a 2014 ps4 in graphics. Hence the real goal is to make sure that we understand aesthetics correctly. Anyways i think the guy was using DVI imput, or some sort of none pixel scaler, no scales at a low res. I don't think most hds use 480p without scaling, but some are out there. Imagine not scaling a lower res, basically its 640x480 or 480p at 480p...you get a really crisp picture like the guy in this video up here.
warframe...ps4 wins, environment is larger, effects are the same. Ps4 has more polygons...PC runs smoother on loading screens. But come on, small environments means you lose.
DCUO...uh no imagine ps3 with high frame rate and nice effects...PC looses bad here. Characters are tiny. A lighter tone, just like in warframe even at 1900. IDK imagine a Wii U instead of xbox one. Thats wat a PC is.
Injustice...still notice slowdown on ps4, but its not a big deal. Its like a little bump on a super move....and i dont even know if ps4 pro eliminates this. I heard its different, but research also says its different. https://www.polygon.com/2016/10/21/13358416/ps4-pro-extra-ram-memory...They added a gig of dram making the 8 gigs of ram totally fluid..this would eliminate the slowdown on these games.
Warthunder...didnt test...not even going to take video clips...we know PS4 has won, not going to take screens, nope. All those PC nuts on youtube better stop lying, look really closely at why PC doesnt hav a video card that does 1 billion polygons and does only 800 million...look closely and see why xbox one can only do 700 million. This test is over.
-However, its a trick, like the ps2 gimmick. PS2 claimed u know like 333 million, but the processing power was likened to 70 million. Basically, here are rounded figures. People claim xbox 360 is better than ps3, but ps3 has larger environments, which means greater polygon counts. Bumpmapping is not Polygon counts, thats why like Dreamcast will look better than ps2, or xb 360 will look better than ps3. Sony uses the vetrix system.
Rounded figures with peak graphics and effects
DC 3-7 m pps
Ps2 30m pps
GC 80m pps
XB 100m pps
Wii 225m pps
Xb360 300m pps
Ps3 500m pps
Wii U 700m pps
PC 800m pps
Xb1 1b pps
Ps4 2 billion pps (1.6 billion)
CGI's toy story 6-12 billion
All consoles tested are used with Componenent/HD. Dreamcast is tested with 480p HD not scaled. A 480p HD tv, not 720p hd tv. Ps4 pro and XB one S are not tested because they use extra ram to avoid jumps in frame rate. What is called slow down, they are using O/S ram ie a console uses O/S and GPU ram, so they split that. My PC uses O/S ram not GPU ram. All games do HDDR.
*Updated cus my last post was not internet sourced by the company, it was only third party sourced. All sources are based on teh companies.
Controllers: Well this is easy, you know how gamecube had its really good 80m pps system, but then ruined it with a cter. Well, ps4 did too...not completly, like it can do flight games like 3do people...so...but the cter itself is made for larger hands, lets just say its long, bringing the xb and xb s cter at a forfront in tech, esp the xb 360, with its 360 degree js turns that do not stop. The 360 is made for small hands, and caliburated for that fact. Which leads me to believe xbox one cters are good too. Like the xb s cter for flight sims, and 360 cter. Ps4 is still good, but be warned you will be really bad at every first person shooter unless you want sprained wrists, and mass concentration in fps, not flight games. Flight games are a cake walk for the ps4 cter. Like its DVI imput puts it ahead of the rest, its cter, does something unique with flight games, that I only had experienced with the dreamcast and xb s cter. But mind you, it is not universal, like the xbox 360 cter, or wat i call god of all controlllers.
IMHO As you can see, no console can actually go backwards in time and with effects ps2 was only doing 30 million polygons per second...it had an advantage over gc cus it was dvd and had ram. But with effects its 30million not 66million. Gamecube was 70-80 million by nintendo sources. The internet, and google search, and its research are wrong. It needs to be outsourced for lying. Gamecube was 80m pps. Dreamcast overall wins though, its gen gap from 100,000 and 300,000 pps is nearly 4 times greater then n64s 100k, ps1s 300k and saturns 150k. What bumpmapping does is a layer of polygons, that layer is an additional surface, and ps2's vetrix graphics never did that. Hence Dreamcast had severe pop-up problems. Ps2's graphics are dark because it uses vetrix, a vector based system that uses triangles instead of polygons. It basically maps triangles to become a polygon, and thats why, MHO, 4 triangles can not consitute as a polygon ie the ridiculous 66 or idk 300 million pps figure. Hence the japanese are very smart and ahead of the game. Except, triangles are polygons and a lot of them can make polygons appear smoother or deeper ie the deep color effect. Sony is like the alien console technology that is different from everyone else. Yet it does not like bumpmapping so its competitor such as gamecube at 8x dreamcast at 2x, xbox at 4x and any other console or pc will hurt them in this category. They are using flat narrow triangles and not normal thick ones. So they need to use more, but that results in flatter textures. Why are their textures so flat? Because the competitors are using perfect triangles not vector based graphics. A flat triangle will take more triangles to make a simple full triangle. Therefore ps4 will look more rich, but at a price of more polygons hence Sony can say 66 million when reality its close to 30million. Although PCs do look more clean, ps4 is clearly the winner, and it should be stated, PS4 master race. They did a smart move, and nearly doubled the vector system count to compete with xbox one. And yet our best PC cards can only compete with 800 million triangles and infact beat ps4 to some degree, but with a really good eye, the environment and characters will be smaller. Say ps2 does 66 million triangles we bring that down to 30 million. Yet Ps4 does 1.6 million. We can't bring it down because it has a faster processor and the triangles use that process fluidly. Ps2 can't or it will go under 30 fps and that would be cheating. The problem with saying that gc is 12 million pps, is that objects need 8x bump mapping, that means the figure of 12m is infact 80million. This is a result of most games such as the resident evil series, where the objects like cabinets are not flat textures as with the Ps2. The objects are fully 3d. Ps2 told everyone there system was over-powered, whilst Nintendo told everyone it was underpowered. Yet Sony used all the polygons for the environment in previous systems and still failed against nintendo's gamecube.
