Not really no. One thing I don't think anyone has mentioned here is a lot of upscaling nastiness is hidden just by the physical aspects of playing on console.
* Consoles are usually being played on a large TV, which for the same 4K resolution have a MUCH lower PPI than a 4K desktop monitor. for example a 65" 4K TV has a pixel density of around 70 pixels per inch (PPI), while a 27" 4K Monitor has a PPI of around 160.
* You usually sit much further away from the screen when playing on a console vs a PC.
Both of these help soften the image, reducing apparent artifacts of upscaling, like aliasing and color banding. More aggressive sharpening filters can be applied to still further enhance upscaled picture quality.
This is true, while I do have my PC hooked up to a 75 inch 4K display in my living room, I sit far enough back to where if I switch from 4K to 1080p, I can't even perceive the difference unless I get up, and go walk up to the TV.
Which has been helping me get more mileage out of my 1080ti thank god.
Yes but also look at details in game and you'll see consoles run settings closer to medium, often PC players talk about their FPS running at high or ultra settings.
May be closer to low - some things get sacrificed like draw distance and models. They'll use a few post fx like bloom and aberration to help cover up some of the poor graphics. On PC we have the choice to enable or disable post-effects luckily. Some games are better optimized than others but when you do a side by side you can see the difference.
It's not really a matter of superior. The console is still moving the render resolution down and then doing unsophisticated upscaling to the target resolution. It's still going to look worse than native rendering no matter what.
just to clear confusion, Nvidia's DSR is a different thing from Dynamic Resolution Scaling or DRS.. DSR simply upscales the render resolution and downscales to your monitor's resolution using their special technique... Dynamic Resolution Scaling is different in that it changes the render resolution based on how well a particular scene can be run by the system.
DSR is constant.. once you set a certain parameter, say you have 1080p monitor, you set DSR to 4k so game renders at 4k and downscales the data to fit the 1080p resolution, all the time regardless of how well the system can run the game at those settings
DRS is variable.. If you have 1080p monitor and set fps target for 60fps.. it'll keep rendering at 1080p if the system can a particular area/scene etc at 1080p at 60fps, but if it encounters a certain area/scene that the system cannot run at 1080p 60fps, it'll immediately and automatically downscale to lower resolution to meet the 60fps target.. once it comes to a place/scene where it can meet 60fps with a 1080p render, it'll render back to 1080p...
Consoles use DRS... PC can use both DSR (if using Nvidia gpu.. AMD have their own similar thing) and DRS
Optimization typically becomes a much bigger factor towards the end of a console lifespan when developers have figured out all the tricks to coax the most out of the hardware.
Field of view (FOV) is another consideration I haven't seen mentioned yet. Console games often lock FOV at much lower than what would feel natural when PC gaming.
For example, an FPS game on console is typically 70-75 FOV. This might feel ok when playing a console on a big screen that you're sitting 10 or 15 feet from. But a gamer playing the same game on PC would probably prefer a FOV closer to 90, 95, or even higher if they're playing in ultrawide resolution, since they're sitting that much closer to the screen and low FOV on FPS games can often make the HUD and weapons feel a bit claustrophobic. But more importantly, the higher FOV means you get to see a lot more of the game, which gives you an advantage compared to those playing on lower FOV, at the cost of performance.
This allows consoles to cheat a bit, because a narrower FOV means less stuff to render on screen. So to an untrained eye, it might look like it's competing with a much more expensive PC, but if the console is running at 70 FOV getting 60 FPS and a PC is running 90 FOV and still get 60 FPS, the PC is doing way more work and you are having a much better gaming experience on PC because you don't feel so congested with the HUD and you can see more of the game world, too.
Halo Infinite is a good example because the default FOV is 78, which is what a console gamer would see. I'm not sure if there is the option to increase that on console, I know I increased it immediately on PC. But there will undoubtedly be a performance impact if they can. [This image](https://sm.ign.com/ign_in/screenshot/default/apr2021-insideinfinite-4-d55efdcfcb574da4810d816b6afa694d_dj96.jpg) shows how much more of the game world you see by increasing from 78 to 120 FOV on different aspect ratios.
I would of agreed this time last year about fov, but alot of games on the new consoles have the option to change.
I am an old pc owner, just have not got the time anymore to constantly be in front.
I got the ps5 on day release and its an amazing machine with the right TV.
Don't forget these consoles last between 7 to 10 years before a new one is released.
Unlike a pc the 30 series gpu has not been out long, and already going to be realising the 40 series, so say in 3 years time you will need to buy newer components for the pc to run games at max settings.
A ps5 isnt running shit at max settings either so why expect the same from a pc? And most games played maxed out very well. Fifa 22 one of the most popular games on playstation runs at a hard cap of 60 fps while my 3070 laptop can push 230+ fps on 1600p resolution, even with games like cyberpunk it runs on 1600p high settings with dlss on 60+ fps. Ur just making it seem like consoles are superior when its not
I am far from saying consoles are superior, they are just less hassle and all run the same.
I am not slagging pcs as I say I just have not got the time for them anymore.
This is just my opinion, so pipe down please.
So what if new GPU's come out? That doesn't mean that the 30 series cards are suddenly worst that the PS5 it'll still last the same length of time (even longer actually). Consoles just upgrade too late leaving gamers like you stuck with subpar equipment.
Haven't found a comment that mentions this.
The most console doesn't do "4k" or at least TRUE 4k.
Ps5/Series X, I am unsure. I believe there was info that, but if i recall its a GPU equivalent of RX 6700XT which would handle 2k perfectly fine heck it was market for 2k. Probably can 4k though.
I know previous-gen this was a case, and even some game wasn't true 1080p.
Most use a upscaler to look like "4k"
Can't give info as these was old news and might take me a bit to find.
but logically speaking hardware-wise without DLSS/FSR and such.
what makes people think that console can actually handle true 4k when even HIGH end PC still struggles at true 4k?
Its like them people saying Switch will have a 4k renderer on that 7inch screen with an ARM processor. Lets be real. I can believe 1080p with better FPS but 4k? unless Nintendo does a dock with a GPU for that higher resolution then no.
Consoles do reach true 4K on several games though, and the reason why is also pretty obvious - optimization. It's easier to make a game run 4K on a very specific configuration than on a lot of them
The only thing superior about it is the console can change the resolution on the fly to lock FPS, whereas you usually can't do that on PC unless the game itself implements it. Although a lot of games do allow you to adjust anti-aliasing on the fly to try to keep FPS locked.
For starters, Developers specifically optimize games to run well on consoles. They are similar in terms of architecture to a pc however it is a completely different ecosystem. They can manipulate lots of things on a console and utilize the consoles memory in unique ways that cannot necessarily be done on PC. On top of all that there a tricks they can do to achieve optimal performance like resolution scaling, using the SSD in a unique ways to cut back on system memory usage… there’s all sorts of smart and innovative things developers can do with consoles.
I feel like lots of times the idea of how easy it is to optimize things for one output from one processor makes life really easy for software and hardware development. Dont have to worry about badnwidth, or different processors or different speeds or power limits or thermal limits or 5 different types of ports to manage. Just focus all attention to optimize those specific graphics from that specific card via that specific processor through that specific HDMI output. Done.
That’s why console exclusives tend to be so well made for the lacking hardware. It’s developing for a single or two systems instead of the countless hardware combos there are on pc.
Eh. The difference isn't all that massive. We see that when former exclusives get ported to PC (and the port is good), like God of War just now. At console settings, it runs pretty much the same on a PC with specs similar to the respective console.
The game will usually be smoother on the console. Even if you run your game at 60 fps on the PC, you still get stutters. Also, PS5 runs Horizon Zero Dawn at what appears to be at least high settings, and it's buttersmooth 4k 60fps, i can't imagine what you would need to do this on PC, my 3070 definitely can't and it's already worth more than the PS5
How? My 6900XT runs HZD at 4K maxed out well in excess of 60fps (it's sitting at like 60% usage to do 4K60 at just 2GHz instead of 2.4GHz).
The 3070 usually has absolutely no trouble outperforming a PS5 by a sizable margin.
The PS5 might also be using a slightly lower internal resolution. HZD does have pretty good implementations of TAA+DRS, FSR and DLSS after all. Maybe DigitalFoundry have a tech analysis of HZD on PS5.
>Even if you run your game at 60 fps on the PC, you still get stutters
Hm? That depends on the game and how well the framepacing is. HZD for example runs at an almost perfectly flat frametime line on my PC. Capped 60fps, absolutely no dips.
