Upgraded PlayStation 4 is reportedly codenamed Neo, has improved hardware but no exclusive games

I used to play on my PS4 quite a bit. But that all ended when I recently built myself a gaming PC using the i7-6700k CPU and EVGA 980Ti FTW gpu and combined it with a 1440p/144hz gaming monitor. There is just no comparison. I have BF4 for PS4 and PC. The console version is a blurry, stuttery mess with it's low resolution, awful textures and struggling framerates. The PC version looks and plays absolutely beautiful at true 2560x1440 and 144 frames per second. Consoles are still many years away from this type of PC quality graphics and framerates.

Sorry but this must be a joke. A PS4 is 350€, your pc was 1500-2000?


So are you forgetting the extra £400 in online fees that Sony charges every generation?. Also £2000 to buy a PC with that kind of hardware, yes I suppose you could spend that much but if you were to choose parts wisely you could get performance like that for just over £1000 which isn't bad when you consider a PS4 and mandatory online fees ends up costing £800 and that's before we even discuss cheaper software on PC....
 
I used to play on my PS4 quite a bit. But that all ended when I recently built myself a gaming PC using the i7-6700k CPU and EVGA 980Ti FTW gpu and combined it with a 1440p/144hz gaming monitor. There is just no comparison. I have BF4 for PS4 and PC. The console version is a blurry, stuttery mess with it's low resolution, awful textures and struggling framerates. The PC version looks and plays absolutely beautiful at true 2560x1440 and 144 frames per second. Consoles are still many years away from this type of PC quality graphics and framerates.

Sorry but this must be a joke. A PS4 is 350€, your pc was 1500-2000?

I think what he mean't to say was, how can you expect PC performance from a $350 console?? It's like buying an e-machine and saying you want to get into PC gaming.
 
I think what he mean't to say was, how can you expect PC performance from a $350 console?? It's like buying an e-machine and saying you want to get into PC gaming.
There are $300 pc that can run games better settings than consoles, and constant 60 FPS+, and can stream 4k content easily.
 
Yes the Neo specs are enough for 4K@30 or 4K@60 with low to medium details (probably closer to low). Sadly you are't going to fit a 4k@60 ultra settings game in a 400$ consoles.

We have already seen some PS4 games (and xbone) stuggle to hit 30fps at times with some games at certain points dropping sub 20. With 4K you can get offset some of the performance with the removal or lowering of things like AA as they start to become irreverent but still the fact is the Neo's specs are still far from perfect 4K gaming.
 
So are you forgetting the extra £400 in online fees that Sony charges every generation?. Also £2000 to buy a PC with that kind of hardware, yes I suppose you could spend that much but if you were to choose parts wisely you could get performance like that for just over £1000 which isn't bad when you consider a PS4 and mandatory online fees ends up costing £800 and that's before we even discuss cheaper software on PC....

Well, softwares are cheap enough on consoles too, there is the second hand market. If you can wait 1 month, you could buy anything 40-50% cheaper than the original price. Well at least where I live. And if you buy something on PC you should activate it somewhere, so you can't sell it, like on consoles. And if you buy a PC for example 1000 dollars/euros/pounds you should upgrade it at least one time in the 5-7 years to maintain the performance level.

I'm not an anti PC guy, I love my PC, but the consoles are cheaper in my opinion. For 800 pounds I get the console, I could play with for years, and I will get 24 games/year (48 on Xbox One) for "free" because my subscription.
 
My god you PC circle-jerkers make me laugh so much. BF4 essentially has the same requirements and graphics as BF3 - which launched when the GTX 580 was the strongest card and ran it just fine. The PS4 is stronger than the 580 and subsequently runs BF4 perfectly fine. The only error the devs made was trying to make the MP 60 FPS when the 1.6 GHz x 8 CPU is clearly meant for 30 FPS (In otherwords they should have just maxed it in 1080@30 instead of sacrificing a ton of visual quality for 900@60

So your suggesting the inability to run the games at 60FPS is due to the low clock on the CPU and not the lack of GPU power, which is really what causes the frame rate issue and NOT the CPU... Why not smarten up and stop trying to find excuses elsewhere for something we all know to be the problem. Look at the Benchmark comparison Techspot did.
CPU_03.png

By de-clocking the CPU it had a minor effect on the frame rate. Clearly this game isn't as CPU dependent as you might believe.

Don't forget there are games that do run at 60 FPS without issue on the console, this is achieved by reducing graphical fidelity and has nothing to do with the CPU itself. You even go on to say the GTX580 ran the game just fine but in the same benchmark review it barely achieved 34 FPS @ 1680x1050, seeing as your new to the forum you've probably missed that so here you go.
Ultra_168.png

Now tell me, what's more important for BF4, CPU or GPU, the answer clearly is GPU, something the PS4 lacks severely to be comparable to a PC.
 
Well, softwares are cheap enough on consoles too, there is the second hand market. If you can wait 1 month, you could buy anything 40-50% cheaper than the original price. Well at least where I live. And if you buy something on PC you should activate it somewhere, so you can't sell it, like on consoles. And if you buy a PC for example 1000 dollars/euros/pounds you should upgrade it at least one time in the 5-7 years to maintain the performance level.

I'm not an anti PC guy, I love my PC, but the consoles are cheaper in my opinion. For 800 pounds I get the console, I could play with for years, and I will get 24 games/year (48 on Xbox One) for "free" because my subscription.


I can agree what you are saying about how you can do console gaming on the cheap with second hand sales etc. However I also believe PC gaming can be as expensive or as inexpensive depending on the person's needs. For £800 you get the console and online gaming for the rest of this generation. For the same amount of money you could buy a PC that outperforms consoles now with another £350 left over for future GPU upgrades and or more games. Yes the consoles have second hand sales but to actually make some decent money back you need to rush through the game to sell it on while it's still "hot" which means you have essentially rented the game. I say this because I have taken carrier bags filled with games in pristine condition and get around £50. Where second hand market may shine is picking up a new game to play on the cheap. However PC also has CD-Key websites that sell games really cheaply and lots of times amazon UK sells brand new PC titles between £18 and £24. For example I pre ordered Dying Light for £18 on amazon. Then you have Humble Bundles every week that can be a source of a few good games to play if you donate a small sum to charity which I like and of course the Steam Sales. Then there's all the great free to play games on PC.

So I don't think it's so clear cut , the PC may require more tinkering but that's something that attracts a lot of people to PC. In any case my post was originally to that poster who called people PC circle jerkers and started talking about PC that cost thousands of whatever currency you may use, for me it's £'s :)
 
So your suggesting the inability to run the games at 60FPS is due to the low clock on the CPU and not the lack of GPU power, which is really what causes the frame rate issue and NOT the CPU... Why not smarten up and stop trying to find excuses elsewhere for something we all know to be the problem. Look at the Benchmark comparison Techspot did.
CPU_03.png

By de-clocking the CPU it had a minor effect on the frame rate. Clearly this game isn't as CPU dependent as you might believe.

Don't forget there are games that do run at 60 FPS without issue on the console, this is achieved by reducing graphical fidelity and has nothing to do with the CPU itself. You even go on to say the GTX580 ran the game just fine but in the same benchmark review it barely achieved 34 FPS @ 1680x1050, seeing as your new to the forum you've probably missed that so here you go.
Ultra_168.png

Now tell me, what's more important for BF4, CPU or GPU, the answer clearly is GPU, something the PS4 lacks severely to be comparable to a PC.

Those are single-player benches genius (Which barely use the CPU). Furthermore your CPU clockspeeds mean nothing considering the PS4 is clocked at 1.6GHz and that chart stops at 2.5 GHz. Oh and look you also posted a GPU graph that shows the 7870 running the game completely maxed out at 40 FPS - thanks for backing me up.
 
PS4 stronger then a 580 heard it all now trust me the 580 is the next tier up to the ps4 will run bf4 at high at a locked 60fps it's been proven then even the 480 is more then a match for the ps4.

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/MSI/HD_7870_HAWK/images/perfrel_1920.gif

For scale the ps4 would be around 80-85%

Proven by what? lol

The PS4 has 1152 SP's (10% less than 7870), and 256-bit 5500MHz GDDR5 (10% FASTER than 7870). It is clocked about 20% slower, but it also has double the ACE's the 7870 has which makes it much more efficient with asynchronous compute. Comparing it to the 7870 is entirely valid given it is practically the same thing. Why do you have an ancient 580?
 
You should play it on a PC, you'll change your opinion pretty quickly. It might run occasionally at 60 FPS on PS4 but it doesn't maintain 60 FPS when the games gets hectic. Don't forget how long it took for the game to get all the bugs ironed out which didn't help either on a console barely capable of playing the game to begin with. Having played on both, I can't play it on console ever again, it's just not the same game.

Perhaps with this upgraded PS4 the game will run better, actually, it will run better no question. But you still can't increase the fidelity of the graphics like you can on a PC so this added horse power will be wasted on older tittles if the devs do not feel the need to patch in "Neo" support, with takes time, which cost money, and console are about nothing more than making money.

PCs may cost more, but they last longer, can be upgraded, can do more than just media and games, can be personalized to no ends, and at the end of the day retain more value than a console. So yeah, PCs win, if you chose to believe otherwise that's not my problem.

I have played it on PC and it looks slightly better on ultra . I own and always have owned a decent PC and a console or two. It doesn't run occasionally at 60 FPS on PS4 , it runs great on PS4 . Knocking the PS4 for how it runs BF4 is just silly and trying to pretend "it runs occasionally at 60 FPS " is just a lie. There are many reasons a PC is better than a PS4 ( and costs twice as much) but BF4 isn't one of them.
 
I have played it on PC and it looks slightly better on ultra . I own and always have owned a decent PC and a console or two. It doesn't run occasionally at 60 FPS on PS4 , it runs great on PS4 . Knocking the PS4 for how it runs BF4 is just silly and trying to pretend "it runs occasionally at 60 FPS " is just a lie. There are many reasons a PC is better than a PS4 ( and costs twice as much) but BF4 isn't one of them.

I've played it on both, stop trying to lie to yourself and say it runs perfectly fine on PS4, because it just doesn't, and is no where near how smooth it plays on my PC. You can't even compare how it looks, on PC you can turn up all kinds of settings the PS4 couldn't even dream of running, setting that smooth out all the jaggies in particular or allow greater drawn distance. The PS4 is fine if you never played it on a powerful PC, but after you play the game on a PC long enough the console version just feels bad. If you can't tell the difference I can't help you, nor is there a point in trying to convince you any further at this point.
 
I've played it on both, stop trying to lie to yourself and say it runs perfectly fine on PS4, because it just doesn't, and is no where near how smooth it plays on my PC. You can't even compare how it looks, on PC you can turn up all kinds of settings the PS4 couldn't even dream of running, setting that smooth out all the jaggies in particular or allow greater drawn distance. The PS4 is fine if you never played it on a powerful PC, but after you play the game on a PC long enough the console version just feels bad. If you can't tell the difference I can't help you, nor is there a point in trying to convince you any further at this point.

lol , yea ok
 
Back