one thing is ignored by all reviewers is that PS5 is limited to around 200 Watt TDP and this including CPU + GPU. 4080S consumes more than the whole PS5 and including PC CPU consuming it will be easily 2x more. It would be interesting to compare PS5 and a modern PC limited to 200 watt TDP.
@@balloonb0y677 It's literally all that's matters for consoles. How much performance can they squeeze into a limited power envelope in a small console enclosure that's not going to have heat problems in all sorts of tv units etc. there's a reason why they don't mass produce 500w consoles.
@@FEARmeify power efficiency is one of the primary goals for any chip design, where every micro watt counts. Power envelope is limited by many things like cooling solutions, psu, board design, battery (on mobile platforms) etc. So yes power efficiency is critical metric.
It seems a lot of people are taking this comparison personally, but I don’t think the purpose of the video was to speak badly about PS5. Rich pointed out that most developers use PS5 as a base and move up from there. DF is about the cutting edge and he was pointing out what it takes to move towards the cutting edge. Rich has consistently sung the praises of the Series S as a good way to enter the current generation of gaming at a great price. If youre happy with your setup and it suits your needs great, if not here’s what it takes to get to a different tier of visual fidelity.
I baffles me that people still think a $500 console, that includes cpu gpu and more, can compete with a dedicated gpu. Console will be high mid range performance at best when the console is released. Not a few years later. Edit: That said the 4080 super is $1000.
@@roasthunter Console gamers also get done slowly over time with higher game prices due to no market place competition, and forced to run a yearly subscription for online play.
You might rather spend $500 on a graphics card but not me, Why do that when I can buy a whole gaming machine PS5 for that much? I remember in 2017 you could buy the GTX 1060 6gb for $200-300, not anymore on the Nvidia side, but I guess if I go AMD there's the 6700 XT unless is the 7000 series good?
Personally I don't want to play on console, too slow frame rate, and I am more of a mouse and keyboard person. $500 console is a good deal, but remember to include the tv cost and higher game prices.
I got a 4090, and whenever people ask me for a PC recommendation, I never tell them to get one, even when they ask about it after seeing mine. The only person I ever recommended it to is a buddy who's just as much of an enthusiast as me. If you’re looking for value, the 4090 ain’t it. But if you’ve got the extra dough and wanna push games to their absolute limits, those extra frames and that resolution do look mighty fine, I gotta say! Growing up, I didn’t have a console, so I had to crash at my cousin’s house just to play every PlayStation exclusive. For my PC, I had to build the most budget of budget rigs by borrowing long-term from friends and begging my parents for the rest. Grinded my ass off IRL and made it to the point where I got a 4090 rig and a PS5 too. Look at me now, Ma!
i have heard from somewhere that there is a likely chance of a 58 CU rdna chip. i don't remember if they are making it 3 or if they are sticking with 2, but i remember hearing about 60 cu pro that is to be reduced to 58 CU. this is on the level of the 7800xt. it was a rumor, so don't take it as fact.
@@commonsense-og1gzthere won’t be a pro. And gpus are really hard to compara. Just because the CUs are the of the same quantity doesnt mean they are of the same level
@@ZackSNetwork idk man, fitting a $500 gpu on a console that costs $500 is unlikely imo, maybe in a couple years with a price cut on a gpu of this level. PS5 has a $300 gpu level right now (RX 6700 non xt)
I was considering buying a PS5 because I am tired of waiting for the release of Sony exclusives 2+ years later. But as a 4080 owner..this has changed my mind..lol. Thanks for making this video!
And there's plenty of other reasons not to go with consoles, PS5 especially so. It's better to wait for a year or two to not have to settle for that kind of subpar experience.
In Nvidia vs AMD comparisons when upscaling is used it would be much more accurate to compare performance of DLSS Balanced vs FSR Quality as even the in balanced mode the DLSS image is often leaps better.
Fsr's advantage of being on old cards will dwindle by Rx 8000. Not many people will be on non rtx cards. At that point why not just switch to ai like Nvidia?
@@GeneralS1mbabecause Nvidia themselves like to lock out features for their own cards that are a gen older. Did you forget that the RTX 3000 cards don’t support DLSS frame gen?
@@PurushNahiMahaPurush I'm positive more people will use upscaling than frame gen anyway. Upscaling is our biggest gripe with amd not their frame generation.
The 4070 roughly performs at 2x the PS5 framerates, would expect probably a 4060 1.5 x performance. So 30fps on ps5 would be probably 45ish. But using dlss which is the main advantage it would be higher resolution upscaled and detail and will probably still be 2x framerates.
4x the performance is crazy we are actually at the point now where pc for its price matches ps5 for the actual performance you get . You can build a 4080 super with a 13600k for 2k right now the full build which will out perform the ps5 by that much. Even options of real true native 4k gaming 😉. Worth it! Yes now
It's funny because a PS5 has equivalent to a 6700 (Non-XT) GPU but on PC you can get faster FPS and proper VRR and even upscale to 4K better. Main issue is shader loading etc but that's mainly an Unreal Engine issue. The fact is that developers on PS5 are only good at developing on PS5 and are too lazy to even optimize for that most of the time with decent VRR and upscaler support. Locked to 30 fps or a crappy 60 fps experience.
Consider how large a jump the PS5 actually was on previous generations in terms of performance. The next console doesn't need to aim for something silly like 8K or 4K120, the target is a solid 4K60 in every title - that's achievable with a PS6, perhaps even with a PS5 Pro too. The PS5 already does a remarkable job with the tech inside it.
Console marketing has always focused on resolution. Even 2160P is just a resolution one of many, there is nothing magical about "4K", its not any kind of specific target. Gamers should be more interested in fluidity with frame rate, so a "minimum" of 60fps always and preferably higher.
@@rayyanabdulwajid7681 The GPU horsepower of the PS5 is around an 8x increase compared to the PS4. The issue is the expectations going from 1080p 30fps to 4k 60fps also meant a 8x increase in pixel throughput per second. While the better cpu and SSD can lead to improvements to fidelity in their own way, as far as raw GPU horsepower in concerned if you want native 4k 60fps you are essentially stuck at PS4 fidelity for any gpu bound aspects of the title. While 60fps is important. 4k at the very least is extremely expensive compared to the quality increase compared to 1440p, and with modern upscaling tech, modern games having a lot of noise and blur baked in to the look of them anyways, and sitting distances in living rooms. A fixation on 4k these days honestly just comes down to either sitting unhealthily close to the display or placebo. The average gamer doesn't take screenshots and pixel count.
Have any of you people seen both in a real life room without RUclips compression video? 4k Placebo or sitting close to the screen? Go buy both and see them even from a distance. It isn't even close.
The issue is that these benchmarks aren't saying much about the CPU. Sony would end up with an Xbox that they can't reduce the price of, if they used Nvidia and Intel. Maybe Nvidia and ARM, but they'd lose back compat without emulation, and that takes us back to the PS3.
BUT... there's another way to look at this. The VISUAL difference at the same FPS (i.e. 60FPS) can be incredibly small. Having said that, I bought an XBox Series X rather than upgrade my graphics card, hated it (my first console at 53 years old; PC gamer since I was 13), returned it and bought a lowly RTX4070 to pair with my "old" Ryzen 3000 CPU. Very, very happy with PC gaming still!
How is it lies? If you can pay the PC premium, you should be paying the PC premium regardless of the shit-show that was the last couple of years.@@xdxd6087
Sadly you sent the message to Nvidia you will pay anything, heavily nerfing the 2nd card down the stack this generation (4080) was a bit of a dick move by Nvidia.
This becomes a lot less impressive, when you realize the price of the 480 machine. PS5 you can buy around $400 to $500. This PC even if you cheap out on a lot of parts, is going to easily cost you 1500-1600$ And that doesn't include a monitor, or a controller. Honestly this video simply makes the PS5 look like an extraordinary value
Nobody is really arguing that PC doesn't cost more, of course it does. Not only can you get crazy performance increases like seen in this video, but it can literally do anything else you could need a device to do. My PC is a gaming device, a workstation, and a server for every display in my house. Lower price doesn't mean better value.
First let me get one thing clear, there is nothing wrong with playing games on the hardware of your choice. However, it's always been ridiculous to compare a PC and a console on price, since they are both different and are designed for entirely different purposes. A PC is designed as a multifunctional modular computer, where gaming is just one of those multiple functions that it's capable of. Where as a consoles prime and main function is to just play a select few games on it, which are released for that particular console. Both do what they are required to do, very well. However, the shear amount of those additional functions and extra capabilities of a PC over what a console can do, simply means that it cost's more money. Therefore any price comparison between the two different machines that's based on just a single function, is always going to be an apples to oranges comparison. Also, most people who own a PC, also need or require it for several of those other functions that it can do, besides just gaming. It's plain ridiculous to even argue and suggest to them about using a console instead for gaming, when due to a PC's modular design, they could just simply throw a $500 or more GPU into that 'required' PC and get a better gaming experience results, than they would if they had chosen a separate $500 console, instead. .