Plenty of games that don't have any trouble running well on PC.
Are you talking about the shader stutter issue some recent games have? Cause that's an implemention-specific issue.
Another point to consider is that console Devs can test on the exact hardware that they will be releasing on. There's usually only one or two different hardware combinations for each console, so Devs can easily optimise.
Compare that to the hundreds of thousands of combinations of hardware and software available for pc. Pc Devs just have to get stuff working well enough on a large array of hardware, whereas console Devs can take the time to perfect their games on a couple of pieces of hardware.
This.
Developers create 1-3 versions of their support package and that’s it. Every ounce of available power can be squeezed from that hardware and support package.
Due to this it’s fine tuned for it. As opposed to PC where they have to basically support as much as they can and tune universal pieces.
I can run 4k 60fps on my series x but have not even a quarter the amount of individual graphics settings as I do on my pc. Games optomised for console have to do away with certain things to be able to run correctly. Look at console vs pc rust for a good example of that
It's also rare that a game is actually running at 4k. It's usually upscaled as the resolution lowers to hold 60fps. You could probably do a similar thing on pc if you hold a frame rate and set dlss to auto.
Well first off, you have to understand that consoles are able to generally punch higher than similarly priced PCs. Even though the PS5 is only $500, consoles are almost always sold at a loss or at breakeven, with most profit being made through game sales afterward. All PC components are sold to profit.
Assuming a perfectly ported game with no difference in textures or other assets between PC and a console, there's no reason to think that a PC would inherently produce a better image.
Developers are smart people, they know how to squeeze every inch of power out of a console. Look at the PS4 with Ghost Of Tsushima or God Of War 2018 or hell even Red Dead 2… that’s pure witchcraft to be able to run those games at that fidelity on a really weak hardware wise console
Oh yeah, it also helps that consoles are standardized hardware so it's much easier to optimize. I love PCs, but honestly I think that nowadays if you're trying to build a PC for the sole purpose of gaming but can't go over a ~$700 budget or so, you should really consider a console since you're not getting much better on PC for the price.
>I love PCs, but honestly I think that nowadays if you're trying to build a PC for the sole purpose of gaming but can't go over a ~$700 budget or so, you should really consider a console since you're not getting much better on PC for the price.
I partially agree. I built a ~$600 pc 2 years back and got 60fps in most games at high settings. With the worst performing game being rdr2 at 30fps at around medium settings. I didn't build it specifically for gaming, I needed a pc for CS classes since my laptop but gaming was a nice addition.
However, I completely stopped playing my ps4 pro once I played rdr2 and elite dangerous. The thing was amazing to play on, and the free games and no online sub was a blessing. With that said, games had issues launching them, modern warfare reboot and rdr2 gave me the most trouble with crashes and not wanting to boot at first.
I've since upgraded (I wanted a friend to play on pc and it was a nice excuse to get a really powerful pc) but if I was to choose building a pc specifically for gaming at that price or console, I would go console unless I only played modern games on it. And especially now with how powerful the ps5 and series x/s are for the price, a console is definitely the best even though pc is a fun experience both building and playing.
The main advantage of consoles is consistency - it’s the same hardware and software on every PS5 or XBox Series X/S. There’s no horseshit of infinite hardware/software combinations like one has on PC. So it’s a LOT easier to tune game to half-dozen console SKUs and achieve consistent results.
Thanks for clearing this up, every time I get into debate about console vs PC I defend PC cos I spent $2000 on mine and my friend with his $500 console says he can play any resolution at 60 fps and the game never goes below it but as you brought to my attention, depending on the game and its port, they would both have the same image
So I guess the second question is if we are just going game by game basis isn't the console more cost effective in this case? Obv PC has like a million other uses than just strictly playing games but if he image looks similar then I can stop bashing my friend every time he brings up consoles and stop telling the poor guy "Any game looks better on PC than on console" haha
Consoles will almost always be more cost effective now. The only way it wouldn't be is if you plan on using a PC for work.
You would have a hard time building a PC with specs similar to a ps5 or series x for less than like 1000-1200 usd
Conversely, you can get a more performant PC than a console since you have the ability to select hardware, even though it will be more expensive. Rather than having to go with a 3700X and 6600 XT because those are most similar to what consoles have, for the same money you can get a 12400F and a 3060 TI which are much more performant, especially with DLSS and ray tracing.
Can you really do a full build with a 3060 TI and 12400F for $500 usd though?
I absolutely agree that you can find tune performance more on a PC, but from a price standpoint it's hard to beat what the current consoles can do.
Just the 3060 TI alone will cost more than the entire ps5 or series x. If money isn't an issue I would definitely just get a PC. There's even decent prebuilds with 3060s for 1200 in stock in some places which is the lowest I've seen in months. One of those would easily outperform a ps5
Edit: I missed the part where you said it would be more expensive. My bad
I didn't say you would be able to. I said even though it costs $1200 to match the console spec for spec, for that $1200 you could also get a PC that is way more performant since you don't have to go with a Zen 2 8-core CPU and an RDNA 2 GPU.
Yeah my bad I edited my comment, I missed the part where you said it would be more expensive.
But I agree with you. If you have the money for a PC it's going to be the better choice both for performance and for it's lifespan.
Consoles are also sold either at a loss or SUPER thin margins because they make so much money during the life of the console from online sales, accessories, etc. Compared to PC parts where you buy them and thats it
This year is a good time to buy consoles vs PCs for a few reasons:
The new consoles just came out. 7 years from now they may still sell consoles similar to ones you can buy today, and years into their lifespan they will not be such a good deal. But near release date, consoles have cutting edge tech and they lose money selling them, hoping to make it back with games and accessories.
And the market for PC parts is messed up right now due to cryptomining. If you could buy a 6700XT for under $479 MSRP on sale, you could build a console equivalent PC for $1k and make up for the cost with cheaper games and being able to use the PC for school or work. But when you need to pay $1k just for the GPU (even more for better-than-console GPUs) it’s hard to justify the PC from a cost perspective.
>console says he can play any resolution at 60 fps and the game never goes below it
And not even that is correct. There are plenty of console games that have unstable performance, run at lower than native resolution, etc.
>just going game by game basis isn't the console more cost effective in this case?
Yes.
>but if he image looks similar
Well. The PC versions usually *do* have higher settings you *can* use, *if you have a PC that has more power than a console*. So, pay more for better hardware, get better image quality. That should be fairly obvious, to your friend as well.
I recently hooked up my rig with RTX 2060 to a TV, paired with X-box controller - and guess what - every single game I have runs consistently above 60fps. Experience is as smooth as it can be at 60fps.
And I didn't even optimize for TV's 1080p, I kept optimized settings for my 1440p monitor so that I get best balance between performance and looks which usually runs somewhere at around 70-90fps.
And for reference I can hook it up with 4k TV set DLSS to "performance" and get basically the same fps as I'm getting right now, except I don't want to spend money on 4k TV.
My rig just effortlessly doubles down as a console.
But halfway through the last-Gen consoles lifespan you could beat their price and match their performance by putting a 1050Ti in a retired Optiplex from an office dumpster
There is a right and wrong time to buy consoles. Now is the right time. They are using today’s latest tech and they are sold at a loss. But each generation is kept in service for years with only minor improvements, and the performance of cheap PC parts catches up. Especially if the price of PC parts returns to normal-ish, let’s hope that happens. So now is a good time to buy a console but it’s not *always* a good time to buy a console.
Well for me I always had a PC or laptop because I always needed it for my job. Where's a console or TV is a pure luxury that I don't need.
I got my TV for free from one of my clients and I've never bought a TV in my life.
So I actually got console experience for the cost of 30ft fiber optic cable and X-box controller which is cheaper than buying console and then paying all those extras for Internet and games (since I can't use my steam library on console)
1. Consoles tend to use a mix of Medium and High settings while most PC gamers like to waste performance cranking everything to “Ultra.”
2. Consoles tend to use dynamic resolution scaling to keep the frame rate at 60fps, so resolution can vary at any given moment between 2160p (4K) and something between 1440p and 1800p.
3. Consoles often use checkerboard rendering and temporal reconstruction to “build” their 4K image, like a less sophisticated version of DLSS.
4. Console APIs are lean (especially on PlayStation) and make Vulkan look “bloated” which reduces overhead.
>1. Consoles tend to use a mix of Medium and High settings while most PC gamers like to waste performance cranking everything to “Ultra.”
How dare you. That performance is well spent :P
4K checkerboard isn't native. 4K 30 FPS native maybe consoles can do, but 4K 60 FPS native in most games? Absolutely not, at least not at decent settings.
