PS4 equivalent GPU

[techfreaky]

which gpu has equal performance of ps4

 

[709zzy]

There is no exact GPU for the PS4. It runs BF4 at 30-45fps at 900p at high-settings equivalent.

I'm not going to continue arguing about FPS. My R9 270X, with a little OC, runs BF4 1080p Ultra Settings at 60-70FPS. At worst it drops to low 50s. At high it stays around high 80s. I tested it with FRAPS a dozen times.

Stop lying kid, I just bought a 290x a few weeks ago, and it runs BF4 900p with frequent fps drop to 40s.

what is your processor ?

8350

is your GPU reference ?

Its MSI Gaming, the temperature is about 60~80 running the likes of BF4 and Crysis 3.
My new case got decent air flow.

weird,you dont stack up at all according to the R9 290x Benchmarks,which res are you playing at ?

900p, same as PS4 Battlefield

 

[709zzy]

There is no exact GPU for the PS4. It runs BF4 at 30-45fps at 900p at high-settings equivalent.

I'm not going to continue arguing about FPS. My R9 270X, with a little OC, runs BF4 1080p Ultra Settings at 60-70FPS. At worst it drops to low 50s. At high it stays around high 80s. I tested it with FRAPS a dozen times.

Stop lying kid, I just bought a 290x a few weeks ago, and it runs BF4 900p with frequent fps drop to 40s.

what is your processor ?

8350

is your GPU reference ?

Its MSI Gaming, the temperature is about 60~80 running the likes of BF4 and Crysis 3.
My new case got decent air flow.

weird,you dont stack up at all according to the R9 290x Benchmarks,which res are you playing at ?

Don't trust everything you read on the internet, buy the cards and try it yourself and you will realize how silly PC gaming really is. I have a gtx 770 as well, it also drops to 40 fps frequently in BF4 and other games.

 

[Mustafaaaaaaaaaa]

There is no exact GPU for the PS4. It runs BF4 at 30-45fps at 900p at high-settings equivalent.

I'm not going to continue arguing about FPS. My R9 270X, with a little OC, runs BF4 1080p Ultra Settings at 60-70FPS. At worst it drops to low 50s. At high it stays around high 80s. I tested it with FRAPS a dozen times.

Stop lying kid, I just bought a 290x a few weeks ago, and it runs BF4 900p with frequent fps drop to 40s.

what is your processor ?

8350

is your GPU reference ?

Its MSI Gaming, the temperature is about 60~80 running the likes of BF4 and Crysis 3.
My new case got decent air flow.

weird,you dont stack up at all according to the R9 290x Benchmarks,which res are you playing at ?

Don't trust everything you read on the internet, buy the cards and try it yourself and you will realize how silly PC gaming really is. I have a gtx 770 as well, it also drops to 40 fps frequently in BF4 and other games.

Your problem is within your software. It's likely that only setting up the whole system from 0 again will improve your pc.
I 1. had a single 270x and it could run at max above 60fps but sometimes there were framedrops. Now i have a 270x cf pc and this can easily take everything above 80fps.
You guys with the 770 and the 290 not keeping above 60fps at 900p. There is something wrong, if it's the powersupply or software, but your system isn't running on full throttle!

 

[709zzy]

I just solved my own problem!!! Turns out FX 8350 must be paired with dual channel ram. I switched my 1 stick 8gb ram to 2 stick 4gb ram and my BF4 fps went from 30~45 in DX11 to 55~80 now! Even watch dogs runs at least 15~20 fps higher.

 

[Icaraeus]

Yay now everyone can stop thinking I was lying for getting 60+ FPS

 

[Zaza101]

Regardless of the GPU, you will need to also remember that the PS4 uses its GPU much more efficiently than a PC does. If you want to get exactly the same performance then you will need to go a tier above what everyone has mentioned above.

