• 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.

How much I've to spend for a PC where I can play PS5/Series X games?

SmokedMeat

Gamer™
i'm not chasing ultra. i just want ultra textures and optimized settings. look at ps4, it runs rdr2 with ultra textures but all other settings are jank. yet you can't fit ultra textures into the buffer of 2 gb gtx 770 or 3 gb 1060 despite both card being more than capable than ps4, no?.

PS4 in no way shape or form runs RDR2 with “ultra” textures. Lmfao!
 
Last edited:

TintoConCasera

I bought a sex doll, but I keep it inflated 100% of the time and use it like a regular wife
PS4 in no way shape or form runs RDR2 with “ultra” textures. Lmfao!
It does, at least according to DF.

Now if you decide to believe them... I have my doubts, although I remember the game looking great when I played it back then on my Pro.
 
Last edited:

Guilty_AI

Member
we will see how 10 gb cards perform at native 1440p. i'd stay away from them. yes i m overreacting because i dont want others to do the same mistake I did. nextgen will see 16 gb 4070, 12 gb 4060 as baseline. when i gloss over old forums, i see peopel reassuring others that " 2 gb 770 would be fine, it destroys ps4". fast foward to 2017, it cant even run ac unity properly without using medium textures which is a far cry from ps4
We'll see. I don't think it'll be much of an issue (especially considering where i see gaming as whole going) but i do hold the philosophy of upgrading my pc during console mid-gen, so i guess i can't argue much.
 

yamaci17

Member
It does, at least according to DF.

Now if you decide to believe them... I have my doubts, although I remember the game looking great when I played it back then on my Pro.
there are no doubts, ps4 uses ultra textures. go set the game to high textures, it will look marginally worse than ps4 even if you have everything cranked up to the maximum

only reason one x / pro look crisper and higher detailed than ps4 is because of resolution. that's it. they all use the same texture quality setting. they all have similar vram budget. no reason to doubt or be suspicious of what ps4 uses for its textures.
 

SmokedMeat

Gamer™
Hi all, in my long "carrer" as a videogamer I've been a PC gamer, but since x360/PS3 era I started playing only on consoles. Months ago I ordered a PS5, with the intention to buy a Series X sometimes in the future too to have the full package (I've a Switch yet). Anyway, until today the PS5 still has not yet arrived and since Sony started to port their games on PC and MS already do, I was wondering if was a good idea to just buy a decent gaming PC.

I've not followed the PC hardware since very long time, so I'd like to know: how much I'd have to spend for a PC where I can play "next gen" games? I'd like something to play at 1440p/medium-high details.

I’m not quite sure what next gen games really are since next gen consoles are still mostly playing cross gen games.

But 1440p at medium/high settings is easily achievable. You don’t even need a current mid range card to achieve that. PCs at that resolution go well beyond 60fps.

Currently MicroCenter’s been offering great Cpu/Motherboard bundles, and DDR4 3200 memory is Cheaper then ever. Get yourself a decent PSU, and I’d check out Tomshardware and Techspot for benchmarks to see what GPU would work best for you.

PC gaming’s highest cost is the build upfront. But if you stick with it, and upgrade what’s needed, when needed I think you’ll be fine. There’s a large upside to playing on PC.
 

SmokedMeat

Gamer™
It actually does, RDR2 settings are all over the place.
Ultra textures are console settings, while we have other settings on consoles are lower than the lowest on PC.

Do you have a source, because I’m curious to see for myself. I used to have it on the Pro, and just find it very out of the ordinary.
 

ACESHIGH

Banned
Take into account that NeoGAF is incredibly biased towards console gaming. That being said next gen consoles are great value for money, specially the Xbox consoles with GamePass plus the emulators you can install on them. If you are already on the ps ecosystem then it's going to be cheaper for you to continue there.

I would like to see how a batch of next gen only games run on PC. Specially 2023 releases. I feel that current PC HW is great at running 8th gen games at ridiculous setting and frames per second but may struggle with next gen only ones of not optimized properly.
 