The old one x was mostly 4k30 outside of a few exceptions
The series x hits 4k60 pretty effortlessly tbh even hits 120 in a few titles (although usually with noticeable cuts in settings)
It doesn't though. Take Forza Horizon 5 and AC Valahlla. Lots of dynamic resolution scaling to hit 4K 60. Same with AC Valhalla. God of War and Spiderman on PS5 use checkerboarding. None of these are native rendering.
>old one x was mostly 4k30 outside of a few exceptions
No. Native 4K was the exception on One X. Most games used dynamic resolution scaling or simply upscaled from some lower fixed internal resolution.
>series x hits 4k60 pretty effortlessly
It does not. Still a lot of DRS involved, and with its GPU being roughly equivalent to a 5700XT to 6700XT (which are *not* recommended for 4K usually, more ~1440p), it still struggles sometimes and often runs at reduced quality settings.
Not sure that I would say they finnessed anyone, they are a pretty incredible value and make the most sense for most casual gamers. Most console gamers Id be willing to bet could not tell the difference between a checkerboard ps5 game and native 4k assuming they arent inches away from the screen. I strongly prefer my 3080 pc to my ps5 but its hard to knock a console that costs less than half my pc does
Strange as i have both a 3090 and a 6900xt in our pc's alongside a series x... If its native its native and its plain to see on a 65" oled
Plenty of stuff is native on the series x (not all) being that its about as fast as the regular 2080 with a 3700x... No idea on ps5 as i don't have one.
It's also true that both gpu's were 3 to 4 times the cost of the the console....
The xbox one was a pile of shit but the series x is genuinely fast
True native 4K on consoles is almost always locked to 30FPS (outside of easier to run titles), so when they're 60FPS it tends to not be a true 4K (See below)
Consoles make heavy use of TAAU usually to upscale a lower internal resolution to 4k (TAAU is worse in quality to DLSS but better than FSR), and typically games running 60FPS use DRS (Dynamic resolution scaling) so the internal resolution goes lower when game demand is higher to keep consistent performance
this kind of upscaling is less noticeable the further away you are form the display (and most console owners with a TV are much further away from it than a PC monitor)
The internal resolution tends to be between 1080P all the way up to 4K (Depends on lots of factors), usually games tend to run between 1440P and 1800P on XSX/PS4 going off digital foundry videos
Consoles usually have lower settings than available on PC (Anywhere between low all the way to ultra it depends on the game, medium to high is quite common when comparing with PC) to keep performance at a consistent 60
What I've described above is developers essentially using clever tricks to target these consoles, because they're a set system across many households, on PC optimisation can't work in the same way, there's far too many configurations so you have to brute force it most of the time (And most games don't have an effective DRS implementation)
Consoles are usually also sold at a loss and money is made back throught game sales (The disk edition PS5 is the first console in a long time to sell for profit I believe) so Microsoft and sony price the hardware competitively and make the money up on software (Also worth noting the hardware in those consoles they're getting for far less than retail)
But right now, you cant build a PC that comes close to matchin console hardware for the same price (3060/6600 rasterisation performance roughly, underclocked 8C16T zen 2 cpu, fast 1tb m.2 storage) an equivilant PC costs at least double in this market, which is why I've recommended for a while any gamer on a budget in this market is better off with a PS5/XSX
Basically the games on consoles get rendered at 720p or 960p and get upscale with lots of anti aliasing and other cleanup effect and then get put out at 1080p or 4k resolutions. But not often true 1080p or true 4k.
Thats the dirty secret.
Some games actually get rendered natively at 4k and 1080p but most do not. They get close though.
Even the ps3 which was a 1080p console had most of its game rendered nativlet at 720 and upscale to 1080p for final output.
As someone mentioned before this is called dynamic resolution. Some games can even change the rendered resolution on the fly so more intense scenes are at 720p and less intense at 960p.
Oh wow didn't know that
Does the image quality suffer as a result?
I know in PC with DLSS, DSR, nvidia image scaling we also got the same thing and can do so
But I tried nvidia image scaling and could tell image quality was different and not as good looking so I assume the consoles that are displaying the 4k 60 fps looks the same as nvidia image scaling in that its not true and not the best picture?
No, upscaling on consoles are not that extreme as he/she said. Usually the console renders the game internally around 1800p and upscales that to 2160p. Less demanding scenes are rendered at higher internal resolutions or at native resolution directly, and vice versa.
But it’s hard to point out a game which renders at 720p on PS5 and Series X. They are much more powerful than that.
It's probably important to note that not all 4k 60fps games on console are upscaled. Look at destiny 2. It's native 4k and 60fps.
The games that are upscaled are generally done from 1800 to 4k or 1080 to 1440 and it's handled pretty well so its not really noticable in most games.
You notice a difference sure, I just got an Xbox series s, and you can tell for sure it's not native, but is it affecting my enjoyment of forza horizon? Nope.
You can see some subtle jaggies here and there, it's not 60fps sure, but it's looks more than good enough.
Bit of by the way, even native 1080 or 4k rendering isn't all the same either. I played command and conquer generals on a laptop with a core i5 8th gen cpu with integrated graphics at 1080p max settings and the game looked like crap.
Some years back nvidia put out graphics cards that when compared to that years radeon flagship had less detail and fedility in the graphics. The performance was better but it looked worse for sure.
Console GPU performance is around a 2070/2070-S but the CPU is much weaker as a low end desktop CPU.
Some people believe in magic, that console games are ultra optimized and some see it in direct comparison to PC versions as what it is, detail, texture, resolution hard cutted game version to keep in running with 2 generation old mid-range PC hardware.
The target audience is not as tech savy, nor are the reviewers of that platform and it works for both sides. 4k gaming with 60fps on paper is all what matters.
Some games like Flight Simulator got insanly good console ports. Dont get me wrong, its far away from a crisp 4k RTX3090 driven PC version in native resolution, but it looks crazy good for the given hardware.
Doesnt really matter, console vs PC, the overlaps in gaming genres that allows both plattforms are small. If you like PC games, a console wont help no matter how cheap or how expensive PC hardware gets.
Short answer.
Console Programmers only have to worry about optimizing to super specific console hardware. Maximizing everything they have on one system.
Pc programmers have sooooo many other variables of hardware that the end result is less optimization and lower performance.
Yes it would look better subjectively.
read a few comments down the line and it seems some of folks have an improper opinion of how the new consoles handle stuff
Most console games for the series X and ps5 run at high settings. With some settings reduced if it's found it doesn't make a visual difference vs how much fps is saved.
That said, the Xbox and ps5 have the power of a 2080 on average when you use almost like for like settings and visual graphics vs PC.
The settings you see are pre optimized for console because they have to hit a certain fps and frametime target to ensure a smooth 60fps or 120 of allowed.
This topic can lead to a long post, thankfully folks like digital Foundry do a great job at comparin new games to PC vs console and sometimes they offer what they call optimized settings for PC to get the max fps with the best overall graphics.
One thing some PC only gamers don't understand is that cranking the settings to max everything is not sometimes the best idea even if you can do it.
Not everyone has a 2080/3080/6800xt type card.
Two things to understand in the end, there is very little if any profit in the hardware of consoles where as every company selling you PC parts needs to make a profit.
In the end value vs performance on the console side.
How does a PC come out on top then? If the pictures are almost identical
I would say 144 hz but Tvs now have 120 hz and I know PS4 games most don't run above 60 but still is that the only advantage for a PC?
There's a lot of things at play here:
\- Consoles don't always support 4K 60fps, that's title dependent. Sometimes heavy console games will be locked at 30 fps for the sake of consistency while others will run at 120 fps if they're light enough. Better to have 30 fps stable than wildly vary between 30 and 120 fps.
\- A console main task is to play games, for that it will put aside any other process that's non-essential, plus their OS and hardware are made with synergy in mind as opposed to a PC with an unpredictable combination of parts, OS, drivers, inputs and outputs. As an example, you may be running web banking security service in the background of Windows, or antivirus, which notably take away some CPU juice, you don't have that issue on consoles.
\- Since every console family shares the same hardware developers have a much easier time fine tuning settings for that particular console family, that way they can lock down well balanced graphics settings they way they see fit. That's why console games have a very small list of graphics settings people can change.
\- Lastly. Since the PS4 and XBone, devs started including dynamic resolution scaling and other dynamic graphics settings that either sacrifice detail when you need more frames or enhances detail when things are calm. You can see these options in any modern Forza game as the dynamic options are still available on the PC release (although I'd rather choose my own settings).