 

[Ferrariassassin]

The PS4 uses a "modified" HD 7870
Here's the proof: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/171375-reverse-engineered-ps4-apu-reveals-the-consoles-real-cpu-and-gpu-specs

So comparable to an NVidia GTX 580, 660, 660 Ti, according to Tom's Hardware:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html

not even close, more like a r9 240, its just optimized to play games better. If you want similar preformance in a pc get a 270x. it will be able to play BF4 on high setting at 900p at a constant 60fps, wich is what he ps4 plays it on. (the 270x will only sometimes go below 40 on these settings)

\
Would a R9 280 do good?

 

[brandonmshanks]

The PS4's GPU is more like a 760. Definitely better than a 660 ti.

I use to have a 760 and it was quite a bit better than what my ps4 can do. According to tests done on the 750ti, it can perform equivalent to slightly better than the ps4. I know nothing of the AMD side, so I wont comment on that.

 

[Quazil]

There is no exact GPU for the PS4. It runs BF4 at 30-45fps at 900p at high-settings equivalent.

I'm not going to continue arguing about FPS. My R9 270X, with a little OC, runs BF4 1080p Ultra Settings at 60-70FPS. At worst it drops to low 50s. At high it stays around high 80s. I tested it with FRAPS a dozen times.

They bring in the far clipping plane significantly for console titles. On the PC with a 270 with the clipping plane as short as it is on the PS4/XB1 the fps would probably be in excess of 120fps.

The PS4 uses a redacted 7870 GPU core with unified memory (like a tablet). This is why a PC with a 7870 outperforms the PS4 & XB1 and the R9 270X is an overclocked 7870. This is also why it is possible that the next iPad will outperform the "next gen" consoles.

 

[Quazil]

Regardless of the GPU, you will need to also remember that the PS4 uses its GPU much more efficiently than a PC does. If you want to get exactly the same performance then you will need to go a tier above what everyone has mentioned above.

No it doesn't. This is the first set of consoles in the history of gaming where they are selling the console hardware at a profit.

The unified memory architecture creates a bottleneck of contention where every GPU core and every CPU core are in competition to access RAM. They also put in low speed 1.75/1.6 GHz CPU cores whereas PC CPUs are now running at 3.3GHz. This was again a decision based on cost to keep them cheap (like a tablet) and means they don't need a significant cooling system (again like a tablet).

An actual 7870 has 20 compute units but the PS4 & XB1 have 18 &12 (respectively). That reduction combined with the memory contention means the PS4 & XB1 will never outperform a low-end PC. The technology they used in these "next gen" consoles is obsolete in PC terms. nVidia has since launch a budget card for $150 that outperforms the consoles and an i5 processor will deliver a bigger punch than the tablet cores of the consoles.

If that wasn't bad enough the XB1 uses system-grade DDR3 RAM for everything. That's like having an *integrated* graphics card. At least the PS4 has GDDR5, GPU-grade memory even if it is still shared.

The XB1 hardware is obsolete across the board and the PS4 hardware would be great if it were handheld. This failure to deliver might usher in a second gaming depression not seen since the release of ET. These consoles are fucking terrible and the denialism is only going to last so long before the people that bought them feel scammed and stop using them. How can you have fun when you know you got ripped off and your girlfriends new iPad has cooler shit on it?

To get comparable performance on a PC you have to *step down* the graphics card and disable CPU cores.

I could not wait for the PS4 release, I wanted them to shutup and take my money ... and they managed to do such a shitty job of it they beat me away as a customer.

 

[scirishman76]

Most of the time the difference in people arguing about frames in BF4 pc is the rez scale Ultra preset actually has it pretty low most people turn it up(make the game look tons better) but cost a fair amount of frames. Found people saying they are getting high frames with weaker cards have it turned down below 120 and awesome GPU's running lower frames running 170+. Personally I prefer 45 min FPS and a high rez scale over turning it down to gain frames. As long as I stay over 45 Im fine.

 

[Stubo78]

i love all the which is better banter! i just bought a gtx 770 its what my budget allowed and after upgrading from gtx 560 i love it, it plays bf4 on max setting and is hitting 90+ fps and after upgrading my gpu i cant imagine me keeping my next gen consoles for to much longer :/

 

[Lord Byron]

i love all the which is better banter! i just bought a gtx 770 its what my budget allowed and after upgrading from gtx 560 i love it, it plays bf4 on max setting and is hitting 90+ fps and after upgrading my gpu i cant imagine me keeping my next gen consoles for to much longer :/

Guys, the GTX 980 just launched for $550, and the 970 for $330. Both will handle the game at highest settings at 2560 x 1440, all while being far more power efficient than even the old 680's. Beast of a card, massive deal on the price. No reason to not spend a few hundred dollars more than a console, and get an experience many orders of magnitude better.

 

[deddoa]

The PS4 uses a "modified" HD 7870
Here's the proof: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/171375-reverse-engineered-ps4-apu-reveals-the-consoles-real-cpu-and-gpu-specs

So comparable to an NVidia GTX 580, 660, 660 Ti, according to Tom's Hardware:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html

It doesn't actually prove that, it just says it's for yield reasons, as in 18 compute units are used but the unit has 20 like the 7870 for redundancy so that they have 2 spare units. Essentially the chances of getting a higher yield of working 18 unit APU's is higher if they make 20 unit ones, the extra 2 even if they work will be disabled. 7850 is closer to the mark tho, mind you a 7850 is still theoretically higher than the theoretical performance claims of the PS4 APU if AMD and Sony's claims are anything to go by. I'd say midway between a 7790 and 7850. Mind you if it's anything like the Kaveri compute units, 8 of those are the CPU ones with only 10 being the GPU ones, as the A10-7850K has 12 compute units, 4 cpu 8 gpu.

An R9 270 with an i3 3220 or a quad core AMD CPU/APU or better would give the same or better results than a PS4 (the top A10 APU's which are somewhat faster than the PS4 APU on the CPU front are comparable to a mid level i3 on the cpu front)

Mind you the AMD A10's are not far off, give it a year or so and they will be on a par with the consoles as they can play most current games on medium-high settings at 720p already at playable frame rates, a few more GPU units and they will be there.

 

[amk_mhk]

Well spec wise, it should be about 7870M which is like 7850 which is 2-5fps more than GTX750Ti on average, since vsync is in use, it will bring down to GTX750Ti level, check all the benchmarks of PS4 you want, and then do the same with GTX750TI, you will find out that this is the truth, its paper specs were overhyped, usually thats the case with AMD cards, not fanboying, look at R7260X for example, its lesser than GTX750Ti in real time perfomance, but paper spec wise, a lie, I have researched upon this matter and this is my final conclusion:
GTX750Ti=PS4
R7250X(or 10% better)=Xbox One
http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1130
http://www.ign.com/wikis/xbox-one/PS4_vs._Xbox_One_Native_Resolutions_and_Framerates

P.S= Company of Heroes was 0% optimized for Nvidia cards....

multiply the fps by 1.44 to bring to same 900p result if a game is running at 1080p on 750ti...

 

[cjfghd21]

LOL my laptop plays battlefield 4 at mid-high. 270X should be more than enough to play Battlefield 4 at max Ultra settings 1080 40~60fps online. When nothing is going on it should stay around 60 when battle is going on mid 50s and when its exploding everywhere should go down lowest to mid 40s for a sec or so. It should generally stay around high 50s~60 most of the time . If not, you either got a bad Nvdia driver version, terrible 10+ years old cpu, RAM speed& capacity from stone age, overheating, virus/malware, corrupted windows or are lying. Console will always have inferior raw graphics power compared to pc. Also while pc gets upgraded every year, console stays same and gets outdated about 6 years before new one. The true power of console is that its market is big, so developers spend more effort in optimizing. Also, as it is constant, same universal hardware and the developers get to work with the same hardware for 5~6 years, they get greater understanding of consoles and have easier time optimizing it than pc which gets upgraded few times a year thereby never being able to use its full potential

 

[Icaraeus]

The PS4 ran at a mix of high and ultra settings. Regardless, DICE used a terrible API (DX11). If they properly optimized it with a different API the PS4 would have been capable of at least full ultra 40-50fps at 1080p.

 

[Geoffery Dickenson]

Regardless of the GPU, you will need to also remember that the PS4 uses its GPU much more efficiently than a PC does. If you want to get exactly the same performance then you will need to go a tier above what everyone has mentioned above.

No it doesn't. This is the first set of consoles in the history of gaming where they are selling the console hardware at a profit.

The unified memory architecture creates a bottleneck of contention where every GPU core and every CPU core are in competition to access RAM. They also put in low speed 1.75/1.6 GHz CPU cores whereas PC CPUs are now running at 3.3GHz. This was again a decision based on cost to keep them cheap (like a tablet) and means they don't need a significant cooling system (again like a tablet).

An actual 7870 has 20 compute units but the PS4 & XB1 have 18 &12 (respectively). That reduction combined with the memory contention means the PS4 & XB1 will never outperform a low-end PC. The technology they used in these "next gen" consoles is obsolete in PC terms. nVidia has since launch a budget card for $150 that outperforms the consoles and an i5 processor will deliver a bigger punch than the tablet cores of the consoles.

If that wasn't bad enough the XB1 uses system-grade DDR3 RAM for everything. That's like having an *integrated* graphics card. At least the PS4 has GDDR5, GPU-grade memory even if it is still shared.

The XB1 hardware is obsolete across the board and the PS4 hardware would be great if it were handheld. This failure to deliver might usher in a second gaming depression not seen since the release of ET. These consoles are fucking terrible and the denialism is only going to last so long before the people that bought them feel scammed and stop using them. How can you have fun when you know you got ripped off and your girlfriends new iPad has cooler shit on it?

To get comparable performance on a PC you have to *step down* the graphics card and disable CPU cores.

I could not wait for the PS4 release, I wanted them to shutup and take my money ... and they managed to do such a shitty job of it they beat me away as a customer.

if a ps4 is no where near as powerful as a pc why is the best looking game on any system 1886 on ps4 ps4 has much better optimization and it puts a good 50% more power to the gpu to equal ps4 performance you would need to spend at least £600

 

[Icaraeus]

The PS4's GPU is between a HD 7850 and 7870 in terms of power, but it has access to 5.5GB VRAM and the shader tech of the 290X. This has been gone over billions of times.

 

[Chris Yahya]

Check this out:
FX 8350 $250 CAD
R9 290x $650 CAD
EVGA 750B $100 CAD
M5A99X $150 CAD
Case $70 CAD
Windows 8.1 $130 CAD

more than triple the price of the PS4, and I don't even get any better frame rate!
What a joke PC gaming is

what program you used (in last pic, firestrike)

(sorry for my bad english)

 

[Icaraeus]

That is horrible fps with a 290X. You're likely throttling. I get 1080p maxed settings 60fps locked with a 270X.

 

[Omez]

That is horrible fps with a 290X. You're likely throttling. I get 1080p maxed settings 60fps locked with a 270X.

The issue with the FPS was reported fixed earlier in the thread. Fault was throttling due to memory.

@ Chris Yahya : That is one of the scenes in 3dmark, benchmark software.

 

[Sabi Teodosiev]

That is a load of horseshit. As a photographer with calibrated screen the PS4 looks blurry, like photographed with 50$ lens and PC ultra looks sharp, like 2000$ one. Don't get me wrong. The more expensive one is not 2000/50=40 times better, but it is noticeably better. You might not see that from TV viewing distance but I get better graphics on my travel laptop with 560M (450) and great screen (99% sRGB, IPS, calibrated, 3D, 178 degree, 120Hz screen - the reason I keep it, new screens are TN panels and suck).

 

[gibbly]

The PS4's GPU is between a HD 7850 and 7870 in terms of power, but it has access to 5.5GB VRAM and the shader tech of the 290X. This has been gone over billions of times.

Both the ps4 and xbox1 use amd APUs, meaning they have no vram. They all use the system memory (which is ddr4) but the entire system runs on it, not just the gpu

 

[Icaraeus]

Wow you are dumb. PS4 uses GDDR5 VRAM as well as DDR3. All computers have VRAM.