Ozriel

M$FT
(think how long ago Horizon ZD, Uncharted etc came out and then when they came to PC).

That’s not really the best way to determine duration to PC launch, though. Sony’s PC strategy has changed dramatically fairly recently, and they have aggressive revenue targets.

I think it will settle around 1-2 years delays and day 1 PC for many of their MP GaaS shooters.
 

Guilty_AI

Member
Do you have a source, because I’m curious to see for myself. I used to have it on the Pro, and just find it very out of the ordinary.
DF has a video on it, and unless you think they're straight up making stuff up, the video evidence they show makes it fairly obvious.
 

OverHeat

« generous god »
That’s bait.gif
iRkwyvE.gif
 
Last edited:

Larogue

Member
The whole GPU lineup will be refreshed later this year from both AMD & Nvidia.

You can get RTX 4070 that matches or exceed a 3090 at half the price.
 
Last edited:

SmokedMeat

Gamer™
DF has a video on it, and unless you think they're straight up making stuff up, the video evidence they show makes it fairly obvious.

I was just watching some if it and the checkerboard rendering on the Pro gave textures more of a blurred look. Digital Foundry had some still shot comparisons. The Xbox X had better looking textures because it was native 4K.

Still pretty astounding, because ultra textures on consoles are something you just didn’t see.
 

Guilty_AI

Member
I was just watching some if it and the checkerboard rendering on the Pro gave textures more of a blurred look. Digital Foundry had some still shot comparisons. The Xbox X had better looking textures because it was native 4K.

Still pretty astounding, because ultra textures on consoles are something you just didn’t see.
"Ultra" is just a name in the end. If dev wants to call standard settings "ultra" thats what it'll be. RDR2 settings are particularly bad for these reasons, since ultra settings like these are the "normal", while other ultra settings are horribly optmized ones that improve almost nothing.
 
I didn't read all the posts, but for the latest games all I'd need is a GTS 1050 or above.

I have an RTX 3080 and it's honestly overkill.
 

ChiefDada

Gold Member
I wont backtrack nothing.
Including that the 10GB VRAM fearmonging is nothing but VRAM fearmongering.

This quote will age has aged very poorly and we haven't even seen PC ports of true next gen games.

Not really. A moderately good PC with a mid/low end specs can play PS5/Series X games no problem.

Nope.

A PC with a modern CPU, 16GB of ram and a RX6600 could easily last you this (console) generation.

Nope. Hell, PC gamers with current gen cards better pray cross gen GoW Ragnarok doesn't implement RT, otherwise they will need to upgrade to cards with larger VRAM (not system memory) in order to have a chance in maintaining specs-to-performance parity. Even with out RT it's questionable because dev has already confirmed PS5 version is especially dependent on texture streaming.

ps5 will run maximum possible textures in all nextgen games. if i already expperience this weird problem on a crossgen ray tracing game, I just shudder to think what will happen in future. Its not like I'm talking without owning a card. I myself own a 8 GB card. if this card cannot let me have ultra textures with ps5 equivalent settings, might as well let it burn.

Whoa, sounds like you agree with what I was saying before in the Spiderman thread!

High Five Sacha Baron Cohen GIF by filmeditor
 

yamaci17

Member
This quote will age has aged very poorly and we haven't even seen PC ports of true next gen games.



Nope.



Nope. Hell, PC gamers with current gen cards better pray cross gen GoW Ragnarok doesn't implement RT, otherwise they will need to upgrade to cards with larger VRAM (not system memory) in order to have a chance in maintaining specs-to-performance parity. Even with out RT it's questionable because dev has already confirmed PS5 version is especially dependent on texture streaming.



Whoa, sounds like you agree with what I was saying before in the Spiderman thread!

High Five Sacha Baron Cohen GIF by filmeditor
i've always said it, im neutral when it comes to pc vs consoles. i will always call a spade a spade.
 