Conclusion 1: Yet in the end, ps4 won, sony knew exactly what they were doing by using triangles instead of polygons, resulting in sharper graphics so they just had to use a lot more triangles to perform this goal. The PS4 has sharper graphics then my dx11 radeon card that outputs graphics on hdmi. Both were tested on HDMI and Ps4 seems to be sharper whilst PC colors softer. As well most of the games are smaller, the environments are smaller (and not farther) in PC giving us a good estimate of PC graphics capability to only 800 million pps, rather than 1.6 billion. However PC is cleaner, and the effects at times can outweigh PS4 as well as the framrate. On HDMI and warframe I did not see any difference besides for the general size of the environment. Same with warthunder. On games such as Injustice and DCUO there are big differences, the characters are smaller as if it was a 7th gen port.
About: PCs are usually weaker than consoles because the processing power of the gpu, or a stand alone card has to equate to the same power as a console's motherboard. Hence consoles are made with easy acess to the gpu, which is infact working with the cpu or central processing unit. An APU can't do that because the cpu isnt made for graphics. Niether can a CPU, because its built for external applications, yet console CPUs are made only for graphics. So PCs can be faster technically, but not better in graphics. If you got the most powerful APU or GPU on the market against a standard PS4, it would have an advantage do to terraflops or transfer between cpu and gpu. Terraflops became present in the Dreamcast, and were called GFLOPS. This equates to much faster graphical data being transfered from GPU to CPU. If PCs used terraflops for unified ram between processers, business applications would have severe performance issues due to the system's o/s only built for gaming. The fastest APU on the market, does not have the ability to compete with a standard PS4 because the data transfer between terraflops is gained through accessing data from its CPU only for games. We also think it might be a developer issue. The devs on consoles are usually better, therefore games like driveclub wont be appearing on PC anytime soon. If the terraflops are different than a GPU then you will severly lose in performance. If the terraflops are the same so what? No one owns PC based APUs and devs only make games for graphics cards. Therefore a higher polygon count. If the polygon count used all the ram of a GPU and not CPU it would severly lack in polygonal performance. Unfortunetly this is the case for PC. Unfortunetly this is the case for PC, where the console has greater access to unified ram, and greater data transfer than a PC.
-Excuse me my useless virus scanner needs updating.
Conclusion 2: PS whats the first PC, a magnovox oddyssey...and whats the last console on the market? A ps4 with a 1.6b pps count due to its Radeon, RAm, O/s, dev and CPU working side-by-side to produce it. You can't stream ram correctly on a PC therefore the pps will be higher on pc unless its an APU with correct software, and my theory is ps4 has 8 gpus working in sync with its cpu because its an APU and the terraflops dont change via the mb. The gpu and cpu are better linked on consoles through the centralization of the industry and dev not utilizing APUs in PCs. Without the O/s, you can only do 800m pps instead of 1.6b. Thats wat the dev might want for its user base. PCs have registries and that takes up lots of resource. But yes, PCs could technically do 1.6 b pps if someone makes that game. The standard userbase though, and all the games are 800m pps. Besides Ps4 has 8core cpu and 18 core gpu which is not on the market yet for pcs. PCs only have 8-16 core cpu 4 core gpus. Ps4 also has 64 bit computations on its gpu whilst PCs only have 2 therefore enabling higher pps. Ps4 also has a higher dedicated 20gb pipeline that bypasses the memory, PCs have done this with the soyo board where all the data is loaded at once. And cache is a big problem on PCs. Finally, the Ps4 is simply built with a GPU ontop of a CPU whilst a standard PC APU would have its processors at different locations for cache control.
How to reinvent PCs: When the Soyo board was introduced into the market it loaded really slow but it was unique, it had bypassed cache to use wide pipelines effectively, although this was the dreamcast era and it was only using 1.5 gflops (giving an est it mightve been 2 or 3 idr), it loaded the o/s after like 3-5 minutes, and it never had loading times for its programs. I thought that was interesting, yet people hated this board becuase of the slow loading times. It had wide pipelines though, and these pipelines bypassed the cache. My theory is make PCs that bypass the cache to enable them to compete with consoles using 20gb/s pipelines.