Is he right?

made me chuckle

Not really, the problem is there isn't a way to test it properly, there is no PC equivalent CPU that is as bare bones and useless as the ones in modern consoles. Even using a low end modern CPU you can get a ton of mileage out of a PC with an equivalent GPU to the console.

That said some games will always be able to be "proof" of this because they are so badly optimised for PC (I'm looking at you Ubisoft devs) so the only real answer is, sometimes he's right.

>Games optimized
whens the last time games have ever optimized for exact hardware? all you hear is devs using a proprietary engine that works on all platforms nowadays.

and optimized for one set of hardware. It's much easier to optimize when you're doing that instead of having to take literally every hardware configuration into account, so it makes sense to me.

>same as a PS4
>i7
>dedicated gpu

fuck no
this. Carmack was speaking historically about consoles where architectures were designed specifically for video games. This doesn't hold true at all for PS4/Xbone. DX11 is good enough that the performance enhancements in using the Sony API are barely even there. Maybe 5% difference, because at equivalent settings the 7870 beats a PS4 which is the equivalent, exact GPU in that system. Every fucking game from 2013 to today.

>Games optimized and compiled for an exact hardware setup
funny thing is that exact hardware setup exists in both major consoles AND home PCs

He's super generalizing but he clarifies it's easier to optimize for one set of hardware than it is many, which is obviously true, and that there's more overheard involved in a general use OS like Windows than there is with a console OS, which is also obviously true. Yes, he's right.

Once, there was this guy who
Wouldn't stop programming Doom
No matter what we tried
But when we finally got him
To hear a sex tape end very loudly
We couldn't quite explain it,
The sound that left his mouth:

Mmmm mmmm mmmm mmmm
Mmmm mmmm mmmm mmmm

Attached: idsoftware.jpg (595x369, 125K)

Engines themselves more optimized when building for a console.

You know the exact hardware and software libraries on the system.

With PCs, there's many different CPUs with different features available or unavailable (AVX2 etc.), three different GPU types someone could be using, all with different hardware features available depending on how old they are, and different versions of drivers and software libraries, and different versions of Windows.

And on top of that Windows itself is a shit operating system that is far worse than Linux at utilizing a CPU and disk I/O.

I feel like an idiot trying to argue with Carmack but the difference is that PCfags have much higher standards, what's unacceptably bad for PC (low graphics 20-30 fps) is commonplace on consoles.

Keyword here is
>same paper spec
In that case, he's totally right. Consoles are boxed-in spec wise, which leaves a lot of room for developers to optimize their games specifically for consoles because they know how they'll run in all situations. The problem is while the newest consoles are powerful, PCs are still more dynamic in their capabilities and people often cherrypick more powerful PCs to show off their platform's lack of limitations.

It was a statement made in 2014 which he made based on his experience with PS3/360 and prior gen systems.

does john god damn fucking carmack, a literal genius that wasted his life on making modern vidya a fucking thing that we are all better off because of, knows more than Yea Forums faggot? Fucking probably.

If that's the case then why do many games still run comparably worse on PC with the equivalent console hardware?

youtube.com/watch?v=37WCGcxdfGY

specific software performs better than generic software?
who would have thought? not Yea Forums

Attached: __doremy_sweet_touhou_drawn_by_minato_hitori__e4dc37112fb9577331fcd5574458e74c.jpg (1419x2000, 972K)

7870 beats PS4, Xbone has EDRAM to boost it's bad GPU's bandwidth

Did you miss the part where I said "That said some games will always be able to be "proof" of this because they are so badly optimised for PC" if you think fringe cases where the game is flat out broken like Arkham Knight is a good data point to use, then sure you've got a point but I really don't care.

I spent close to $1500 CAD on my PC and I don't even play games. I got a better Yea Forums shitposting machine.

He's just pointing out most programmers are lazy fucks who only want to optimize around the one configuration of console hardware, because optimizing around a variety of component builds is hard and video game programmers are the worst paid in the industry so only the absolute shittiest programmers end up working at video game companies. Smart ones write software for corporations and for banks and shit and get paid a shitload of money.

There is literally no cpu as weak as the ones in the xboner, ps4's, and their pro versions currently being sold on pc marketplaces. You'd have to go out of your way and buy a used decade old cpu just to get close.

>He's just pointing out most programmers are lazy fucks

No, he's not. Carmack defends the sort of shit that Yea Forums is always whining about "lazy" programmers doing, e.g. fixed tick rate physics that cap framerates. If Yea Forums actually knew anything about Carmack they'd hate him because he pretty much always calls Yea Forums's opinion on technical matters for what is, i.e. the retarded ramblings of the ignorant and not worth paying attention to.

>With PCs, there's many different CPUs with different features available or unavailable (AVX2 etc
They optimize for the features present on all modern, popular CPUs. This is singular and not an issue.
>three different GPU types
2, literally nobody optimizes for intel integrated graphics. And they don't really need to bother with the 2 types if they just use DX11. This is only a DX12/Vulkan issue.
>and different versions of drivers and software libraries, and different versions of Windows.
Different versions of Windows are irrelevant, and most devs just optimize for a current version of Visual C++ which is exactly the same across all active versions of Windows

these problems when analyzed really are non-issues. The general optimizations made for the x86_64 architecture carry across both consoles and PC equally now. The brunt of designing your engine to use that CPU architecture, optimize assets for ~8GB of Ram, and using APIs like DX11 and DX12 are enough to get a game running exceptionally well across all three platforms.

>There is literally no cpu as weak as the ones in the xboner, ps4's,
this, including the fucking Xbox One X and Pro. Even if you buy a $55 AMD shitter today you'll get better gaming performance out of it than consoles.

>And they don't really need to bother with the 2 types if they just use DX11

>Different versions of Windows are irrelevant

Attached: wd.jpg (680x339, 35K)

Maybe in the past when games were designed with whacky console archetecture in mind.
In 2019 you make the PC version and then turn stuff off until it runs on consoles. It's all the same

>Green Ham
My nigger. Hope he uploads again soon.

>this, including the fucking Xbox One X and Pro.
Did you read the post you replied you? This was already clarified.

It's completely true. with DX11 having the game work properly across AMD and Nvidia is the job of their respective GPU drivers doing their job properly

And yes, different versions of Windows don't matter at all in terms of software libraries available. They're all the same. Only difference is enabling DX12 on Windows 10. That's literally it.

>with DX11 having the game work properly across AMD and Nvidia is the job of their respective GPU drivers doing their job properly

>different versions of Windows don't matter at all in terms of software libraries available
>They're all the same

Attached: bss.jpg (550x543, 83K)

Care to point out where he's wrong, friend?

>there
Stay in school, zoomie.

>implying there have never been driver issues with DX11 before even with the latest drivers
>implying software libraries are what determines whether an OS runs software correctly or not

Sure, it'll run but it won't work well. Games usually have to optimize for specific hardware configurations. It's not just Nvidia vs. AMD, it's all the different chipset versions for those respective companies too. Some games profile your CPU for optimization too. But yeah, there's not really any optimizing for different versions of Windows. Microsoft get a lot of shit but they are pretty good at their job and software devs don't really need to worry about that sort of thing.

>SAME GIVEN PAPER SPEC
>SAME GIVEN PAPER SPEC
>SAME GIVEN PAPER SPEC

First gen i7 you retard
They are a decade old

the bigger problem is the fact that hardly any devs take the time to optimize their shit on PC anymore

i've found myself buying shit for my PS4 more often nowadays just because i can't be assed to dick around with my settings and drivers for an hour before actually playing the fucking game

Less and less true as consoles run more and more shit under the hood. Basically false anything PS3/XB360 or newer.

