Digital Foundry Analyze the PC version of GTAV -WARNING: Will upset so

[Ash_735]

PAL format is 25 and 50fps. That is why SA was 25fps. Again, do you think the frame delay was an accident? no, it was intentional, my son.

Also, this was edited in later so I'll address it again. This was documented in the modding, ask a few people there, but let's bring in something else Rockstar f*cked up, the Steam EXE for the game had the wrong timings for the framedelay, they accidentally reduced them, this caused the game to Lock At 26fps, that's not PAL, that's another mess up in the framedelay code, how would you explain that?

 

PS: And at first, you said the game RENDERED at 25fps, you had no knowledge of any framedelay, NOW you;re saying the framedelay was on purpose, which is it?

Edited April 21, 2015 by Ash_735

[Njale]

Why would this upset anyone? if 60fps was the only difference it would have been enough, but we got so much extra stuff.

[Nick930930]

PC has better shadows, sharper textures, and better framerate. That's it.

 

Just like I knew it would.

 

I laughed at all the people who said the PS4 version would be like the PC version on low graphics. *facepalm*

[utack]

So there you go, yes PC wins, but "sh*tty consoles" are nowhere near as low as you thought. Rockstar did an amazing job in that regard.

 

Given how well it runs on even a GTX 750 Ti and and i3, it was always pretty clear that the consoles have very high visual settings when running at 30fps.

[Ash_735]

It's more in the case of some people, not pointing at anyone, but some people here who seem to go to extreme to bash consoles, and were spreading mis-information by saying that the console versions of the game were only on "Normal" and that they were too weak to handle anything else. And yet here we have facts to disprove that right away. So for a lot of people who hang around here touting Master Race this, Master Race that, then we now know the exact spect you need to beat, otherwise you're playing on a graphics level lower than the "filthy console peasants".

 

But pointing this out means I'm a console fanboy and other such bullsh*t I always encounter in this section despite me not actually even owning a next gen console, AND owning GTAV on PC, but f*ck it, only seems to be like 3 other people in this section who understand what being a gamer is about and that's NOT locking yourself down to one platform and warring with others about how superior your choice is whilst looking down on others.

[TheMostKnowledgable]

If someone can reproduce these screenshots on the consoles, we'll have some definitive comparisons. This game is not maxed here, I could go up on a bunch of settings. Not using the best shadows, only 2x msaa in these I think, pushing 4 now, these might be 4, but I never ran 8x yet.

 

AF is only set to 8 here, not 16. Lots of compromised made for gtx960.

 

The game looks very similar "up close", near to the camera. But the distance - which is the majority of the image 99% of the time - is basically like night and day. Screens don't do it justice either. I can lower the settings and get the same artifacts I pointed out on page one. When I move, I don't see aliasing in the mid and far clip, it's smooth all the way out to the far clip. No dashed lines, no "dotted poles". The up close looks similar (not the ground in that second image, whoa, even blows my mind)

 

Hopefully someone can make a few comparison shots and see the difference from a raw capture. These are steam shots, but the compression doesn't seem that bad to me:

 

 

Again - this is not maxed out. Nothing on the "Advanced" menu is enabled here. Ultra grass is enabled though.

 

I'd like to see console screenshots offered up by anyone who can, and we can all start posting comparisons. It will be fun if we can all be cool about it.

 

PS, preorder canceled:

 

Edited April 21, 2015 by TheMostKnowledgable

[Andreas]

[...] but some people here who seem to go to extreme to bash consoles, and were spreading mis-information by saying that the console versions of the game were only on "Normal" and that they were too weak to handle anything else.

That's not necessarily wrong if they were referring to the last-gen consoles, since their graphical settings equal to "Normal" settings on PC for the most part. To me, it was pretty obvious from the beginning on that the PS4 version is the equivalent to high settings on PC. Likewise, it was to be expected that anisotropic filtering, draw distance, and AA are significantly better on PC. Although it's a bit of a surprise that certain settings are equal to ultra. It's good to know though. Edited April 21, 2015 by Andreas

[RatsEverywhere]

there is no argument here, by definition of the pc and console, the former IS and WILL always be better... ffs...