RoboFu

One of the green rats
You have no idea what you’re talking about. Zero.
Lol no I only have 4 PCs a 10gb home network, with 2 nas ( work from home as a software developer ) and have had to buy pc parts for the past 2 years. 🙄

Pc parts are still expensive and with new cpus, gpus, ddr5 coming out … building a ( whole ) pc that’s going to last 4 years just isn’t feasible for under $1800.
 
Last edited:

Guilty_AI

Member
Lol no I only have 4 PCs a 10gb home network, with 2 nas ( work from home as a software developer ) and have had to buy pc parts for the past 2 years. 🙄

Pc parts are still expensive and with new cpus, gpus, ddr5 coming out … building a ( whole ) pc that’s going to last 4 years just isn’t feasible for under $1800.
If you're a software developer, no shit you'll need to keep buying pc parts all the time.
 

poppabk

Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
Lol no I only have 4 PCs a 10gb home network, with 2 nas ( work from home as a software developer ) and have had to buy pc parts for the past 2 years. 🙄

Pc parts are still expensive and with new cpus, gpus, ddr5 coming out … building a ( whole ) pc that’s going to last 4 years just isn’t feasible for under $1800.
But none of those new gpus and cpus or ddr5 are needed to match consoles? If you want a PC that is gonna still be playing with 'ultra' settings in 4 years then sure you are going to need top of the range stuff, but in 4 years medium/high on PC will be console settings.
 

hinch7

Member
Nope. Hell, PC gamers with current gen cards better pray cross gen GoW Ragnarok doesn't implement RT, otherwise they will need to upgrade to cards with larger VRAM (not system memory) in order to have a chance in maintaining specs-to-performance parity. Even with out RT it's questionable because dev has already confirmed PS5 version is especially dependent on texture streaming.

I said playable. The PS5/Series consoles are only limited to 16GB GDDR6 shared VRAM. The CPU is fairly mediocre to current generation PC CPU's with a 3.5-3.7Ghz Zen 2 processor. You don't need RT to for a game to be playable. Just like I wouldn't expect to enable RT on the Series S. Of course you'd be looking at the higher end of the GPU stack for RT, and PS5/Seires X performance and settings.

I was replying to the guy who thinks that $1800 is the bare minimum needed to run PS5/Series games, which is simply untrue. Especially now with the GPU crash and the availability of high performance of lower end CPU's like the 5600, the 11400, 12400 etc that you get nowadays without breaking the bank.
 
Last edited:

poppabk

Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
I said playable. The PS5/Series consoles are only limited to 16GB GDDR6 shared VRAM. The CPU is fairly mediocre to current generation PC CPU's with a 3.5-3.7Ghz Zen 2 processor. You don't need RT to for a game to be playable. Just like I wouldn't expect to enable RT on the Series S. Of course you'd be looking at the higher end of the GPU stack for RT, and PS5/Seires X performance and settings.

I was replying to the guy who thinks that $1800 is the bare minimum needed to run PS5/Series games, which is simply untrue. Especially now with the GPU crash and the availability of high performance of lower end CPU's like the 5600, the 11400, 12400 etc that you get nowadays without breaking the bank.
Plus the ray tracing on consoles isn't even close to the level of that on PC already going from the Spiderman thread.
 

Jigsaah

Gold Member
Hi all, in my long "carrer" as a videogamer I've been a PC gamer, but since x360/PS3 era I started playing only on consoles. Months ago I ordered a PS5, with the intention to buy a Series X sometimes in the future too to have the full package (I've a Switch yet). Anyway, until today the PS5 still has not yet arrived and since Sony started to port their games on PC and MS already do, I was wondering if was a good idea to just buy a decent gaming PC.

I've not followed the PC hardware since very long time, so I'd like to know: how much I'd have to spend for a PC where I can play "next gen" games? I'd like something to play at 1440p/medium-high details.
Well for a decent PC right now you would be spending roughly $1800 - $2000. While GPU's have come down in price, Other components still seem to be inflated in my experience.
 

yamaci17

Member
Sure prove it me.