GPU isn't as straight forward. It's really common to have shader code (especially with compute) that executes very differently across vendors. Shader code is written for compatibility on PC. On console you can optimize way harder for GCN.

On DX12/Vulkan the CPU code is also written differently based on hardware.

>Basically false anything PS3/XB360 or newer

He was referring to PS3 and 360 when he said this. It was based on his experience getting idTech 5 running on all the consoles.

that statement was way back when PC didn't have stuff like Vulkan and DX12 with low level access.

Attached: 1528428898817.jpg (355x265, 29K)

>DX12 makes games run better
user, I...

you can only reply if you have a Ferrari

Attached: SeumasCarmack02[1].jpg (800x800, 98K)

Attached: what the.jpg (684x591, 49K)

What is this the 90's, drivers download automatically & just put settings to high or something, general rule is high runs good, ultra runs bad & looks slightly better

World of Warcraft, Hitman & Tomb Raider 3 do run DX12 quite a bit better

Not really.
This gen kind of proved that more than any other, even to this day a PS4 gets outperformed by an HD 7870.
Despite what people want to believe, you cannot pull performance out of thin air, you have to compromise somewhere, and consoles usually compromise in visual settings, framerate, and/or resolution.
Even the XboneX doesn't run games on the equivalent of PC's high settings.
Often times it hovers around medium-low just like the base consoles, only at a higher resolution.

Attached: RE2 settings.png (1356x766, 544K)

it mostly comes down to optimization which devs have gotten terrible at since they just optimize around consoles and let PCfags brute force it.

Most developers slap on DX12 on top of everything like a coat of paint, and it's quite variable what comes out. Look what happened to the promise of multithreading.

>this, including the fucking Xbox One X and Pro. Even if you buy a $55 AMD shitter today you'll get better gaming performance out of it than consoles.
no, you're talking about specs, and you're right. performance is all about software and how it was made.

I can't even say that devs optimize on consoles, I think they've just flat out stopped giving a fuck.
Especially now with these upgraded consoles.
Game runs like shit on a base console? Better go get those upgraded models, goy.

Attached: Next gen 134.jpg (2045x1152, 536K)

>multiplat
they don't even care, if it runs, "ship it!"

>Game runs like shit on a base console? Better go get those upgraded models, goy.

You say that like console game haven't always run like shit. It's not like back in the good days of PS1 and N64 everything ran at 60fps at looked fantastic because devs could "into optimization". They ran at 30fps, most struggling to even do that, and looked like shit, i.e. nothing has fucking changed except there's a lot more whining around today.

Here's a HD7870 running with a 2600k and 16 gigs of DDR3 RAM. youtu.be/dNUofFtfAQo

now, take a look at how Resident Evil 2 Remake performs on the PC at 1080p on the balanced preset. Even with a much more powerful CPU, performance is still slightly better on the PS4 which also runs at 1080p. youtube.com/watch?v=6ZVrhlYgYPc

Why the fuck would anyone listen to this fuck after he sold his soul to Shlomo Zuckerbergkatzstein?

Except fucking pre-gen 5 games ran at 60 FPS, and arcade versions of early 3D games also ran at 60 FPS (just compare the arcade versions of Daytona USA to the earlier console versions).

also you can see how terrible framepacing is on PC when it comes to constantly fluctuating FPS. This is pretty much nonexistent with PS4.

Framerate wasn't taken in consideration as much at the time, everyone was all about polygon count. There are a few exceptions on the 3 platforms though, like F-Zero X which sacrificed graphics for a smooth 60fps.

>Except fucking pre-gen 5 games ran at 60 FPS

Look at this silky smooth 60fps everyone!
youtube.com/watch?v=AXfmR0Ij8vA

>performance is still slightly better on the PS4
Did we watch the same video?
Not to mention performance is impacted by him recording (unless he's using a capture card), so in reality the performance over the PS4 is even greater.
That's the recording you mongoloid.

Attached: Next gen 149.png (1358x767, 1.39M)

>Early 3D console game
What's it like being retarded?

it's a fact that framepacing issues are terrible when it comes to PC games running at lower and fluctuating FPS. Do you honestly think that 2019 games will be optimized just as much on PC hardware from 2013 compared to a PS4? You cherrypicked a split moment PS4 was at 40, congratulations. That's around what the PC counterpart was always running at.

This was only true before SSDs existed, and of course Windows makes everything as slow as can be, but at least it doesn't take games more than 2 seconds to launch and 5 seconds to load a game. Mafia 3 on my PS4Pro takes about 1m30s to launch and a further 30+ seconds to load a game.

It's a five year old statement and most people here are saying it's technically correct anyway dumbass

You got the same shit with 2D games too, you moron. And when they could drop frames when the hardware wasn't powerful enough the game would just run in slow motion instead. Anyone who thinks pre-"modern gaming" everything was smooth and optimized and perfect is a fucking retard who doesn't know anything.

>This gen
That's the thing. It's a five year old tweet

Attached: 1529859540668.jpg (1552x2000, 825K)

In fact, here's a direct comparison.
>it's a fact that framepacing issues are terrible when it comes to PC games running at lower and fluctuating FPS.
It's a fact for all games you mongoloid.
Again, you're a moron and don't actually know what you're talking about, like most consolefags.
Your locked down PC is not special, it's just a shitty PC running FreeBSD with none of the freedoms of your typical Linux distro.

Attached: Comparing.png (2714x766, 872K)

Look at the ps4/xbox one spec bro

>it's a fact that framepacing issues are terrible when it comes to PC games
Dumbfuck, that's true on consoles too.
It's true on any platform when the framerate doesn't divide evenly into the monitor's refresh rate, how are you people this technologically illiterate?

He's right, in a way. If you aimed for 60 FPS on a console, given the specs, you know exactly what you're dealing with and it's an easier task to achieve.

>45 FPS on PC
OH NO NO NO NO NO

He later said this isn't true any more, something about dx11 or dx12. I don't have the tweet though.

Attached: carmack.png (531x467, 59K)

Considering it's on a GPU that's a year older than the PS4, the fact that it outperforms the PS4 is pretty telling.

Attached: 1525656566550.jpg (748x1728, 644K)

I can't even say that he saw a DF video and thinks he's an expert now because DF complains about shit frame pacing in console games all the fucking time.
I think he might just be retarded.

Carmack more like Carhack

good thing PC's are like 30x consoles perf then huh retard autist

reminder that sony/MS still ship 5400rpm hard disks in their 700$ consoles

Games that are made for a console, are tuned specifically for that console's hardware, and you can get a lot out of it in that situation. That's why any serious Commodore 64 game was written in machine code instead of BASIC.

Your x86 PC processor has a huge instruction set and multitudes more transistors than the tiny CPU of the mobile devices. Even at the same electrical clock rate, it will take several software passes for a mobile CPU to complete complex math as the x86 with all its instructional shortcuts.,,, However, straight simple integer math is nearly even.

Action scenes were better on PS4. And that's a pathetic 3 fps gain for something with a much more powerful CPU. What's your argument here? Anyone can see value here. You're arguing a PC that likely cost $800 plus in 2013 can only toe the line with a PS4 modern day.