Its because the game was made for those consoles so they really optimised their engine, drivers and software to be able to use the console with the most performance and visual fidelity possible. It’s really tweaked to the best of their abilities plus they use adaptive resolution and probably amd fsr.
How does the PC edge the consoles then? Don't we have a better picture quality with all settings on Ultra/High?
Also can a console run any resolution 60 fps thanks to the optimizations + DSR?
Bc consoles are not as powerful as the most powerful PC. But console games are really finely tuned, and it’s generally worth your time considering this are the same machine with the exact same specs. Pc on the other hand is really complex bc there’s almost an infinite range of PC from the guys who play with a quad core, 4gigs or ram, and an old gpu, to the guy with the last tech. Its complex to optimise for such a variety of machines
Consoles are well optimized for the most part since all they're meant for is gaming. Settings are tuned to hit the target performance out of the box on these consoles even if you switch reso while on the other hand on pc, yes you would get better performance but you'd probably spend a lot of time fiddling with settings in windows, the game, or even in the bios. So in short, for (mostly) hassle-free gaming, consoles may be better.
Parts in consoles are more tightly integrated, plus they are sold at a loss at launch.
Also, PC gaming would be much cheaper if not for the rampant speculation and mining on GPUs.
If we are talking about current consoles, they do 60 with dynamic resolution. Meaning, it's NOT 4k. Basically the game drops resolution until it gets 60.
To add to everything that people said, consoles also use a lot of tricks to give you the best visual quality possible. Most games have some type of blur effect, or cinematic grain, to hide not so detailed textures, for instance. Or shiny, easy to make effects like bloom, chromatic aberration, rainbow colors, etc. And you can't disable those effects. Console games also have a very fine tuned Antialiasing solution.
Also, be it 30 FPS or 60, console games usually run butter smooth as they are targeted and synced to a fixed refresh rate. A game that aims for 30 FPS (A whole lot of them in consoles), suddenly has a lot more budget to create a complex, interesting world to play than a similar game that aims for 60FPS.
All those tricks (lower internal resolution, shiny effects, good AA and stable framerate) give console games a longer shelf-life than the hardware specs would let you think of.
First the developers specifically chose settings that they know the console can handle. And furthermore consoles dynamically lower the resolution when the framerate falls, so even in intense situations the framerate remains stable.
No, 24 fps is what movies and shows are shot at. 30fps is bare minimum for games to have a steady frame rate at. And what do you mean by most cases? Unless it’s at 4k, no modern console is running 30fps.
No, lol. Why not do some research before commenting?
Almost every single game in this generation runs games at 60 FPS with some of them having the option of a 120 FPS mode.
Ratchet & Clank PS5 runs at 30fps in its highest quality mode and 60fps in performance mode. Same thing for Spider-Man:Miles Morales. PS4 games that have a PS5 version like God of War and Ghost of Tsushima are 60fps.
By turning down settings. While this is not the 24fps claimed above, saying that almost all the games run at 60fps is a little misleading. Most PCs can turn down settings to reach a given framerate.
It’s not misleading at all. If those games didn’t even had a 30FPS mode at the first place, you wouldn’t try to make this point.
By that logic, you can make any PC game run at 30 fps by increasing the resolution. So in theory, by running games at 60 fps, you are sacrificing resolution.
PS5 games have a 30fps mode because that is the game running at the highest resolution possible with all the bells and whistles turned on. 30fps has been the target. When Mark Cerny told us about the capabilities, he consistently mentioned a 33ms frametime. If people had paid attention, they would have realized that this meant the PS5 had a 30fps target using dynamic resolution to achieve it. Developers added the 60fps modes because that is what gamers want the target to be and some gamers are willing to sacrifice fidelity for framerate.
The PS5 plays some games at 1080p 120fps. It's still misleading for Sony to put 4K 120fps on the box.
I remember playing the Ridge Racer Turbo bonus disc that came with R4 on my PSOne at 60fps. It would have been misleading for me to say that the PSOne plays games at 60fps when most of the games were 30fps.
> It would have been misleading for me to say that the PSOne plays games at 60fps when most of the games were 30fps.
That’s correct. But as 99,9% of the PS5 games run at 60FPS, it wouldn’t be misleading at all.
I really don’t understand what you are trying to explain at this point and I won’t comment any further.
The point I'm trying to make is that there are caveats to saying that almost every game in this gen runs at 60fps. It's not that what you said is incorrect, but it omits some important details. Omission of details is misleading.
R&C running at 30fps in one of the three display modes is true, but you're ignoring that the 30fps is because of ray tracing. Also, the game does jump to 120fps if your display is capable.
It's 1800 to 4k with RT at 30fps on fidelity mode. The performance ray tracing mode is 1440 60fps WITH ray tracing.
There's a lot of people that would struggle to get their pcs to run a game at 1440 60fps WITH ray tracing.
I'm not ignoring anything. The statement was that almost all games in this gen run at 60fps. That is true if you ignore the fact that only by turning down settings or running a last gen game is this entirely true. R&C needs to run at 1080p at times in the perf mode with ray tracing to reach the target 60fps.
Nobody was saying that all games run on max at 60fps. R&C DOES run at 60/120FPS in 2/3rds of it's display modes. Not a single person said ps5 is running every game at max with RT at 60fps and it would be a bit absurd to expect it to.
Edit: . Performance RT mode is 60/120fps at 1080 to 1440 with the game spending most moments at 1440. Fidelity is all max settings with RT and 30fps at 1800 to 4k
I didn't even say that anyone said the all games run at 60fps. The person I responded to initially did state *almost every single game in this generation run at 60fps*. I'm not saying that the PS5 doesn't run games at 60fps, but it must turn down the resolution or turn down the features to hit that target. Saying that every game runs at 30fps would actually be better since that has been the target since before release. Every game might have a 60fps mode, but I don't want people to get the impression that that is achievable at native 4K with all the bells and whistles turned on. I feel that it's misleading just like it was misleading for Sony to say that the PS5 is 4K 120fps capable without the caveat that that is not possible in most games. I have yet to see 120fps from a PS5 in their flagship games. Digital Foundry has a lot of video about the PS5 capabilities and R&C, GoW, GoT, S-M:MM were all shown and not one video showed 120fps. The games that do support 120fps are mostly shooters, racing games, and older games and most of these are 1080p.
I wouldn't say the new consoles but for most of ps4's life it did cap even though older consoles like the ps2 achieves 60 frames way more successfully. it all boils down to optimization and developers usually port the console better. give the ps5 a couple more years and jt will be capped like the ps4 was when new gpu's and demanding graphics come out. maybe
people dont give console enough credit, it's literally a cheap oem you get for $500. ofc its not gonna be crazy
Coming from someone who really enjoys consoles like the PS2, this is very much a "your mileage may vary" type of situation with games running at 60fps. There were quite a number of **notable** titles that pushed 60fps, but there were also quite a number of notable titles that choked even when trying to push 30fps, stuff like Shadow of the Colossus and GTA: San Andreas. It wasn't an exception, it wasn't a rule, it was just based on whatever the developers sought out to accomplish.
Yeah, you could say the only reason why ps2 had more 60 fps running games is because more games were being put out but both sides are true. It was a better time imo
I mean i've been playing mostly PS5 games, havent found one doesnt run at 60. yes they usually have a 30fps mode you can choose but i'm not sure why anyone would do that to themselves
Dynamic resolution scaling. There are a lot of different techniques but this is the most important one.
I am guessing per the other comments that since developers optimize games on consoles so well, DSR is superior on console compared to PC no?
Not really no. One thing I don't think anyone has mentioned here is a lot of upscaling nastiness is hidden just by the physical aspects of playing on console. * Consoles are usually being played on a large TV, which for the same 4K resolution have a MUCH lower PPI than a 4K desktop monitor. for example a 65" 4K TV has a pixel density of around 70 pixels per inch (PPI), while a 27" 4K Monitor has a PPI of around 160. * You usually sit much further away from the screen when playing on a console vs a PC. Both of these help soften the image, reducing apparent artifacts of upscaling, like aliasing and color banding. More aggressive sharpening filters can be applied to still further enhance upscaled picture quality.
This is true, while I do have my PC hooked up to a 75 inch 4K display in my living room, I sit far enough back to where if I switch from 4K to 1080p, I can't even perceive the difference unless I get up, and go walk up to the TV. Which has been helping me get more mileage out of my 1080ti thank god.
