• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Digital Foundry — RTX 4070 Super vs PS5: How Much Faster/Better Are Today's Mid-Range GPUs?

I've been reading GPU reviews for 25 years and never did I see a professional reviewer do a GPU review, comparing it to a console.
Much less, a comparison of a GPU that alone, costs more than a console.
What DF did here is completely idiotic and unprofessional.
No. You just feel triggered and because you are triggered you are pathetic.😉(sarcasm)

Building a complete system in the same price range like the PS5 would make more sense.

But comparing a new GPU that costs more than a PS5 makes no sense. The GPU shits on the PS5?? No way I can't believe it.🤣😂🤦🏻🤦🏻

Do I need to watch this video? No that is completely clear and unnecessary.
 
Last edited:

winjer

Gold Member
Why? Its just benchmark, you can buy GPU on par with ps5 for much less than that.

Compared to other hardware reviewers DF know how to set games so tests can be comparable to console performance. That's why they do it.

Comparison with series X would show similar results.

There is a reason why no professional hardware reviewer is doing this, and that is because it's ridiculous.
 

rofif

Can’t Git Gud
What's funny is that 4070 super is a 3080 performance. and 3080 was 700$ at the release in 2020.
and thats almost what 4070 super is today.... so honesty, nvidia is making fools of us all selling the same performance for the same money 4 years later.
 

rodrigolfp

Haptic Gamepads 4 Life
I've been reading GPU reviews for 25 years and never did I see a professional reviewer do a GPU review, comparing it to a console.
Much less, a comparison of a GPU that alone, costs more than a console.
What DF did here is completely idiotic and unprofessional.
I buy my video cards based on how better in performance it is compared to the "best" console. This video is exactly what this is about. What performance should I expect.
 
No. You just feel triggered and because you are triggered you are pathetic.😉(sarcasm)

Building a complete system in the same price range like the PS5 would make more sense.

But comparing a new GPU that costs more than a PS5 makes no sense. The GPU shits on the PS5?? No way I can't believe it.🤣😂🤦🏻🤦🏻

That is completely clear and unnecessary.

And that's without even considering that NVIDIA launches a new GPU generation every other year...

Consoles are stuck with the same hardware from start to finish.

At most we will have a mid-gen after 4 years next november. And guess what? NVIDIA will launch the 50xx Series in the same timeframe
 
Last edited:

RespawnX

Member
Because this comparison is stupid and pointless. We know the ps5 is weaker already. There’s really no need to make 10 videos of it. And DF never compares pc gpu to xbox. They are just trying to make the ps5 look inferior to pc and not put xbox in there.

You are right about the comparison point. But making are wrong assumption regarding the PS5 vs. Xbox scenario. It’s not to „protect“ Xbox but just way simpler: clicks. PS5 gets more clicks and attention. End of story. They want and need to generate clicks. They are part of a media group and obligated to generate attention.

Judging by the threads here, they’re doing good.
 
Last edited:

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
I think this is fine as long as its contextualized. The card might be $599, buy the whole PC will cost double that at the minimum. Prebuilt PCs with a 4070 Super will go for $1,500. 3x what the PS5 was going for this holiday season and over 4x the series x which was going for $350.

I bought a 3080 knowing full well that i wanted to run PS5 games at the same resolution but double the fps. Thats mostly what ive gotten so far. But the card cost $850 back in 2022 when the PS5 was $500. So 2x more performance for 1.85x the cash. unfortunately, I also had to upgrade my CPU which meant upgrading the mobo and adding an AIO because the standard cooler i had didnt do the trick. Thats $300 for the CPU, $200 for the mobo and $100 for the AIO.

Then recently hogwarts ran like shit until i upgraded my ram to 32 GB and because you cant mix and match ram i had to throw away my existing ram. thats another $100. Add in a $150 ssd and a new case to ensure proper cooling for these high wattage cards, and i ended up spending close to $2000 despite the fact that i was upgrading my previous $1,500 pc.

So 2x more performance for 4x more money. Im ok with it, and i love comparisons like this from Richard, but he needs to do a better job pointing out how you need way better CPUs nowadays to get the most out of these high end cards. So many people on gaf and youtube get worse performance than my 3080 because they either didnt upgrade their CPUs like i did or are still rocking 16Gb of ram.
 
While I guess it's somewhat interesting to look at, you would think this would come from an amateur channel, not one who professes to be a professional comparison channel.