Recording software probably took a big performance hit there

>a pc that likely cost 800 dollars
unironically kill yourself, i bet you buy premade

>Action scenes were better on PS4.
Literally exactly the same, and the CPU is irrelevant since it's only seeing 40-50% utilization and thus isn't necessary.
You could see the exact same performance out of the same GPU paired with an i5 2400.
Sorry m8, but it's not gen 7 anymore, consoles age just as poorly as PCs, hence why Sony/MS released upgraded consoles.
It's even more hilarious when you consider the fact that the PS4 has 2 ACE units that assist in compute-heavy tasks that were originally only found in the R9 290 level GPUs.

Attached: Comparing 2.png (1707x480, 659K)

2 years older, 7870 launched in like january 2012

He's talked about improvement but not parity.

Midrange gaming PC with all new parts costs $1000 these days. Meanwhile, a PS4 Pro is $400. Why do PCtards even bother arguing?

No. An X1X doesn't deliver double the performance of someone with a cheap CPU and RX580. Not anywhere near close. Ditto PS4Pro and RX470.

>a much more powerful CPU

Man people really don't understand how games games get GPU bottlenecked these days?
This why Ryzen in Consoles won't magically get you 60fps

Console GPU/CPU's are literally soldered onto the same part as their ram,this the only benefit that single board solutions have.

Also your video is useless because you have no way to make sure PC/Xbox are even approaching parity unless you have access to the source

>PS4 Pro
>New parts
Fucking kek

Because you're going to be spending $400 on the PS5 and another $400 on the PS6 and pray for backward compatibility while the guy with the $1000 PC will still be using his PC and not even dent the library of games he has to play on it.

Remember these same people made a 100 page thread bragging about how GTAV had slightly more grass on PS4 than Xbox in a few select areas

You are a fucking idiot if you don't think an i7 coupled with a midrange card and all the other components wasn't at least $800 in 2013.

He's not saying which is more powerful, just that you get more performance out of console hardware than PC hardware which is completely true. It's just that PC hardware is extremely more powerful than console hardware so the extra efficiency only goes so far.

If you would build a game for a single CPU/GPU/Mobo/RAM combination on the PC you would get the same efficiency assuming you had a graphics API that conforms just to those specs. That's exactly what the PS4/Xbox One are. PCs with unified hardware an an API that's built around it.

DirectX and Vulkan are still one-size-fits-all solutions and thus sacrifice a lot of efficiency for general compatibility.

DX12 and Vulkan do better than previous APIs to break some of the CPU bottlenecks prevalent in older APIs which are upping CPU utilization which increases draw calls and shit, but it's still a general solution vs. a specific solution.

The point is that it's irrelevant because you'd get the same performance out of a PC that cost $300 less with a weaker CPU thanks to how bottlenecked the GPU is.

The fun thing about PC is you can get a good baseline and upgrade as you go. The best part is you get to keep all your old games when you upgrade your hardware. I've dumped FAR more money into consoles over the years compared to my PC. By now my PS2 is broken and I can literally play more of my PS2 games on my PC.

If you are in it for the long haul the PC is a far better investment.

7870 was $199 in Jan 2012, i7 2600k came out in Jan 2011 for like $299

$800 in 2013 my ass

People forget the PS4/Xbox One have 2012 mid-rage PC hardware in them at best

Shit's fucking old and was never that powerful to begin with, yet it's pretty impressive some of the games on the consoles.

Yes. Consoles dedicate less resources to other shit, unlike PCs.

Considering how utterly useless DX12 and Vulkan are (outside of the latter on AMD GPUs since AMD's OpenGL support was fucking godwaful), I'm inclined to believe that "optimization" is largely a meme and falls mainly on the developer and not the hardware or the APIs.

Attached: Next gen 142.jpg (2046x1150, 642K)

Console games speak directly to the hardware.

PC games talk to Windows and waits for Windows to talk to the hardware DRM system that Microsoft insisted that the hardware all have if they wanted Windows drivers.

PS4 Pro is a RX 470 with a laptop CPU, that's not very impressive, it gets fucked by the Xbox X

lmao

Yeah it bugs me when people automatically assume next gen consoles will get 60 fps because they will likely have a greatly improved CPU. Considering they're virtually guaranteed to be 4k boxes it's mostly going to be dependent on GPU's again.

PS4 & X reverse 3GB's of RAM for the OS & 1 CPU core

>yet it's pretty impressive some of the games on the consoles.
Not really, since the same games run on hardware that's even older than the PS4 and Xbone.
Even a lot of the exclusives that people jerk their dicks over make tons of sacrifices that people willingly ignore because it doesn't fit their narrative.
It's ESPECIALLY noticeable in open world games.

Attached: 1534114180605.jpg (1920x1080, 577K)

>PC games talk to Windows and waits for Windows to talk to the hardware DRM system that Microsoft insisted that the hardware all have if they wanted Windows drivers.

If you are talking about audio playback this is somewhat true. If you are talking about graphics rendering this is not true at all.

A hexacore or octocore with a 1070 or Ti can hardly be called midrange, forgetting the new raytracing meme cards for one moment.

I'll start fearing consoles when they get GPUs instead of dedicated shitty APUs, but at that point og might as well be a tilted-over PC.

$150 for the older GPU, 150 for the older CPU, $80 for the mobo, $40 for the RAM. You're at $420 and you still need a blu-ray drive (if you want to compare to consoles which have them), a 500 gb HDD, and a case.

$800 is close.

PS4 launched at $400.

PC Gaming is chea-
>pcpartpicker.com/list/qNcZyX

Who cares what Carmack thinks or says, faggot exposed himself with RAGE meme tier megatexture hype. ANd hasn't done anything of note in forever other than gush over the also meme tier VR headsets.

Consoles have much less overhead for certain, but he's saying 1:1 specs which isn't realistically going to happen with the use of specialized components

>You're at $420 and you still need a blu-ray drive (if you want to compare to consoles which have them)
No, the blu-ray drive is unnecessary for gaming and thus is unneeded.
Not to mention blu-ray as a whole is a dying medium.
A PC with an HD 7870 and an i5 2400 in 2013 would have set you back ~$500, and that PC would last you up until the end of this generation.
I know because my little sister has been using those exact specs since 2014.

Sony took a big loss on PS4 & has a monthly fee for online

Twice is overselling it but you do get more punch for the spec. Probably spot on for mobile though.

They did not. Neither Sony nor Microsoft sold for a loss.

It's a stupid comparison since both are buying parts at far cheaper than what you can buy individual PC parts for though. RAM for you costs $40 for 8 gbs at the time but for them was like $15 at most per-console. It's apples and oranges.

>Mafia 3 on my PS4Pro takes about 1m30s to launch and a further 30+ seconds to load a game.

I was going to go back and give that game a second chance but fuck that

In 2010 I built a PC with midrange specs for the most part and an i5 core for under $600.

Also $800 is nowhere near close. The rest of that shit you tacked on wouldn't even equal $200, let alone an extra $400. If you bargain shopped you could probably grab all of it for close to $100.

And the best part: it will last you at least 3 console generations.

Only retards think pc gaming is expensive, I mean you really have to be dirt stupid to think a console is a better investment in any way.

>7870 was $199 in Jan 2012

I remember paying $250 for a GTX 560 Ti in 2012. I got ripped off.

The thing about consoles is that they all run on the same hardware, you can design a game perfectly around that, older consoles developers were able to build games that used glitches in console hardware as game elements, Genesis had a few games like this and those games wouldn't emulate properly till more accurate emulators or hacks came out.