@@fafski1199 Only if you went with a 7800 xt / 6800 xt or something. If you went with a 4060 ti id rather have a ps5 lol 8gb vram gpu's perform much much much worse than a ps5/xbox
What a shocker! A GPU than alone costs 2.5X times a more than a complete console is faster! Oh god, I never would have guessed! Everyone, go quick buy a $2500 PC because it is faster than a $399 console!
Keep in mind a PC is not just a toy, its also a productivity tool and many gamers use it for both. PC games are also often found cheaper as there is real competition in the digital market places unlike consoles. PC you also do not need a yearly subscription to play online, a LOT of hidden costs with consoles.
@@Battleneter We all have PCs, I don't know a single console player who also doesn't have a PC on the side. My gaming laptop that I bought for 2500$ in 2018 is drastically inferior to the PS5, a 500$ machine.
Love the like to like comparison videos that show us the true settings of these consoles (rather than the marketing BS) especially since there really aren't any others doing it anywhere else. I can get a rough idea of performance differences just by looking at the actual specs of the hardware and having the knowledge of how to interpret them (I'm an electronics engineer with 31 years experience) but most people really don't have that ability which makes videos like this valuable in educating them in a way they can see and understand (A graph is worth a thousand words)
As the PC platform is home to GamePass as much as XBox, surely the comparison should be made with SeriesX running the native service for native games … as PS5 ports aren’t native and are of varying quality, depending on whichever the dev team assigned to the PC port.
Not really a surprise considering consoles all launch with hardware a generation behind at min compared to PC . but thats the trade off ,you get a cheap hardware but that comes at the cost of not looking as good to a high end PC. its not that consoles look bad but they are for a budget friendly market
@@Stong1337 A PC with a 4080 super costs $2500-3000, the PS5 costs $400(if you consider the cost of a dualsense even $70 less). In the video comparisons are made with PS5s graphics options.
@@ZackSNetwork Most informed higher end PC gamers choose 1440P high hz including ultrawide variants over 2160P(4K) which tends to be a nooby mistake, he is correct 4K is still irrelevant.
I absolutely love how amd guys go oh ray tracing ewww yet consoles are trying so hard to utilize it with amd equipement. Then you have nvidia breezing through it.
It's a real shame that AMD is not better in ray tracing and upscaling than Nvidia. If the tables were turned, the PS5 and Xbox Series X would be running games so much better with ray tracing. What a bummer for gamers around the world...
PS5 & XBSX were released with what was effectively mid ranged PC hardware 3 years ago. Every single console generation they start struggling around half way through their lifecycle. If you buy a mid range PC GPU today it will be struggling in 3 years time in the latest AAA games with high IQ settings, the advantage is however you have full control over the in game settings AND you can upgrade the GPU if you choose to.
@@DaveRessler Well, they wouldn't have the games plus they'd charge 1,000 dollars. AMD's SOC has been a great way to mass market gaming but it'd have been insane if it supported DLSS and ran RT like Nvidia's cards.
common gamers don't care about this stuff though. I think that's a huge factor with gaming and why we are stuck with so few games compared to the ps2 and 360. I think the 3080 super should be $599 but that's just crazy talk today.
Lies. My 4080 Super cost me 950€. BTW I have XSX and PS5 and I know how much I payed for them. Stop lying. And pc is universal machine where I can do ton of work other than gaming so the price is justified not to mention games that are dirt cheap compared to consoles with no monthly subscription.
No one forcing anyone to shell out for a 4080 irrespective of cost, if a console floats your boat perfect. Consoles are no fuss and a hell of a lot cheaper, but obviously far less powerful.
It sucks how much consoles are holding us back because lots of games are essentially developed with a console mind and then ported to PC. The same goes for the UI. Lots of UIs are designed with controllers in mind and then ported to keyboard & mouse and it sucks for PC players. Starfield UI being one these games. Just terrible with keyboard and mouse.
@@Clay3613 Series X plays games better almost always, has more space, more power, and Xbox has more users/profit than Playstation. It's not all about the box, it's not the 90s anymore. Xbox Series consoles are pacing ahead of the 360 at this point in it's lifespan. The rhetoric of Xbox consoles failing is a wild phallacy. I've owned all this generations offerings, nothing tops PC but the Series X is the best console by far. All fanboyism aside. Quick Resume alone is the best next gen feature. GamePass is the best deal in gaming. 1st party studios dawrfs both Playstation and Nintendo now. The Switch, now that's a different monster altogether with hardware sales. It may be the best selling console of all time when it's said and done. It's so far ahead of both it's extreme. Rumors have Xbox making their next system a hybrid. That'll be cool to see, especially if the reported price of Switch 2 is $400. Competition is always better.
The PS5 is just about as powerful as the trashbox series x on paper but manages to outperform it in most games as well as having exclusives with significantly better visuals than microsoft's. Cry harder xbot
So what does this tell us: The PS5 Pro is probably gonna be not an XTX variant... They can't give us that kind of performance for cheap. They'll probably give us the performance of a 7800 Non XT. I'm gonna bet they're probably gonna use the 6900 non-xt like specs because... you can't jump generations within the same console refresh. 6700 non-xt to 6900 non-xt is a pretty big jump IMHO... But if I'm wrong... I'd be really happy with a 7800XT!
@@Mopantsu My hope is IF a pro exists... and I really do hope it does, I want GT7 to run at 120 in VR mode! Would help A LOT with motion sickness.... at least 90...
@@JoeMama-yl1ow yeah, whatever you say, pal. 😂 Or I don’t care to be price gouged on an insignificant 2 year old piece of hardware that’s soon to be replaced. 🤷🏻♂️
Upscaling is useful but native is native. Upscaling means variable visual and gameplay artefacts that vary depending on the technique vs proper rendering framerate showing the correct visuals and hardware perf.
Most likely not because Vision Pro is very expensive. They mainly cover games and their performances. Vision Pro doesn't really have a ground breaking game or app to even cover it. Vision Pro is basically about the experience you get when using it. It's a different type of take on media consumption.
They seem to not understand that this is also a channel for tech enthusiast who want to see how things run on every platform. They want to limit themselves instead of trying new things. A bit disappointing.
It would have been a fairer comparison if you compared it to the RTX 3000 series since that is the line that launched in the same year the new-gen consoles launched. And besides that. If you compare it like this, a console with double the price, let’s say €1200, would preform much more in line with the RTX 4000 series than the €499 it costs at launch.
Not really as the PS5'a AMD APU is about the same as the previous gen RTX 20 series. And even if the console did cost 1200, it still wouldn't match a 4080 because a PC's GPU is only part of the PC. Pair it will a high end CPU and it would run circles around a console, even a 1200 euro one. On top of that, AMD don't compete against NVIDIA's top end GPU's.
this isn't supposed to be a fair comparison, this is comparing the baseline of development and settings to what the high end of enthusiast hardware can offer. the point of the comparison is to be 'unfair' lmao
The whole point of the video was to determine how much more performant a modern high-end GPU on PC is, when compared to a PS5. It wasn't an apples to apples comparison on price or testing a equivalent performing GPU on PC, to the PS5.
@@fafski1199 yes i got that now like Acursir mentioned as well. I misread the title the first couple of times since this is bot my native language and being dyslexic 🤗
These comparisons between a 3+ year old game console with top-tier PC GPUs are becoming ridiculous and pointless. We get it. The GPUs offer 3x the frame rate with much better graphics. Why keep doing these?
Yeah. It would make more sense to do comparisons with new budget GPUs vs consoles or comparisons of GPUs released at the same time as the console. Because if you have the dough to get a high end GPU, duh, why are you even considering a console?
What's funny is I've been in the opposite situation. Spent years upgrading and building my PC, with a 3070 and i9, but after I bought a PS5 I found more enjoyment just sitting in the living room playing on the PS5 😂
@Hackerb0b yea my pc is in the living room I play with controller 90% of the time but yes that's why I love console gaming. And I spent less time in the settings and more time actually playing the game
@@x_z0mb1_x no literally on PC I spend so much time trying to get the "perfect performance" that I can't immerse myself in the game as much haha. But I feel that on playing with a controller, the older I've gotten the more I've realized controllers are great for third person games.
PC has its issue's but its the way to go. 500 dollars for a popcorn machine is not the way to go. Its a massive difference in how games look on pc and if you havent experienced it in person you will never know.