I mean who doesn't think building a $1000+ PC today wouldn't outperform a $500 console released over 3 years ago? It's always been the case and will always be the case.

Also, why aren't they comparing it to the mighty Series X. Is it because people don't need to be persuaded not to buy it? Something tells me DF understands the mission.
 

yamaci17

Member
I think this is fine as long as its contextualized. The card might be $599, buy the whole PC will cost double that at the minimum. Prebuilt PCs with a 4070 Super will go for $1,500. 3x what the PS5 was going for this holiday season and over 4x the series x which was going for $350.

I bought a 3080 knowing full well that i wanted to run PS5 games at the same resolution but double the fps. Thats mostly what ive gotten so far. But the card cost $850 back in 2022 when the PS5 was $500. So 2x more performance for 1.85x the cash. unfortunately, I also had to upgrade my CPU which meant upgrading the mobo and adding an AIO because the standard cooler i had didnt do the trick. Thats $300 for the CPU, $200 for the mobo and $100 for the AIO.

Then recently hogwarts ran like shit until i upgraded my ram to 32 GB and because you cant mix and match ram i had to throw away my existing ram. thats another $100. Add in a $150 ssd and a new case to ensure proper cooling for these high wattage cards, and i ended up spending close to $2000 despite the fact that i was upgrading my previous $1,500 pc.

So 2x more performance for 4x more money. Im ok with it, and i love comparisons like this from Richard, but he needs to do a better job pointing out how you need way better CPUs nowadays to get the most out of these high end cards. So many people on gaf and youtube get worse performance than my 3080 because they either didnt upgrade their CPUs like i did or are still rocking 16Gb of ram.
eh 4x money also got you
- super responsive reflex-based experience
- much better ray tracing experience (if you're into that)
- much better upscaling (4k dlss quality will match native 4k taa and will often have better image stability. and then even 4k dlss performance is super usable if you really need it. it will still have better image quality over most of the console games and their respective quality modes WITH a much higher performance difference between them)
- much better native AA (DLAA is a huge improvement over TAA in almost all cases)
- niche path tracing experiments (half life, quake etc. all have value that u cant have on console)
- endless emulation possibilities (if you're into that like me)
- being able to tailor your own experience
- there's probably more but this is getting personal so it is just my perspective

see the game avatar pandora. nvidia gpus overperform amd gpus and probably console too, as the game has ray tracing as a baseline. you know that the amount of those titles will increase too. so may get to a point where your 3080 barely gets you 40 fps at 4K. but then you remember console is running the same at 1440p/30 FPS (a potential game, not giving a specific title name here).

I didn't pay 2000 bucks for my PC and I calculated it to amount to around 1100 bucks (most pieces of PC are super cheap). I personally cannot say I got "this much performance over" console due to DLSS and ray tracing being a thing. but I personally feel like I'm getting infinite value compared to the consoles. reflex alone ends that discussion for me. it is not something console will ever have and not something will ever focus. they will never give people responsive low latency gaming because that's not even something people ask as they never experienced it.

CPU side matters if you really aim higher framerates, yes. if your CPU is limiting your framerates, you can always shift focus towards resolution/graphical settings and get more out of your GPU. with reflex i find everything above 30+ fps with a gamepad HIGHLY enjoyable to play, and much better than consoles actually (at the similar low framerate targets). I've just tried gow ragnarok's 30 fps mode on PS5 and it is deplorable. tried the gow 2018 on PC with optimized reflex based 30 FPS limit and it is night and day difference. I also compared to 4k dkss balanced in gow 2018 against native 4K mode in gow ragnarok, I can safely say, they're almost equally as sharp and DLSS has better motion stability and less ghosting (and yes, gow ragnarok suffers a lot from ghosting on PS5:



can you put something like this into value calculations? it is impossible. but it is something that console is not giving me. how will I determine its value then? even if I want best possible 30-40 fps responsive gaming, the console simply doesn't deliver despite it being an optimized platform for low framerates. it is crazy how worse it is to play at 30 fps on PS5 compared to my own PC with rull reflex+vrr. it is almost like the exact reverse sentiment we used to have on PC about how 30 FPS on PC sucks and console is much better at that so it was never an argument that you can enjoy 30 FPS gaming on PC. but now you can, and in a much better state. I know some people see PCs as tools to double the FPS of consoles but in relation to having a bad CPU, I'm perfectly fine with 30-40 FPS I'm getting on PC. And of course targeting 30-40 FPS on PC gives you insane headroom to push graphics beyond your GPUs capabilities (capabilities in relation to being able to hit 60 FPS. even if you have the best CPU possible, you won't have a chance of hitting 60 fps with a 3070 in alan wake 2 with ray tracing at reasonable resolutions that give you reasonable image quality. you're just stranded to low framerate targets if u want that experience, but it is okay for me)
 