PC's can have any combination of hardware, between different software on the hardware to how the chipsets are designed, you can have literal millions of combinations. There is software that is designed to translate between computer hardware and the game software, this itself is one process that consoles do not have to go through, at least any proper console game. Beyond that PC's are more then just game machines, running windows and various background tasks eats computational power. Consoles are starting to feel this as well, half of the ps4 and xbox's ram is dedicate towards the operational software, you have to be able to instantly load the home page and swap between games, you need to be able to record 15 minutes of footage at any time.

I mean, it's expensive if you don't know what you're doing and overpay for shit you don't need or can't use properly. But that's true of literally any hobby.

PCopers ignoring this post. Truly the top form of comedy.

My 750 TI is still hanging though.

You know why no one buys pcs, it's because game companies don't develop anything for them that take advantage of there power, so why would I want to ever buy a gaming pc with no games?

>Replying to your own post because no one cares
Have a pity (you)

PC gaming IS more expensive than console gaming in the short term. There's an argument to be made that it's cheaper in the long term but that really does depend on your habits.

Meh, I gave up on consoles when they just became shitty PCs without any of the features, so I have no idea.
Based on my previous experience, probably not, a lot of console games run like shit but no one cares enough to benchmark them.

Console games stopped talking directly to the hardware since the 360/PS3.

If you put together a PC with parts as close as possible if not identical to a current gen console (proprietary tweaks notwithstanding), the PC would still blow it away. Consoles often buy bulk batches of CPUs that didn't even make the cut to be a proper processor, then underclock them well below the component's stock specs as a means of cutting costs, temperature reduction, and setting a low bar so that a game can't push the hardware to a straining limit.

However, if you were to consider that five year old tweet today, it could be true for anyone on Windows 10 as it is such a bloated piece of resource hogging shit.

I think he's talking about graphical settings. Even between consoles they're different.

Attached: 2na5v0pt90h.jpg (2560x720, 1.76M)

Not when you get shit like pic related these days.

Attached: Video Settings Below Ultra.jpg (556x742, 79K)

This. PS4/XBONE are basically PCs and perform as you’d expect. However, exclusives that are specifically made for their respective consoles can squeeze some pretty amazing shit out of comparatively mediocre machinery. Sony Santa Monica, Naughty Dog and Insomniac (political bullshit aside) have done some fucking amazing shit. Legit technical wizardry.

Shh user, no one ITT even knows what GNMX is.

I wonder if people really fall for this

Ignoring that you're wrong, are you stating that consoleplebs are just poorfags?

PS4 has dedicated CPU and RAM for OS

pretty much the complete opposite. PCs with the same hardware configuration as a console will still outperform a console due to the case and cooling and ability to overlock (not to mention being able to easily upgrade it, which is a huge oversight in that comparison). Mobiles will have better performance due to an extremely efficient and specialized OS that only loads the minimum amount of drivers and libraries to run what is basically a glorified etch-a-sketch, so it will have significant extra resources to spare for running applications.

What a pointless and outdated statement.

Mobiles perform so badly because the devices lack cooling abilities so those quad core CPUs never run at their full potential. And consoles nowadays are glorified pre-builds who have their own OS containing various other services as well so the benefit of consoles doesn't exist anymore.

Carmack only got his smarts in being a codemonkey.

>This was only true before SSDs existed
>Consoles launching with optional SSD builds to improve loading times at a $50-$100 price premium
They could definitely do it, they'd sell, but the backlash they'd get from retarded journalists will stop them from doing it. Shame too, SSD load times really would be fantastic on consoles.

I would totally take PC advice from Alton Brown. That dude is the boss.

GTAV is past gen.
your pc on release cost at least twice as much as PS4.

>Mobiles will have better performance due to an extremely efficient and specialized OS
lolno, mobile is bloated as all fuck and some serious pajeet shit, it's also permanently throttled since it can easily overheat

>GTAV is a great example
Well, all other things aside, GTAV is one of the greatest PC ports we've ever gotten. I don't know who made that port, but it is brutally optimized to an efficiency that's nearly unbelievable. The performance you can get out of GTAV on a toaster is absolutely logic-defying.

Get cheap old parts so you can get the same performance of a modern console.

Console blindness.

My laptop has better specs than a console. Desktop 1080, 64GB RAM, 2x 1 TB SSDs, i7-8750H over clocked to 3.4GHz. It plays all modern games like far cry 5 at 100 fps and after a nice repaste and thermal strip replacement it runs at max 60-70c at full load for 2+ hours. My Desktop blows my laptop out of the water and plays nearly all games that aren't shit ports at 120fps. I will take a pespi challenge with any modern console against my portable pc or my desktop rocking the 2080ti.

Maybe way back in the day when he was still making games. You typically had nothing between the hardware and the game in the earlier console generations. On top of that devs would tend to specialize in one console and get really good at optimizing for that console. They could pull crazy tricks.
These days the consoles are no different than the PCs. The have a software layer for the OS just like PCs have windows. Devs don't code to the hardware, they code at a higher level and let the software optimize it. They use the same tools to make games for PC and consoles since everything is multi-platform now. The consoles are just PCs with really simple user interfaces.

>Turn game on super low settings
>Get thirty frames
>This is better than pc

You can't build a pc that outperforms a console for the same price of a console.

Driver overhead and api limitations. DX11 can only use up to 4 cores, cpu bottlenecks the gpu and the whole hardware isnt used as it should. Thats why mantle and vulkan gives so much performance in amd hardware, they mimic how console apis work, with full hardware access, yet, on pc there is loads of constrains for hardware due to microsoft not giving better access control of the hardware.

Who would have guessed that having connections with hardware manufactures would drop the cost. Most people buying pc parts don't get wholesale prices like microsoft, sony or nintendo.

past gen yes, not this one

That and AMD is usually the company console manufacturers contact for their "custom" parts. It would only make sense that console ports would work better on them.

no because consoles run stripped-down desktop operating systems now and everything is multiplat

I've always wondered how console games like RDR2, Horizon and GoW look so good on such underpowered hardware. Granted PC games can achieve much better framerates, but are consoles really holding gaming back like PCfags say?

There are many benefits that PC gaming holds over consoles (mods, better prices, free online), but I feel like we've gotten to a point where PC's better performance is not as important as it used to be.

An 8 core jaguar low power 1.6GHz is running the same as an hpc at 3.8GHz cpu. If you think this is the same you're retarded.

game companies conspire with gfx manufacturers to keep raising minimum specs without need so PC users need to keep shilling out for more expensive parts just to get the same picture quality on a console

its like the wet dream of an SJW but instead of race or gender its specs.

Who have the actual picture?

Except the Jaguar is at 100% utilization while the dated i7 is at 45% utilization.
Are all consolefags this stupid?

The GDDR5 RAM in the PS4 was the most expensive part actually

RDR2 runs like garbage on my ps4. Framerate drops and the like, but i mean when it comes to a console to pc it comes down to want you want. If you have the cash, want better overall performance and something you can do work on a pc is your thing. If you just want to play the game on a budget and don't care about anything else a console is your thing.

How do you know the console cpu utilization?

>shill out $300-400 for a whole new console
>shill out $300-400 for a single part

Granted if you know what you're doing PC gaming can be cheaper in the long run, but PC gaming has much higher start up costs.

Yet you can do more with it. Last time i checked a console can't run adobe premiere or Office 365. Most people use their pcs for more than just playing vidya games.

The 90's called, they want their excuses back.

That hasn't been an advantage for consoles in a long time. Drivers, engines and interfaces have improved to the point where PC games are hardware agnostic. Doesn't matter if you have an AMD or Intel, Nvidia or ATI. ASUS or MSI.

