Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Get a PC or even Laptop, connect a XBOX controller via USB and play with full performance for less money paid ..
You aren't going to get a pc that will out perform a recently released console for less money. A few years into that console generation maybe, assuming the consoles don't have price cuts. You also aren't paying the internet bill twice you are paying for a service that has upkeep costs and usually offers perks that far out weigh the few dollars a month. Also not a console gamer.
No, the reality is, and consoles have been this way for decades is: you do the best graphics possible at the highest resolution and target 30FPS. All the other stuff is just marketing.
If your game looks worse and runs at 60FPS, that's not a positive overall. Although watching the wife play PS5 I've seen lots of games with performance mode and fidelity mode which is a nice way to cater to different demographics. Still if your fidelity mode can run a game at 4K at 60-120FPS it kinda sounds like you're running a PS4 level game to me.
As a part of marketing, consoles have always hyped their peak potential and ignored the real world average. Because the one causes people to oooo and ahhh, and the other is pretty boring. "You're gonna get great looking games at a variable refresh rate and 30FPS." Just isn't marketing that wins sales.
Says who? Nvidia supplied for xboxes hardware once upon a time. The way I remember it though is it wasn't that lucrative so Nvidia opted out of that. If console makers, and ultimately consumers are willing to pay Nvidia tax I don't think Nvidia really has an axe to grind against consoles...
And that's unreasonable. Consoles have multi-year life-cycles, and PC's, as an ecosystem, do not. The hardware for a console was probably finalized a year or two before launch. And the PS5 is already 3.5 years old. Expecting a $500 console that's running 4-5 year old hardware isn't going to be that comparable to a modern PC.
That being said, consoles have always done pretty good given their limitations. And it's not as if the average PC gamer is running hardware that can run 4K at 120FPS with ray tracing. The majority simply aren't buying the hardware that can. When will they? When it's cheap enough to to be in consoles.
;)
an apu with shared ram
atleast the xbox series and ps5 have nvme ssd, the ps4 and x1 should have had atleast a 2.5in sata ssd stock
upgrading those to ssd is really worth it, makes them boot and update so much faster
but selling a used one is not worth price of the drive alone
consoles can play some games at upto 4k or 60fps
but they use dynamic res scaling and many trucks to hold 60fps
they can drop res to 720p or lower when needed, and add motion blur to hide low fps
the os on consoles is much lighter than windows, and cannot have other things installed in the background
all console os and configs are basically the same
games are optimized to run on the console very well, all with the same hardware
consoles will never be as strong as a top of the line pc or even upgradeable beyond storage
It's kind of similar, but very different at the same time.
Shared system memory is very bad for PC games. Consoles, on the other hand, do the opposite and use super fast and expensive GDDR6 VRAM for both CPU and GPU. Instead of shared memory, developers call it unified memory, and it's an advantage for consoles. Something that PCs can't do at the moment.
What has Apple got to do with anything? Apple makes great stuff and you get what you pay for. Expensive, yeah, but for a reason.
The short answer is: bias. Clearly they have hard feelings against other devices/platforms. And it's not enough that they prefer PC's, that preference needs validation. Since everything else sucks, it must mean their choice of PC is the best choice.
That user could stand to lighten up though. I love PC gaming. But all platforms have some pros and cons.
Frankly the PC I'll use for four years costs a lot more than a PS5 and a PSN subscription for the life of the PS5. It's fine for me, some people would see it as a negative though, and that PC's are too expensive.
Checkerboard rendering is better than normal upscaling
"Seems like both the PS5 and Xbox Series X should be easily capable of 1080P at MAX settings at 60 FPS."
Maximum quality, with ray tracing? Even path tracing? No. They weren't designed to be capable of that. If you want that, get an RTX 4080 for $1000 USD. Even then, you have to use AI reconstruction aka. DLSS.
"Is performance mode "1080P at 60 FPS with max settings" while Fidelity Mode is "4K, 120 FPS with but lower settings"
60fps at usually higher res than 1080p, with lower graphics quality than fidelity mode. Fidelity mode is usually 4K native or close to 4K, at 30fps. Or 40fps VRR.
"The consoles were always accepted as being less graphically impressive"
I think that's just online people having their little arguments/debates. I was always impressed by what game consoles were able to do. 1st party exclusive games on Playstation, especially, had some amazing graphics.
The Order: 1886 on PS4 comes to mind. Which ran at 1920x800p (1080p with black bars), but had 4x MSAA and 3d model and texture details were awesome.
"Nvidia will never let the console manufacturers use their cards in new consoles"
Other way around. Nvidia burnt Microsoft with the Xbox original. Nvidia wouldn't let Microsoft do die shrinks to save money. On top of other things.
"Meanwhile, the current "software raytracing" on consoles"
PS5 and Xbox have RDNA 2 hardware accelerated RT for BVH and etc. It's not done in software.
Consoles are designed to be the way are on purpose, mass produced and sold to the mass market. PC's are custom built and always have been and come in huge amount of flavors depending on the builder.
We could argue that Dell, HP, Acer and others mass produce laptops but they are not the same, still customised by the builder and come in many flavors, trying to compare them to a single mass produced console is not going to win an argument, different machines for different purposes.
And cost? Customise anything and its going to cost more, them fancy wheels on your honda civic weren't free.
Yeah, I gotta give you that one, Nobody I work with drives a civic.
I hate this notion that PC needs to cost an arm and leg to qualify for gaming. Hear me out.
Not everyone needs an RTX 3080 Ti Super XTX OC and Intel i9 69420x3D to enjoy pc gaming
It doesn't need to cost an arm and a leg. But let's not pretend a $500 PC is some monster gaming rig that puts consoles to shame either. And chances are if you build the machine you want with all new hardware, it's going to cost closer to double the price of a console even not going for i9's and 4080's.
And my point was an argument against the complaint that consoles are so expensive. If someone is going to pad consoles costs, and carry on on about total costs of ownership, then there's inevitably going to be a counter point that PC's ain't all that cheap over the same period of time. Not if we're talking about hardware people would actually want, and the total cost of ownership for a PC, including needed upgrades.
The difference is I don't have a weird axe to grind to perpetuate the idea that PC gaming is better or dirt cheap compared to consoles. And that's with me playing PC almost exclusively. I like PC's and I'm not concerned with concealing the costs of that hobby.