PS4 vs PC (i7 gtx 960) For TV gaming

[berukashvili]

Hi Guys I really need your help
so i am planning to buy pc or ps4 i need advice
currently i have 50 inch TV and want to play on it
what will be best option: buy PS4 or WI DI Connected PC(i7 3770,GTX 960 OC 2gb,8gb ram.)
want to have good quality on this TV. which is The best option for best graphic quality.
(Sorry for my bad english) Thank you

 

[okcnaline]

The 2nd option is the most unarguable option, simply because you can bring it up to 4K, 1440p, 1080p, or 720p if you want.
And also, the build is kinda weird, what's your budget?

 

[berukashvili]

The 2nd option is the most unarguable option, simply because you can bring it up to 4K, 1440p, 1080p, or 720p if you want.
And also, the build is kinda weird, what's your budget?

So Prices are very different in my country , maybe ill get i5 but it wont help me to get better card than 960 ,i want to know can 960 do same quilty and performance like ps4 ? i want pc that will do same job as ps4 for 3 years and thats the point want the proccsesor wich will be usefull for 3 years want to upgrade after 3 years only gpu sorry for ma english again .

 

[berukashvili]

A PS4 is already ridiculously behind any pc with a normal speed 6300 or i3 4130.
It is such a joke I would guess they will be un saleable by Christmas.
This will be the first time a console has become out of date before any games are available for sensible money..
The i5 may not help you to get a better card than a 960, but it will play every game on the market at lower settings.(with a cheap graphics card)
An i5,8 gig of ram and a gtx960 is about 2.5X a PS.4.

how much fps ill get at same settings as ps4 with i7 3370 asus gtx 960 strix 2gb in games like ac unity ,advanced warfare,witcher 3...?

 

[okcnaline]

The 2nd option is the most unarguable option, simply because you can bring it up to 4K, 1440p, 1080p, or 720p if you want.
And also, the build is kinda weird, what's your budget?

So Prices are very different in my country , maybe ill get i5 but it wont help me to get better card than 960 ,i want to know can 960 do same quilty and performance like ps4 ? i want pc that will do same job as ps4 for 3 years and thats the point want the proccsesor wich will be usefull for 3 years want to upgrade after 3 years only gpu sorry for ma english again .

What country?
And the 960 does quite a bit better than a R7 260X, which has the same architecture as the PS4 but has like 100 less amount of cores.

 

[berukashvili]

The 2nd option is the most unarguable option, simply because you can bring it up to 4K, 1440p, 1080p, or 720p if you want.
And also, the build is kinda weird, what's your budget?

So Prices are very different in my country , maybe ill get i5 but it wont help me to get better card than 960 ,i want to know can 960 do same quilty and performance like ps4 ? i want pc that will do same job as ps4 for 3 years and thats the point want the proccsesor wich will be usefull for 3 years want to upgrade after 3 years only gpu sorry for ma english again .

What country?
And the 960 does quite a bit better than a R7 260X, which has the same architecture as the PS4 but has like 100 less amount of cores.

there are videos where even 750 ti can beat ps4. seems like if connect wi di on 50 inch tv ill get better quilty better textures better fps with 960 and ill waste money if i buy ps4

 

[okcnaline]

It doesnt work like that.Any 3XXX or 4XXX series i7 is at least twice as powerful as that underclocked a.m.d. chip in a PS 4, and the ps4 has an A.M.D 7850 graphics processor.
So any pc with a 6 or 8 core a.m.d. cpu, an i3,5 or 7 series intel cpu (yes, mostly i3's are better for games than 6 core a.m.d. stuff) and a similar graphics card will blow a PS4 out of the water.

Super wrong. Let's determine it by benchmark. So we know the specs of PS4. 8 core Jaguar, 1152 (I believe) GPU cores based on Bonaire (I read that somewhere), and 8GB GDDR5 (impossible to recreate, but at least we know where we're going). So the 8 core Jaguar runs at 1.75Ghz, which is kinda similar to AMD Athlon 5150. The GPU is Bonaire, which is similar to Bonaire XTX and is the same architecture as a R7 260, and close to a R7 260X. So we'll compare the R7 260X. Slightly better because of the extra 300 cores.