OTOH, Console hardware being uniform is a huge problem because if one console has a major design fault, they all have them and it's not like that's a rare thing (RROD, YLOD). It also is outdated by the time of it's release. The Xbox One uses a Radeon 7000 series chipset, that was released in 2012 and superceded by the R8000 in 2013, we're currently up to GCN 5th gen of Radeon GPU's whilst the Xbox is still using the GCN 1st gen arch. It's hardware uniformity has become more of a curse.

>RDR2 runs like garbage on my ps4.

Works fine on my base PS4. desu 60fps framerate really isn't that important except for specific genres like character action games, fighting etc. In most games it just looks slightly better, but most of the time I don't really notice unless I've got a FPS counter running.

>DX11 can only use up to 4 cores

Fake news

>60fps framerate really isn't that important except for specific genres like character action games, fighting etc. In most games it just looks slightly better, but most of the time I don't really notice unless I've got a FPS counter running.
Book an eye test or actually turn your TV on game mode because its locked in 30hz.

I feel ya user, but I just cant stand playing games where I have to make twitch reactions like aiming a gun on a running target when it dips below 60fps, but im used to my 200hz monitor so i have been spoiled.

>Why does RDR2 with it's 1000 person team & 300 million dollar budget, look so good? i don't understand this, it must be the magic of Consoles

im not playing at 30 fps, fuck carmack boomer faggot.

expensive doesn't mean costs more
a ps4 costs more than a tiger handheld game, but you'll probably use it for 5 years, so the amortized cost of the ps4 is low
similarly you might spend 2k (probably less, but let's aim high) on a high-end desktop computer, but you might do so with the knowledge that you will also use it to perform work, as well as use it for several years before maybe upgrading the video card, and years more again, before you upgrade the rest of the system

Absolutely. It's also why poorfags who go on about their graphics card being as good or better than the one in some console is delusional, and for a good PC experience you generally need something at least 4x as powerful to have the kind of experience PCfags (myself included) are talking about when they say PC is better.

specialized hardware always performs better then generalized hardware for that specific purpose. this is obvious.

it's just that console hardware has because a lot more generalized since devs have to program for all platforms anyways and consoles have adopted PC-like functionality in many cases.

you can still see the benefit of 'coding to the metal' in some exclusives, though.

RDR2 runs below 30fps in towns, but most console users are use to bad performance so it's normal & they claim it "runs fine"

PC gaming spoils you, so lower than 60fps is a problem

I have a 1050, 8GB and i5 2500k which is around the same as or even less than the specs of a normal ps4/xbox 1 and it runs better than either generally

>absolutely he says as the 750 Ti beat the PS4 in many titles

Fair enough. Alot of people care about 60fps and if you feel optimised hardware is worth it, that's you decision.

I just think the importance of 60fps is overblown and everyone who isn't a PCfag could care less.

The point is RDR2 looks really fucking good for a console game, doesn't matter how big the team is. I've been seeing PC games have diminishing returns recently in terms of graphical fidelity, which is my point, do PCs with their advanced hardware really have THAT much of an advantage over console games still running on outdated specs?

This pic proves him wrong.

Attached: Cute girls fighting uncute things.png (1680x1050, 1.26M)

High quality hardware pc gaming is one of those things that ruins you on consoles. Once you see the difference in person and play on it you will understand it. It's like how people shill VR, it looks retarded from a viewers stand point, but once you try it it's pretty cool.

>
Except fucking pre-gen 5 games ran at 60 FPS
Pregen 5 games are hardly comparable, considering they were 2d.

you sound like you are in a cult

PC is more utilitarian and useful in the long run, but more expensive in the short term, a console is a cheap gayman machine that's ready to use out of the box.

Both have their advatages and weaknesses.

This probably can only mean something if Cyan Worlds says it. As far as I know they are the only company putting out games that almost entirely rely on graphical aesthetic and as far as I know they haven't ever programmed to the metal on a console.

Attached: FRM_GalleryImage_02-1024x576.jpg (1024x576, 121K)

I am, haven't you accepted your lord savior of vidya games? If you would like I could send you a pamphlet.

Attached: b31c4ced285e73f40c884d009c5a7da6.png (1280x720, 116K)

And first gen i7s are still soemwhat powerful, at least way more than a ps4/xbone cpu double retard.

Attached: index.jpg (210x240, 8K)

>doesn't matter how big the team is

Except the team is why it looks so good
If Rockstar made a game exclusive to high end PC's, it would make RDR2 look like a PS2 game

>The point is RDR2 looks really fucking good for a console game, doesn't matter how big the team is. I've been seeing PC games have diminishing returns recently in terms of graphical fidelity, which is my point, do PCs with their advanced hardware really have THAT much of an advantage over console games still running on outdated specs?
This is an idiotic statement. There are no PC exclusives being made by billion-dollar companies with unlimited time and resources. You would have a point if you could compare RDR2 to a game with a similar development circumstances.

i just turned up the resolution on these shitty console ports i keep buying and had a religious experience, now i'm pretending these vr titles aren't shit

Maybe 10+ years ago when consoles had unique hardware and PC APIs were still fairly garbage. But as far back as 2013 he was wrong. I had a GTX 780 when the PS4 XB1 launched. Paper spec, I had 3x the GPU performance of the PS4. When playing multiplatform games like MGSV, GTA 5, etc, I found that it was almost universally true that if I matched the graphics settings of the console, I was guaranteed 3x the framerate. So 30 fps game meant 90 for me. If I raised the settings somewhat, I still managed 60. Now enter my 1080 Ti and the mid-gen consoles. I have more than twice the paper performance of a XB1X and it shows. Where the console struggles to hold 4k30, I can comfortably hold 60. But at my preferred 1440p, I almost always lock 144hz where the console would otherwise sit around 60 or less. These modern systems are just PCs in disguise and there's nothing special about them. That's why this generation was so fucking boring and made it painfully obvious to anyone with a good gaming rig the console exclusives are a fucking joke. A bad joke that is anti consumer, not only limiting the possibility of what developers can achieve but also limiting the preservation of these works of art. I can load up any game on my PC, ANY game from 15+ years ago and they all still work on my modern hardware and operating system. Some of them require jumping through some hoops to get in good order, but that's the beauty of PC gaming. Thanks to the total control users have over the software environment, we can be our own developers and hackers, fixing what companies won't. Game hasn't been patched in a decade? No problem, we'll either inject our own code with memory modifiers in real time or change the hex lines to fix problems, or simply rewrite the game from scratch with a source port improving future compatibility and fixing problems the developers just abandoned and left in their game. PC is THE platform for passionate and driven gamers who care about their games, period.

Carmack did nothing wrong.

Then stop buying shit console ports my man. Oh and what VR game are you playing? Have you tried beat saber or Onward?

>Yeah strapping this thing on my face is great!

Attached: d1a.jpg (2048x1364, 344K)

>occulus
>not the vive master race

I dunno, CDPR are primarily PC devs who are pretty big and their games look fucking great, but they don't really look any better than RDR2 or even Horizon. Metro is another example. Looks amazing, but is not really that impressive when you consider the specs needed to get it running like that compared to these other games running on toasters.

My point is I acknowledge that PCs will always have better performance in general, but I think pure graphical graphical fidelity is reaching a point where PCs aren't really aren't blowing consoles out of the water like they did with say, Crysis.