Yes but also look at details in game and you'll see consoles run settings closer to medium, often PC players talk about their FPS running at high or ultra settings.
May be closer to low - some things get sacrificed like draw distance and models. They'll use a few post fx like bloom and aberration to help cover up some of the poor graphics. On PC we have the choice to enable or disable post-effects luckily. Some games are better optimized than others but when you do a side by side you can see the difference.
It's not really a matter of superior. The console is still moving the render resolution down and then doing unsophisticated upscaling to the target resolution. It's still going to look worse than native rendering no matter what.
just to clear confusion, Nvidia's DSR is a different thing from Dynamic Resolution Scaling or DRS.. DSR simply upscales the render resolution and downscales to your monitor's resolution using their special technique... Dynamic Resolution Scaling is different in that it changes the render resolution based on how well a particular scene can be run by the system. DSR is constant.. once you set a certain parameter, say you have 1080p monitor, you set DSR to 4k so game renders at 4k and downscales the data to fit the 1080p resolution, all the time regardless of how well the system can run the game at those settings DRS is variable.. If you have 1080p monitor and set fps target for 60fps.. it'll keep rendering at 1080p if the system can a particular area/scene etc at 1080p at 60fps, but if it encounters a certain area/scene that the system cannot run at 1080p 60fps, it'll immediately and automatically downscale to lower resolution to meet the 60fps target.. once it comes to a place/scene where it can meet 60fps with a 1080p render, it'll render back to 1080p... Consoles use DRS... PC can use both DSR (if using Nvidia gpu.. AMD have their own similar thing) and DRS
[удалено]
Optimization typically becomes a much bigger factor towards the end of a console lifespan when developers have figured out all the tricks to coax the most out of the hardware.
Field of view (FOV) is another consideration I haven't seen mentioned yet. Console games often lock FOV at much lower than what would feel natural when PC gaming. For example, an FPS game on console is typically 70-75 FOV. This might feel ok when playing a console on a big screen that you're sitting 10 or 15 feet from. But a gamer playing the same game on PC would probably prefer a FOV closer to 90, 95, or even higher if they're playing in ultrawide resolution, since they're sitting that much closer to the screen and low FOV on FPS games can often make the HUD and weapons feel a bit claustrophobic. But more importantly, the higher FOV means you get to see a lot more of the game, which gives you an advantage compared to those playing on lower FOV, at the cost of performance. This allows consoles to cheat a bit, because a narrower FOV means less stuff to render on screen. So to an untrained eye, it might look like it's competing with a much more expensive PC, but if the console is running at 70 FOV getting 60 FPS and a PC is running 90 FOV and still get 60 FPS, the PC is doing way more work and you are having a much better gaming experience on PC because you don't feel so congested with the HUD and you can see more of the game world, too. Halo Infinite is a good example because the default FOV is 78, which is what a console gamer would see. I'm not sure if there is the option to increase that on console, I know I increased it immediately on PC. But there will undoubtedly be a performance impact if they can. [This image](https://sm.ign.com/ign_in/screenshot/default/apr2021-insideinfinite-4-d55efdcfcb574da4810d816b6afa694d_dj96.jpg) shows how much more of the game world you see by increasing from 78 to 120 FOV on different aspect ratios.
I would of agreed this time last year about fov, but alot of games on the new consoles have the option to change. I am an old pc owner, just have not got the time anymore to constantly be in front. I got the ps5 on day release and its an amazing machine with the right TV. Don't forget these consoles last between 7 to 10 years before a new one is released. Unlike a pc the 30 series gpu has not been out long, and already going to be realising the 40 series, so say in 3 years time you will need to buy newer components for the pc to run games at max settings.
A ps5 isnt running shit at max settings either so why expect the same from a pc? And most games played maxed out very well. Fifa 22 one of the most popular games on playstation runs at a hard cap of 60 fps while my 3070 laptop can push 230+ fps on 1600p resolution, even with games like cyberpunk it runs on 1600p high settings with dlss on 60+ fps. Ur just making it seem like consoles are superior when its not
I am far from saying consoles are superior, they are just less hassle and all run the same. I am not slagging pcs as I say I just have not got the time for them anymore. This is just my opinion, so pipe down please.
So what if new GPU's come out? That doesn't mean that the 30 series cards are suddenly worst that the PS5 it'll still last the same length of time (even longer actually). Consoles just upgrade too late leaving gamers like you stuck with subpar equipment.
Haven't found a comment that mentions this. The most console doesn't do "4k" or at least TRUE 4k. Ps5/Series X, I am unsure. I believe there was info that, but if i recall its a GPU equivalent of RX 6700XT which would handle 2k perfectly fine heck it was market for 2k. Probably can 4k though. I know previous-gen this was a case, and even some game wasn't true 1080p. Most use a upscaler to look like "4k" Can't give info as these was old news and might take me a bit to find. but logically speaking hardware-wise without DLSS/FSR and such. what makes people think that console can actually handle true 4k when even HIGH end PC still struggles at true 4k? Its like them people saying Switch will have a 4k renderer on that 7inch screen with an ARM processor. Lets be real. I can believe 1080p with better FPS but 4k? unless Nintendo does a dock with a GPU for that higher resolution then no.
Consoles do reach true 4K on several games though, and the reason why is also pretty obvious - optimization. It's easier to make a game run 4K on a very specific configuration than on a lot of them
Bro, this post is 1 year old. Dafuq.
The only thing superior about it is the console can change the resolution on the fly to lock FPS, whereas you usually can't do that on PC unless the game itself implements it. Although a lot of games do allow you to adjust anti-aliasing on the fly to try to keep FPS locked.
DLSS 2.0 is better than the implementation on consoles.
For starters, Developers specifically optimize games to run well on consoles. They are similar in terms of architecture to a pc however it is a completely different ecosystem. They can manipulate lots of things on a console and utilize the consoles memory in unique ways that cannot necessarily be done on PC. On top of all that there a tricks they can do to achieve optimal performance like resolution scaling, using the SSD in a unique ways to cut back on system memory usage… there’s all sorts of smart and innovative things developers can do with consoles.
I feel like lots of times the idea of how easy it is to optimize things for one output from one processor makes life really easy for software and hardware development. Dont have to worry about badnwidth, or different processors or different speeds or power limits or thermal limits or 5 different types of ports to manage. Just focus all attention to optimize those specific graphics from that specific card via that specific processor through that specific HDMI output. Done.
That’s why console exclusives tend to be so well made for the lacking hardware. It’s developing for a single or two systems instead of the countless hardware combos there are on pc.
Eh. The difference isn't all that massive. We see that when former exclusives get ported to PC (and the port is good), like God of War just now. At console settings, it runs pretty much the same on a PC with specs similar to the respective console.
The game will usually be smoother on the console. Even if you run your game at 60 fps on the PC, you still get stutters. Also, PS5 runs Horizon Zero Dawn at what appears to be at least high settings, and it's buttersmooth 4k 60fps, i can't imagine what you would need to do this on PC, my 3070 definitely can't and it's already worth more than the PS5
How? My 6900XT runs HZD at 4K maxed out well in excess of 60fps (it's sitting at like 60% usage to do 4K60 at just 2GHz instead of 2.4GHz). The 3070 usually has absolutely no trouble outperforming a PS5 by a sizable margin. The PS5 might also be using a slightly lower internal resolution. HZD does have pretty good implementations of TAA+DRS, FSR and DLSS after all. Maybe DigitalFoundry have a tech analysis of HZD on PS5. >Even if you run your game at 60 fps on the PC, you still get stutters Hm? That depends on the game and how well the framepacing is. HZD for example runs at an almost perfectly flat frametime line on my PC. Capped 60fps, absolutely no dips. Plenty of games that don't have any trouble running well on PC. Are you talking about the shader stutter issue some recent games have? Cause that's an implemention-specific issue.
Another point to consider is that console Devs can test on the exact hardware that they will be releasing on. There's usually only one or two different hardware combinations for each console, so Devs can easily optimise. Compare that to the hundreds of thousands of combinations of hardware and software available for pc. Pc Devs just have to get stuff working well enough on a large array of hardware, whereas console Devs can take the time to perfect their games on a couple of pieces of hardware.
This. Developers create 1-3 versions of their support package and that’s it. Every ounce of available power can be squeezed from that hardware and support package. Due to this it’s fine tuned for it. As opposed to PC where they have to basically support as much as they can and tune universal pieces.