ALSO comparing unequal things makes no sense...

potatos, bananas... which is better ? u said it your seeeeeelf my meeen TheMostKnowledgable

what is really going on here i think is that we have a couple of die hard fans of each set up, as usual... and the dancing goees oon baaabyy oohohoohhhhhoooo noOooOoo

 

FYI i prefere nintendo DS,

YYhea f*cking pc and console peasants... eat sh*t 980 990 8670 gtx 999999 my bals

hahaha

[Crimson Flam3s]

Yeah, something I noticed even with very high settings on pc, the ps4 version still looks incredible.

 

The biggest and most noticeable advantage on pc is frame rate( and mods when they eventually come, at the expense of ruining online, so that's another trade off you see?), but again, many people are just fine with 30fps.

 

So yeah a pc could cost $1000 but is that 2x or 3x the improvement vs the console version? No way. Most of the improvements have to do with things rendered far away looking nicer and sharper, which is nice, but does it matter when you are on a mission or fighting the cops? No, lol.

 

 

That's without mentioning the multiple problems many players are experiencing on pc, stuttering, lag etc. Hell I wanted a portable version along with my desktop but the game only detects my laptop's integrated gpu intel hd, instead of the dedicated gpu so I'm out of luck as many others on a 15+ page Rockstar support thread.

 

The truth is that both versions have their advantages and the pc version is not something out of this world. Something I notice too much is people bragging about 4k 60fps when they don't even have the hardware to do. PC is not single platform. so bragging about your brothers $1mil house and Ferrari doesn't make you him.

 

This is something I notice often, the arrogance which is sad. Yeah you have a $1200+ pc, lol anyone with half a brain can save up money but maybe gaming is not a priority or they use their money on other hobbies.

[Ash_735]

FYI i prefere nintendo DS,

YYhea f*cking pc and console peasants... eat sh*t 980 990 8670 gtx 999999 my bals

hahaha

I know this is a joke post, but y'all aint experienced gaming until you've played this when drunk:

 

 

 

And Phoenix Wright, ever get a DS, be sure to play those.

[r0llinlacs]

Consoles can't do 4k.

 

 

 

/thread

Edited April 21, 2015 by r0llinlacs

[Red Goose]

So Digital Foundry have finally put together their look at the PC version of Grand Theft Auto V and compared it to the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One version of the game, the results are very surprising, and will actually upset some users here, you can read the full article here: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-grand-theft-auto-5-pc-face-off

 

Main points worth noting though in regards to content:

It's an extravagance, no doubt, and it brute-forces the PC to a far higher plane of image quality than the console's 1920x1080 output with FXAA. However, this high level of image quality also plays to the PC's other main advantage: its extended draw distances. Unlike the console editions, an advanced graphics menu offers up a separate distance scale that, at 100 per cent, renders objects across Los Santos at a bewildering range. With resolutions of 1080p and above, it's a crucial addition in a release where details further afield are subject to closer scrutiny.

 

The results speak for themselves. As you can see in our head-to-head videos below, the impact across plant-life in the outback areas is most noticeable. PS4 and Xbox One already look superb in this regard (with PS4 taking a lead in overall plant density). But in terms of draw distance, the PC fills out all distant hillsides with ferns and grass tufts that otherwise go barren on console - at least from afar. The world is far richer, as you'd expect, and though the gains around the downtown area are small, the views possible with the PC edition on the map's outskirts are impressive.

 

But what of world quality when viewed up close? As touched on in our original performance analysis, the basic set-up on PS4 and Xbox One starts with the 'high' preset across most settings. This applies to water, shader effects (as used for rain splatter), tessellation, and also ambient occlusion quality. However, based on close observation of all three games, the console releases also throw some ultra settings into the mix.

 

First up, both consoles match the DirectX 11 ultra setting on PC for post effects - a preset that enables the same depth of field effect. In its basic form this incorporates bloom, crepuscular rays and lens flare, but the top preset here has a huge effect on 1GB cards like the R7 260X - keeping any hope of 60fps at bay once engaged. There's no substitute, though; to match console quality, it's an essential checkbox that needs ticking to prevent Los Santos from appearing too plain at a distance.

 

Another surprise is in how texture quality compares. It seems PS4 and Xbox One didn't compromise on normal map quality on release last year; they offered the complete package right out of the gate. This matches the PC's very high setting, even factoring in the parallax occlusion maps on brick walls and the pebble-stones lining Michael's garden. Given that this, along with its draw distance sliders and post effects, marks one of the heaviest taxes on GPU performance, the console versions come off more impressive on hindsight.

 

This gives the PC less to boast about in terms of core assets, perhaps. However, it does have one obvious ace in the hand: texture filtering. At low angles, both Sony and Microsoft's platforms produce an exact match for the 4x anisotropic filtering option, causing a blur to creep across floor textures a few metres ahead. On PC this is solved at minimal expense to the GPU by cranking the dial up to 16x. It's a simple tweak, but the pay-off when playing the game at 1080p upwards makes this a noticeable shortcoming if left to the console standard.

 

As for foliage, this is also kept at very high settings for console (one short of the PC's demanding ultra setting). PS4 matches this preset to a tee, while dropping to high strips out shadows beneath most plants, and medium gives us a barren wasteland equivalent to the last-gen look. Xbox One doesn't fit into any of these categories directly however. Though foliage density is reduced on Microsoft's platform, it is essentially using a cut-down variation of the PS4's very high setting, with all shadows engaged on nearby plants. Consider it a halfway step.

 

Speaking of shadows, we're back in high preset territory on console here. Unlike the PC's very high setting, PS4 and Xbox One use a much narrowed frustum - essentially an invisible cube around the player that determines the point at which shadows are filtered. This smaller field is noticeable on console, and creates more evident filtering to the screen's edges when walking past long shadows. The PC version disappoints too, with a filtering technique that barely improves this even on its best preset. Of the very few gripes we had with the current-gen release, we hadn't expected this one to re-emerge on PC.

 

In terms of geometry, console detail is identical to the PC's across the world, outside of a drop from very high tessellation to just high (a barely noticeable difference). However, the PC's real advantage is in its density of objects. Though tricky to judge by eye, consoles use between 75 and 100 per cent of the population density slider (and 100 per cent on the distance scaling bar), which fills the streets and pavements with NPCs. At peak, the PC is teeming with pedestrians that edge out the bustle on console, with rows of parked vehicles that don't manifest at quite same scale for PS4 or Xbox One.

 

Putting aside the stutter issues in its v-synced mode, Grand Theft Auto 5 is a quality release on PC. Despite the game's staggered launch, almost 18 months after last-gen versions, the PC at least gets the attention it deserves. Every version to date has impressed, but in the PC's case we have the true pack leader, and its GPU benchmarks at peak settings are sure to give upcoming GPUs firm workout. More than that, Rockstar's multi-platform wizardry here sets a high bar of expectation for whatever project it pursues next.

So there you go, yes PC wins, but "sh*tty consoles" are nowhere near as low as you thought. Rockstar did an amazing job in that regard.

 

So the console version is just a "little worse" when rendering half the frames at a lower resolution. Ignoring resolution, we'll say the console version is a little worse than half as good as the PC version.

[El Dorado]

And some PC players can't adjust safezone sizes properly.

[RatsEverywhere]

 

FYI i prefere nintendo DS,

YYhea f*cking pc and console peasants... eat sh*t 980 990 8670 gtx 999999 my bals

hahaha

I know this is a joke post, but y'all aint experienced gaming until you've played this when drunk:

 

 

 

And Phoenix Wright, ever get a DS, be sure to play those.

 

ooommg men i can only imagine...

heheh yy looks like a proper mind fcuk for sure

as always brought to us by the usual suspects asian ppl..

(y my men ofc its a joke everything has its place, its a trade off game in many aspcets

[Ash_735]

And some PC players can't adjust safezone sizes properly.

OMG THIS, I thought I was the only one who noticed this, a lot of PC Gamers are leaving the safe zone on maximum, which is cutting off the bottom of the fonts and the edges for some and shoving the radar right into the corner, you can fix that people. I've brought mine in by two slots so it matches the consoles maximum and looks normal.

[Biff73]

Conclusion:

Stop bashing consoles like an ass, instead start educating.

Consoles are not bad, just not as good as PC.

Different people have different preferences, but that does not justify bashing.

End of discussion.

Seems very obvious You are a console user who feels sore about op stating the truth

Edited April 21, 2015 by Biff73

[Silent]

Do you f*cking honestly think Rockstar North put a delay in the game on accident?

Yes. If they had to lock at proper 25FPS, they'd modify the primary frame limiter to lock at 25FPS instead of 30FPS like it does, instead of introducing some bullsh*t secondary 14ms frame delay having such a CPU impact so it steals 5FP.

 

 

And yes, I posted w/out reading till the end of the thread. Catching up now.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Silent

[Igor Bogdanoff]

And some PC players can't adjust safezone sizes properly.

First thing I changed in settings

[BigBadMF]

Uh, anyone who gets angry over that review needs to go complain to their mommy that the bad man said bad things about the game.

For consoles, the game is fantastic. For PC, the game is fantastic.

Anyone who cannot handle this should go play GTA III or some sh*t because you obviously hate HD graphics.

[TheMostKnowledgable]

I actually didn't notice that it was cutoff in those shots, it's not cutoff on my screen, it's fitting perfectly to the edge (I can see the black border on the left side of the power meter ingame, just not in the screens)

 

I like it down at the edge.

[cp1dell]

Nice comparisons.

 

Though I think they made a mistake with the Texture Quality and Shader Quality settings. Very High textures still looks sharper than the PS4 textures, though they're saying the PS4 must have Very High Texture Quality because of Parallax Occlusion Mapping. They also say that Shader Quality on the PS4 is most likely High, because of something about the rain drops.

 

This is incorrect though. POM has nothing to do with Texture Quality, Shader Quality does - and POM appears at Very High Shader Quality.

 

Other than that, I'm glad they figured out the console equivalent settings. Makes for a good benchmark and starting point for tweaking your graphics. They're just mistaken about the Texture Quality and Shader Quality settings.

[Evan-KCR]

Doesn't upset me lol. It looks great on PS4, and it looks even better on PC. Of course the difference isn't mindblowing. I expected it to look just a little bit better, and it does.

[Streifenkarl]

TL;DR

 

conclusions ?

You're ignorant. Thats the conclusion. Educate yourself and let not other people do the work for you.

[PigSkinWytBoy]

Pretty disappointing considering the game was like a year and half late on pc.

 

I didn't read the text, I watched the video and made up my own mind. Even when side by side, you have to pay close attention, and look very closely.

[Miss Malevolent]

Nice post OP.

[Evan-KCR]

Pretty disappointing considering the game was like a year and half late on pc.

 

I didn't read the text, I watched the video and made up my own mind. Even when side by side, you have to pay close attention, and look very closely.

The PS4 version doesn't look good enough for you? You want it to look better JUST because it's on PC, eh?

[B4NK0]

I would say if you don't have enough money for a fair good computer for around $3k-4k which will get every game on Max Details then why not go for something cheaper like game console which not only costs less but also have some graphics details lowered. Either way it's Win - Win situation as you will play the game you wanted. End of the topic.

[Claude_Lib]

@Evan-KCR To be honest, deep inside I wished it would be better, too. I didn't even bother thinking about how noticeable it would actually be. Still, the game is amazingly done, technically wise. Rockstar totally made up for the GTA IV misfortune.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Claude Liberty

[TheMostKnowledgable]

I would say if you don't have enough money for a fair good computer for around $3k-4k which will get every game on Max Details then why not go for something cheaper like game console which not only costs less but also have some graphics details lowered. Either way it's Win - Win situation as you will play the game you wanted. End of the topic.

 

Check this out though:

 

 

 

This is a build based on that one running it apparently:

 

 

 

Not a bad entry point. Kinda unheard of. As cheap as those components are, the space to upgrade later - kinda impressive. Maintaining 36-37, lock it to 30, turn it up a bit more, call it a day.

 

Overclocked though, not for the new, I don't even do that. But again, as cheap as that processor is, a bit more for a i5 entry level and much better.

Edited April 21, 2015 by TheMostKnowledgable

[cp1dell]

Pretty disappointing considering the game was like a year and half late on pc.

 

I didn't read the text, I watched the video and made up my own mind. Even when side by side, you have to pay close attention, and look very closely.

Keep in mind PS4 textures are not Very High like they said.

 

On top of that, the PC is capable of softer shadows, higher resolutions shadows, higher shadow options, higher reflection settings, MSAA for reflections, longer draw/detail distance, higher ped/car variety and density etc. There are quite a few things that are better looking - and of course a video isn't going to do any justice with all that compression. Wait until Nvidia releases a detailed comparison of each setting and their performance impact.

 

On top of that, recommended settings for the game can run it at PS4 equivalent/better settings, with 60FPS - as opposed to 30FPS.

 

There are improvements in the PC version, stop acting like you expected the jump to the PC version to be comparable to the jump between GTA SA graphics and GTA IV graphics. Nobody honestly expected that.