Witcher 3 was heavily downgraded from it's OG PC build to run on Consoles
PC hardware at the high end just isn't being used

Speaking of, John Carmack admitted the team at Id were depressed when they learned Rage would come to Consoles & they had to seriously downgrade the visuals

>Witcher 3 was heavily downgraded from it's OG PC build to run on Consoles

Which kinda takes me back to an earlier point. What witchcraft does R* and first party Sony devs employ to make their games look so good on consoles?

The same witchcraft that Nintendo did to get Doom running on their last gen machine.

I don't think this is true for the simple fact that I distinctly remember 60 fps mode as an unlockable feature on Gran Turismo, and even that was severely limited.

tons of manhours

There are 700$ consoles?

How much did that laptop cost, though? sure, it's quite fast, but also extremely expensive.

ackshually
there's still a few calls to let it bypass the cpu through windows kernal. not that it has any impact on processing speed.

It's doable if you're like me and play games like this in long sittings and you can just make some tea in the meantime, but it's a bit grating when you're used to PC.

now change this to all used parts

Where are you from, Brazil?

He's technically correct, but it's incredibly disingenuous because nobody in their right mind would have a PC with the same "paper spec" as a console

youtube.com/watch?v=SRuvMDxBGEw

For that much you'll get a system much more powerful and versatile than any console though, and I can play through and get bored with my PS4's entire catalog in mere months whereas a PC will have you set for 5+ years.

youtube.com/watch?v=SRuvMDxBGEw

and this was FOUR YEARS AGO

>Games optimized and compiled for an exact hardware setup
doesn't Anthem run at like 15fps on Xbox one?

>older consoles developers were able to build games that used glitches in console hardware as game elements
They still do that today with PS4.

Shit nig, that's painful to read, still, you're absolutely right.

>implies PC gaming isn't cheap
>posts a bunch of cheap junk
PC's also last longer and can do more than consoles. if 50% of my PC use is for gaming, then spending 1300 on a PC is still within range of a newer console that i still have to pay big money for games on. Not like you care but the biggest upside to PC is its modular hardware.

I still can't run TF2 on high settings on my pc

yea the windows kernel is trash

This. Carmack is self absorbed and will always defend his profession's short comings.

He's becoming a shill and corporate mouthpiece.

Wrong. PS4's api is the lowest level api in the gaming industry. A cut down 7870 should not be able to perform like this with a tablet CPU in those Sony first party games.
The CPU's in these consoles are punching waaaay above their pay which is a direct proof of what Carmack is saying. There is a lot better chance that they manage to utilize most of the theoretical TFLOP performance of the GPU's on consoles compared to PC's aswell.

This is one of the dumbest posts ITT

This was true when consoles weren't just budget PCs.

I wouldn't say twice, but he's right. Well was right.

Consoles are becoming more like your off the shelf PC which is good and bad. Good in the sense that developers no longer need to heavily consider and/or rewrite code for multiple sets of hardware. Bad since it means it's not a specialized piece of hardware which does it vastly better when for one reason you don't have a middle man managing everything in case you fuck up. There's a shitload of reasons for both sides, but he was right.

New consoles just like phones degenerated with addition of internet access.
Now they are slammed with bloatware and DRM to fence in the cattle.
I miss the times when you turned on console when you just wanted to put the game in
and play, last time it was in PS2 era.
Now there is barely any reason to have one if you have PC and are not an impressionable sheep that always needs the newest game as it releases.

Around 1k, but price doesn't mean much when i can do just about anything on the go and have a well paying job.

Yes

>I can definitely run something like horizon or uncharted 4 on $200 PC hardware!
Who are you trying to fool?

Attached: 1550529399787.png (371x353, 148K)

Don't consoles support SSD as well?

I haven't tried it but I don't see why not, sort of defeats the purpose of a cheap gaming machine to have to upgrade it with aftermarket parts though, can become costly rather quick considering an average PS4 game installs like 50GB on disk. I don't think I wouldn't prefer spending it on games even if I were rich af.

>>I can definitely run something like horizon or uncharted 4 on $200 PC hardware
Who are you quoting?

Anyone disagreeing itt

7870 and one of those 100 xeon prebuilts and a 650w psu

boom, ps4 stomper for under 200

Well Switch is built on mobile parts, so...

>7870
>card that was by itself almost as expensive as ps4 when it came out performs better
no shit
might as well compare ps4 and 780 ti

No. Benchmarks of PC games on comparable hardware to consoles have given comparable results. Which should not be surprising because consoles now are basically PCs.

Nintendo had nothing to do with that port

Money & time

At the time the PS4 launched, you could build a PC that ran games just as well as it for the same price.

I doubt you could build a PS4 level PC for $200 without used parts now because those parts aren't really being sold any more.

>The CPU's in these consoles are punching waaaay above their pay

No, that's why even Pro & X struggle to hit 60fps in many games

7870 was $199 in early 2012 bro

Yes it defeat that purpose but at least you won't have something that takes up to a whole minute and half to load a game.

well you could have saved a bunch by going with the 2500k instead, it performs the same. I got mine with a mobo when it was new for only like $150.

also, 7870 turned out to be one of the best-value GPUs ever made. consider that a ~$200 GPU lasted for 7 years and was always able to play AAA games at an ok level @ 1080p. that kind of longevity is usually reserved for CPUs. I got 2 7870ghz for only ~$170. no nvidia GPU has ever held up that well (maybe the 980ti and 1080ti will).

Yes you idiot
It's far easier to optimize for a single console than to optimize for a PC, PCs are a much wider range of specs and you have to accommodate all of them the best you can

Attached: 1495993893846.png (547x544, 297K)

user most games on consoles aren't even programmed to run at 60fps since it's way easier for the devs to adjust settings to make the game run at 30.
There are a few exceptions, yes. Like Siege, where the devs introduced a patch way after the release to make the game run smoothly at 60

it's you who should read and , you absolute brainlet

What exactly is so different on pc in terms of programming? It's basically same winAPI, directx, x64 cpu architecture with same instructions.

yes

They can't hit 60fps because it's too demanding

It's the ther way around, devs won't program them to run at 60 fps because they know it would be too demanding. The games are software-capped at 30

A company prolific in porting to the Switch did(iirc), so same thing.

>and optimized for one set of hardware
lol

Play Nier Automata

>many people shy away from machine code, but delve under the hood of that shoddy interpreted language you normally use and past the compiled underpinnings and you'll find a wealth of minor optimizations, improved understanding of architecture, and a lot of bragging rights. assembly isn't just good for your program, it's -DANANANANANNANANAA - GOOD STANDARDS
>now if you're a fan of our show, you've probably seen this line search algorithm before, but good things bear repeating, and that goes DOUBLE for iterative algorithms.
>you could use a specialized object here, but remember - a unitasker is just going to take up space and not accomplish much bang for your buck. you're better off using a multitasker (I find a singleton does nicely)
>some people wonder about the legality of hijacking a russian scene group's bitcoin miner to use as a compile farm, but I say phooey! if they're just going to leave all that untapped potential lying around, that's fine by me. Besides, the FBI describes "hacking" as...
>now remember, this is a processor SWEAT, not a processor SAUTE. if you see smoke coming out? turn. down. the. voltage.
>*four-minute skit in which an intern is mercilessly hazed for the sin of dreaming that he'd ever be allowed to touch a computer*
>well, I hope this episode has inspired you to think outside the box when it comes to signal encoding. whether you're just starting out in your coding theory classes or you're an engineer working for the NSA's cryptography department, I think you'll agree that there's a rich treasure trove of potential to be unlocked with the proper encoding scheme. It's fun, it's useful, and it's some good old fashioned fun - not to mention good practices. See you next time.