Last edited:

amigastar

Member
I'm really not seeing very many posts that could be characterized as "offended" here. People are disagreeing on the validity of this comparison. Nothing wrong with that either.
Ok, offended was a bit of wrong wording, to me it's valid at least, because those are two gaming platforms, sure one costs more than the other still comparisons can be made :messenger_smiling:
Those are two realities, we can't pretend like one does not exist. So we can compare them with each other.
 
Last edited:

hinch7

Member
What's funny is that 4070 super is a 3080 performance. and 3080 was 700$ at the release in 2020.
and thats almost what 4070 super is today.... so honesty, nvidia is making fools of us all selling the same performance for the same money 4 years later.
Thats not quite right. A 4070 is around a 3080. The 4070 Super performance is more akin to a 3080Ti, which launched at $1200.

Horrible uplift all these years later though. They really did pull a fast one on consumers.. Charged way too much for so little gains and cut down and renamed (daresay misleading) SKU's. Which only left them to upsell everyone on the TOTL SKU - the 4090.
 
Last edited:

yamaci17

Member
I'm really not seeing very many posts that could be characterized as "offended" here. People are disagreeing on the validity of this comparison. Nothing wrong with that either.
well, when people break down the video into "no shit sherlock, of course it will outperform it why even bother comparing it", there's something wrong with that. because the point of the video is not about that. the point is to show by HOW MUCH.

I mean look at this very thread. some people here have formed opinions THANKS TO THESE VERY COMPARISONS made in the past. only reason they can talk shit about these GPUs and their prices because THEY KNOW how these GPUs stack against consoles with console equivalent settings. and if not for digital foundry, how would you ever know?

they literally diss the very source that allowed them to appreciate how price effective their consoles are. so yeah, there's something wrong about it. so when the baseline assumption is wrong, the discussion leads to nowhere as both sides are arguing for something different

if not for DF and their optimized settings/console equivalent settings, you would actually find it very hard to make a fair comparison. because ultra settings are ultra and you cannot say "it looks % better than console at % better performance". it would be very weird way of comparison. the work they do is very valuable. if not for console equivalent settings being analyzed and found out by DF, you wouldn't be able to make a one to one proper comparison actually. so you could never find out how faster 4070 super is and talk shit about it. because you wouldn't have a reference to begin with. you could only say things like "well I don't care about ultra bla bla". they changed that single handedly. people must appreciate that.
 
Last edited:

rofif

Can’t Git Gud
Thats not quite right. A 4070 is around a 3080. The 4070 Super performance is more akin to a 3080Ti, which launched at $1200.

Horrible uplift all these years later though. They really did pull a fast one on consumers.. Charged way too much for so little gains and cut down and renamed (daresay misleading) SKU's. Which only left them to upsell everyone on the TOTL SKU - the 4090.
ah yeah I forgot super is quite a bit faster... still not great for same $ imo
 

Topher

Gold Member
Ok, offended was a bit of wrong wording, to me it's valid at least, because those are two gaming platforms, sure one costs more than the other still comparisons can be made :messenger_smiling:
Those are two realities, we can't pretend like one does not exist. So we can compare them with each other.

That's fine, but as SlimySnake SlimySnake pointed out, it needs some context. Price/performance analysis is done all the time when comparing two different GPUs. If we are going to compare entirely different systems then that needs to be a part of the equation.

well, when people break down the video into "no shit sherlock, of course it will outperform it why even bother comparing it", there's something wrong with that. because the point of the video is not about that. the point is to show by HOW MUCH.

I mean look at this very thread. some people here have formed opinions THANKS TO THESE VERY COMPARISONS made in the past. only reason they can talk shit about these GPUs and their prices because THEY KNOW how these GPUs stack against consoles with console equivalent settings. and if not for digital foundry, how would you ever know?

they literally diss the very source that allowed them to appreciate how price effective their consoles are. so yeah, there's something wrong about it. so when the baseline assumption is wrong, the discussion leads to nowhere as both sides are arguing for something different

if not for DF and their optimized settings/console equivalent settings, you would actually find it very hard to make a fair comparison. because ultra settings are ultra and you cannot say "it looks % better than console at % better performance". it would be very weird way of comparison. the work they do is very valuable. if not for console equivalent settings being analyzed and found out by DF, you wouldn't be able to make a one to one proper comparison actually. so you could never find out how faster 4070 super is and talk shit about it. because you wouldn't have a reference to begin with. you could only say things like "well I don't care about ultra bla bla". they changed that single handedly. people must appreciate that.

Eh....if I want to know how much better a GPU performs then I'm going to want to know that in comparison to other GPUs. Not consoles. If I'm going to compare PC to console then that is system to system and at that point, we have to include price. If we are comparing simply to amplify what we already know as to "how much" more powerful the newest iteration of an already more powerful GPU is then I see very little value in that. You disagree. That's fine.

Edit: Also, need to point out that I'm not saying all of DF's analysis are useless. I'm not trying to bash DF at all here.
 
Last edited:

hinch7

Member
ah yeah I forgot super is quite a bit faster... still not great for same $ imo
Yep, its better but not great and too late. The 4070 Super should've been the real 4070 and launched last year, at $500. Think I was wrong, I was recalling the 4070 being on par with 3080 (with Nvidia's marketing). In practice its a little slower lol.
 
Last edited:

Bojji

Member
Thats not quite right. A 4070 is around a 3080. The 4070 Super performance is more akin to a 3080Ti, which launched at $1200.

Horrible uplift all these years later though. They really did pull a fast one on consumers.. Charged way too much for so little gains and cut down and renamed (daresay misleading) SKU's. Which only left them to upsell everyone on the TOTL SKU - the 4090.

Yep

FzbdHda.png
 
Thats not quite right. A 4070 is around a 3080. The 4070 Super performance is more akin to a 3080Ti, which launched at $1200.

Horrible uplift all these years later though. They really did pull a fast one on consumers.. Charged way too much for so little gains and cut down and renamed (daresay misleading) SKU's. Which only left them to upsell everyone on the TOTL SKU - the 4090.

4070 Super is exactly in-between 3080 and 3080 Ti performance at 4K
 

amigastar

Member
That's fine, but as SlimySnake SlimySnake pointed out, it needs some context. Price/performance analysis is done all the time when comparing two different GPUs. If we are going to compare entirely different systems then that needs to be a part of the equation.



Eh....if I want to know how much better a GPU performs then I'm going to want to know that in comparison to other GPUs. Not consoles. If I'm going to compare PC to console then that is system to system and at that point, we have to include price. If we are comparing simply to amplify what we already know as to "how much" more powerful the newest iteration of an already more powerful GPU is then I see very little value in that. You disagree. That's fine.

Edit: Also, need to point out that I'm not saying all of DF's analysis are useless. I'm not trying to bash DF at all here.
Just a question out of curiousity. Are you a PC player, Topher?
 
Last edited:

Zathalus

Member
There is a reason why no professional hardware reviewer is doing this, and that is because it's ridiculous.
It's because almost all other hardware reviewers don't really bother with a console audience or don't really do a good comparison. Last time Gamernexus took a crack at it they only compared the 120fps modes and concluded a 1060-1080 should be fine to match the consoles. As you can imagine, that went over real well on this forum.
 

Bojji

Member
It's because almost all other hardware reviewers don't really bother with a console audience or don't really do a good comparison. Last time Gamernexus took a crack at it they only compared the 120fps modes and concluded a 1060-1080 should be fine to match the consoles. As you can imagine, that went over real well on this forum.

Exactly, they are clueless in this regard and avoid this to not be laughed for years (like the verge pc building video lol), DF have enough knowledge to make proper comparisons.

I would argue that many PC comparison "giants" don't really know what they are doing anyway, Daniel Owen is a teacher and started youtubing for fun (at first) but he is way better than most of them and actually knows what he is doing and how games work.
 
I think this is fine as long as its contextualized. The card might be $599, buy the whole PC will cost double that at the minimum. Prebuilt PCs with a 4070 Super will go for $1,500. 3x what the PS5 was going for this holiday season and over 4x the series x which was going for $350.

I bought a 3080 knowing full well that i wanted to run PS5 games at the same resolution but double the fps. Thats mostly what ive gotten so far. But the card cost $850 back in 2022 when the PS5 was $500. So 2x more performance for 1.85x the cash. unfortunately, I also had to upgrade my CPU which meant upgrading the mobo and adding an AIO because the standard cooler i had didnt do the trick. Thats $300 for the CPU, $200 for the mobo and $100 for the AIO.