Ive seen enough benchmarks of 3080 10Gs doing 4KRT as best the chip can.
time to settle our scores. are you ready?

let's start
let's start off with what ps5 does:
qm1ARSg.jpg


with "fidelity" settings, PS5 is able to render at native 4K 45+FPS proven here:



dynamic 1440p and performance RT mode sees ps5 upwards of 80 frames.

in this test, I've chosen to use PS5 Performance mode settings.


with high textures... 3070 demolishes the game. render upwards of 110 frames with HIGH textures. considering how much more powerful 3070 is than PS5, this is pretty expected.

what if... 3070 decides to get rid of those ugly high textures (looks worse than ps4, proven by 3 different comparisons), FRAMERATE dips to 60s. excess memory spillage into normal RAM. pcie transfer rate shoots to 10 gb/s. a gigantic %61 performance loss. solely because of not having enough VRAM buffer.

are you now satisfied that seeing 3070 being able to handle native 1440p with ps5 equivalent settings at 110+ frames? and saw how brutally ps5 equivalent textures destroy the performance?

I hope you're satisfied. As you can see, 3070 can handle 100+ frames with these settings. if 3070 had enough vram, it would be able to stay at 100 frames while retaining very high textures.

for reference, you will never see ugly looking walls like that on base PS4. this is the harsh reality with this game currently that no one but me would have the guts to admit.
 

64bitmodels

Reverse groomer.
800 or 900 bucks. there's a 400 premium for playing on PC so far, but i dont doubt that will shrink over the years as prices for pc components get cheaper and faster gpus become more accessible
 

sachos

Member
The PS5 CPU is around a Ryzen 3600 and the GPU raster performance is around RTX 3060-3060 Ti. RT performance is around 2060 Super. Then i would use at least a 3.5gb/s SSD to at least beat the XSX SSD. Thats the hardware i would try to match or beat. At this point it may be better to wait for Zen 4 and Ada Lovelace GPUs though.
One thing to keep in mind though is that although the CPU is around a 3600, the I/O Hardware in the PS5 takes a lot of the load off of the CPU so in Spider Man PC the 3600 struggles more than what the similar CPU inside the PS5 does, based on DF Alex's Spider Man video.
 
Last edited:

hinch7

Member
Plus the ray tracing on consoles isn't even close to the level of that on PC already going from the Spiderman thread.
Yeah, RDNA 2 Raytracing performance leaves a lot to be desired. Its behind even Turing (core for core) which is kinda bad.

And theoretically a RX 6600 isn't too far behind in consoles on compute either at least on the actual GPU side of things. Out if the box a RX 6600 is a 8.9TF card. With some boost clocks and overclocking you could get performance of a GPU in between a Series S GPU and the Oberon in the PS5 Granted, due to the lower bus (half) and TMU and bandwidth it more designed to be a 1080P card... But yeah, something like a 3060 is probably more suited if someone wants the equivalent performance, settings and RT of current consoles. Even better, a 3060Ti or RX 6700 or over.

Here's a £1000 PC I 'made' in 5 mins in PCPartpicker (UK). No OS though you can probably find OEM ones for about £20 or so.
pc-build.png
 
Last edited:
Whats the best guestimate for the PS6 CPU capability? Is anything on the market currently that might fit the bill? GPU can always come later but I want the motherboard/cpu to last a really long time.
 

M1chl

Currently Gif and Meme Champion
I would say buy used 3080 10GB non-LHR (they are as low as 600EUR, I bought one recently), couple that with some 5800X3D/used 3900x, B550 board and 32GB RAM and you are golden I think.
Mining cards are run at very conservative voltage, you have to prioritize power draw, so most often they are in better shape than those which are from some "hardcore gamer" where it's abused to limits. Besides biggest strain is temperature cycles, which are far more often from playing games, than sustained mining.

Oh and some NVME SSD for PCIe 4.
 

ChiefDada

Gold Member
The PS5/Series consoles are only limited to 16GB GDDR6 shared VRAM.

.... in addition to I/O that allows the SSD to perform as extended memory. You forgot that important detail. And before you say "SSD isn't a substitute for VRAM", VRAM to GPU bandwidth isn't what we're talking about. The data transfer we're comparing is storage to VRAM. If you can't move data in and out of storage/VRAM quickly then you need large VRAM to compensate. With Spider-Man Remastered, we are seeing how easy it is to saturate VRAM quickly as next gen features are piled up, such as RT and Ultra quality textures in this case. Next gen geometry and asset diversity will further compound this issue.
 

hinch7

Member
.... in addition to I/O that allows the SSD to perform as extended memory. You forgot that important detail. And before you say "SSD isn't a substitute for VRAM", VRAM to GPU bandwidth isn't what we're talking about. The data transfer we're comparing is storage to VRAM. If you can't move data in and out of storage/VRAM quickly then you need large VRAM to compensate. With Spider-Man Remastered, we are seeing how easy it is to saturate VRAM quickly as next gen features are piled up, such as RT and Ultra quality textures in this case. Next gen geometry and asset diversity will further compound this issue.
Not really relevant as most games run are designed to still run on PC in all sorts of configurations including on hard drive. There's hardly any games out there that actually require the I/O of an SSD, never mind a NVMe.

There isn't a magical GPU hidden underneath those SSD's and it isn't going to work the way you envisioned it. Or give you more FPS.

For I/O needs there's Direct Storage for Direct X, RTX IO and AMD probably has an equivelent in the works. Direct Storage works with Gen 3 SSD's and better with Gen 4 and beyond.
 
Last edited:
Gaming laptops are pretty good options these days, with something like an RTX 3060 you'd probably be set for the gen. I don't see myself building a PC anymore, first time it happened in 20+ years.

As long as you don't get into the rat race of trying to run everything in max settings even very humble set ups will be more than fine.
 
Last edited:

ChiefDada

Gold Member
Not really relevant as most games run are designed to still run on PC in all sorts of configurations including on hard drive.

Yet here we are with Spiderman Remastered. You have to sacrifice certain qualities or performance because of existing data management differences. I actually was not expecting a cross gen game to expose the deficiencies of PC storage architecture in such a striking manner.

There's hardly any games out there that actually require the I/O of an SSD, never mind a NVMe.

OP asked for PC specs needed to run PS5/Series X PC ports. Demon Souls on PS5 streams in large texture files as the player rounds the corner. Same goes for Ratchet and Clank. Straight from the developers mouth and timestamped for your convenience:



There isn't a magical GPU hidden underneath those SSD's

No, there's no magical GPU, but the console storage architecture is doing pretty magical things when compared to PC data management.

it isn't going to work the way you envisioned it.

It already does. See video above.

For I/O needs there's Direct Storage for Direct X, RTX IO

As of now, DirectStorage API does not enable on the fly asset decompression on GPU. It is only useful for initial loading.

AMD probably has an equivelent in the works.

Right, and it will take some time because of the heterogeneous nature of PC builds. All facets of the system have to play nice with each other and that's why consoles are able to do this so much better than current PCs.
 

Filben

Member
Target FPS?

If it's 30fps 8GB VRAM could be a problem in some games with certain settings and increasingly in a year or two.
 

Sosokrates

Report me if I continue to console war
only in short bursts of play time. once you swing around a bit, 8 gb becomes a limint factor and causes huge performance slowdowns. naturally alex won't have guts to expose this. as you can see, even here people are in heavy denial even against solid evidence



watch 44:14. see how the gpu is vram constrained with ps5 equivalent ray tracing settings. once he sets textures to high (worse than ps4 in terms of texturing detail) it locks to a rock solid 60. this is solid evidence that 3060ti has the grunt the run native 1440p 60 fps. it cant do so with very high textures because it runs into VRAM limit. simple as that.

if high textures did not look hideous, I could cut it some slack. but they're hideous. they're beyond how game looks like on a ps4


Would a 12gb 3060 solve the problem?
 

hinch7

Member
ChiefDada ChiefDada Nixxies ported these games to PC and they are perfectly playable.

Acting like the SSD i/o is nigh and be all is just silly. Once we get optimisations from future engines and API's and handlings of DirectStorage we should see much better i/o on PC. Atm, its just dealing with a few streaming issues and hitches.

In any case.. going way off topic. This isn't a PC vs console thread.. its how much a PC would cost that could last a generation of games. Not system wars or whatever this is.
 

Guilty_AI

Member
In any case.. going way off topic. This isn't a PC vs console thread.. its how much a PC would cost that could last a generation of games. Not system wars or whatever this is.
Its also worth mentioning OP made up his mind long ago already...
 

yamaci17

Member
Would a 12gb 3060 solve the problem?
it does
3060 is capable of pushing 4k native ray tracing at upwards of 35 frames, similar to PS5
and with 4k dlss balanced, you get almost a perfect solid upwards of steady 60+ frames. i simply cannot get playable experience at 4k with very high textures
1440p runs fine for a while, approximately 15-20 minutes, and then starts to breakdown as well.v



not saying anyone should get a 3060 for its 12 gb. i just say go for 12 gb 3080 or wait nextgen cards.

there are too much unknowns with current gen cards

- how will they handle rtx io / directstorage
- how will ampere deal with unreal engine 5?

nextgen nvidia gpus should provide a healthier passage to nextgen. think of it like Fermi, Kepler and Maxwell trio. Kepler is just like Ampere. A gimmick architecture that is destined to fail.

just mark my words, ampere and turing wil be considered lower midrange for proper UE5 nextgen titles that goes full ham on consoles. they will not age as bad as Kepler, but don't expect them to age like Pascal.

Look at Pascal GPUs, all had ample amount of VRAM. And all of them still gracefully runs all new released games. Isn't it funny to you that gtx 1080 can fully make use of 8 GB VRAM buffer with no ray tracing yet 3080 will be able to

+ Add ray tracing on top of it
+ Add hugely upgraded nextagen textures on top if

It simply doesn't make sense. Not even with its super blazing GDRR6x speeds. 3080 should've had 12 GB and 3070 should've had 10 GB. that's it.
 
Last edited:

hinch7

Member
Its also worth mentioning OP made up his mind long ago already...
That's true lol. Must've missed it before. But yeah settling for a console rn is probably a wise bet considering that next generation hardware is right around the corner.

Last gen PC parts will get cheaper and new stuff (particularly GPU's) will be substantially faster.
 

Darchaos

Member
So my i7 11700 and gtx 3070 is already obsolete? Shit, gonna play alot of MSFS 2020 and do many arrivals and approaches on KJFK and then buy something better. I would love to have it on my ps5, but that is not possible. I kind of want to buy a x-box, but from what i read on Microsoft Flightsimulator Forum that is not a good advice. Alot of it is ofcourse of no mods and most of the flightequipment not compatible, but most of the problems seems to be about the graphics and fps.

Anyway, i gonna go play this lovley "game" for a couple of more hours:) Cya inte the Air:.
 
Last edited:

ChiefDada

Gold Member
Acting like the SSD i/o is nigh and be all is just silly.

It's not, but because of the fundamental redesign of how console i/o works, it is a big deal for those who want current gen console PC ports AND performance parity, which has been the status quo between PC and console. It's unfortunate that you consider what I'm saying to be platform warring when it's just the truth.

Once we get optimisations from future engines and API's and handlings of DirectStorage we should see much better i/o on PC. Atm, its just dealing with a few streaming issues and hitches.

Chuckle.
 

reinking

Gold Member
Whatever it is you will save that and more by not having to pay a subscription fee to play multiplayer games. Unless you choose to sub for other reasons.
 

NinjaBoiX

Member
A lot more than the cost of just buying both consoles, but you also get a PC I guess?

I can’t be bothered with PC stuff nowadays, all about that comfy plug and play life.
 
Top Bottom