No. He said that if the promise of vulkan and steam machines were fully utilized, then Sony should be worried. But that never happened.

Why post a picture that is heavily compressed from native then?

60fps doesn't mean what you think it means. If they designed their engine to run 60fps then it would. But they aren't optimizing for that.

It uses more GI samples on PC & the PS4 version does run at 900p & not quite 60fps

It could run at 60fps, but it wouldn't like like RDR2 & that's thanks to the CPU

I have a gtx 1060 3gb and a i7 970 overclocked and stable at 4.2. I can run metro exodus at 54 fps on ultra. Can a PS4 or xbox one do that?

No, they absolutely cannot. Anyone who says otherwise is fucking deluded.

So you're saying it's devs who's holding the true potential of consoles?

No

>Buy a cheap pre-built PC designed for office use for $250-$300
>comes with an i7
>slap in a lower-mid level GPU like an RX 560 for $150 bucks
>You now have a machine that can play most things at 1080p 60 FPS on high for $400-$450 bucks

You could very easily put in a stronger PSU and GPU if you're willing to spend more money and then you have something that can last for a pretty fucking long time. Entry level PC gaming is affordable if you're not a fucking retard and do some digging.

Attached: 1381433256875.gif (300x225, 406K)

How much do ram speeds and configs,ie 2x8 to 4x4 matter for vidya?

Faster ram can really smooth 1%fps drops.

Maybe

>RX 560
>play most things at 1080p 60 FPS on high

From someone who owns an RX560, no... no you won't.

drivers and hardware. amd's drivers are notoriously bad. intel's gpu hardware is also not up to par. even nvidia products vary in quality.

I have exactly that and I can play a surprising amount of things on high settings while floating 60FPS+ like Rising Storm 2, Killing Floor 2 on Ultra, World of Warships/Tanks, XCUM2. I've had to turn some games down a bit to get stable 60 FPS like Apex Legends, Monster Hunter World, and Dead By Daylight, but for the most part as long as the game is well optimized and not too recent, it can run things fairly well.

youtube.com/watch?v=rLcS73VV9ts

More intensive games will need you to turn shit down but fuck it, it's an entry level PC. Most people who are budgeting for an RX 560 instead of something with more kick probably aren't going to notice or care too much about the difference between 50FPS - 60FPS

>muh perfomance
consoles are a closed system, they could have 10x the perfomance and I'd still prefer a PC because at least I can tinker and install whatever I wanted

Attached: 01204712842.jpg (318x318, 15K)

Lol

>Can't get 60 fps because it's too demanding
>"no they won't make it 60fps because it's too demanding"
what?

Go ahead and try to run rdr2 on a 7 year old gpu when its ported to pc.

>27fps is twice the performance of a PC
I don't really know what this nobody is trying to tweet there

You honestly believe that GTX 680 won't be able to produce pathetic 30 fps (with dips on garbo consoles) and below medium graphics?
My fucking sides, stupid peasant. You stink, go away.

It means It's a wonder they can even squeeze 24 fps out of that hardware.

>7 years
at least it will run better than on ps3, oh wait.

No

Attached: 1545571693170.jpg (665x718, 173K)

The ps4 has the equivalent of hd 7850 which is much worse than a gtx 680. A gtx 680 cost more that the whole ps4 when it was released.
And no I doubt it will hold stable 30.

> Still caring about John Hack Carmack

His megatextures crap flopped big-time

No one cares what you doubt about, poor peasant.

Let's see about that:

* Dark Souls - unstable 30fps juttery mess on consoles, 60fps on mid-range PCs
* Destiny 2 - 30fps on consoles, 60fps on PC
* Vanquish - unstable 30fps on consoles, 60 to 144fps on PC
* Bayonetta - unstable unlocked framerate on consoles, 60fps locked on PC
* FF15 - 20 to 30fps on console, 60fps on a good GPU

And the list goes on and on.

John bitchass Carmack is full of shit.

>pc ports are unoptimized shitware

tell us something new john

Yes but consoles are not the same paper spec and have lower specs than the majority of PCs.

Because consoles only have to worry about showing stupid ass ads.

Console garbage still fails to maintain even 30 (THIRTY FPS) in 2019.

Attached: 1448356977125.png (1500x1000, 380K)

>pretending to be retarded
Wow you're such a great troll

When ps4 came out I had a gtx 770 which was slighty better (like10-20%)and it performed slighty better in most video games so no, not right in this day and age

Get the fuck out retard.

Don't reply to my posts, disgusting ugly peasant with AIDS.

Attached: 1420564178066.jpg (320x180, 6K)

But desu that was 2013,my gtx 770 would probably perform worse now in 2019

So how do you explain being able to run VR games on hardware that was already outdated as fuck 6 years ago?

I bet console players still feel dizzy from looking at 60fps

>I bet console players still feel dizzy from looking at 60fps
They don't because they can only achieve 60 fps in static photo mode.

Attached: 1549807621045.png (372x372, 138K)

The CPU absolutely has a huge impact though, especially if you have a higher end GPU.

I went from a 3570k to a 9700k (paired with a 1080) and most games saw a significant boost in FPS (e.g. 20-30+ in the Witcher 3) and a complete reduction in consistent large frametime spikes.

>What exactly is so different on pc in terms of programming?
You are programming for a huge array of different hardware and driver setups instead of just one

>when webm's became a thing and all the console plebs didn't understand why it was so smooth

>amd's drivers are notoriously bad
Hasn't been true for two years now, stop believing the shills.

>all these console players ignoring this video
Like pottery.

Compared to expensive computers, maybe, but a cheap modern PC just barely outperforms a 2014 console.

youtube.com/watch?v=6zBAQbESlYU
youtube.com/watch?v=FX5a_VXhAWA

>1 min and 17 second to get to the hub
Holy shit.

Yea man, the compression is totally why all the foliage disappears 30 meters from the character and why the trees look like they're made out of popsickle sticks.

>save given paper spec
No. Because if their specifications are the same then they are the same. That's what same means. The reason why a piece of hardware will outperform another despite having similar components of the same spec is because other components of the hardware aren't the same. It would be like putting the same CPU, RAM, and Video Card on different motherboards. If you put it on a cheap mobo, you're not going to get the full potential out of all your components as you would with a premium mobo because they cut corners on the cheap ones. For instance most cheap mobos will have a bus that it shared with other key components which results in reduced speed on the mobo while a premium mobo would have a dedicated bus in such instances.

The NVMe drives that are becoming more mainstream and cheaper will see further performance increases. I have a 970 Pro nvme and my boot time in Windows 10 is less than 5 seconds, but I am running a tweaked version of LTSB 2016. With Windows 7 Pro SP1, the boot time is similar. I have not timed each program I use, but load times are extremely fast using this drive. When I play multiplayer games, I am the first to join the game and if someone beats me it is most likely due to them also having a nvme drive and better ping.

>The CPU's in these consoles are punching waaaay above their pay
Yea, that's why most console games run like shit, huh?
No, the CPUs perform about how you'd expect, it's just that most games are WAY more GPU bound and 30 FPS is much lighter on CPU resources than 60 FPS.
Hence why you can run something like Ass Creed Odyssey at 30 FPS on a shitty dual core but need a hexacore for a smooth 60 FPS.

>970 Pro
That's probably the most costly ssd on the market.

Different user here. In my experience it's always been maybe halfway through an AMD card's lifetime before the drivers and optimization get good enough to compete evenly with (or often better than) their Nvidia counterparts.