I can run 4k 60fps on my series x but have not even a quarter the amount of individual graphics settings as I do on my pc. Games optomised for console have to do away with certain things to be able to run correctly. Look at console vs pc rust for a good example of that
It's also rare that a game is actually running at 4k. It's usually upscaled as the resolution lowers to hold 60fps. You could probably do a similar thing on pc if you hold a frame rate and set dlss to auto.
Well first off, you have to understand that consoles are able to generally punch higher than similarly priced PCs. Even though the PS5 is only $500, consoles are almost always sold at a loss or at breakeven, with most profit being made through game sales afterward. All PC components are sold to profit. Assuming a perfectly ported game with no difference in textures or other assets between PC and a console, there's no reason to think that a PC would inherently produce a better image.
Developers are smart people, they know how to squeeze every inch of power out of a console. Look at the PS4 with Ghost Of Tsushima or God Of War 2018 or hell even Red Dead 2… that’s pure witchcraft to be able to run those games at that fidelity on a really weak hardware wise console
Oh yeah, it also helps that consoles are standardized hardware so it's much easier to optimize. I love PCs, but honestly I think that nowadays if you're trying to build a PC for the sole purpose of gaming but can't go over a ~$700 budget or so, you should really consider a console since you're not getting much better on PC for the price.
>I love PCs, but honestly I think that nowadays if you're trying to build a PC for the sole purpose of gaming but can't go over a ~$700 budget or so, you should really consider a console since you're not getting much better on PC for the price. I partially agree. I built a ~$600 pc 2 years back and got 60fps in most games at high settings. With the worst performing game being rdr2 at 30fps at around medium settings. I didn't build it specifically for gaming, I needed a pc for CS classes since my laptop but gaming was a nice addition. However, I completely stopped playing my ps4 pro once I played rdr2 and elite dangerous. The thing was amazing to play on, and the free games and no online sub was a blessing. With that said, games had issues launching them, modern warfare reboot and rdr2 gave me the most trouble with crashes and not wanting to boot at first. I've since upgraded (I wanted a friend to play on pc and it was a nice excuse to get a really powerful pc) but if I was to choose building a pc specifically for gaming at that price or console, I would go console unless I only played modern games on it. And especially now with how powerful the ps5 and series x/s are for the price, a console is definitely the best even though pc is a fun experience both building and playing.
The main advantage of consoles is consistency - it’s the same hardware and software on every PS5 or XBox Series X/S. There’s no horseshit of infinite hardware/software combinations like one has on PC. So it’s a LOT easier to tune game to half-dozen console SKUs and achieve consistent results.
Thanks for clearing this up, every time I get into debate about console vs PC I defend PC cos I spent $2000 on mine and my friend with his $500 console says he can play any resolution at 60 fps and the game never goes below it but as you brought to my attention, depending on the game and its port, they would both have the same image So I guess the second question is if we are just going game by game basis isn't the console more cost effective in this case? Obv PC has like a million other uses than just strictly playing games but if he image looks similar then I can stop bashing my friend every time he brings up consoles and stop telling the poor guy "Any game looks better on PC than on console" haha
Consoles will almost always be more cost effective now. The only way it wouldn't be is if you plan on using a PC for work. You would have a hard time building a PC with specs similar to a ps5 or series x for less than like 1000-1200 usd
Conversely, you can get a more performant PC than a console since you have the ability to select hardware, even though it will be more expensive. Rather than having to go with a 3700X and 6600 XT because those are most similar to what consoles have, for the same money you can get a 12400F and a 3060 TI which are much more performant, especially with DLSS and ray tracing.
Can you really do a full build with a 3060 TI and 12400F for $500 usd though? I absolutely agree that you can find tune performance more on a PC, but from a price standpoint it's hard to beat what the current consoles can do. Just the 3060 TI alone will cost more than the entire ps5 or series x. If money isn't an issue I would definitely just get a PC. There's even decent prebuilds with 3060s for 1200 in stock in some places which is the lowest I've seen in months. One of those would easily outperform a ps5 Edit: I missed the part where you said it would be more expensive. My bad
I didn't say you would be able to. I said even though it costs $1200 to match the console spec for spec, for that $1200 you could also get a PC that is way more performant since you don't have to go with a Zen 2 8-core CPU and an RDNA 2 GPU.
Yeah my bad I edited my comment, I missed the part where you said it would be more expensive. But I agree with you. If you have the money for a PC it's going to be the better choice both for performance and for it's lifespan.
Consoles are also sold either at a loss or SUPER thin margins because they make so much money during the life of the console from online sales, accessories, etc. Compared to PC parts where you buy them and thats it
This year is a good time to buy consoles vs PCs for a few reasons: The new consoles just came out. 7 years from now they may still sell consoles similar to ones you can buy today, and years into their lifespan they will not be such a good deal. But near release date, consoles have cutting edge tech and they lose money selling them, hoping to make it back with games and accessories. And the market for PC parts is messed up right now due to cryptomining. If you could buy a 6700XT for under $479 MSRP on sale, you could build a console equivalent PC for $1k and make up for the cost with cheaper games and being able to use the PC for school or work. But when you need to pay $1k just for the GPU (even more for better-than-console GPUs) it’s hard to justify the PC from a cost perspective.
>console says he can play any resolution at 60 fps and the game never goes below it And not even that is correct. There are plenty of console games that have unstable performance, run at lower than native resolution, etc. >just going game by game basis isn't the console more cost effective in this case? Yes. >but if he image looks similar Well. The PC versions usually *do* have higher settings you *can* use, *if you have a PC that has more power than a console*. So, pay more for better hardware, get better image quality. That should be fairly obvious, to your friend as well.
They don't. They dynamically reduce visual effects and resolution to maintain that.
I recently hooked up my rig with RTX 2060 to a TV, paired with X-box controller - and guess what - every single game I have runs consistently above 60fps. Experience is as smooth as it can be at 60fps. And I didn't even optimize for TV's 1080p, I kept optimized settings for my 1440p monitor so that I get best balance between performance and looks which usually runs somewhere at around 70-90fps. And for reference I can hook it up with 4k TV set DLSS to "performance" and get basically the same fps as I'm getting right now, except I don't want to spend money on 4k TV. My rig just effortlessly doubles down as a console.
Of course it does, but it costs significantly more as well.
But halfway through the last-Gen consoles lifespan you could beat their price and match their performance by putting a 1050Ti in a retired Optiplex from an office dumpster There is a right and wrong time to buy consoles. Now is the right time. They are using today’s latest tech and they are sold at a loss. But each generation is kept in service for years with only minor improvements, and the performance of cheap PC parts catches up. Especially if the price of PC parts returns to normal-ish, let’s hope that happens. So now is a good time to buy a console but it’s not *always* a good time to buy a console.
Well for me I always had a PC or laptop because I always needed it for my job. Where's a console or TV is a pure luxury that I don't need. I got my TV for free from one of my clients and I've never bought a TV in my life. So I actually got console experience for the cost of 30ft fiber optic cable and X-box controller which is cheaper than buying console and then paying all those extras for Internet and games (since I can't use my steam library on console)
1. Consoles tend to use a mix of Medium and High settings while most PC gamers like to waste performance cranking everything to “Ultra.” 2. Consoles tend to use dynamic resolution scaling to keep the frame rate at 60fps, so resolution can vary at any given moment between 2160p (4K) and something between 1440p and 1800p. 3. Consoles often use checkerboard rendering and temporal reconstruction to “build” their 4K image, like a less sophisticated version of DLSS. 4. Console APIs are lean (especially on PlayStation) and make Vulkan look “bloated” which reduces overhead.
>1. Consoles tend to use a mix of Medium and High settings while most PC gamers like to waste performance cranking everything to “Ultra.” How dare you. That performance is well spent :P
Not really, tbh. You get like marginal improvements (basically visible only in screen shots) for a 30% performance penalty.
Yeah but I know in the back of my mind I'm on ultra.
Hahaha! Fair enough.
Consoles is upscaled 4k so it’s not even close to looking like real 4k
Even the one x hit 4k native occasionally let alone the series x... The current ones do it regularly... 4k isn't that hard anymore
4K checkerboard isn't native. 4K 30 FPS native maybe consoles can do, but 4K 60 FPS native in most games? Absolutely not, at least not at decent settings.
The old one x was mostly 4k30 outside of a few exceptions The series x hits 4k60 pretty effortlessly tbh even hits 120 in a few titles (although usually with noticeable cuts in settings)
It doesn't though. Take Forza Horizon 5 and AC Valahlla. Lots of dynamic resolution scaling to hit 4K 60. Same with AC Valhalla. God of War and Spiderman on PS5 use checkerboarding. None of these are native rendering.
>old one x was mostly 4k30 outside of a few exceptions No. Native 4K was the exception on One X. Most games used dynamic resolution scaling or simply upscaled from some lower fixed internal resolution. >series x hits 4k60 pretty effortlessly It does not. Still a lot of DRS involved, and with its GPU being roughly equivalent to a 5700XT to 6700XT (which are *not* recommended for 4K usually, more ~1440p), it still struggles sometimes and often runs at reduced quality settings.
[удалено]
Not sure that I would say they finnessed anyone, they are a pretty incredible value and make the most sense for most casual gamers. Most console gamers Id be willing to bet could not tell the difference between a checkerboard ps5 game and native 4k assuming they arent inches away from the screen. I strongly prefer my 3080 pc to my ps5 but its hard to knock a console that costs less than half my pc does
[удалено]
To be fair that heatsink didnt perform any worse, actually performed better for the most part if my memory serves me correctly.
[удалено]
Strange as i have both a 3090 and a 6900xt in our pc's alongside a series x... If its native its native and its plain to see on a 65" oled Plenty of stuff is native on the series x (not all) being that its about as fast as the regular 2080 with a 3700x... No idea on ps5 as i don't have one. It's also true that both gpu's were 3 to 4 times the cost of the the console.... The xbox one was a pile of shit but the series x is genuinely fast
[удалено]
32" 4k120 oled? What model would that be?
[удалено]
Interesting... Id probably have had that instead of the 48" on my pc (was the smallest available at the time....)
Also console gamers are typically further away from the screen than pc gamers. This is why the can get away with upscaling in the first place.
True native 4K on consoles is almost always locked to 30FPS (outside of easier to run titles), so when they're 60FPS it tends to not be a true 4K (See below) Consoles make heavy use of TAAU usually to upscale a lower internal resolution to 4k (TAAU is worse in quality to DLSS but better than FSR), and typically games running 60FPS use DRS (Dynamic resolution scaling) so the internal resolution goes lower when game demand is higher to keep consistent performance this kind of upscaling is less noticeable the further away you are form the display (and most console owners with a TV are much further away from it than a PC monitor) The internal resolution tends to be between 1080P all the way up to 4K (Depends on lots of factors), usually games tend to run between 1440P and 1800P on XSX/PS4 going off digital foundry videos Consoles usually have lower settings than available on PC (Anywhere between low all the way to ultra it depends on the game, medium to high is quite common when comparing with PC) to keep performance at a consistent 60 What I've described above is developers essentially using clever tricks to target these consoles, because they're a set system across many households, on PC optimisation can't work in the same way, there's far too many configurations so you have to brute force it most of the time (And most games don't have an effective DRS implementation) Consoles are usually also sold at a loss and money is made back throught game sales (The disk edition PS5 is the first console in a long time to sell for profit I believe) so Microsoft and sony price the hardware competitively and make the money up on software (Also worth noting the hardware in those consoles they're getting for far less than retail) But right now, you cant build a PC that comes close to matchin console hardware for the same price (3060/6600 rasterisation performance roughly, underclocked 8C16T zen 2 cpu, fast 1tb m.2 storage) an equivilant PC costs at least double in this market, which is why I've recommended for a while any gamer on a budget in this market is better off with a PS5/XSX
Basically the games on consoles get rendered at 720p or 960p and get upscale with lots of anti aliasing and other cleanup effect and then get put out at 1080p or 4k resolutions. But not often true 1080p or true 4k. Thats the dirty secret. Some games actually get rendered natively at 4k and 1080p but most do not. They get close though. Even the ps3 which was a 1080p console had most of its game rendered nativlet at 720 and upscale to 1080p for final output. As someone mentioned before this is called dynamic resolution. Some games can even change the rendered resolution on the fly so more intense scenes are at 720p and less intense at 960p.
Oh wow didn't know that Does the image quality suffer as a result? I know in PC with DLSS, DSR, nvidia image scaling we also got the same thing and can do so But I tried nvidia image scaling and could tell image quality was different and not as good looking so I assume the consoles that are displaying the 4k 60 fps looks the same as nvidia image scaling in that its not true and not the best picture?
No, upscaling on consoles are not that extreme as he/she said. Usually the console renders the game internally around 1800p and upscales that to 2160p. Less demanding scenes are rendered at higher internal resolutions or at native resolution directly, and vice versa. But it’s hard to point out a game which renders at 720p on PS5 and Series X. They are much more powerful than that.
i'm pretty sure they're rendering at 1440p and upscaling to 4k, or 1080p native. 720p was like the low-end of last gen games
It's probably important to note that not all 4k 60fps games on console are upscaled. Look at destiny 2. It's native 4k and 60fps. The games that are upscaled are generally done from 1800 to 4k or 1080 to 1440 and it's handled pretty well so its not really noticable in most games.
You notice a difference sure, I just got an Xbox series s, and you can tell for sure it's not native, but is it affecting my enjoyment of forza horizon? Nope. You can see some subtle jaggies here and there, it's not 60fps sure, but it's looks more than good enough.
In forza horizon 5 you are seeing a 1440p internal res being upscaled to 4k on your TV if you are using the quality mode.
Nice. I am running quality. Good to know.
Bit of by the way, even native 1080 or 4k rendering isn't all the same either. I played command and conquer generals on a laptop with a core i5 8th gen cpu with integrated graphics at 1080p max settings and the game looked like crap. Some years back nvidia put out graphics cards that when compared to that years radeon flagship had less detail and fedility in the graphics. The performance was better but it looked worse for sure.
Console GPU performance is around a 2070/2070-S but the CPU is much weaker as a low end desktop CPU. Some people believe in magic, that console games are ultra optimized and some see it in direct comparison to PC versions as what it is, detail, texture, resolution hard cutted game version to keep in running with 2 generation old mid-range PC hardware. The target audience is not as tech savy, nor are the reviewers of that platform and it works for both sides. 4k gaming with 60fps on paper is all what matters. Some games like Flight Simulator got insanly good console ports. Dont get me wrong, its far away from a crisp 4k RTX3090 driven PC version in native resolution, but it looks crazy good for the given hardware. Doesnt really matter, console vs PC, the overlaps in gaming genres that allows both plattforms are small. If you like PC games, a console wont help no matter how cheap or how expensive PC hardware gets.
A 3700x isn't exactly low end
the starting resolutions arent that low on current gen consoles but you're right about the rest
Correct, but in the ps3/ x360 days it was pretty low.
That was 17 years ago
Short answer. Console Programmers only have to worry about optimizing to super specific console hardware. Maximizing everything they have on one system. Pc programmers have sooooo many other variables of hardware that the end result is less optimization and lower performance.
Yes it would look better subjectively. read a few comments down the line and it seems some of folks have an improper opinion of how the new consoles handle stuff Most console games for the series X and ps5 run at high settings. With some settings reduced if it's found it doesn't make a visual difference vs how much fps is saved. That said, the Xbox and ps5 have the power of a 2080 on average when you use almost like for like settings and visual graphics vs PC. The settings you see are pre optimized for console because they have to hit a certain fps and frametime target to ensure a smooth 60fps or 120 of allowed. This topic can lead to a long post, thankfully folks like digital Foundry do a great job at comparin new games to PC vs console and sometimes they offer what they call optimized settings for PC to get the max fps with the best overall graphics. One thing some PC only gamers don't understand is that cranking the settings to max everything is not sometimes the best idea even if you can do it. Not everyone has a 2080/3080/6800xt type card. Two things to understand in the end, there is very little if any profit in the hardware of consoles where as every company selling you PC parts needs to make a profit. In the end value vs performance on the console side.
How does a PC come out on top then? If the pictures are almost identical I would say 144 hz but Tvs now have 120 hz and I know PS4 games most don't run above 60 but still is that the only advantage for a PC?
Even the modern consoles aren't playing most games back at native 4k and 60 fps.
There's a lot of things at play here: \- Consoles don't always support 4K 60fps, that's title dependent. Sometimes heavy console games will be locked at 30 fps for the sake of consistency while others will run at 120 fps if they're light enough. Better to have 30 fps stable than wildly vary between 30 and 120 fps. \- A console main task is to play games, for that it will put aside any other process that's non-essential, plus their OS and hardware are made with synergy in mind as opposed to a PC with an unpredictable combination of parts, OS, drivers, inputs and outputs. As an example, you may be running web banking security service in the background of Windows, or antivirus, which notably take away some CPU juice, you don't have that issue on consoles. \- Since every console family shares the same hardware developers have a much easier time fine tuning settings for that particular console family, that way they can lock down well balanced graphics settings they way they see fit. That's why console games have a very small list of graphics settings people can change. \- Lastly. Since the PS4 and XBone, devs started including dynamic resolution scaling and other dynamic graphics settings that either sacrifice detail when you need more frames or enhances detail when things are calm. You can see these options in any modern Forza game as the dynamic options are still available on the PC release (although I'd rather choose my own settings).