Let's compare the CPU to a $500 PC. Let's use i3-4130, which has 22nm that beats out 32nm. To catch up, a FX-8320 runs Bulldozer and has the same lithography as the Jaguar in PS4. So the PS4 needs 3.25Ghz to catch up to a FX-8320 OC'ed to 5 Ghz. And that will do in games the same as an i7-4790K. Which is slightly faster than a i3-4130 in single-threaded performance because of some little whatnots Intel does on i3. And so, i3 rapes the 8-core custom CPU based on Jaguar in single threaded performance.

And now the GPU. We know that the included GPU in the APU is a bit better than a R7 260X but worse than a R9 270 because of the architecture. And it's 7850 and 7870, better in performance against a HD 7790. So a GTX 750 Ti WILL NOT beat out a R7 260X because the R7 260X is slightly slower than the GPU in PS4, in turn it is slightly faster than GTX 750 Ti. So... There's the figures.

I'm not pro-AMD, I'm criticizing your failure to look at the specs and making smart determinations out of it. So in the end, an R9 270 and i3-4130 will beat out the PS4 in games (CPU performance rapes in this case, as the PS4 only has 8 cores running at 1.75 Ghz). Also, a FX-8320 and R9 270 does as well.

 

[sc2enthuse]

It doesnt work like that.Any 3XXX or 4XXX series i7 is at least twice as powerful as that underclocked a.m.d. chip in a PS 4, and the ps4 has an A.M.D 7850 graphics processor.
So any pc with a 6 or 8 core a.m.d. cpu, an i3,5 or 7 series intel cpu (yes, mostly i3's are better for games than 6 core a.m.d. stuff) and a similar graphics card will blow a PS4 out of the water.

Super wrong. Let's determine it by benchmark. So we know the specs of PS4. 8 core Jaguar, 1152 (I believe) GPU cores based on Bonaire (I read that somewhere), and 8GB GDDR5 (impossible to recreate, but at least we know where we're going). So the 8 core Jaguar runs at 1.75Ghz, which is kinda similar to AMD Athlon 5150. The GPU is Bonaire, which is similar to Bonaire XTX and is the same architecture as a R7 260, and close to a R7 260X. So we'll compare the R7 260X. Slightly better because of the extra 300 cores.

Let's compare the CPU to a $500 PC. Let's use i3-4130, which has 22nm that beats out 32nm. To catch up, a FX-8320 runs Bulldozer and has the same lithography as the Jaguar in PS4. So the PS4 needs 3.25Ghz to catch up to a FX-8320 OC'ed to 5 Ghz. And that will do in games the same as an i7-4790K. Which is slightly faster than a i3-4130 in single-threaded performance because of some little whatnots Intel does on i3. And so, i3 rapes the 8-core custom CPU based on Jaguar in single threaded performance.

And now the GPU. We know that the included GPU in the APU is a bit better than a R7 260X but worse than a R9 270 because of the architecture. And it's 7850 and 7870, better in performance against a HD 7790. So a GTX 750 Ti WILL NOT beat out a R7 260X because the R7 260X is slightly slower than the GPU in PS4, in turn it is slightly faster than GTX 750 Ti. So... There's the figures.

I'm not pro-AMD, I'm criticizing your failure to look at the specs and making smart determinations out of it. So in the end, an R9 270 and i3-4130 will beat out the PS4 in games (CPU performance rapes in this case, as the PS4 only has 8 cores running at 1.75 Ghz). Also, a FX-8320 and R9 270 does as well.

While I appreciate the research you've obviously put into the matter he isn't incorrect. There are countless benchmarks and youtube videos showcasing comparisons between the ps4 and gtx 750 ti and the 750 ti consistently keeps up with or has more fps than the ps4 at high settings. I'm sure it's partly game specific but feel free to go educate yourself further on the matter.

 

[cats_Paw]

Guys, you are missing the point.
We are talking about best video quality.
We all know games are not optimized well enought so you cant make unilateral claims saying A is better than B.
In some cases it will be in others wont.

As for max video quality, Resolution is 1080P? What TV model are you using?
Most probably he will get a better graphical result by calibrating his TV rather than getting 5 more fps by buying something he does not want.

Note that there are two contradictory factors:

1) Games are optimized better for consoles.
2) PCs have more horsepower.

So for companies that care about quality, PC is better. For companies that make crappy games, PS4 is better.
Personally I go with PC. It takes a long time to get everything to work exactly how you want it to, but when it does, its worth it.

I would advice the beruka to not buy any PC untill windows 10 comes out and DX12 is fully tested. I know I am doing that.
if DX12 will be as massive of an improvement as it seems to be, the benchmarks of the different CPUs might change drastically.

 

[MrAB34]

I would very much recommend a PC over a PS4 or any console for that matter. A proper gaming PC is far more powerful then any console could be. A good i7 processor, a Gtx 660 and above, and 8gb of ram is powerful enough to run most modern games on high.

 

[okcnaline]

It doesnt work like that.Any 3XXX or 4XXX series i7 is at least twice as powerful as that underclocked a.m.d. chip in a PS 4, and the ps4 has an A.M.D 7850 graphics processor.
So any pc with a 6 or 8 core a.m.d. cpu, an i3,5 or 7 series intel cpu (yes, mostly i3's are better for games than 6 core a.m.d. stuff) and a similar graphics card will blow a PS4 out of the water.

Super wrong. Let's determine it by benchmark. So we know the specs of PS4. 8 core Jaguar, 1152 (I believe) GPU cores based on Bonaire (I read that somewhere), and 8GB GDDR5 (impossible to recreate, but at least we know where we're going). So the 8 core Jaguar runs at 1.75Ghz, which is kinda similar to AMD Athlon 5150. The GPU is Bonaire, which is similar to Bonaire XTX and is the same architecture as a R7 260, and close to a R7 260X. So we'll compare the R7 260X. Slightly better because of the extra 300 cores.

Let's compare the CPU to a $500 PC. Let's use i3-4130, which has 22nm that beats out 32nm. To catch up, a FX-8320 runs Bulldozer and has the same lithography as the Jaguar in PS4. So the PS4 needs 3.25Ghz to catch up to a FX-8320 OC'ed to 5 Ghz. And that will do in games the same as an i7-4790K. Which is slightly faster than a i3-4130 in single-threaded performance because of some little whatnots Intel does on i3. And so, i3 rapes the 8-core custom CPU based on Jaguar in single threaded performance.

And now the GPU. We know that the included GPU in the APU is a bit better than a R7 260X but worse than a R9 270 because of the architecture. And it's 7850 and 7870, better in performance against a HD 7790. So a GTX 750 Ti WILL NOT beat out a R7 260X because the R7 260X is slightly slower than the GPU in PS4, in turn it is slightly faster than GTX 750 Ti. So... There's the figures.

I'm not pro-AMD, I'm criticizing your failure to look at the specs and making smart determinations out of it. So in the end, an R9 270 and i3-4130 will beat out the PS4 in games (CPU performance rapes in this case, as the PS4 only has 8 cores running at 1.75 Ghz). Also, a FX-8320 and R9 270 does as well.

Absolute conjecture based on assumptions.

Not the most trusted site, but seems like I'm slightly off. Pitcairn. Proves that the chip in the PS4 is a cut-down version of R9 280 by >600 cores, and is between R9 270 and R9 270X (performance is identical to 7850 and 7870.
http://wccftech.com/playstation-4-vs-xbox-one-vs-pc-ultimate-gpu-benchmark/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_graphics_processing_units

And it's not assumptions. They are actually listing the specs, so no arguments here.

 

[RAZER Gamer]

Get a PC. Simple, you get over 1080p resolutions and over 60 fps on games. A PS4 is no where near as good as a PC. I have a GTX 960 and have overclocked it and every game I play gets over 60 fps on ultra/high settings. I have 8GB of RAM and everything is fine, most games I have found use 4-6GB. Also I have a Intel i5-4690k @4.4Ghz slightly better than the i7 you have chosen but the i7 should still do 10 times better than the PS4.

 

[RAZER Gamer]

The 2nd option is the most unarguable option, simply because you can bring it up to 4K, 1440p, 1080p, or 720p if you want.
And also, the build is kinda weird, what's your budget?

So Prices are very different in my country , maybe ill get i5 but it wont help me to get better card than 960 ,i want to know can 960 do same quilty and performance like ps4 ? i want pc that will do same job as ps4 for 3 years and thats the point want the proccsesor wich will be usefull for 3 years want to upgrade after 3 years only gpu sorry for ma english again .

The GTX 960 will do much better performance and quality compared to the PS4. The PS4 will never get over 60 fps and the graphics are not as good as a pc. The 50 inch TV is wasted by having a PS4, you could have 1440p on you GTX 960 but on the PS4 you get 720p and 1080p only.

 

[okcnaline]

x) You're hilarious. We're now arguing about stuff like "Oh, I made a big joke!".

So any pc with a 6 or 8 core a.m.d. cpu, an i3,5 or 7 series intel cpu (yes, mostly i3's are better for games than 6 core a.m.d. stuff) and a similar graphics card will blow a PS4 out of the water.

Sound familiar? Even an FX-8320 has the potential to match up against a i7-4790 at stock when OC'ed to 5.0 Ghz. How I know? FX-9590.
And as for you saying 7850, tell me WHERE you have said it is roughly a HD 7850. I've seen NO reference of that until now. Even if you say that you did, the closest result would be saying "similar cards".

 

[RAZER Gamer]

PC Gaming FTW!

 

[Larry Litmanen]

TV gaming is made for a console, just grab a controller and play. It all depends on how good of an experience you want, obviously all games good good on consoles and there will never be any sort of an issue with compatibility.

PC can give you better graphics but at the same time you need to upgrade them more often.

I have both lol, Xbox One and PC, right now i am playing a game on a PC while my nephews play on the console.

 

[okcnaline]

'In the end, AMD's FX-8320E is an affordable quad-core processor that overclocks decently, but even if you pushed it to 5GHz it would struggle to match the slightly pricier Core i5-4430 and even the Core i3-4360 at times.

Just the sheer statement that it is quad core makes your statement invalid. There is no HyperThreading on FX processors.

 

[RAZER Gamer]

TV gaming is made for a console, just grab a controller and play. It all depends on how good of an experience you want, obviously all games good good on consoles and there will never be any sort of an issue with compatibility.

PC can give you better graphics but at the same time you need to upgrade them more often.

I have both lol, Xbox One and PC, right now i am playing a game on a PC while my nephews play on the console.

Yes TV gaming is made for consoles, but think about it which is better the pc with stunning graphics and over 60 fps on games or the Xbox One or Playstation 4 that can get a maximum of 60 fps and have no AA or MSAA and pretty bad graphics for the price compared to a pc. Also if you get a good gaming pc, then you won't need to upgrade you just feel the need to upgrade. There is no reason to upgrade your pc unless it doesn't do what you want it to do. Consoles are cheaper because they're worse. The pc can do many more things than a console, for example you can browse the web, yes you can do that on a console but it won't feel the same with a controller. You can overclock a pc and get more performance but on a console you cannot do anything like that. You can always upgrade your pc if you need to or desperately want to, the only thing you can upgrade on a console is storage space, and thats only on certain consoles!

 

[RAZER Gamer]

I have an Xbox 360 and a pc, the pc is much better. I have used Xbox One as well and I still prefer pc.