Then recently hogwarts ran like shit until i upgraded my ram to 32 GB and because you cant mix and match ram i had to throw away my existing ram. thats another $100. Add in a $150 ssd and a new case to ensure proper cooling for these high wattage cards, and i ended up spending close to $2000 despite the fact that i was upgrading my previous $1,500 pc.

So 2x more performance for 4x more money. Im ok with it, and i love comparisons like this from Richard, but he needs to do a better job pointing out how you need way better CPUs nowadays to get the most out of these high end cards. So many people on gaf and youtube get worse performance than my 3080 because they either didnt upgrade their CPUs like i did or are still rocking 16Gb of ram.

That sounds like a miserable headache and not worth it.
 

Hudo

Member
DF Presents: Yet another bullshit comparison that makes no sense at all and is poorly researched and executed.
 
Last edited:

Bojji

Member
That sounds like a miserable headache and not worth it.

On PC you can do anything that console can and more. Just for games you have mods, you can opt for better performance at the cost of image quality or vice versa, digital games are usually cheaper and there are many vendors for them, you can play all PC games released in history plus there are tons of consoles emulators.

Biggest advantages PS5 have:

- central trophy system (vs many for different launchers or none)
- physical releases
- timed exclusives
- good price/performance ratio for hardware power

PC wins in everything else but of course it requires more input and knowledge from the user if something doesn't work as it should.
 
Last edited:
On PC you can do anything that console can and more more. Just for games you have mods, you can opt for better performance at the cost of image quality or vice versa, digital games are usually cheaper and there are many vendors for them, you can play all PC games released in history plus there are tons of consoles emulators.

Biggest advantages PS5 have:

- central trophy system (vs many for different launchers or none)
- physical releases
- timed exclusives
- good price/performance ratio for hardware power

PC wins in everything else but of course it requires more input and knowledge from the user if something doesn't work as it should.

I don't want to tweak

I want something that's pick up and play

The graphics difference isn't meaningful to me

The cost of hardware is less for consoles (value ratio much higher). And I get all the exclusive Sony games day 1. PC gamers aren't getting stuff like they thought.

I'm at a computer all day, I don't want to be at a computer tweaking an optimizing when I game.
 
Last edited:

DaGwaphics

Member
But what DF is proposing is a GPU that costs more than a PS5.
The rest of the system is even more expensive.
It's a ridiculous and stupid comparison.

They aren't showcasing it as a PS5 equivalent system though. They are presenting it as this is the class of GPU you need to double the framerate on the fidelity modes in some of these games. This is the 2x PS5 PC.

Some people might not know what GPU they should get to accomplish that. Or they might think that the 4070 Super could do better than this, which would still make the video a good source for them.
 
Last edited:

Topher

Gold Member
It's because almost all other hardware reviewers don't really bother with a console audience or don't really do a good comparison. Last time Gamernexus took a crack at it they only compared the 120fps modes and concluded a 1060-1080 should be fine to match the consoles. As you can imagine, that went over real well on this forum.

Gamer Nexus' video was a rare one for him, but yeah, a bit controversial. Since then, he has only covered thermals as far as consoles are concerned. Other hardware reviewers are going to do comparisons where they can isolate the component being reviewed. Can't do that with PS5 even if they cared to.

They aren't showcasing it as a PS5 equivalent system though. They are presenting it as this is the class of GPU you need to double the framerate on the fidelity modes in some of these games. This is the 2x PS5 PC.

Some people might not know what GPU they should get to accomplish that. Or they might think that the 4070 Super could do better than this, which would still make the video a good source for them.

If the goal was to find the "2x PS5 PC" then why was the GPU the only part of the PC being covered?
 
Last edited:

DaGwaphics

Member
Gamer Nexus' video was a rare one for him, but yeah, a bit controversial. Since then, he has only covered thermals as far as consoles are concerned. Other hardware reviewers are going to do comparisons where they can isolate the component being reviewed. Can't do that with PS5 even if they cared to.



If the goal was to find the "2x PS5 PC" then why was the GPU the only part of the PC being covered?

The video is an isolated segment of their 4070 Super GPU review. That's what they were reviewing.

Plus, the CPUs in the consoles are a little suspect so it ain't hard to find one that can do 2x what they can. A cheap little 5600 might pull it off a lot of the times.