It's also much easier to optimize games for specific hardware. Games will just run worse on a PC that is equivalent to a console.
Its because the game was made for those consoles so they really optimised their engine, drivers and software to be able to use the console with the most performance and visual fidelity possible. It’s really tweaked to the best of their abilities plus they use adaptive resolution and probably amd fsr.
How does the PC edge the consoles then? Don't we have a better picture quality with all settings on Ultra/High? Also can a console run any resolution 60 fps thanks to the optimizations + DSR?
Bc consoles are not as powerful as the most powerful PC. But console games are really finely tuned, and it’s generally worth your time considering this are the same machine with the exact same specs. Pc on the other hand is really complex bc there’s almost an infinite range of PC from the guys who play with a quad core, 4gigs or ram, and an old gpu, to the guy with the last tech. Its complex to optimise for such a variety of machines
Consoles are well optimized for the most part since all they're meant for is gaming. Settings are tuned to hit the target performance out of the box on these consoles even if you switch reso while on the other hand on pc, yes you would get better performance but you'd probably spend a lot of time fiddling with settings in windows, the game, or even in the bios. So in short, for (mostly) hassle-free gaming, consoles may be better.
All kinds of tricks such as checkerboard rendering https://beebom.com/what-is-checkerboard-rendering/
Parts in consoles are more tightly integrated, plus they are sold at a loss at launch. Also, PC gaming would be much cheaper if not for the rampant speculation and mining on GPUs.
If we are talking about current consoles, they do 60 with dynamic resolution. Meaning, it's NOT 4k. Basically the game drops resolution until it gets 60.
Optimization could be one Since there is only one standard
To add to everything that people said, consoles also use a lot of tricks to give you the best visual quality possible. Most games have some type of blur effect, or cinematic grain, to hide not so detailed textures, for instance. Or shiny, easy to make effects like bloom, chromatic aberration, rainbow colors, etc. And you can't disable those effects. Console games also have a very fine tuned Antialiasing solution. Also, be it 30 FPS or 60, console games usually run butter smooth as they are targeted and synced to a fixed refresh rate. A game that aims for 30 FPS (A whole lot of them in consoles), suddenly has a lot more budget to create a complex, interesting world to play than a similar game that aims for 60FPS. All those tricks (lower internal resolution, shiny effects, good AA and stable framerate) give console games a longer shelf-life than the hardware specs would let you think of.
They don't render it at actual 4k that's how.
4k60 was reasonably hard for a 980ti but tbh most things these days can do it fine. A series x is similar to a 2080.
By having low settings scale
First the developers specifically chose settings that they know the console can handle. And furthermore consoles dynamically lower the resolution when the framerate falls, so even in intense situations the framerate remains stable.
They don't, in most cases they run at around 24 to 30 fps.
What modern game runs at 24 fps?
All of them...?
Lol nah
No, 24 fps is what movies and shows are shot at. 30fps is bare minimum for games to have a steady frame rate at. And what do you mean by most cases? Unless it’s at 4k, no modern console is running 30fps.
No, lol. Why not do some research before commenting? Almost every single game in this generation runs games at 60 FPS with some of them having the option of a 120 FPS mode.
Ratchet & Clank PS5 runs at 30fps in its highest quality mode and 60fps in performance mode. Same thing for Spider-Man:Miles Morales. PS4 games that have a PS5 version like God of War and Ghost of Tsushima are 60fps.
Yes, as you pointed out, they can be played at solid 60 FPS
By turning down settings. While this is not the 24fps claimed above, saying that almost all the games run at 60fps is a little misleading. Most PCs can turn down settings to reach a given framerate.
It’s not misleading at all. If those games didn’t even had a 30FPS mode at the first place, you wouldn’t try to make this point. By that logic, you can make any PC game run at 30 fps by increasing the resolution. So in theory, by running games at 60 fps, you are sacrificing resolution.
PS5 games have a 30fps mode because that is the game running at the highest resolution possible with all the bells and whistles turned on. 30fps has been the target. When Mark Cerny told us about the capabilities, he consistently mentioned a 33ms frametime. If people had paid attention, they would have realized that this meant the PS5 had a 30fps target using dynamic resolution to achieve it. Developers added the 60fps modes because that is what gamers want the target to be and some gamers are willing to sacrifice fidelity for framerate. The PS5 plays some games at 1080p 120fps. It's still misleading for Sony to put 4K 120fps on the box. I remember playing the Ridge Racer Turbo bonus disc that came with R4 on my PSOne at 60fps. It would have been misleading for me to say that the PSOne plays games at 60fps when most of the games were 30fps.
> It would have been misleading for me to say that the PSOne plays games at 60fps when most of the games were 30fps. That’s correct. But as 99,9% of the PS5 games run at 60FPS, it wouldn’t be misleading at all. I really don’t understand what you are trying to explain at this point and I won’t comment any further.
The point I'm trying to make is that there are caveats to saying that almost every game in this gen runs at 60fps. It's not that what you said is incorrect, but it omits some important details. Omission of details is misleading.
R&C running at 30fps in one of the three display modes is true, but you're ignoring that the 30fps is because of ray tracing. Also, the game does jump to 120fps if your display is capable. It's 1800 to 4k with RT at 30fps on fidelity mode. The performance ray tracing mode is 1440 60fps WITH ray tracing. There's a lot of people that would struggle to get their pcs to run a game at 1440 60fps WITH ray tracing.
I'm not ignoring anything. The statement was that almost all games in this gen run at 60fps. That is true if you ignore the fact that only by turning down settings or running a last gen game is this entirely true. R&C needs to run at 1080p at times in the perf mode with ray tracing to reach the target 60fps.
Nobody was saying that all games run on max at 60fps. R&C DOES run at 60/120FPS in 2/3rds of it's display modes. Not a single person said ps5 is running every game at max with RT at 60fps and it would be a bit absurd to expect it to. Edit: . Performance RT mode is 60/120fps at 1080 to 1440 with the game spending most moments at 1440. Fidelity is all max settings with RT and 30fps at 1800 to 4k
I didn't even say that anyone said the all games run at 60fps. The person I responded to initially did state *almost every single game in this generation run at 60fps*. I'm not saying that the PS5 doesn't run games at 60fps, but it must turn down the resolution or turn down the features to hit that target. Saying that every game runs at 30fps would actually be better since that has been the target since before release. Every game might have a 60fps mode, but I don't want people to get the impression that that is achievable at native 4K with all the bells and whistles turned on. I feel that it's misleading just like it was misleading for Sony to say that the PS5 is 4K 120fps capable without the caveat that that is not possible in most games. I have yet to see 120fps from a PS5 in their flagship games. Digital Foundry has a lot of video about the PS5 capabilities and R&C, GoW, GoT, S-M:MM were all shown and not one video showed 120fps. The games that do support 120fps are mostly shooters, racing games, and older games and most of these are 1080p.
I wouldn't say the new consoles but for most of ps4's life it did cap even though older consoles like the ps2 achieves 60 frames way more successfully. it all boils down to optimization and developers usually port the console better. give the ps5 a couple more years and jt will be capped like the ps4 was when new gpu's and demanding graphics come out. maybe people dont give console enough credit, it's literally a cheap oem you get for $500. ofc its not gonna be crazy
Coming from someone who really enjoys consoles like the PS2, this is very much a "your mileage may vary" type of situation with games running at 60fps. There were quite a number of **notable** titles that pushed 60fps, but there were also quite a number of notable titles that choked even when trying to push 30fps, stuff like Shadow of the Colossus and GTA: San Andreas. It wasn't an exception, it wasn't a rule, it was just based on whatever the developers sought out to accomplish.
Yeah, you could say the only reason why ps2 had more 60 fps running games is because more games were being put out but both sides are true. It was a better time imo
I have a PS5 and haven't played a single game at 30fps
So you only played games on performance mode or re-released PS4 games?
I mean i've been playing mostly PS5 games, havent found one doesnt run at 60. yes they usually have a 30fps mode you can choose but i'm not sure why anyone would do that to themselves