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

[cp1dell]

I was looking at GTASeries' comparison video, and I'm pretty sure Texture Quality is High - not Very High - on the PS4.

Reflection Quality might be High, or something in between High and Very High.

Shadows are without a doubt "High."

Shader Quality is definitely "Very High." As far as I know, that's the only setting where Parallax Occlusion Mapping becomes available.Just checked the Nvidia Performance Guide for GTA V, POM is only available on "Very High" Shader Quality.

Grass Quality is either High or Very High. Definitely not Ultra since that applies shadows to every piece of foliage.

 

I'm just not sure about the other settings. I don't know how they were able to say the PS4 has PostFX running on Ultra, since you can barely tell the difference between Very High and Ultra, and they don't even provide a comparison that highlights this.

 

Would really appreciate some help here figuring out the console equivalent settings, maybe with some comparison screenshots to help.

Edited April 23, 2015 by cp1dell

[lydianduck]

 

I was talking to the OP, clearly he is butthurt, look all the energy he puts into all these posts defending a toy, YES, it's a toy, a piece of plastic, it's ridiculous.

Doesn't hurt my feelings either, the OP is mainly copy and paste with a few bold tags added, unless you're insisting reading is now putting too much energy into something, in which case, you'll fit right in here in this section.

 

 

 

Im not defending anything, you just said you made this thread to counter the master racers or whatever, right? I've seen several posts of yours of this nature, I just think it's a waste of time, and these 'master racers' are just trolls anyway and you're giving them too much attention and letting them get under your skin, these arguments are silly. But it's your time, not mine, so do what you want.

 

 

What is a pc then, a toy you build yourself?

 

You're absolutely right, I just decide not waste any energy defending my gaming platform, console users can have their opinion and im fine with it.

Edited April 23, 2015 by lydianduck

[Crimson Flam3s]

I was looking at GTASeries' comparison video, and I'm pretty sure Texture Quality is High - not Very High - on the PS4.

Reflection Quality might be High, or something in between High and Very High.

Shadows are without a doubt "High."

Shader Quality is definitely "Very High." As far as I know, that's the only setting where Parallax Occlusion Mapping becomes available.Just checked the Nvidia Performance Guide for GTA V, POM is only available on "Very High" Shader Quality.

Grass Quality is either High or Very High. Definitely not Ultra since that applies shadows to every piece of foliage.

 

I'm just not sure about the other settings. I don't know how they were able to say the PS4 has PostFX running on Ultra, since you can barely tell the difference between Very High and Ultra, and they don't even provide a comparison that highlights this.

 

Would really appreciate some help here figuring out the console equivalent settings, maybe with some comparison screenshots to help.

I'm pretty sure the textures are very high or somewhere in between high and very high(possible that R* had a custom setting on the console) been comparing places and text up close and there is barely any difference if any between ps4 and very high. I did not take screenshots but might tomorrow.

[cp1dell]

I'm pretty sure the textures are very high or somewhere in between high and very high(possible that R* had a custom setting on the console) been comparing places and text up close and there is barely any difference if any between ps4 and very high. I did not take screenshots but might tomorrow.

 

Screenshot I just took from GTASeries' comparison video. I'm positive that the PS4 is on High Texture Quality.

 

EDIT: Reflection Quality. GTASeries has it set to Very High in their video, so that rules out Ultra.

 

PS4 Reflections

PC Reflections

 

So I'm thinking the PS4 has "High" Reflection Quality, but I don't think High looks that good on the PC. Can't remember. Might be something between High and Very High.

Edited April 23, 2015 by cp1dell

[Crimson Flam3s]

Didn't they say they were using 4k?, that would make things look a bit better/sharper when bringing the image down to 1080p kinda like downsampling.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Crimson Flam3s

[cp1dell]

F*ck, just checked the video - they are. Still, would it really though? I thought downsampling would just affect the edges of objects. The texture's image size is still the same.

[Crimson Flam3s]

F*ck, just checked the video - they are. Still, would it really though? I thought downsampling would just affect the edges of objects. The texture's image size is still the same.

On that screenshot you have, that's after they zoom in right? 4K, won't look much different if seen on a 1080p screen but uf you zoom in, you will see it retains a lot of clarity unlike native 1080p.

[cp1dell]

Okay here's a different texture comparison.

 

PS4

PC

 

"Supermarket" definitely looks sharper. As does "Meteorite." Though, now I'm not sure if it's because of the 4K resolution or not.

[Crimson Flam3s]

Okay here's a different texture comparison.

 

PS4

PC

 

"Supermarket" definitely looks sharper. As does "Meteorite." Though, now I'm not sure if it's because of the 4K resolution or not.

Hmm it does look sharper, but we can't know for sure. I'll try taking some screenshots tomorrow, closeups. Stuff like that.

 

Wonder how it's gonna look like though. The ps4 screenshots have a sh*tth jpg format and lose a little quality if saved on usb but it shouldn't bring the quality down enough significantly.

[L0SS4NT0SK1LL3RV]

Amazing how a GTX 750 Ti and a I3 4130 can beat the PS4:

 

Edited April 23, 2015 by L0SS4NT0SK1LL3RV

[Kampret]

It's pretty obvious that current generation consoles are extremely limited in CPU. You know the CPU is sh*t when a test performed on X360, X1, PS3, and PS4, showed that CBE (PS3 CPU) outperformed PS4 CPU by a quite large margin.

 

I generally defend consoles, but Sony (and to a lesser extent, MS) made a terrible decision on putting a tablet CPU inside a console. I support them on moving to x86, but they really f*cked up on choosing the CPU of choice.

 

I mean, if they're going for low power consumption and TDP, why not go Intel? If I'm building a PC with emphasis on power consumption and heat output, I'd choose Intel for CPU.

 

If they insist on going AMD, the least thing they could do is to put a 45W CPU SKU inside it, like A6 or low A8 series.

 

If only Sony still uses CBE on its consoles... damn.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Kampret

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

It's pretty obvious that current generation consoles are extremely limited in CPU. You know the CPU is sh*t when a test performed on X360, X1, PS3, and PS4, showed that CBE (PS3 CPU) outperformed PS4 CPU by a quite large margin.

 

I generally defend consoles, but Sony (and to a lesser extent, MS) made a terrible decision on putting a tablet CPU inside a console. I support them on moving to x86, but they really f*cked up on choosing the CPU of choice.

 

I mean, if they're going for low power consumption and TDP, why not go Intel? If I'm building a PC with emphasis on power consumption and heat output, I'd choose Intel for CPU.

 

If they insist on going AMD, the least thing they could do is to put a 45W CPU SKU inside it, like A6 or low A8 series.

 

If only Sony still uses CBE on its consoles... damn.

Sony make their own decisions and they probably calculated the costs.... I can understand your point, but Sony have ways of going in odd directions. They did it when the PS1 launched back in the 90's and not many expected it to be a success then.

 

Sony have had real trouble with cash recently, profits are not what they expected and the PS4 was developed during the global recession. The result is a prime example of tech on a strict production budget.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Sikee Atric

[LankanComrade]

The new star Wars battlefront looks so real and that will still be running at 60 FPS across all platforms.

[Kampret]

 

It's pretty obvious that current generation consoles are extremely limited in CPU. You know the CPU is sh*t when a test performed on X360, X1, PS3, and PS4, showed that CBE (PS3 CPU) outperformed PS4 CPU by a quite large margin.

 

I generally defend consoles, but Sony (and to a lesser extent, MS) made a terrible decision on putting a tablet CPU inside a console. I support them on moving to x86, but they really f*cked up on choosing the CPU of choice.

 

I mean, if they're going for low power consumption and TDP, why not go Intel? If I'm building a PC with emphasis on power consumption and heat output, I'd choose Intel for CPU.

 

If they insist on going AMD, the least thing they could do is to put a 45W CPU SKU inside it, like A6 or low A8 series.

 

If only Sony still uses CBE on its consoles... damn.

Sony make their own decisions and they probably calculated the costs.... I can understand your point, but Sony have ways of going in odd directions. They did it when the PS1 launched back in the 90's and not many expected it to be a success then.

 

Sony have had real trouble with cash recently, profits are not what they expected and the PS4 was developed during the global recession. The result is a prime example of tech on a strict production budget.

 

 

But I still really don't get why would they choose a tablet CPU on a gaming console. MS are less affected here simply because of the .75 GHz clock bump and eSRAM.

[DWeasel]

The new star Wars battlefront looks so real and that will still be running at 60 FPS across all platforms.

 

Haha of course xD

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

 

 

 

 

 

It's pretty obvious that current generation consoles are extremely limited in CPU. You know the CPU is sh*t when a test performed on X360, X1, PS3, and PS4, showed that CBE (PS3 CPU) outperformed PS4 CPU by a quite large margin.

 

I generally defend consoles, but Sony (and to a lesser extent, MS) made a terrible decision on putting a tablet CPU inside a console. I support them on moving to x86, but they really f*cked up on choosing the CPU of choice.

 

I mean, if they're going for low power consumption and TDP, why not go Intel? If I'm building a PC with emphasis on power consumption and heat output, I'd choose Intel for CPU.

 

If they insist on going AMD, the least thing they could do is to put a 45W CPU SKU inside it, like A6 or low A8 series.

 

If only Sony still uses CBE on its consoles... damn.

 

Sony make their own decisions and they probably calculated the costs.... I can understand your point, but Sony have ways of going in odd directions. They did it when the PS1 launched back in the 90's and not many expected it to be a success then.

Sony have had real trouble with cash recently, profits are not what they expected and the PS4 was developed during the global recession. The result is a prime example of tech on a strict production budget.

 

But I still really don't get why would they choose a tablet CPU on a gaming console. MS are less affected here simply because of the .75 GHz clock bump and eSRAM.

 

 

Yeah, it is a real mystery just why they did it. It is only setting Sony themselves up for trouble later as the software advances and the load on the CPU starts to rise.... If they went for the budget route, the potential for a big fall is in place for later on.

 

I am thinking Sony went for an experimental option with the PS4 CPU and their overconfidence with the success of previous 'experiments' made them commit to it.

 

Personally I think the XBox One will have better results with performance loading with later and more advanced titles. Something is niggling at me that users of PS4's are going to start complaining of lots of blown and overheated CPU's later in the life of the console.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Sikee Atric

[Kampret]

 

 

 

 

It's pretty obvious that current generation consoles are extremely limited in CPU. You know the CPU is sh*t when a test performed on X360, X1, PS3, and PS4, showed that CBE (PS3 CPU) outperformed PS4 CPU by a quite large margin.

 

I generally defend consoles, but Sony (and to a lesser extent, MS) made a terrible decision on putting a tablet CPU inside a console. I support them on moving to x86, but they really f*cked up on choosing the CPU of choice.

 

I mean, if they're going for low power consumption and TDP, why not go Intel? If I'm building a PC with emphasis on power consumption and heat output, I'd choose Intel for CPU.

 

If they insist on going AMD, the least thing they could do is to put a 45W CPU SKU inside it, like A6 or low A8 series.

 

If only Sony still uses CBE on its consoles... damn.

Sony make their own decisions and they probably calculated the costs.... I can understand your point, but Sony have ways of going in odd directions. They did it when the PS1 launched back in the 90's and not many expected it to be a success then.

Sony have had real trouble with cash recently, profits are not what they expected and the PS4 was developed during the global recession. The result is a prime example of tech on a strict production budget.

But I still really don't get why would they choose a tablet CPU on a gaming console. MS are less affected here simply because of the .75 GHz clock bump and eSRAM.

 

 

Yeah, it is a real mystery just why they did it. It is only setting Sony themselves up for trouble later as the software advances and the load on the CPU starts to rise.... If they went for the budget route, the potential for a big fall is in place for later on.

 

I am thinking Sony went for an experimental option with the PS4 CPU and their overconfidence with the success of previous 'experiments' made them commit to it.

 

Personally I think the XBox One will have better results with performance loading with later and more advanced titles. Something is niggling at me that users of PS4's are going to start complaining of lots of blown and overheated CPU's later in the life of the console.

 

 

Yep, on top of that, MS regularly releases XDK updates than has dramatically improved X1's performance. It's even on par with PS4 if there's no fillrate hogs.

 

You know something's wrong when a 256-bit DDR3-2133 can perform alike with 256-bit GDDR5 at 5500 MHz. Applause to MS and devs.

[utack]

It's pretty obvious that current generation consoles are extremely limited in CPU. You know the CPU is sh*t when a test performed on X360, X1, PS3, and PS4, showed that CBE (PS3 CPU) outperformed PS4 CPU by a quite large margin.

And then there is a benchmark where it is as good as an i7.

 

 

 

 

That benchmark you mentioned was probablly SIMD, just like everyone said the PS3 CPU was so great, but it was actually nothing special at tasks that are meant to be done by a CPU, it was just great at tasks any low end GPU can do.

The truth is probablly in between, but 8 cores x86 (yes 8 cores, not 4 CMT modules) with 1.6GHz are not bad at all, given that is has less API overhead than a PC and absolutely no software sound processing to do in a console.

Edited April 23, 2015 by utack

[TIM74UK]

No offence, but this is like the fifth post of yours I see you trying to convince us the console version is 'not that bad', who cares?! It almost seems as if you were trying to convince yourself with these posts, honestly, I thought the PS4 version looked good, but the 30fps cap is a deal breaker for me (i can't get fully immersed this way -but that's just me-) Interesting read nonetheless, thanks!

 

Absolutely!!

 

At 30 FPS you are missing literally half the virtual world around you...

 

This is the beauty of the PC version.... It's not that it just looks and feel better... ti gives you the ability to make your choices on how you want it to play based upon your system.

 

For me with my PC which rocks a GTX 980 I priorities 60FPS so it's 1080 with MSAA off TXAA on and post FX at V. High.

Edited April 23, 2015 by TIM74UK

[Smale45]

I had GTA V on xbone and while i was happy with how it looked, the performance was terrible. Insane FPS drops in GTA online too. In general, GTA online is just terrible on xbox one.

 

In my opinion, f*ck how close the next gen console version looks to the PC version, because looks don't mean sh*t in here. GTA V just performs leaps and bounds better on PC than it does on consoles.

Loading times are much quicker on PC, stable fps, much better feeling TDM modes, way better and more stable servers. Im talking strictly Online here, because SP is good on every device this game is released.

 

PC version is just superior in every way and it makes the game much more enjoyable to play. Im happy as sh*t playing this game on PC

Edited April 23, 2015 by Smale45

[Ash_735]

Yep, on top of that, MS regularly releases XDK updates than has dramatically improved X1's performance. It's even on par with PS4 if there's no fillrate hogs.

 

You know something's wrong when a 256-bit DDR3-2133 can perform alike with 256-bit GDDR5 at 5500 MHz. Applause to MS and devs.

That's been the view for the past few months now, Microsoft are better at the software side of things because, naturally, their teams have a lot more experience behind it and (no offence intended) their teams are mainly US or EU based, so their focus and design is more in touch with what we as users would want.

 

Sony CAN do good OS updates, look at Firmware 2.5, but the amount of time it takes them to do so, and the communication back and forth between the rest of the world divisions and Japan is like a struggle at times, which is why I'm also amazed at how Sony didn't take this chance to try and unify their operations, instead we're still stuck with the same three areas for PSN, one run by Japan, one run by NA/US and one run by EU, meaning things have to be pushed three times. The only ones who do it worse are Nintendo, it must be a somewhat weird view from Japanese heads about online or something?

[Claude_Lib]

I think I better bring this here.

Going mostly offtopic, but is it really maxed settings, as you mentioned in YT description? Because those reflections in the rain puddles look bad. No trees, no peds or vehicles, no explosions, even the protag doesn't reflect in them.

 

I forced all settings to the max and yes, reflections in rain puddles are really that bad. But even more noticeable is ridiculous pop-in distance. Is it any different on consoles?

 

 

 

 

Edited April 23, 2015 by Claude Liberty

[iddqdvie]

i love 60 fps and i really love how the 360 Controller handles, i have ps3/ps4 and i wonder if this a PC Thing or an xbox thing

 

and i am glad that the consoles are that powerful!

 

 

 

(i played GTAV on ps3, ps4 and now PC and i am happy)

[cp1dell]

I was just looking at this comparison here and the difference between each setting for this texture is huge.

 

To anybody who has the PS4 version, do you think you could find a dumpster/this texture? Would really help figuring out whether or not the PS4 is using High or Very High textures.

[TheMostKnowledgable]

linked so it's easy not to forget to go between tabs back forth while you sus out all the differences in each. These are only in 1080p. Monitors of larger resolutions and up to 4k will show even clearer, high quality visuals beyond what 1080p can do. But 1080p is enough to see the many differences, but also the many similarities.

 

PC PS4

 

PC PS4

 

PC PS4

 

PC PS4

 

PC PS4

 

PC PS4

 

Gamespot "4k video" is misleading, it is below - while they captured it at 4k, it's still only showing it downscaled to 1080p, and as such, it has lost .

 

http://www.gamespot.com/videos/gta-5-graphics-comparison/2300-6424477/

 

Some of the images here show the shadow and detail distance problem on PC, what XB and PS don't suffer:

 

http://gamingbolt.com/grand-theft-auto-5-pc-vs-ps4-vs-xbox-one-comparison-foliage-draw-distance-character-models-and-more

[IcePwrd]

The new star Wars battlefront looks so real and that will still be running at 60 FPS across all platforms.

It will TARGET 60fps, the same way BF4 TARGETED 60fps, but barely ran at 40

[TheMostKnowledgable]

Looking for more comparisons, I find this: http://i.imgur.com/V3Pp3OV.jpg

 

That's hilarious whoever did that, that they took the time.

 

 

The PS4 floats somewhere between high and very high across the board of settings. It has some very high textures in some places, and some high in others it seems.

 

 

 

 

Capped from a post containing these images (middle mouse click them to see the non-bastardized versions) http://www.gamespot.com/forums/system-wars-314159282/gta-v-pc-users-stunning-screenshots-how-it-really--31983928/?page=1#js-message-343230674

 

It's true. But at 1080p, the differences are more subtle. PS4 is blurrier on close things, and PC draws detail a lot further and smoother, but blurs it more far away (see previous post with all the "PC PS4" links)

Edited April 23, 2015 by TheMostKnowledgable

[cp1dell]

It's true. But at 1080p, the differences are more subtle. PS4 is blurrier on close things, and PC draws detail a lot further and smoother, but blurs it more far away (see previous post with all the "PC PS4" links)

The PS4 only uses 4X Anisotropic Filtering. That's why it's been so difficult to tell whether or not the PS4 is on High or Very High textures since everything is in the distance being blurred by lack of AF.

 

But the other post you have with the PC/PS4 comparisons have some large textures very close to the screen which helps, and it does look like most are at "High." Especially some of the road textures where the difference is very obvious. The screenshot with Franklin at Simeon's, it looks like the PS4 shadow is sharp on one edge - but in the Michael picture near the sewing factory, the car shadow on the PS4 looks almost as soft as the PC one.

 

Did you take those screenshots yourself? What settings were the game running at?

Edited April 24, 2015 by cp1dell

[myname2917]

I have both the PS4 and PC version and based on their article, you'd think the difference between the two would be slight but it simply isn't. I play my pc games on the same tv my ps4 is hooked up to and the PC version at 1080p is clearly more detailed and clearer than the ps4 version even with me not having ultra for grass, post fx or reflections since they offer little visual improvement over very high. The improvement over the ps4 is actually more than I was expecting and shows me their findings of how the PS4 is running at a lot of very high settings has to be flat out wrong unless it has some image wide blur setting making all these alleged pc matching very high settings look less in quality.

 

The PS4 version is very impressive but it's easily trumped by the PC version. No way anyone who isn't halfway blind couldn't see the clear improvement. It may not be on the level of xbox 360 (yep, have that version as well) to ps4 improvement but it is not too far off.

[BlueSocks]

A lot of the reason the console version can "keep up" with pc is just all the tricks they use for things mainly. You can see the tricks they used on last gen even more clearly, such as cars that aren't yours are lower detail, if you get in one it magically goes from blurred to clearer. This sort of thing also applies to ps4/x1. I didn't expect it to look hands down better in every single aspect ever. PC releases near the beginning of the console life cycle will never be night and day difference, it'll mainly be draw distances and things like that where things improve.

 

As shown by pics already posted here, you can see what I mean about their tricks of things looking better close up than far away. Some things do look better close up, but the real thing pc is doing to shine here is the distances. There's no need to implement tricks or hide things on pc because you can change the settings to whatever you want or your system can handle, unlike console.