I don't understand any of what you're saying.

ACO is a good example of newer games really needing proper multi-threading for how much drawcalls they send out, it just gets so bottlenecked so hard on PC when you want to go lower than 33ms

This is another thing with Ryzen based next gen Consoles, a lot of devs are lazy & won't multi-thread for 8 cores to see such a big performance boost anyway, someone who pays attention to how much usage their Ryzen 2700 or i9 gets can tell you that

The same thing you can do on PC?
Jermgaming ran VR shit on a GTX 760 and an i5 750 from fucking 2008.
Just like on PS4, it looks like shit compared to proper VR.

The more low-level programming you use in order to make game, the more you can optimize stuff to run more efficiently.

A better question is why lie?

Attached: 12788320745242.jpg (3840x2160, 2.75M)

>Picture where you can't see any of the ground past 20 meters
Filtered

So Aloy is only 20cm tall aswell?

As someone who took a few photos of this game, everyone carefully angles the photo mode to hide the sharp cut off in the distance

the draw distance isn't that bad though, i would say the biggest issue is most vegetation is static & looks better in pictures than motion

Not even close, probably expensive in terms of cost per gigabyte but not the most costly ssd on the market. Not by a long shot. I got it for 99.99 USD thanks to a pricing error, though.

The PCtard seethe ITT could power North Korea for whole year.

Is that why ps4 games run at 30fps? Fucking retard

I can agree to that to some degree. It isn't entirely static, it's just not interactive. It still reacts dynamically to the wind simulation etc. I honestly think that is a time budgeting thing from a development perspective. If HZD2 came out on PS4 I think they would be able to achieve it in the end, but that won't happen with next gen around the corner.

Regardless it is pretty clear that HZD is more focused on having high-quality visuals at closer proximity to the player and then in the distance, they put less of a focus. RDR2 looks the best at a distance, but I would say HZD has the better close-up and material quality overall. Especially the character models.

Attached: 1497892956-horizon-zero-dawn-tm-20170619165748.png (1920x1080, 3.95M)

>but I would say HZD has the better close-up and material quality overall.
God no, RDR2 blows HZD out of the fucking water in pretty much every regard.

One x is focused on 4k, pc gamers do nt usually optimise for 4k

Weird considering RE2 runs at 2880x1620 checkerboarded on XboneX.
Last I checked that's nowhere near 4k.

My 760 still runs all my games.

No, he is not right.
Consoles use x86 PC components.
A very weak 8core CPU that works more like a 4 core.
And A GPU that's close to a RX560/ GTX1050
If you build a PC with those specs you will be able to run games at 1080p 30
At the same details.

HAHAHAHAHA

Attached: 1543207861490.jpg (262x263, 14K)

Attached: 1549945874621.png (697x175, 16K)

needs more NOW,

Carmack's credibility was lost when he decided fucking VR was the future and invested heavily into that bullshit.

Nah. It really doesn't.
I will happily die on this hill about HZD having supperior close proximity and better material shaders/quality all around.

Attached: gKQVHSD.jpg (2560x1440, 3.61M)

>Changes goalpost

That's because you don't actually go outside and thus don't know what grass is supposed to look like.

It has absolutely nothing to do with background tasks, just that it's easier to optimize software for the exact same hardware like PS4, than a wild variety of combinations like PC

so it's not the other way around
WHAT OTHER FUCKING WAY AROUND ANYWAY
there's no other way around

Uh. Cool retort user.

Attached: hangin out.png (1920x1080, 2.43M)

lmao
cope delusional pcsharts

No, consoles most seem to keep up due to a lot of console specific rendering techniques used to keep performance high. Checkerboarding, dynamic resolution for targeted framerate, etc. Consoles also have extremely low texture filtering and aliasing compared to PC titles.

Consoles are convenience tools and that's it. Hardware is hardware.

If you only compare at the console price point, sure.

what's the difference

optimization on console
>here's the features that you can make use of
optimization on pc
>fuck you, detect every single possible hardware feature (there are thousands of hardware extensions available for GPUs) individually and write code for when it is or isn't present and when other features that synergize with it are and aren't present
and to add insult to injury detecting graphics hardware features is a pain in the ass because windows is aids

he's fucking right

>pay 300 dollars for a current system that last you 5+ years
>pay serveral hundred dollars for upgrades in the course of several years for pc parts.

built a mid range computer in 2011 for about 800 without a monitor. that lasted me 6 years until cpu and mother board started to overheat. i'm talking about 100+ celcius shown on speccy. wasn't going to buy the same shit from 2011 so obviously i upgraded to something more current along with a new gfx card because gt 8800 wasn't cutting it. meanwhile my ps3 is still alive and well and this motherfucker has been with me since launch for 600+ dollars.

>hasn't been true for maybe a half of a lifespan of a single gpu

seriously
fuck pc

khronos.org/registry/OpenGL/index_gl.php
which ones are part of the spec?
which ones are outdated?
which ones are common?

who knows lololoolollololololol

In PC you just need more ram because of windows, or you can go full autism and start closing everything that isn't necessary

Shouldnt this guy be on jail for industrial theft?

If he was talking about cost efficiency he'd be right. Gaming on your personnal computer can be better than console but the price of the rig will have to go up as well. You will eventually make that money back by not having to buy boxed console games which are usually more expensive.

Yeah. Optimization on PC is almost non existant until AI optimization is a thing. When this happens a 980 will be a able to do 4K 60 Fps.

Optimization on PC
>use fucking old, simple graphics standards and stop making games into graphical fuckfests to impress dumb children "gamers"
If you can't run a game on a potato at full resolution at hundreds of frames a second, you've failed as a game developer.

I have the same experience, I load in a few seconds between maps, and others join after various multiplications of that time, depending if they have a normal ssd or a hdd

or maybe the niggerfaggots responsible for graphics apis could be less gay you dumbass
thank fuck for vulkan solving this shit

oh right and those old simple graphics standards (which are 27 fucking years old and completely detatched from modern hardware) are the ones responsible for this shit
instead of making a new one the morons just updated the old one and now it's bloated to all fuck

>consoles twice the perf of a PC
Meanwhile in reality consoles struggle to produce 30 FPS on most games.

Same reason people increase their down payments to reduce future payments. PCfags don't have to pay a second internet fee, have steam sales, and can pirate easier.

because console is not an option and neither is not having a PC

PC gaming isn't about performance. Its about control.

Attached: 1126848601_preview_753069909_preview_268500_20160827023709_1.png (1920x1080, 1.31M)

yep closed platforms have optimization. That's why an amiga can run doom even though he said it never could.

I would be depressed too if I had to work on consoles

console industry especially Sony is a malignant fuckin tumor which has gained more say due to the droves of casuals giving them money that "unique cinematic experience" for the last 6 years
these fuckers think they own the entire gaming industry
cant wait for them to fuckin die or the industry to crash as a whole

SSDs have literally nothing to do with game performance, you mouth-breathing mongrel.

I imagine if tech tv was still around, they would have had a show like this.

They are absolutely not optimized, it's just that the developers know which graphical settings to set it to.
They're optimized in the sense that they run, but the main key is that they are toned way the fuck down.
The only games that are actually well optimized are exclusives (usually)

>CPU - $196
>Mobo - $140 (couldn't find MSRP, this was the only new price I could find, maybe wrong?)
>RAM - $20
>GPU - $250
Potato Masher already costs more than a PS4 was at launch, not going to bother going on from here

That cuck is married to a literal Kang.