Hopefully they start to include this with most of their GPU reviews, the PS is undoubtedly the baseline spec for third-party games. Getting a clear picture of where GPUs stack up against that base is useful information IMO.
 
Last edited:

Topher

Gold Member
It was part of GPU review. That's what they were reviewing.

Plus, the CPUs in the consoles are a little suspect so it ain't hard to find one that can do 2x what they can. A cheap little 5600 might pull it off a lot of the times.

Correct. A single component review. Not a system.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Correct. A single component review. Not a system.

Does it make a difference at all in this context? Basically anything you can cobble together is going to be fine for the rest of the system given how good even the bargain basement CPUs are. The GPU is the deciding factor in whether you can be 1x, 2x or 4x the PS5 fidelity modes.

Getting to 120 would be the tricky one because that's where the CPU issues might creep in. With a lot of the game engines not being multithreaded enough to give you that 4x jump in the CPU heavy games even with a GPU that's good enough. Speaking of the really CPU bound games/demos that have been released where the 5600 or something in that class can just barely get to 60.
 
Last edited:

Topher

Gold Member
Does it make a difference at all in this context? Basically anything you can cobble together is going to be fine for the rest of the system given how good even the bargain basement CPUs are. The GPU is the deciding factor in whether you can be 1x, 2x or 4x the PS5 fidelity modes.

Getting to 120 would be the tricky one because that's where the CPU issues might creep in. With a lot of the game engines not being multithreaded enough to give you that 4x jump in the CPU heavy games even with a GPU that's good enough.

Probably doesn't make a bit of difference at all. Which makes the whole thing completely trivial. So yeah......if someone can pull out that tidbit of knowledge in a discussion/debate then that's fine, but I'm still struggling to see a practical use of the information.
 

Bojji

Member
Does it make a difference at all in this context? Basically anything you can cobble together is going to be fine for the rest of the system given how good even the bargain basement CPUs are. The GPU is the deciding factor in whether you can be 1x, 2x or 4x the PS5 fidelity modes.

Getting to 120 would be the tricky one because that's where the CPU issues might creep in. With a lot of the game engines not being multithreaded enough to give you that 4x jump in the CPU heavy games even with a GPU that's good enough. Speaking of the really CPU bound games/demos that have been released where the 5600 or something in that class can just barely get to 60.

Exactly, someone with 5600 or 10400/11400/12400 CPU is only looking for GPU upgrade and 600$ for 2x better than console performance is not that bad of a deal, you can also sell old GPU to gain something back.
 
Last edited:

Loope

Member
Because this comparison is stupid and pointless. We know the ps5 is weaker already. There’s really no need to make 10 videos of it. And DF never compares pc gpu to xbox. They are just trying to make the ps5 look inferior to pc and not put xbox in there.
Always Sunny Reaction GIF
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Probably doesn't make a bit of difference at all. Which makes the whole thing completely trivial. So yeah......if someone can pull out that tidbit of knowledge in a discussion/debate then that's fine, but I'm still struggling to see a practical use of the information.

It answers a question. If a buyer is like "I want to play with the visual quality of the console fidelity mode at 60fps, what do I need"? Well, this is demonstrating that a 4070 can do that for you.

It seems to be as valuable as any of the other information provided in a GPU review, tbh. This is what more GPU reviews need, IMO. Along with showing games at low, medium, high instead of pegging everything to ultra like a lot of them do. That way, however the potential GPU buyer plans to use the part they can get an idea of how that part performs in that context.

Bigger question for this thread, is why shouldn't this comparison be included? Why does it create such a reaction? Personally, I don't get it.
 
Last edited:
Does it make a difference at all in this context? Basically anything you can cobble together is going to be fine for the rest of the system given how good even the bargain basement CPUs are. The GPU is the deciding factor in whether you can be 1x, 2x or 4x the PS5 fidelity modes.

Getting to 120 would be the tricky one because that's where the CPU issues might creep in. With a lot of the game engines not being multithreaded enough to give you that 4x jump in the CPU heavy games even with a GPU that's good enough. Speaking of the really CPU bound games/demos that have been released where the 5600 or something in that class can just barely get to 60.

Even excluding CPU and motherboard from the equation, you need FAST RAM (probably 32 GB at this point) and a very fast SSD

Unless you are suggesting the 4070 Super as a simple GPU upgrade from a very expensive existing system

Without context and the FULL build specs, it's a meaningless experiment

And even then, that GPU ALONE is significantly more expensive than the full PS5 system
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom