• 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?

Three

Member
Reading some of the replies in this thread you would think the Series S is the best gaming platform out there. Sure it's not as powerful as a PS5 but it's way cheaper and to some that is all that matters.
You're always there in the DF threads with these sort of takes. Nobody is really saying anything is the best gaming platform out there based on price. They're just voicing their opinion on a midrange GPU (usually aimed at those who want decent performance for a reasonable price) costing the same as an entire system. That's because these cards are overpriced and not because they now think the cheapest Series S is the best gaming platform out there. They're also voicing their opinion that they think this comparison is pointless because they didn't really mention their system specs or at the very least how much it cost, making the information somebody can get out of it very limited to "$600 GPU in unknown system outperforms PS5". Wow who would have thought! Comes across as just marketing for them trying to sway people from PS5 without mentioning the details.

It's the same uselessness in the palworld performance reviews too but this time it's omission and not comparing console to PC. Nobody is really thinking if they should play this on their xbox one s vs their Series x especially as they're compatible discs/purchases. I bet a lot of people would have found a PC comparison useful though especially as they're different versions of the game. Instead any PC is completely omitted in the comparison for some reason. Comes across as a useless comparison just trying to ride the hype for marketing.
 
Last edited:
Reading some of the replies in this thread you would think the Series S is the best gaming platform out there. Sure it's not as powerful as a PS5 but it's way cheaper and to some that is all that matters.

Not really since Series S was a $300 console and the PS5 Digital was $400 at launch

So the value, as in performance per dollar, of PS5 digital was much higher...

Try again....
 
Last edited:

twilo99

Member
During Christmas the Series S was $200 while the Series X was $350 - obviously way better then the PS5 then isn't it? After all price to performance (or just price, the arguments change so frequently) seems to be so important?

Or maybe the price to performance issue doesn't really matter that much, considering the price to performance of a 4070 Super PC isn't that much different from a PS5 in the first place when you factor in DLSS and RT.

For me price to performance metric is the most important so the xsx at $350 outperforms anything else out there. The xss at $150 is also very competitive. So if you managed to snatch one while they were at these prices, you are winning.
 
Last edited:
During Christmas the Series S was $200 while the Series X was $350 - obviously way better then the PS5 then isn't it? After all price to performance (or just price, the arguments change so frequently) seems to be so important?

Or maybe the price to performance issue doesn't really matter that much, considering the price to performance of a 4070 Super PC isn't that much different from a PS5 in the first place when you factor in DLSS and RT.

Xbox is doing these desperate fire-sales because nobody wants their consoles now

That's not exactly something to be proud of and that enticing for the consumer....

Check the sale numbers...
 
Last edited:

twilo99

Member
Xbox is doing these desperate fire-sales because nobody wants their consoles now

That's not exactly something to be proud of and that enticing for the consumer....

Check the sale numbers...

Price matters when you are doing price vs. performance ratio maths? It’s an essential part of the equation.

The xsx at $350 has the best cost per frame performance out of anything I can think of.
 
Price matters when you are doing price vs. performance ratio maths? It’s an essential part of the equation.

The xsx at $350 has the best cost per frame performance out of anything I can think of.

Yes no question about it.

But i would make the comparison based on MSRP not fire-sales because the console flopped hard.
 
Last edited:

Zathalus

Member
You're always there in the DF threads with these sort of takes. Nobody is really saying anything is the best gaming platform out there based on price. They're just voicing their opinion on a midrange GPU (usually aimed at those who want decent performance for a reasonable price) costing the same as an entire system. That's because these cards are overpriced and not because they now think the cheapest Series S is the best gaming platform out there. They're also voicing their opinion that they think this comparison is pointless because they didn't really mention their system specs or at the very least how much it cost, making the information somebody can get out of it very limited to "$600 GPU in unknown system outperforms PS5". Wow who would have thought! Comes across as just marketing for them trying to sway people from PS5 without mentioning the details.

It's the same uselessness in the palworld performance reviews too but this time it's omission and not comparing console to PC. Nobody is really thinking if they should play this on their xbox one s vs their Series x especially as they're compatible discs/purchases. I bet a lot of people would have found a PC comparison useful though especially as they're different versions of the game. Instead any PC is completely omitted in the comparison for some reason. Comes across as a useless comparison just trying to ride the hype for marketing.
People are upset over a single section from a GPU review. The section in question was simply put in to see how much better performance you can get compared to the console devs are targeting if you opt to buy the GPU in question. At no point was it mentioned the 4070 Super was better in price, price to performance or that the PS5 was deficient as a hardware platform. Likely it was assumed that people watching the GPU review knows how how a PC upgrade works (nobody is watching these and don't realize you need the rest of the computer components) and the price of the GPU was mentioned earlier in the review. The review included 22 other GPUs for comparison as well but oddly enough nobody appears to be upset they were comparing to slower and cheaper cards from 6 years ago.

Xbox is doing these desperate fire-sales because nobody wants their consoles now

That's not exactly something to be proud of and that enticing for the consumer....

Check the sale numbers...
I don't really care about Xbox sales numbers.
 

Topher

Gold Member
Reading some of the replies in this thread you would think the Series S is the best gaming platform out there. Sure it's not as powerful as a PS5 but it's way cheaper and to some that is all that matters.

No, some are simply saying ignoring price in these comparisons doesn't make sense. That does not mean price is all that matters. Doesn't even imply it.
 

Zathalus

Member
No, some are simply saying ignoring price in these comparisons doesn't make sense. That does not mean price is all that matters. Doesn't even imply it.
The price of the GPU as well as several paragraphs of discussion around it are in the review. They even point out the value is not the same as it used to be.

Nobody is reading or watching the review not knowing the price of the GPU nor that you need the rest of a PC as well.

I can only see it being a issue if they claimed that price to performance is much better with the 4070 Super, but they made no such claim.

You should care as those show there's no demand for the product = perceived value of the product is very low, regardless of the price tag...
Why should I care? I'm not planning on buying a Xbox.
 

Topher

Gold Member
The price of the GPU as well as several paragraphs of discussion around it are in the review. They even point out the value is not the same as it used to be.

Nobody is reading or watching the review not knowing the price of the GPU nor that you need the rest of a PC as well.

I can only see it being a issue if they claimed that price to performance is much better with the 4070 Super, but they made no such claim.

This isn't about the overall review of the GPU. This is about this new "PS5 vs 4070 Super" video they created that changed the context entirely.
 

twilo99

Member
Yes no question about it.

But i would make the comparison based on MSRP not fire-sales because the console flopped hard.

I think maybe comparing “current” prices is the most “fair” since this is essentially what the end user is getting in terms of cost vs. performance.. the MSRP is a hypothetical at this point.
 

Zathalus

Member
This isn't about the overall review of the GPU. This is about this new "PS5 vs 4070 Super" video they created that changed the context entirely.
Well maybe I'm just weirdly optimistic thinking people would be smarter then getting outraged over a clip from a larger review that is devoid of context. Especially since a link to the review was included in the OP.
 

Topher

Gold Member
Well maybe I'm just weirdly optimistic thinking people would be smarter then getting outraged over a clip from a larger review that is devoid of context. Especially since a link to the review was included in the OP.

lol.....there is no outrage from me so no idea what you are taking about now. Questioning the validity/merits of a video created with an entirely new context from its source material does not require "outrage".

Do we have full spec of the PC they used? I am too lazy too look.

They did not provide that information. I looked and can't find it anyway.
 

Zathalus

Member
lol.....there is no outrage from me so no idea what you are taking about now. Questioning the validity/merits of a video created with an entirely new context from its source material does not require "outrage".
The outrage comment was not directed at you specifically.
 

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
A better analysis wouldve been comparing what it took to get 2x more performance back in the PS4 launch era or rather 2017 if we are going by the same time frame as this video. IIRC, the 970 was launched in 2014 and could run everything on the PS4 at 1080p 60 fps with better visual settings. And that was a $350 card. Not a $600 monstrosity.

By the time 2017 rolled around, we had the 1070 out. It was a $379 card and was roughly 3-3.5x more powerful than the PS4 running everything at 1440p 60 fps. Their $600 1080 was a 4k machine or 4x more powerful than the PS4. i am sorry, but how can you make a video like this and not point out just how terrible the PC market has been in terms of price per dollar relative to its OWN PAST. lets not even bring console prices in this. Just look at how much more you got back in 2017.

I like these comparisons and I want to see more, but this feels rather hollow. Especially when he couldve paired it up with his 4800s cpus.
 

Crayon

Member
^^^^ exactly. If anything remembers, part of the buzz around the 970 was what a great deal it was. It's totally okay to expect a pc to cost more than a console pound-for-pound so to speak, but that doesn't mean the prices can fly up and everyone has to ignore it.
 
Last edited:

hinch7

Member
A better analysis wouldve been comparing what it took to get 2x more performance back in the PS4 launch era or rather 2017 if we are going by the same time frame as this video. IIRC, the 970 was launched in 2014 and could run everything on the PS4 at 1080p 60 fps with better visual settings. And that was a $350 card. Not a $600 monstrosity.

By the time 2017 rolled around, we had the 1070 out. It was a $379 card and was roughly 3-3.5x more powerful than the PS4 running everything at 1440p 60 fps. Their $600 1080 was a 4k machine or 4x more powerful than the PS4. i am sorry, but how can you make a video like this and not point out just how terrible the PC market has been in terms of price per dollar relative to its OWN PAST. lets not even bring console prices in this. Just look at how much more you got back in 2017.

I like these comparisons and I want to see more, but this feels rather hollow. Especially when he couldve paired it up with his 4800s cpus.
That wouldn't be very interesting either since the 4070 Super in that setup would be heavily bottlenecked and it'll end up as a CPU limited test instead.

I see this more of a laymans for comparing current PC hardware to console. Most people who play on consoles have no idea on how modern graphics cards (and PCs) perform. And Nvidia's tech in their GPU's with features and quality of software have been well ahead of AMD's for many years. Though with that said this may relevant this year as we're getting a refresh for the PS5, with the Pro model. That'll presumably be in the region of a 4070 and will likely cost ~$550-600. The same kind of performance that could've been had back in 2020, when the 3080 released. Granted APU's in consoles are constrained by TDP, cost+BOM of the system but DF isn't comparing that here.

Is the title and premise click bait, yeah. But its also somewhat interesting seeing these numbers with comparative settings with current hardware. No other channel really covers it like DF.
 
Last edited:

yamaci17

Member
A better analysis wouldve been comparing what it took to get 2x more performance back in the PS4 launch era or rather 2017 if we are going by the same time frame as this video. IIRC, the 970 was launched in 2014 and could run everything on the PS4 at 1080p 60 fps with better visual settings. And that was a $350 card. Not a $600 monstrosity.

By the time 2017 rolled around, we had the 1070 out. It was a $379 card and was roughly 3-3.5x more powerful than the PS4 running everything at 1440p 60 fps. Their $600 1080 was a 4k machine or 4x more powerful than the PS4. i am sorry, but how can you make a video like this and not point out just how terrible the PC market has been in terms of price per dollar relative to its OWN PAST. lets not even bring console prices in this. Just look at how much more you got back in 2017.

I like these comparisons and I want to see more, but this feels rather hollow. Especially when he couldve paired it up with his 4800s cpus.
this is a case where two anomalies meet:

ps5 gpu for the price it is being offered at (400 bucks without disc) is just crazy and can't be matched. whereas ps4 gpu for the price it is being offered at was much more reasonable.

with 400 bucks ps4, you had the gpu power of super lowend GPU back in 2013
with 500 bucks ps5, you had the gpu power of a solid midrange GPU back in 2020

that too plays a role about how you perceive the performance to price metrics. ps4 bounced back between 750ti and 1050ti. i'm not defending nvidia but i'd say Pascal to PS4 situation benefitted a lot from PS4 having a super lowend GPU. if ps4 was designed like a ps5, ps4 would have a GPU comparable to GTX 770 (without weird dx12 limitations) in it at launch. which would automatically make all the references you made about 1060/1070/1080 turn much different. OR imagine if PS5 somehow had a 1660 tier GPU in it back in 2020? because that is literally what PS4 was back in 2013. ps4 was super underpowered in terms of GPU power. ps5 is quite the opposite, it gives great bang for buck. naturally this creates this anomaly where it seems everything is more extreme than it seems.

back to my original point; NVIDIA at this point prices their GPUs based on the additional features they put in their cards. So a more valid comparison would be against AMD GPUs if you're going to disregard them and do a pure rasterization comparison. I mean after all if you do not care about these features, you really should go the AMD route anyways. you cannot think of NVIDIA cards and their pricing with rasterization alone. it is just the product itself being sold as a whole package. you may not like it, then you really don't have to choose it. imagine a scenario where NVIDIA forces you to buy a motorbike if you want to buy their GPU. let's say it is 1500 bucks motorbike. so a 300 bucks 3060 becomes 1800 bucks 3060+motorbike bundle THAT YOU CAN'T AVOID. think of it like: "if you don't want to bike, you can't get the GPU". in that case you would have a 1800 bucks product that cannot even beat PS5. NOW, I cannot quite put a price tag on exactly how much DLSS/ray tracing cores cost. But they must have some kind of cost. Besides research and development.

And if you also look at things from research and development standpoint: Would PS5 has the same price if it had advanced features like those? Or even when you get features like those at some point on consoles, don't you still fund it through PS plus subscriptions or in general by paying more to more expensive games as opposed to what you would pay for games on PC?

I don't want to derail the topic too much so back to the GPU-console comparison: right now 500 bucks MSRP gets you a 7800xt. which puts you around 1.7x of the power of a PS5.

So you used to pay 50 bucks less and got a GPU that 2x the PS4 (I'm not sure you can double the PS4 and then better visual settings. GTX 970 barely hits 1080p 45-50 fps average in PS4 equivalent settings in god of war and rdr 2. early gen games was super cpu bottlenecked on PS4 so you couldn't even see proper true power of its GPU actually. you could run games like arkham knight and gta 5 and witcher 3 crazy good on gtx 970. limitation for ps4 was mainly its CPU)

Now you pay 100 bucks more and get a GPU that has 1.7x the power. This is the exact amount of price increase for a PURELY rasterization focused GPU. I won't even accept RDNA2-RDNA3 cards having ray tracing cores as an argument. They're just horrible at it. The fact this 7800xt probably trades blow with a 3070ti or 3080 from 2020 is just... not cool.

If you do the same comparison with NVIDIA, everything goes wrong. You pay 400 BUCKS more to get a 4070ti super and get barely 2.2x power over PS5. as you can see, the difference is stark. it is caused by NVIDIA pricing. so when you pick 4070ti super over something like 7800xt, you pay

- 1.6 times more money
- get 1.25 times more performance

the rest is dlss, ray tracing + NVIDIA pricing. if you do not think they're that valuable. just pick an AMD GPU. it still holds somewhat DECENT price to performance ratio against consoles. the value is worse compared to the past but it is still not horrible. is it worse than PS4? definitely. but I also explained how PS4 itself was an anomaly as to how gimped it was and how great the PS5 has for a GPU for its price.

And of course from my knowledge you can simply find RX 6700xt on for 300 or so bucks. I'd say that card is cool too. Gives you 1.1.5-1.2x power over PS5 for %75 the price of the console.

Nothing is as it seems. Sony or Microsoft are not dumb. NVIDIA just saw that people pay crazy prices for their midrange GPUs, they went for it. People do pay for PS plus and have a habit of paying 60 bucks+ full price on games there. On PC you can see how games sell more copies over the years because most people over here wait for sales, but also THEY CAN, because building your library on PC, you tend to have a massive backlog so you never have to worry about playing the newest thing. Console userbase in general is also caught in a "hype" FOMO that actually causes them to buy games day 1 all the time, leading to much better sales on consoles. as a result, Sony recoups all the money they lost making the console and then some. As you can notice, NVIDIA or AMD does not even have similar way to achieve that on PC. so whatever they sell has to make them raw money upfront. it is just how this world works.

Could the PC GPU pricing be better? Could be. But it is what people are willing to pay, and there's nothing we can do about that. People are willing to pay yearly price to get cloud saves and online functionality? It didn't have to be. But people are willing to pay.
 
Last edited:

Zathalus

Member
A better analysis wouldve been comparing what it took to get 2x more performance back in the PS4 launch era or rather 2017 if we are going by the same time frame as this video. IIRC, the 970 was launched in 2014 and could run everything on the PS4 at 1080p 60 fps with better visual settings. And that was a $350 card. Not a $600 monstrosity.

By the time 2017 rolled around, we had the 1070 out. It was a $379 card and was roughly 3-3.5x more powerful than the PS4 running everything at 1440p 60 fps. Their $600 1080 was a 4k machine or 4x more powerful than the PS4. i am sorry, but how can you make a video like this and not point out just how terrible the PC market has been in terms of price per dollar relative to its OWN PAST. lets not even bring console prices in this. Just look at how much more you got back in 2017.

I like these comparisons and I want to see more, but this feels rather hollow. Especially when he couldve paired it up with his 4800s cpus.
I was curious and looked into this myself. Start of 2017 (so just over 3 years after PS4 launched) you could pick up a 1060 that was just over 2x the PS4 for $299, the PS4 at the time was $299 as well. Compared to today you get the 4070 Super at just under 2x the PS5 for $599 (but far faster in RT and DLSS is way better) compared to the PS5 at $499. So in terms of price relative to console it has gotten a bit worse when you look at the GPU by itself. Back in 2017 it was 1:1 for the price, now it is 20% more expensive just for the GPU.

If you compare the entire PC though things change, a 4c/4t i5, 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD, 1060 6GB at the start of 2017 would set you back around $800 while a 8c/16t, 32GB RAM, 1TB NVMe, 4070 Super would set you back roughly $1200 now (assuming best price scenario for both and not absolute bottom of the barrel stuff). So in 2017 it would be $299 vs $800 compared to $499 vs $1200 now.

So yes, GPU price to performance relative to a console has gotten worse but thanks to better PC competition elsewhere and consoles getting more expensive as well, the entire PC price relative to a console has not really changed when looking at roughly 2x performance bracket. High end has gotten way more expensive though back in 2017 a 1080ti was $699 compared to the $1599 price of the 4090 today.
 
Last edited:

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
but did 970 had the capability to deliver more quality per pixel like dlss capable cards could? this is a case where two anomalies meet:

ps5 gpu for the price it is being offered at (400 bucks without disc) is just crazy and can't be matched. whereas ps4 gpu for the price it is being offered at was much more reasonable.

with 400 bucks ps4, you had the gpu power of super lowend GPU back in 2013
with 500 bucks ps5, you had the gpu power of a solid midrange GPU back in 2020

that too plays a role about how you perceive the performance to price metrics. ps4 bounced back between 750ti and 1050ti. i'm not defending nvidia but i'd say Pascal to PS4 situation benefitted a lot from PS4 having a super lowend GPU. if ps4 was designed like a ps5, ps4 would have a GPU comparable to GTX 770 (without weird dx12 limitations) in it at launch. which would automatically make all the references you made about 1060/1070/1080 turn much different. OR imagine if PS5 somehow had a 1660 tier GPU in it back in 2020? because that is literally what PS4 was back in 2013. ps4 was super underpowered in terms of GPU power. ps5 is quite the opposite, it gives great bang for buck. naturally this creates this anomaly where it seems everything is more extreme than it seems.

back to my original point; NVIDIA at this point prices their GPUs based on the additional features they put in their cards. So a more valid comparison would be against AMD GPUs if you're going to disregard them and do a pure rasterization comparison. I mean after all if you do not care about these features, you really should go the AMD route anyways. you cannot think of NVIDIA cards and their pricing with rasterization alone. it is just the product itself being sold as a whole package. you may not like it, then you really don't have to choose it. imagine a scenario where NVIDIA forces you to buy a motorbike if you want to buy their GPU. let's say it is 1500 bucks motorbike. so a 300 bucks 3060 becomes 1800 bucks 3060+motorbike bundle THAT YOU CAN'T AVOID. think of it like: "if you don't want to bike, you can't get the GPU". in that case you would have a 1800 bucks product that cannot even beat PS5. NOW, I cannot quite put a price tag on exactly how much DLSS/ray tracing cores cost. But they must have some kind of cost. Besides research and development.

And if you also look at things from research and development standpoint: Would PS5 has the same price if it had advanced features like those? Or even when you get features like those at some point on consoles, don't you still fund it through PS plus subscriptions or in general by paying more to more expensive games as opposed to what you would pay for games on PC?

I don't want to derail the topic too much so back to the GPU-console comparison: right now 500 bucks MSRP gets you a 7800xt. which puts you around 1.7x of the power of a PS5.

So you used to pay 50 bucks less and got a GPU that 2x the PS4 (I'm not sure you can double the PS4 and then better visual settings. GTX 970 barely hits 1080p 45-50 fps average in PS4 equivalent settings in god of war and rdr 2. early gen games was super cpu bottlenecked on PS4 so you couldn't even see proper true power of its GPU actually. you could run games like arkham knight and gta 5 and witcher 3 crazy good on gtx 970. limitation for ps4 was mainly its CPU)

Now you pay 100 bucks more and get a GPU that has 1.7x the power. This is the exact amount of price increase for a PURELY rasterization focused GPU. I won't even accept RDNA2-RDNA3 cards having ray tracing cores as an argument. They're just horrible at it. The fact this 7800xt probably trades blow with a 3070ti or 3080 from 2020 is just... not cool.

If you do the same comparison with NVIDIA, everything goes wrong. You pay 400 BUCKS more to get a 4070ti super and get barely 2.2x power over PS5. as you can see, the difference is stark. it is caused by NVIDIA pricing. so when you pick 4070ti super over something like 7800xt, you pay

- 1.6 times more money
- get 1.25 times more performance

the rest is dlss, ray tracing + NVIDIA pricing. if you do not think they're that valuable. just pick an AMD GPU. it still holds somewhat DECENT price to performance ratio against consoles. the value is worse compared to the past but it is still not horrible. is it worse than PS4? definitely. but I also explained how PS4 itself was an anomaly as to how gimped it was and how great the PS5 has for a GPU for its price.

And of course from my knowledge you can simply find RX 6700xt on for 300 or so bucks. I'd say that card is cool too. Gives you 1.1.5-1.2x power over PS5 for %75 the price of the console.

Nothing is as it seems. Sony or Microsoft are not dumb. NVIDIA just saw that people pay crazy prices for their midrange GPUs, they went for it. People do pay for PS plus and have a habit of paying 60 bucks+ full price on games there. On PC you can see how games sell more copies over the years because most people over here wait for sales, but also THEY CAN, because building your library on PC, you tend to have a massive backlog so you never have to worry about playing the newest thing. Console userbase in general is also caught in a "hype" FOMO that actually causes them to buy games day 1 all the time, leading to much better sales on consoles. as a result, Sony recoups all the money they lost making the console and then some. As you can notice, NVIDIA or AMD does not even have similar way to achieve that on PC. so whatever they sell has to make them raw money upfront. it is just how this world works.

Could the PC GPU pricing be better? Could be. But it is what people are willing to pay, and there's nothing we can do about that. People are willing to pay yearly price to get cloud saves and online functionality? It didn't have to be. But people are willing to pay.
Yeah, I forgot about the 7800xt which is a fantastic product for its price. I think Richard shouldve included those AMD cards in there. If he did then i must have missed it.

While I think DLSS has been great, i have found that i have needed to use DLSS as a crutch. In Avatar, I had to go from DLSS quality to DLSS performance routinely depending on the area of the game to get a locked 60 fps. Is that 2x more performance? Maybe, but it comes with DLSS so I dont see it as an extra that justifies the nvidia tax.

Besides, most of the games ive played this gen and especially last year, ive had to disable ray tracing just to get a solid 60 fps. Ray tracing just doesnt work well even with my decent enough CPU. it costs way too much in Image quality and at this point, i just disable ray tracing. Hogwarts, Star Wars, AW2, RE4 and Gotham knights all of them caused a lot of issues with RT on so i just disabled it. People dont realize the cost these RT effects have on the CPU and vram even with DLSS performance modes which look a lot softer than DLSS quality to me.
 
Yes, there's no question that the PS4/Xone gen was much worse in value compared to this one. Because both Sony and MS didn't want to go above $400 in price and AMD's APUs were not nearly as good as they are now...

Just the CPU upgrade alone is insane...

And PC components were much cheaper back then, especially GPUs so it was a much better proposition to jump to PC gaming
 
Last edited:

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
Yes, there's no question that the PS4/Xone gen was much worse in value compared to this one. Because both Sony and MS didn't want to go above $400 in price and AMD's APUs were not good as they are now...

Just the CPU upgrade alone is insane...

And PC components were much cheaper back then, especially GPUs so it was a much better proposition to jump to PC gaming
i remember seeing BOM breakdowns of the GTX 580 chips. They cost nvidia $80 and were being sold for $500. Nvidia has just gotten greedier. PC GPUs shouldnt be this expensive. I think they are all following the Apple model of making 3x profit per unit. People keep buying these things, but it doesnt mean places like DF shouldnt be calling out these ridiculous prices.

To be fair, PC outlets on youtube are very good about calling out trash products from nvidia.
 

Zathalus

Member
Looking into cheap PC components I've realized it's possible to put a PC together that matches the PS5 for around $560. It is using a 7600 though, so no DLSS.
 

yamaci17

Member
Yeah, I forgot about the 7800xt which is a fantastic product for its price. I think Richard shouldve included those AMD cards in there. If he did then i must have missed it.

While I think DLSS has been great, i have found that i have needed to use DLSS as a crutch. In Avatar, I had to go from DLSS quality to DLSS performance routinely depending on the area of the game to get a locked 60 fps. Is that 2x more performance? Maybe, but it comes with DLSS so I dont see it as an extra that justifies the nvidia tax.

Besides, most of the games ive played this gen and especially last year, ive had to disable ray tracing just to get a solid 60 fps. Ray tracing just doesnt work well even with my decent enough CPU. it costs way too much in Image quality and at this point, i just disable ray tracing. Hogwarts, Star Wars, AW2, RE4 and Gotham knights all of them caused a lot of issues with RT on so i just disabled it. People dont realize the cost these RT effects have on the CPU and vram even with DLSS performance modes which look a lot softer than DLSS quality to me.
as to the crutch part: The game in question, Avatar, also uses FSR to heavily upscale on console. even its 30 fps mode ranges from 1200p to 1800p and performance drops to 864p at times.... with FSR 2. it is just the new reality of games, being reliant on upscaler. It is not like PS5 runs this game at 4k / 30 fps and you can double it up to 60 FPS with 4K DLSS quality. it is only normal that you need to drop to dlss performance. you not liking it is an altogether story. but if you don't like it at all, then you should hate how it looks on PS5. yet you think it looks gorgeous on PS5. which leaves me surprised because even 4K DLSS performance at its worst should have much better image stability and clarity than 4K FSR 2 at internal resolutions around 1200-1300p. Even 4k fsr quality looks worse than 4k dlss performance in my experience. so idk what to make of that. I also tried Imsomniac's famous "IGTI" and I find it to be much worse than whatever DLSS has to offer on PC.

So I embrace upscaling because even console games are being built upon it. You can even say I'm training my eyes as much as possible and refrain from native 4k/dlaa as much as possible. otherwise you get spoiled. because 4k dlss performance still looks fantastic. being a bit softer is not a deal breaker for me. the performance it usually brings is so immense that I can overlook the downsides.

personally aw2 caused not much of an issue on my end. sorry to hear you had issues. idk what it could be. I bit the bullet and used medium texture streaming as DF said consoles are between medium and high. maybe u tried with high/ultra texture option? textures still looked fantastic at medium so I went with that. I actually did upload a long gameplay video with path tracing enabled at 1440p dlss balanced. I give it as much as possible bitrate with shadowplay but it still does not look as well as it did on my screen. and it will probably not look sharp/pristine per your 4k standards (so i can understand this wont probably your cup of tea)



as you can see from start to finish it is pretty stable. no major issues on my end, at least not ones that obstruct gameplay. stutters occur after opening and closing the map but that also funnily happens without ray tracing on my end. vram is just too short even without ray tracing at this point and it just streams stuff all the time. we either need 16 gb 300 bucks gpus to become baseline or much more refined texture streamers. though as you can see it ranges between 30-40 fps generally. and of course, it is path tracing after all. and it still is highly enjoyable to me. as you can see there's no chance of me getting hit by a CPU bottleneck in my scenario. and I can, once again, safely say 1440p dlss balanced, as you can see in the video, looks much better than PS5's performance mode. and with path tracing, I find overall image quality uprade to be much better than console's quality mode (that targets 30 fps).
but ORIGINAL point is that you don't find it that way, and that's perfectly okay. you also do your own experiments and comparisons. it's not like you talk without experience. you personally think 4k dlss with no ray tracing looks much better. I also did my comparisons and experience wise, I really like the feeling ray tracing gives to a point I accepted reducing the output resolution altogether.

https://imgsli.com/MjMzNTgw (local recording vs. youtube upload. and of course, local recording also has lossy information compared to the actual thing. it is just NVENC after all.)

so in the end... one's perceptions about this gpu will be widely different depending on how much you value those features. and my original point is that this was not a thing that happened back in PS4-gtx970 era. GTX 970 simply gave you a bit sharper shadows here and there, and 2x framerates. it was simpler times, and maybe happier times. I agree. though I'm happy with I have.
 
Last edited:

raduque

Member
Why are 90% of games out there optimized for a $400 plastic box full of ancient hardware instead of something more modern ?
And yet, those same games still play better on that $400 plastic box full of ancient hardware than they do on something, that is on paper, significantly more powerful and should easily beat the PS5 into a hole in the ground.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Xbox is doing these desperate fire-sales because nobody wants their consoles now

That's not exactly something to be proud of and that enticing for the consumer....

Check the sale numbers...

Xbox series just had its best sales month in units in December. It's about pricing products at a price the market will pay for them. Xbox is a little less popular, so being a little cheaper helps them compensate for that.
 
Xbox series just had its best sales month in units in December. It's about pricing products at a price the market will pay for them. Xbox is a little less popular, so being a little cheaper helps them compensate for that.

A little less popular???

LOL

Xbox with TWO consoles combined and crazy fire-sales is being outsold by 7-year old Nintendo Switch.... And Switch 2 is coming in a few months

What are you talking about??
 
Last edited:

DaGwaphics

Member
A little less popular???

LOL

Xbox with TWO consoles combined and crazy fire-sales is being outsold by 7-year old Nintendo Switch.... And Switch 2 is coming in a few months

What are you talking about??

What their competitors are selling doesn't change the fact that they just had their best sales month in units in the US. I'm sure that's what matters to them.

You are far too hung up on the brand comparisons. Not the way that business works. Look at the car market and how many successful players there are in the industry, the numbers of the individual business is more important than their ranking.
 
Last edited:

SF Kosmo

Al Jazeera Special Reporter
The difference would be even more stark if we were comparing heavy RT stuff, but there's no real way to test that on PS5.

Obviously you would expect that though given the newer and more expensive hardware.
 

NEbeast

Member
1. Because its the market dominant platform.

2. Because the PS5 is just a PC in a boutique case

3. DF knows a PS5 NeoGAF fan boy dies a liitle bit inside, every time they post a video


Only 2 of those 3 are known to be fact.
Most ps5 owners DGAF about any of this. There is a reason they're on console and not PC. The comparison seems pretty dumb to me.
The only people that seem to enjoy these are the PCMR folks who need to stroke their ego every chance they can get.
 

Rocco Schiavone

Gold Member
Time for another useful video:



4080 Super/4090 vs PS5

f02a986f0332ed69a2d4eae43943c013.gif
 
Last edited:

Rocco Schiavone

Gold Member
Why? Is the information they gave wrong?
No?? But people act like you just need a graphics card to run games from and the comparisons are completely stupid.

Do you compare a new graphics card with a shitty 2020 APU??

The comparisons would make sense If It's in the same price range. No shit that a graphics card that costs three times much as the PS5 shits all over the console.
 

Bojji

Gold Member
Why are you upset with this one? Someone is asking them a question lol


DF comparison give us some nice answers. If someone has decent CPU (5600, 11/12400 minimum) then with cash that person can get:

1. 500$ PS5 with 1x performance of PS5
2. 600$ 4070S with ~2x performance of PS5
3. 999$ 4080S with ~3x performance of PS5

Of course building computer from ground up is much more expensive but not everyone has to do that. I don't know why some people are so butthurt about this.
 

Senua

Member
DF comparison give us some nice answers. If someone has decent CPU (5600, 11/12400 minimum) then with cash that person can get:

1. 500$ PS5 with 1x performance of PS5
2. 600$ 4070S with ~2x performance of PS5
3. 999$ 4080S with ~3x performance of PS5

Of course building computer from ground up is much more expensive but not everyone has to do that. I don't know why some people are so butthurt about this.
Exactly, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills ITT
 

Zathalus

Member
No?? But people act like you just need a graphics card to run games from and the comparisons are completely stupid.

Do you compare a new graphics card with a shitty 2020 APU??

The comparisons would make sense If It's in the same price range. No shit that a graphics card that costs three times much as the PS5 shits all over the console.
What are you talking about? They were asked what they would recommend for AAA gaming for the next 18 months and they answered it. Solid recommendation for a 7600/13400 combined with a 4070 Super. The question didn't even specify a budget.

At most you can complain that the tittle is clockbait, but it's YouTube so that is to be expected.
 

shamoomoo

Member
DF comparison give us some nice answers. If someone has decent CPU (5600, 11/12400 minimum) then with cash that person can get:

1. 500$ PS5 with 1x performance of PS5
2. 600$ 4070S with ~2x performance of PS5
3. 999$ 4080S with ~3x performance of PS5


Of course building computer from ground up is much more expensive but not everyone has to do that. I don't know why some people are so butthurt about this.
But the PS5 is an entire gaming system and not one component. Those comparison are still ridiculous because the PS5 shares bandwidth with the APU on top of being older technology.
 
Last edited:

Bojji

Gold Member
But the PS5 is an entire gaming system and not one component. Those comparison are still ridiculous because the PS5 shares bandwidth with the API on top of being older technology.

If someone has rest of components already but with some old GPU that can't handle new games buying new GPU is no different than buying PS5.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom