- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 66,112
- Reaction score
- 37,428
I'm aware of the settings discrepancy, but keep in mind the CPU in the original PS4 isn't even an FX-8300 equivalent (the RAM is what soars-- both in terms of speed and volume). I think they're still getting more out of the consoles with all the time they spend on dynamic resolution scaling, and every other technique to squeeze water from a stone, than PC analogues can hope to achieve.Considering PS4 games now a days are a mixture of low/medium 1080p with a 30FPS cap the 7850 might be able to keep up with it to be honest or at least be competitve. My parents PC is still rocking a RX460 which is probably 10% faster than a 7850 and there playing even modern titles on mostly medium settings 1080p
Old equivalent hardware can probably keep up it's just 95% of PC users will upgrade the moment they can't get a consistent 60FPS or the moment they have to start dropping settings down to medium.
This happened to me last generation as well. The first 4-5 years of last gen I had a third party 8600GT which wasn't much faster than the Xbox 360s GPU and I was able to keep up even with optimization/game engines being a complete mess that gen
An FX-8300 + Radeon HD 7850 2GB + 8GB DDR3-RAM desktop is not going to run any game that looks as good as Red Dead Redemption 2 on the original PS4.
An R9 380 is the minimum required AMD GPU to run Shadow of the Tomb Raider, for example, and we all know how well minimums plays out in reality. That card is a whopping 65% more powerful than the 7850. So, IMO, only affording the PC analogue a 30% processing power advantage in the long term is short-changing the consoles if it's erring.