I dont understand the collective condescension a lot of PC gamers have on consoles. No, the PS5 wasn't weak at launch. It was surprisingly equivalent to a mid to high end PC. But the custom chips and focused platform would give far better results than an equally powered PC. These are just facts. Obviously with time, PC is going to significantly outpace a ps5, even with all the optimization the ps5 has. Ps5 pro will likely be a high end chip but still... its obviously going to be outperformed not long after. Basically just enjoy what you have. Some people would rather the simplicity of a console without forking out a ton on frequently upgrading their gpu cards
consoles will never be equal to a high end pc. thats why a high end pc costs about 3 to 5 thousand. and just the unlimited amount of things you can do with a pc that console can't do. it really just isn't even a fair comparison.
Well a "mid range PC" is not just gaming device so the PS5 was not exactly equivalent :P. The advantage of a ageing mid range PC however is you have full control over the in game IQ settings so eek out more FPS as you feel fit. Secondly if you want to upgrade a 3 year old GPU you always can, unlike consoles where your stuck waiting for "the next generations". The second half of any console generation is always pretty rough.
The biggest advantage the consoles have is fast load times off SSD. PC architecture means even with the new AMD and Intel/Nvidia Direct Storage etc it's still not as fast as the consoles offer.
Got to feel bad for the people that don't know much about computer parts and they turn all the settings up on their new expensive computer and get 20 fps.
With so many available optimizing guides online... Presets are rubbish, I can't even understand why this aspect of PC gaming hasn't been done a bit better over the years for PC newcomers.
This just spurs me on more to get a high-end PC built this year. Sony and MS really need to pull their finger out and get these inevitable mid gen 'upgrade' consoles to market.. like asap. I can see serious issues with running games on current gen going forward. MS will also need to consider proprietary image upscaling like Sony is supposedly planning.
Man, I'm waiting for the 5000 series which will be out next year. I'd hate to drop full cash on a GPU now only to have it outclassed next year for less money.
I own a RTX 3080 PC and a XBSX in the lounge, interestingly I feel the PC has held up better than the console. Now waiting for the 50 series, the 40 series is an auto skip as the 2nd card down the stack the RTX 4080 was nerfed so heavily against the top card and a freaken 70% price increase, that's compared to the prior gen. The 4080 Super is "just" a 40% price increase now :P
@@RyneLanders Welcome to the whack-a-mole game of PC components. Most important thing, at least for me, is to know exactly the type of experience I want, add some perf. on top to be somewhat future proof and go with it. Many times I fell into the rabbit hole of trying to min/max my setups, but it's just how it is: every year, something comes out that is 10-15% faster. I just paired a 4070ti with a 5800x3d last october and I am happy about every part of my build. I got every single part somewhat at a discount, being patient. My 4070ti will be outclassed soon enough, just like every 5xxx cards will be soon after. Right now, I get 80+ fps at 4k in most titles that I play. Some DLSS involved, but I prefer 4k with DLSS than native 1440p on my C3 that sits 60-70 cm in front of me. I expect to constantly get 4k 60+ in the next few years, sometimes by using DLSS, sometimes by using optimized settings (which I always do anyways, most presets are rubbish). When I can't anymore, I'll drop to 1440p. That gets me 5-6 years with this build, than on to the next one (I found that I get quite good resale value on my systems).
@@lefouduroi9980 no, every year something faster doesn't come out. The current cycle is about every 2 to three years. The RTX 4090 launched in 2022. The 5000 series comes out next year. That's a 3 year cycle. This year all they did was refresh the existing product stack for the same exact performance because there are no new components. So if you want to ball out and justify an expensive purchase, the best time to do so is at the beginning of the cycle so you can spread the cost:value over that three year period. The *worst* time to do it is at the end of the cycle because you have a very high cost still, and the value decreases immediately as soon as the new generation launches. And by buying early you can resell it for a portion of the price you paid initially, recouping some of that cost. Alternatively, if you want to buy a 4090 after the 5000 series launches you could get one at discount. But to pay full price for one and then the next one comes out with twice the performance at the same price or lower very shortly after, you're going to feel burned. It's the same thing with car models. Typically they release the same model for a few years with little or no refreshes, then they launch a refresh after 4 years with new designs, new engines, etc. you don't ever buy the tail end of the generation at full price because it immediately loses most of its value the moment the new refresh launches, putting you into massive negative equity territory.
I think the more perspective you have, the more informed you can be about your purchasing decision. Some people have only played consoles (me prior to 8 months ago) so knowing just how much stronger PC can be can help you decide if it's worth it. Overkill...maybe...but there's someone out there asking how the 2 compare.
Frl. They always do this to consoles, always being pessimistic about what consoles can do. And always trying to gaslight people of what is bad or good. And when they talk positively about consoles they sweat talk the consoles as if they are in need of the extra hype.
@balloonb0y677 but..if Studios are using consoles for baselines (sales), then I think the comparison is fair. Nobody is comparing mobile games to high end PCs to see who's the winner.
@@eeeeyuke and the point of that? There have been tons of RUclips videos since the ps5s launch that shows the ps5s (baseline) performance. Why need a video dedicated not for comparison of a game but dedicated to show us performance gaps. Again, this is just an indirect way of trashing on consoles without saying you are trashing on consoles.
@balloonb0y677 Well, I've played consoles my whole life, and this Xbox Gen has been garbage. I was a day 1 Xbox Live customer. I don't think they need any help looking bad lately. To each their own. I love seeing the numbers.
A lot of the comments on PC vs Console seems to forget CONTEXT and PRICE. A. Yes, a PC can do more than gaming, but DF is strictly talking about gaming here and in all their videos. B. Not everyone will use the full power of their PCs for other than gaming. C. Of course a GPU costing as much or more than the console itself will perform better. D. Building a PC with a comparable performance to a PS5 (£480 new, sub-£400 secondhand) with the same price is nigh impossible, even with secondhand parts. A PC with R5 3600, 3060 12gb, 16GB ram, 1tb SSD will land you more than £600, before counting peripherals. E. Game prices at the time of release can be more expensive on consoles, but secondhand disks are easy to find and relatively cheap. There is also the added bonus of being able to sell your used games.
what sucks most about pc is console AAA exclusives. had to wait for gtav, rdr2, and now NO gta6 at launch. I got both a pc and ps5. been using ps5 because I know gta6 will be console only for a few years. it really sucks. especially with no cross progression games.
Love you guys but [edit: TECHNIQUES] like frame gen shouldn't be used in comparative benchmarking, imho. [Edit: That is to say, frame gen data shouldn't be used without a separate non-frame-gen data set.]
have you used frame gen in a game where you're getting over 60fps native? it's pretty cool tbh, wasn't the reason i bought a 40 series but definitely made playing cyberpunk nicer since i could crank up the RT
@@decegreaseIt's not bad at all, but Digital Foundry was being a little deceptive here by not comparing DLSS 2 to FSR 2 and instead using DLSS 3, which is frame gen.
I agree, especially when to even make it useful you need to hit 60fps without it or your latency feels like absolute shit. They're absolutely going to keep using it in every "benchmark" video though going forward with the games that actually even support it.
@@hugoanderkivi i'm paused on a frame right now comparing Alan Wake 2 with 4080s/FSR2, XTX/FSR2, and 4080s/DLSS 2, just a quick example but there's more nuance to this topic when you add in all these other technologies. AMD lacking frame gen and better upscaling is relevant for a 1:1 comparison but not when you're just showcasing high end graphics card capabilities vs. modern consoles (the point and title of the video lol). if Gamers Nexus was using this as 1:1 data and putting it on bar graphs i'd be annoyed but this isn't the same sort of analysis here
@@decegrease I have done the same, and I'm convinced it's pretty great. It's legit awesome tec, but raw frames per second + frame gen frames just isn't the same data point as raw frames per second + no frame gen.
Good thing he also included dlss with no frame gen too. Also, he used performance dlss because I suspect he matched the render resolution with the render resolutions ps5 used.
From what I can see when he was comparing the 4080s to the ps5 he was using the exact upscaling quality mode used on the ps5 on pc, that is fsr quality in cyberpunk and fsr balanced in Alan Wake 2. He included both the results, with and without frame gen. Dlss performance mode was not used when comparing with the ps5.
Was unfair to the radeon board... but those companies dont deserve anything.... both are robbering the customers on plain sight... also the ps5 has dynamic upscaling which is way better then performance upscaling
@@DrKrFfXx000000000000 Expected when comparing against hardware that is a couple of years older I like it how John stretches it by using $1000 argument as excuse to compare with RT and even path tracing enabled to show oh how great would it be if consoles were powered by Nvidia chips 😂. This video is silly.
@@reav3rtm Not sure about that but your comment is silly. You cannot compare with the ps5 with pathtracing since the ps5 does not or cannot even run that tech in any of the games shown here. He just compared with the ps5's raytracing modes in cyberpunk (which has light rt shadows) and raster in Alan Wake 2 and plague tale requiem.
@@onapersonalnote7045 PCvr performance is bad because it's not well optimized that's why there are consoles for a fraction of the price of a PC. PC performance vs console is nonsense. I have an rtx 3060 ti 8gb Quest 3 and PSVR2, on PC the latency is a disaster, decompression is all wrong and on PSVR2 it runs like a dream! I don't want a PC ever again, I got caught up in performance numbers, the PC is an unoptimized mess.
You guys are really collectively sounding like Nvidia shills these days. Ray Tracing is half baked trash, DLSS should be looked at as last ditch effort to claw back performance and not a normalized standard to be praised and factored into normal testing.
A plague tale runs like shit on PS5 compared to other games. Edit: Most of these games are build on DirectX focused engines and as a consequence run worse on PS5 lol.
As of February 2024 can you build a PC with identical fps for below the MSRP of a PS5? If not when will we get there? My buddy wants a system for Baldur's Gate 3 and has been out of gaming for 15 years.
Maybe try used market or your friend can always try getting a steam deck for 300 bucks, not as much performance as a ps5 but a way bigger library and you can take it anywhere like a switch.
The real question is can you buy a PS5 that has the ability to do everything a PC can do? The answer is no, which explains why a decent PC is more expensive. I literally have 50 years of games at my fingertips on a gaming PC, everything from arcade only through every console generation. Top titles from Playstation's history like Metal Gear Solid 4, which you can't play on any modern console but runs rather well these days in PS3 emulation with high res and framerate enhancements! PC plays all of Microsoft's modern top titles, most of Sony's except for the very most recent ones that haven't yet been ported, but probably will be. That's why you pay more, and that's why PC is still such good value regardless.
Trying to match the console MSRP usually isn't possible until very late into the generation. That's expected, since the consoles are subsidized by higher game prices and the subscription for online play. What you can get is a sizeable performance boost for a reasonable extra cost. Matching at 500 is hard, but getting twice the performance at 800-1000 is certainly possible. It's a good chunk of extra money, but the experience is a lot better. And if you buy a lot of games, it does end up being cheaper. The real value of PC gaming happens when you start upgrading. Once you don't have to buy every component new, you really can get a lot of bang/buck
@AlphaF28 Tech isn’t almost doubling performance yearly. This isn’t even true biannually. Moore’s law is kinda dead. Which you can see with how low cpu gains are generation over generation. The only reason the 40XX series is 3x faster than the PS5 or XBSX is 1.) the consoles are running AMD 2.) nvidia has DLSS 3.) Framegen and lastly 4.) the current consoles have very low RT performance. If you’d take pure rasterized performance without RT and compare it with consoles the differences wouldn’t be threefold. And if you’d take RT rasterized without up scaling the same. If you compare only rasterized performance the 30XX and 40XX series didn’t double performance on their previous generation. The same goes for AMD. However, since DLSS and framegen look and run well (mostly) it’s a factor that makes current consoles wish for an upgrade sooner rather than later. Tbh I don’t need a PS5 Pro, I’m down for a PS6 and new Xbox at the end of 2026 if it has nvidia, DLSS, frame gen and an equivalent to the 50XX series. The gen has been impressive the first two years but burned out quickly when it comes to tech, performance and games. This has to be the least impressive gen for both Sony and MS ever.
@@Lock2002fulUou are wrong them being Nvidia hardware is not the only reason and they don’t need to have DLSS on a damn 4090 or 4080 to be 3x more powerful than a PS5 GPU.
@@Battleneter Jedi Survivor uses FSR on PS5 and looks a bit ropey. It also stutters like crazy in parts of Koboh and looks like they will never fix it (probably can't). Trash UE4 engine and trash EA devs.
@@ZackSNetwork In this very video as well as others you can see that amd is terrible from a visual and performance standpoint in comparison to nvidia. Also gen on gen the 4080 (super) is about 40% faster than the 3080. The 3080 released at the end of 2020, the 4080 two years later. That’s 40% in two years, not double the performance every year. nvidia and DLSS with frame gen is the reason that the 40XX series is 3x times faster than current consoles. Also, not everything has to be a fight. I was simply conveying information. Not everything is about being right or wrong. No one cares, no reason to get defensive and emotional. If your statement had been a fact, I wouldn’t have said anything but what you said isn’t true and that’s ok. No reason to die on that hill just because you weren’t correct about something technical.
Is Richard a PC Master Race enthusiast? Why did he compare DLS to the PS5? Give native 4K a shot with a 4080, and you might find yourself dismayed, spending £1000 solely on the GPU and still achieving only 25 fps at native resolution without DLSS.
And how often in games is a ps5 doing native resolutions unless it’s 30fps @1440 mostly. You do realise the 4080s has more than 5x the power and 3x performance of the ps5. So on a like for like on native 4K if a 4080 gets 25fps you are in single figures with a ps5. This would be on ultra settings on a demanding game so you wouldn’t even be able to do a direct comparison.
This Video just proves that AMD GPUs are no competition whatsoever. Thanks, AMD. And AVATAR has no offical DLSS 3 Support ingame. So DF uses paid mods for comparison? WTF? Or typing error? Did he mean DLSS 2?
No, this video just shows how biased and silly DF really are. How about power consumption normalised tests? Comparing 400++ Watt PC setup with 200 Watt console. Really truthful comparison 😂 But hey, let's not have common sense get in the way of DF agenda to up Nvidia in every possible way.
@@reav3rtmfrl I hate digital foundry. And when they refused to show their process of how they get info like fps and resolution from the consoles is very concerning.
@@reav3rtmobviously console manufacturers are scared to increase power lol due to crybabies caring for electricity that can't afford to pay 😂 man my 4090 barely consumes that much depending on the game obviously the highest it hit was 470 watts majority of the time it mostly hits 200 to 380 you people really care but don't show proof of your stupidity of how power works 🤡🤡🤡
@@reav3rtmThe point of the video is to compare the best of PC hardware to what consoles offer. Your comment about power consumption is stupid. The 4090 is over 3x more powerful than the PS5 GPU and a 7800x3d is like 3x faster. So if they consume around 300watts of power that makes them beyond more efficient than a 200+watt PS5.
@@ZackSNetwork Then this video is as useless as this comparison. And sad John's face in thumbnail. And sad John in the video silently wishing consoles were more powerful to render his sweet RTX (at 500Watt, but shhh) but because it's RDNA so RT renders slower... Sad video indeed. And sad message :( Unless you think there will be 500Watt console released powered by Nvidia 😂 Then this video makes perfect sense and sobbing is warranted 😂
Man I love digital foundry but this video is FATALLY flawed and just comes across as an Nvidia adspot. You phrase it as PS5 vs 4080 super, giving it the illusion of a GPU comparison for a $500 product vs $1000 product. This makes the 2-3x performance gain look decent for the 2x in cost. However, what you are in fact testing is a $500 gpu + cpu combo which the ps5 is (something roughly akin to an RX6700 + R5 3600) vs $1000 4080 super + UNAMED cpu of $????. This is extremely poor test methodology, and misleading at best. This video/comparison should be titled 4080super + 14900k(or whatever cpu you are using) vs ps5
It's imho Nvidia product placement video basically. Something they probably have in sponsorship contract with Nvidia. I wouldn't mind as long as it's disclosed.
Keep in mind a PC is not just a toy, its also a productivity tool and many gamers use it for both. PC games are also often found cheaper as there is real competition in the digital market places unlike consoles. PC you also do not need a yearly subscription to play online, a LOT of hidden costs with consoles.
@@Battleneter Well in this video we are comparing gaming performance, not productivity or game prices or anything else. Both have their advantages/disadvantages/special uses. BUT in this video we looking at GAMING performance of 1 vs the other . I don't need to keep anything in mind to know this video faulty as a gaming comparison.
Its not "2-3x" but 3x when compared with the exact same settings. And no you don't need a 14900k, a 13600k can easily push the exact same framerates here.
Keep in mind a PC is not just a toy, its also a productivity tool and many gamers use it for both. PC games are also often found cheaper as there is real competition in the digital market places unlike consoles. PC you also do not need a yearly subscription to play online, a LOT of hidden costs with consoles.
A PC let's you a lot more than just gaming though, so any direct price comparison is completely nonsensical. An expensive PC just happens to be great for gaming as well.
Makes zero sense to make the 4080 16gb vram. Should be 20gb minimum. Everyone buying ngreedia at these prices are bending over and saying yes sir yes sir 3 bags full 😂
As per all the latest GPU benchmark suits, the 10GB 3080 still edges out the 16GB 6800XT at 4K and below like it used to around launch. 16GB will be absolutely fine for the next 5 years, its not moving as fast as you think it is.
@@Battleneter the devs cheat. They keep the fps high but texture quality suffers due to lack of vram. Plenty of demonstrations of this out there like Hardware Unboxed.
![Eminem - Fuel (Shady Edition) feat. Westside Boogie & GRIP [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/k1OquBida9s/mqdefault.jpg)
one thing is ignored by all reviewers is that PS5 is limited to around 200 Watt TDP and this including CPU + GPU. 4080S consumes more than the whole PS5 and including PC CPU consuming it will be easily 2x more. It would be interesting to compare PS5 and a modern PC limited to 200 watt TDP.
Why do watts matter?
@@balloonb0y677 why do electricity bills matter?
@@balloonb0y677 It's literally all that's matters for consoles. How much performance can they squeeze into a limited power envelope in a small console enclosure that's not going to have heat problems in all sorts of tv units etc. there's a reason why they don't mass produce 500w consoles.
@@Mopantsu I play 4 to 8 hours per week, at most. So no, how much my pc consumes doesn't matter that much.
@@FEARmeify power efficiency is one of the primary goals for any chip design, where every micro watt counts. Power envelope is limited by many things like cooling solutions, psu, board design, battery (on mobile platforms) etc. So yes power efficiency is critical metric.
It seems a lot of people are taking this comparison personally, but I don’t think the purpose of the video was to speak badly about PS5. Rich pointed out that most developers use PS5 as a base and move up from there. DF is about the cutting edge and he was pointing out what it takes to move towards the cutting edge. Rich has consistently sung the praises of the Series S as a good way to enter the current generation of gaming at a great price. If youre happy with your setup and it suits your needs great, if not here’s what it takes to get to a different tier of visual fidelity.
Fanboys
I baffles me that people still think a $500 console, that includes cpu gpu and more, can compete with a dedicated gpu. Console will be high mid range performance at best when the console is released. Not a few years later.
Edit: That said the 4080 super is $1000.
They are not even the same thing to directly compare $$, any PC is a lot more than just a gaming device.
Yeah and that dedicated GPU costs twice as much as the whole machine!
@@roasthunter Console gamers also get done slowly over time with higher game prices due to no market place competition, and forced to run a yearly subscription for online play.
You might rather spend $500 on a graphics card but not me, Why do that when I can buy a whole gaming machine PS5 for that much? I remember in 2017 you could buy the GTX 1060 6gb for $200-300, not anymore on the Nvidia side, but I guess if I go AMD there's the 6700 XT unless is the 7000 series good?
Personally I don't want to play on console, too slow frame rate, and I am more of a mouse and keyboard person.
$500 console is a good deal, but remember to include the tv cost and higher game prices.
I got a 4090, and whenever people ask me for a PC recommendation, I never tell them to get one, even when they ask about it after seeing mine. The only person I ever recommended it to is a buddy who's just as much of an enthusiast as me. If you’re looking for value, the 4090 ain’t it. But if you’ve got the extra dough and wanna push games to their absolute limits, those extra frames and that resolution do look mighty fine, I gotta say!
Growing up, I didn’t have a console, so I had to crash at my cousin’s house just to play every PlayStation exclusive. For my PC, I had to build the most budget of budget rigs by borrowing long-term from friends and begging my parents for the rest.
Grinded my ass off IRL and made it to the point where I got a 4090 rig and a PS5 too. Look at me now, Ma!
I wonder what kind of GPU AMD could fit on a PS5 "Pro".
i have heard from somewhere that there is a likely chance of a 58 CU rdna chip. i don't remember if they are making it 3 or if they are sticking with 2, but i remember hearing about 60 cu pro that is to be reduced to 58 CU. this is on the level of the 7800xt. it was a rumor, so don't take it as fact.
@@commonsense-og1gzthere won’t be a pro. And gpus are really hard to compara. Just because the CUs are the of the same quantity doesnt mean they are of the same level
@@balloonb0y677 if they are of the same silicon and same size, then yes, they will be on the same level.
A GPU that is equivalent to a RX 6800xt.
@@ZackSNetwork idk man, fitting a $500 gpu on a console that costs $500 is unlikely imo, maybe in a couple years with a price cut on a gpu of this level. PS5 has a $300 gpu level right now (RX 6700 non xt)
I was considering buying a PS5 because I am tired of waiting for the release of Sony exclusives 2+ years later. But as a 4080 owner..this has changed my mind..lol. Thanks for making this video!
And there's plenty of other reasons not to go with consoles, PS5 especially so. It's better to wait for a year or two to not have to settle for that kind of subpar experience.
In Nvidia vs AMD comparisons when upscaling is used it would be much more accurate to compare performance of DLSS Balanced vs FSR Quality as even the in balanced mode the DLSS image is often leaps better.
yep AMD implementation is horrible and needs serious help
Fsr's advantage of being on old cards will dwindle by Rx 8000. Not many people will be on non rtx cards. At that point why not just switch to ai like Nvidia?
@@GeneralS1mbabecause Nvidia themselves like to lock out features for their own cards that are a gen older. Did you forget that the RTX 3000 cards don’t support DLSS frame gen?
@@PurushNahiMahaPurush I'm positive more people will use upscaling than frame gen anyway. Upscaling is our biggest gripe with amd not their frame generation.
@@GeneralS1mbadefinitely wrong more people prefer more frames over upscaling. FSR 3 gives an insane fps boos with no latency DLSS3 just adds latency
Where can I find this same comparison of ps5 with 4060 and 4060ti? That would be interesting.
Compare 4060ti to 4070ti and do the math yourself.
PS5 is below 4060 what is your point with 4070? @@phattjohnson
Vem PS5, PC vr je ne optimalizovaný žrout nikdy nebudeš mít dostatek výkonu, proto každý rok vychází nové gpu.
@@zeus1117 Below 4060 in RT, similar in rasterization though
The 4070 roughly performs at 2x the PS5 framerates, would expect probably a 4060 1.5 x performance. So 30fps on ps5 would be probably 45ish. But using dlss which is the main advantage it would be higher resolution upscaled and detail and will probably still be 2x framerates.
4x the performance is crazy we are actually at the point now where pc for its price matches ps5 for the actual performance you get . You can build a 4080 super with a 13600k for 2k right now the full build which will out perform the ps5 by that much. Even options of real true native 4k gaming 😉. Worth it! Yes now
Lots of console-only owners mad in the comments. FYI, you don't even need a 4000 series card to beat PS5...
It's funny because a PS5 has equivalent to a 6700 (Non-XT) GPU but on PC you can get faster FPS and proper VRR and even upscale to 4K better. Main issue is shader loading etc but that's mainly an Unreal Engine issue. The fact is that developers on PS5 are only good at developing on PS5 and are too lazy to even optimize for that most of the time with decent VRR and upscaler support. Locked to 30 fps or a crappy 60 fps experience.
Yep, rtx 2080 still is a better gaming experience as long as it's paired with a cpu from the last 5 years and 32 gb.
You cant beat consoles in major aspect. Price performance is much better.
Consider how large a jump the PS5 actually was on previous generations in terms of performance. The next console doesn't need to aim for something silly like 8K or 4K120, the target is a solid 4K60 in every title - that's achievable with a PS6, perhaps even with a PS5 Pro too. The PS5 already does a remarkable job with the tech inside it.
No it will not because games continue to get even more demanding. By your dumb logic the PS4 should have ran every game at native 1080p 60fps.
Ps5 is hardly a jump. The graphics are hardly better than ps4, except for the frame rates.
Console marketing has always focused on resolution. Even 2160P is just a resolution one of many, there is nothing magical about "4K", its not any kind of specific target. Gamers should be more interested in fluidity with frame rate, so a "minimum" of 60fps always and preferably higher.
@@rayyanabdulwajid7681 The GPU horsepower of the PS5 is around an 8x increase compared to the PS4. The issue is the expectations going from 1080p 30fps to 4k 60fps also meant a 8x increase in pixel throughput per second. While the better cpu and SSD can lead to improvements to fidelity in their own way, as far as raw GPU horsepower in concerned if you want native 4k 60fps you are essentially stuck at PS4 fidelity for any gpu bound aspects of the title. While 60fps is important. 4k at the very least is extremely expensive compared to the quality increase compared to 1440p, and with modern upscaling tech, modern games having a lot of noise and blur baked in to the look of them anyways, and sitting distances in living rooms. A fixation on 4k these days honestly just comes down to either sitting unhealthily close to the display or placebo. The average gamer doesn't take screenshots and pixel count.
Have any of you people seen both in a real life room without RUclips compression video? 4k Placebo or sitting close to the screen? Go buy both and see them even from a distance. It isn't even close.
5:40 DAT fps drop xD
Sony need to partner with Nvidia for PS6
The issue is that these benchmarks aren't saying much about the CPU.
Sony would end up with an Xbox that they can't reduce the price of, if they used Nvidia and Intel.
Maybe Nvidia and ARM, but they'd lose back compat without emulation, and that takes us back to the PS3.
No. but only AMD. PS6 is AMD RDNA 4
Holy!!. I knew the gap was substantial but I didn’t think it was that substantial. Yikes. Cannot wait to get my PC build rolling
BUT... there's another way to look at this. The VISUAL difference at the same FPS (i.e. 60FPS) can be incredibly small. Having said that, I bought an XBox Series X rather than upgrade my graphics card, hated it (my first console at 53 years old; PC gamer since I was 13), returned it and bought a lowly RTX4070 to pair with my "old" Ryzen 3000 CPU. Very, very happy with PC gaming still!
@@photonboy999 lies
How is it lies? If you can pay the PC premium, you should be paying the PC premium regardless of the shit-show that was the last couple of years.@@xdxd6087
@@photonboy999 calm down grandpa
@@photonboy999I think the same and we have a 20-year difference. nothing beats PC.
So glad I got a 4090. It really is the KING among beasts!
no question...is a whole different level!
Make sure you mount it vertically.
Same
Sadly you sent the message to Nvidia you will pay anything, heavily nerfing the 2nd card down the stack this generation (4080) was a bit of a dick move by Nvidia.
Until 5 months from now nvidia releases a card better in performance for half the price
well when RTX 5000 comes out think consoles will start to show their age kind of crazy time flies.
This becomes a lot less impressive, when you realize the price of the 480 machine.
PS5 you can buy around $400 to $500.
This PC even if you cheap out on a lot of parts, is going to easily cost you 1500-1600$
And that doesn't include a monitor, or a controller. Honestly this video simply makes the PS5 look like an extraordinary value
you act like the ps5 comes with a display lol
Nobody is really arguing that PC doesn't cost more, of course it does. Not only can you get crazy performance increases like seen in this video, but it can literally do anything else you could need a device to do. My PC is a gaming device, a workstation, and a server for every display in my house.
Lower price doesn't mean better value.
First let me get one thing clear, there is nothing wrong with playing games on the hardware of your choice. However, it's always been ridiculous to compare a PC and a console on price, since they are both different and are designed for entirely different purposes.
A PC is designed as a multifunctional modular computer, where gaming is just one of those multiple functions that it's capable of. Where as a consoles prime and main function is to just play a select few games on it, which are released for that particular console. Both do what they are required to do, very well.
However, the shear amount of those additional functions and extra capabilities of a PC over what a console can do, simply means that it cost's more money. Therefore any price comparison between the two different machines that's based on just a single function, is always going to be an apples to oranges comparison.
Also, most people who own a PC, also need or require it for several of those other functions that it can do, besides just gaming. It's plain ridiculous to even argue and suggest to them about using a console instead for gaming, when due to a PC's modular design, they could just simply throw a $500 or more GPU into that 'required' PC and get a better gaming experience results, than they would if they had chosen a separate $500 console, instead. .
@@fafski1199 Only if you went with a 7800 xt / 6800 xt or something. If you went with a 4060 ti id rather have a ps5 lol 8gb vram gpu's perform much much much worse than a ps5/xbox
You pay to play online on consoles, no thanks. I was a big fan of the PS3 back in the days.
What a shocker! A GPU than alone costs 2.5X times a more than a complete console is faster! Oh god, I never would have guessed! Everyone, go quick buy a $2500 PC because it is faster than a $399 console!
Keep in mind a PC is not just a toy, its also a productivity tool and many gamers use it for both. PC games are also often found cheaper as there is real competition in the digital market places unlike consoles. PC you also do not need a yearly subscription to play online, a LOT of hidden costs with consoles.
It’s obvious you don’t watch DF content and are here to stir the pot good luck to you 👍🏾
@@Battleneter Sony and MS sell consoles at a loss too and make up for it in the digital domain.
Sony takes a loss too. They make it up on the software.
@@Battleneter We all have PCs, I don't know a single console player who also doesn't have a PC on the side. My gaming laptop that I bought for 2500$ in 2018 is drastically inferior to the PS5, a 500$ machine.
Love the like to like comparison videos that show us the true settings of these consoles (rather than the marketing BS) especially since there really aren't any others doing it anywhere else.
I can get a rough idea of performance differences just by looking at the actual specs of the hardware and having the knowledge of how to interpret them (I'm an electronics engineer with 31 years experience) but most people really don't have that ability which makes videos like this valuable in educating them in a way they can see and understand (A graph is worth a thousand words)
As the PC platform is home to GamePass as much as XBox, surely the comparison should be made with SeriesX running the native service for native games … as PS5 ports aren’t native and are of varying quality, depending on whichever the dev team assigned to the PC port.
Makes me think I don’t need to upgrade me i7-8700 cpu. Should just get a 4080 to upgrade the 2080ti and forget about ddr5 and 7800x3d
Not really a surprise considering consoles all launch with hardware a generation behind at min compared to PC . but thats the trade off ,you get a cheap hardware but that comes at the cost of not looking as good to a high end PC. its not that consoles look bad but they are for a budget friendly market
Gosh, that water in Avatar... DLSS vs FSR here is not even in the same ballpark.
6 times the cost of a ps5 and it goes only 3.5 times faster.(Frame generation at this day isn't worth).
Indeed
Frame gen is magic. It’s always worth it
Frame gen is VERY worth it as long as you have reasonable FPS before activating it. (50-60+)
not quite 6x buddy. Remember the graphics are worse too, 30fps is sickening. I see your point but its not a good one xD
@@Stong1337 A PC with a 4080 super costs $2500-3000, the PS5 costs $400(if you consider the cost of a dualsense even $70 less). In the video comparisons are made with PS5s graphics options.
A pc could spit out dollar bills while gaming, and I'd still prefer to play on console.
We need a PS5 Pro - obviously, 4k is irrelevant but the ability to run 1440 @60fps with frame gen is important.
4K is not irrelevant it’s just not realistic for a damn console.
I agree it would be nice to run games att higher frame rates.
60fps with framegen looks and feels horrible.
@@ZackSNetwork THIS
@@ZackSNetwork Most informed higher end PC gamers choose 1440P high hz including ultrawide variants over 2160P(4K) which tends to be a nooby mistake, he is correct 4K is still irrelevant.
I absolutely love how amd guys go oh ray tracing ewww yet consoles are trying so hard to utilize it with amd equipement. Then you have nvidia breezing through it.
I have love for both PC and PS5 since I game on both. Granted, I rather game on PC, but my PS5 gets my attention for games that aren’t on PC.
It's a real shame that AMD is not better in ray tracing and upscaling than Nvidia. If the tables were turned, the PS5 and Xbox Series X would be running games so much better with ray tracing. What a bummer for gamers around the world...
PS5 & XBSX were released with what was effectively mid ranged PC hardware 3 years ago. Every single console generation they start struggling around half way through their lifecycle. If you buy a mid range PC GPU today it will be struggling in 3 years time in the latest AAA games with high IQ settings, the advantage is however you have full control over the in game settings AND you can upgrade the GPU if you choose to.
It's a bummer Nvidia is so horrible to work with, this is what you were trying to say 😂
Yeah if Nvidia could make a viable console solution we’d be in a much better situation.
@@DaveRessler Well, they wouldn't have the games plus they'd charge 1,000 dollars. AMD's SOC has been a great way to mass market gaming but it'd have been insane if it supported DLSS and ran RT like Nvidia's cards.
@@reav3rtmprobably true but look at their market caps and sadly Nvidia are 3x more than AMD and Intel combined... Crazy...
Morning yall.
Morning
common gamers don't care about this stuff though. I think that's a huge factor with gaming and why we are stuck with so few games compared to the ps2 and 360. I think the 3080 super should be $599 but that's just crazy talk today.
Where is that PS5 Pro? 😂😂😂
For price of 4080S I can get ps5, Xbox , one x , one s and PS4 and some led tv .
And 10 years rent in a third world Country
Lies. My 4080 Super cost me 950€. BTW I have XSX and PS5 and I know how much I payed for them. Stop lying. And pc is universal machine where I can do ton of work other than gaming so the price is justified not to mention games that are dirt cheap compared to consoles with no monthly subscription.
No one forcing anyone to shell out for a 4080 irrespective of cost, if a console floats your boat perfect. Consoles are no fuss and a hell of a lot cheaper, but obviously far less powerful.
Sony should inform gamers that the ps5 pro will be the last console to do backward compatibility and start afresh with nvidia for the ps6.
CPU?
Just you wait for the 5080 ti super duper oc quantum megatron!
It sucks how much consoles are holding us back because lots of games are essentially developed with a console mind and then ported to PC. The same goes for the UI. Lots of UIs are designed with controllers in mind and then ported to keyboard & mouse and it sucks for PC players. Starfield UI being one these games. Just terrible with keyboard and mouse.
Consoles are not holding back Ray Tracing and Path Tracing on PC. Alan Wake and Cyberpunkl on PC are a generation leap over consoles.
PS5 is the mid tier console generation. It's not close to the Series X. PS5 is a slug compared to the 4080.
The Series X? The console being massively outsold by Sony and Nintendo, the console that struggles with many large titles compared to the PS5?
@@Clay3613 Series X plays games better almost always, has more space, more power, and Xbox has more users/profit than Playstation. It's not all about the box, it's not the 90s anymore. Xbox Series consoles are pacing ahead of the 360 at this point in it's lifespan. The rhetoric of Xbox consoles failing is a wild phallacy.
I've owned all this generations offerings, nothing tops PC but the Series X is the best console by far. All fanboyism aside. Quick Resume alone is the best next gen feature. GamePass is the best deal in gaming. 1st party studios dawrfs both Playstation and Nintendo now.
The Switch, now that's a different monster altogether with hardware sales. It may be the best selling console of all time when it's said and done. It's so far ahead of both it's extreme.
Rumors have Xbox making their next system a hybrid. That'll be cool to see, especially if the reported price of Switch 2 is $400. Competition is always better.
The PS5 is just about as powerful as the trashbox series x on paper but manages to outperform it in most games as well as having exclusives with significantly better visuals than microsoft's.
Cry harder xbot
So what does this tell us: The PS5 Pro is probably gonna be not an XTX variant... They can't give us that kind of performance for cheap. They'll probably give us the performance of a 7800 Non XT. I'm gonna bet they're probably gonna use the 6900 non-xt like specs because... you can't jump generations within the same console refresh. 6700 non-xt to 6900 non-xt is a pretty big jump IMHO... But if I'm wrong... I'd be really happy with a 7800XT!
There won’t be a pro
7800 with shared 16GB memory seems likely.
@@Mopantsu My hope is IF a pro exists... and I really do hope it does, I want GT7 to run at 120 in VR mode! Would help A LOT with motion sickness.... at least 90...
They aren't going to jump from 10.28 Tflops to 37 Tflops for a refresh, sorry man.
@@Mcnooblet ps4 -> ps4 pro was 1.84 to 4.20, a 44% increase. 10.28 to 37 is a 28% increase… sooo 🤷🏻♂️
fsr 3 is out, just turn it on in cyberpunk. would be much better comparison if u use frame gen from amd too
The only problem… where are the reference 4090’s at? Oh… right… they’re all sitting eBay marked up to hell.
Then don't buy reference, there are plenty of great AIB designs.
Easier to just say you cannot afford it actually.
@@JoeMama-yl1ow yeah, whatever you say, pal. 😂 Or I don’t care to be price gouged on an insignificant 2 year old piece of hardware that’s soon to be replaced. 🤷🏻♂️
@@eliadbu no, there aren’t. The only worthwhile partner quit the GPU market.
@@stevesquick92 What are you talking about... Most AIB cards come within +/-5% of reference. Most fall within margin of error.
Upscaling is useful but native is native. Upscaling means variable visual and gameplay artefacts that vary depending on the technique vs proper rendering framerate showing the correct visuals and hardware perf.
Are you going to cover Apple Vision Pro, Quest 3, and PS VR2?
Most likely not because Vision Pro is very expensive. They mainly cover games and their performances. Vision Pro doesn't really have a ground breaking game or app to even cover it. Vision Pro is basically about the experience you get when using it. It's a different type of take on media consumption.
About 3% of viewers care about VR.
@Mr_Battlefield does apple accept returns?
They seem to not understand that this is also a channel for tech enthusiast who want to see how things run on every platform. They want to limit themselves instead of trying new things. A bit disappointing.
Put them up against the Atari 2600 and original Xbox next.
But that data would actually be useful...
Really wish Sony would stop using AMD's crap and go with an Intel based Nvidia machine. Give us all the GeForce goodies.
That would also no doubt ramp up the price of the consoles.
It would have been a fairer comparison if you compared it to the RTX 3000 series since that is the line that launched in the same year the new-gen consoles launched. And besides that. If you compare it like this, a console with double the price, let’s say €1200, would preform much more in line with the RTX 4000 series than the €499 it costs at launch.
Not really as the PS5'a AMD APU is about the same as the previous gen RTX 20 series. And even if the console did cost 1200, it still wouldn't match a 4080 because a PC's GPU is only part of the PC. Pair it will a high end CPU and it would run circles around a console, even a 1200 euro one. On top of that, AMD don't compete against NVIDIA's top end GPU's.
this isn't supposed to be a fair comparison, this is comparing the baseline of development and settings to what the high end of enthusiast hardware can offer. the point of the comparison is to be 'unfair' lmao
oh "fair" :D :D :D
The whole point of the video was to determine how much more performant a modern high-end GPU on PC is, when compared to a PS5. It wasn't an apples to apples comparison on price or testing a equivalent performing GPU on PC, to the PS5.
@@fafski1199 yes i got that now like Acursir mentioned as well. I misread the title the first couple of times since this is bot my native language and being dyslexic 🤗
These comparisons between a 3+ year old game console with top-tier PC GPUs are becoming ridiculous and pointless.
We get it. The GPUs offer 3x the frame rate with much better graphics. Why keep doing these?
Yeah. It would make more sense to do comparisons with new budget GPUs vs consoles or comparisons of GPUs released at the same time as the console. Because if you have the dough to get a high end GPU, duh, why are you even considering a console?
Even a 2080 ti is better then the PS5.....
I’m extremely happy with my 4080 super but that extra 20-30ish frames from that 4090 just look so appetizing.
I don't even feel like turning on my ps5 after getting a 4070ti system on black friday haha
What's funny is I've been in the opposite situation. Spent years upgrading and building my PC, with a 3070 and i9, but after I bought a PS5 I found more enjoyment just sitting in the living room playing on the PS5 😂
@Hackerb0b yea my pc is in the living room I play with controller 90% of the time but yes that's why I love console gaming. And I spent less time in the settings and more time actually playing the game
@@x_z0mb1_x no literally on PC I spend so much time trying to get the "perfect performance" that I can't immerse myself in the game as much haha. But I feel that on playing with a controller, the older I've gotten the more I've realized controllers are great for third person games.
PC has its issue's but its the way to go. 500 dollars for a popcorn machine is not the way to go. Its a massive difference in how games look on pc and if you havent experienced it in person you will never know.
I dont understand the collective condescension a lot of PC gamers have on consoles.
No, the PS5 wasn't weak at launch. It was surprisingly equivalent to a mid to high end PC. But the custom chips and focused platform would give far better results than an equally powered PC.
These are just facts. Obviously with time, PC is going to significantly outpace a ps5, even with all the optimization the ps5 has. Ps5 pro will likely be a high end chip but still... its obviously going to be outperformed not long after.
Basically just enjoy what you have. Some people would rather the simplicity of a console without forking out a ton on frequently upgrading their gpu cards
consoles will never be equal to a high end pc. thats why a high end pc costs about 3 to 5 thousand. and just the unlimited amount of things you can do with a pc that console can't do. it really just isn't even a fair comparison.
@@tomgreene5388 console gamers will say just about the silliest shit to compare their consoles to PCs 😂😂😂
Well a "mid range PC" is not just gaming device so the PS5 was not exactly equivalent :P. The advantage of a ageing mid range PC however is you have full control over the in game IQ settings so eek out more FPS as you feel fit. Secondly if you want to upgrade a 3 year old GPU you always can, unlike consoles where your stuck waiting for "the next generations". The second half of any console generation is always pretty rough.
The biggest advantage the consoles have is fast load times off SSD. PC architecture means even with the new AMD and Intel/Nvidia Direct Storage etc it's still not as fast as the consoles offer.
@@Mopantsu there's gen 5 ssd with 12k read/write. Even that isnt really a console advantage anymore
when folks on console say they "PeFoRm ThE sAmE" lmao
Got to feel bad for the people that don't know much about computer parts and they turn all the settings up on their new expensive computer and get 20 fps.
With so many available optimizing guides online... Presets are rubbish, I can't even understand why this aspect of PC gaming hasn't been done a bit better over the years for PC newcomers.
This just spurs me on more to get a high-end PC built this year. Sony and MS really need to pull their finger out and get these inevitable mid gen 'upgrade' consoles to market.. like asap. I can see serious issues with running games on current gen going forward. MS will also need to consider proprietary image upscaling like Sony is supposedly planning.
Man, I'm waiting for the 5000 series which will be out next year. I'd hate to drop full cash on a GPU now only to have it outclassed next year for less money.
I own a RTX 3080 PC and a XBSX in the lounge, interestingly I feel the PC has held up better than the console. Now waiting for the 50 series, the 40 series is an auto skip as the 2nd card down the stack the RTX 4080 was nerfed so heavily against the top card and a freaken 70% price increase, that's compared to the prior gen. The 4080 Super is "just" a 40% price increase now :P
Dude. You're comparing a 500 dollar 'all-in-one' solution that just does gaming with a few bells and whistles to a 1500+ dollar PC.
@@RyneLanders Welcome to the whack-a-mole game of PC components. Most important thing, at least for me, is to know exactly the type of experience I want, add some perf. on top to be somewhat future proof and go with it. Many times I fell into the rabbit hole of trying to min/max my setups, but it's just how it is: every year, something comes out that is 10-15% faster. I just paired a 4070ti with a 5800x3d last october and I am happy about every part of my build. I got every single part somewhat at a discount, being patient. My 4070ti will be outclassed soon enough, just like every 5xxx cards will be soon after.
Right now, I get 80+ fps at 4k in most titles that I play. Some DLSS involved, but I prefer 4k with DLSS than native 1440p on my C3 that sits 60-70 cm in front of me. I expect to constantly get 4k 60+ in the next few years, sometimes by using DLSS, sometimes by using optimized settings (which I always do anyways, most presets are rubbish). When I can't anymore, I'll drop to 1440p. That gets me 5-6 years with this build, than on to the next one (I found that I get quite good resale value on my systems).
@@lefouduroi9980 no, every year something faster doesn't come out. The current cycle is about every 2 to three years. The RTX 4090 launched in 2022. The 5000 series comes out next year. That's a 3 year cycle. This year all they did was refresh the existing product stack for the same exact performance because there are no new components.
So if you want to ball out and justify an expensive purchase, the best time to do so is at the beginning of the cycle so you can spread the cost:value over that three year period. The *worst* time to do it is at the end of the cycle because you have a very high cost still, and the value decreases immediately as soon as the new generation launches. And by buying early you can resell it for a portion of the price you paid initially, recouping some of that cost. Alternatively, if you want to buy a 4090 after the 5000 series launches you could get one at discount. But to pay full price for one and then the next one comes out with twice the performance at the same price or lower very shortly after, you're going to feel burned. It's the same thing with car models. Typically they release the same model for a few years with little or no refreshes, then they launch a refresh after 4 years with new designs, new engines, etc. you don't ever buy the tail end of the generation at full price because it immediately loses most of its value the moment the new refresh launches, putting you into massive negative equity territory.
Just to remember everyone he's the same dude who claimed RTX 3080 being 2X an RTX 2080 in a video directly paid by Nvidia...
3:40 my 4090 is 500% faster with dlss3 on, i achieve 170+FPS.
Why are you comparing a PS5 and not an Xbox that in theory is more powerful?
Cause the theory has panned out badly for Xbox.
@@Clay3613 precisely for that, to understand what is happening
This video is overkill....."Look how much better my Ferrari is, compared to this Corolla." SMH
I think the more perspective you have, the more informed you can be about your purchasing decision. Some people have only played consoles (me prior to 8 months ago) so knowing just how much stronger PC can be can help you decide if it's worth it. Overkill...maybe...but there's someone out there asking how the 2 compare.
Frl. They always do this to consoles, always being pessimistic about what consoles can do. And always trying to gaslight people of what is bad or good. And when they talk positively about consoles they sweat talk the consoles as if they are in need of the extra hype.
@balloonb0y677 but..if Studios are using consoles for baselines (sales), then I think the comparison is fair. Nobody is comparing mobile games to high end PCs to see who's the winner.
@@eeeeyuke and the point of that? There have been tons of RUclips videos since the ps5s launch that shows the ps5s (baseline) performance. Why need a video dedicated not for comparison of a game but dedicated to show us performance gaps.
Again, this is just an indirect way of trashing on consoles without saying you are trashing on consoles.
@balloonb0y677 Well, I've played consoles my whole life, and this Xbox Gen has been garbage. I was a day 1 Xbox Live customer. I don't think they need any help looking bad lately. To each their own. I love seeing the numbers.
A lot of the comments on PC vs Console seems to forget CONTEXT and PRICE.
A. Yes, a PC can do more than gaming, but DF is strictly talking about gaming here and in all their videos.
B. Not everyone will use the full power of their PCs for other than gaming.
C. Of course a GPU costing as much or more than the console itself will perform better.
D. Building a PC with a comparable performance to a PS5 (£480 new, sub-£400 secondhand) with the same price is nigh impossible, even with secondhand parts. A PC with R5 3600, 3060 12gb, 16GB ram, 1tb SSD will land you more than £600, before counting peripherals.
E. Game prices at the time of release can be more expensive on consoles, but secondhand disks are easy to find and relatively cheap. There is also the added bonus of being able to sell your used games.
Who are you trying to rationalize with here exactly?
what sucks most about pc is console AAA exclusives. had to wait for gtav, rdr2, and now NO gta6 at launch. I got both a pc and ps5. been using ps5 because I know gta6 will be console only for a few years. it really sucks. especially with no cross progression games.
We need another gtx 750ti or Rx 580 or GTX 1060, not this thousands dollar tech
Ps5 is way to much for those
The closest modern gpu to that is the 6600. Used you can also get a 2080 for as low as $200.
Seems highly dubious to compare frame gen vs non-frame gen....
it's nuts.
Love you guys but [edit: TECHNIQUES] like frame gen shouldn't be used in comparative benchmarking, imho. [Edit: That is to say, frame gen data shouldn't be used without a separate non-frame-gen data set.]
have you used frame gen in a game where you're getting over 60fps native? it's pretty cool tbh, wasn't the reason i bought a 40 series but definitely made playing cyberpunk nicer since i could crank up the RT
@@decegreaseIt's not bad at all, but Digital Foundry was being a little deceptive here by not comparing DLSS 2 to FSR 2 and instead using DLSS 3, which is frame gen.
I agree, especially when to even make it useful you need to hit 60fps without it or your latency feels like absolute shit. They're absolutely going to keep using it in every "benchmark" video though going forward with the games that actually even support it.
@@hugoanderkivi i'm paused on a frame right now comparing Alan Wake 2 with 4080s/FSR2, XTX/FSR2, and 4080s/DLSS 2, just a quick example but there's more nuance to this topic when you add in all these other technologies. AMD lacking frame gen and better upscaling is relevant for a 1:1 comparison but not when you're just showcasing high end graphics card capabilities vs. modern consoles (the point and title of the video lol).
if Gamers Nexus was using this as 1:1 data and putting it on bar graphs i'd be annoyed but this isn't the same sort of analysis here
@@decegrease I have done the same, and I'm convinced it's pretty great. It's legit awesome tec, but raw frames per second + frame gen frames just isn't the same data point as raw frames per second + no frame gen.
4090 is amazing. PS5 Pro needs to have RX7900XTX gpu and 8000 series cpu.
There won’t be a pro
Keep dreaming 🤭
Completely irrational thinking. Most likely even the PS6 won't have that powerful of a gpu.
@@dhaumya23gango75 ps6 might not even have a gpu
lol your not going get a desktop gpu to work in a console. Size. power constraints, enough cooling are just a few of the problems.
Ps5 is like a switch vs those cards. there was a very huge jump in high end gpu power from 2020 to 2022.
Funny that water still looks terrible on a 4090
Im sorry, I am thinking about getting a 4080, but comparing with framegen enabled seems not honest.... and also dlss perdormance mode is mindless
Good thing he also included dlss with no frame gen too. Also, he used performance dlss because I suspect he matched the render resolution with the render resolutions ps5 used.
From what I can see when he was comparing the 4080s to the ps5 he was using the exact upscaling quality mode used on the ps5 on pc, that is fsr quality in cyberpunk and fsr balanced in Alan Wake 2. He included both the results, with and without frame gen. Dlss performance mode was not used when comparing with the ps5.
Was unfair to the radeon board... but those companies dont deserve anything.... both are robbering the customers on plain sight... also the ps5 has dynamic upscaling which is way better then performance upscaling
Wow performance gap really far
Power draw gap as well 😂
@@reav3rtm2X the power draw for 3x the performance it's quite a sight.
@@DrKrFfXx000000000000 Expected when comparing against hardware that is a couple of years older
I like it how John stretches it by using $1000 argument as excuse to compare with RT and even path tracing enabled to show oh how great would it be if consoles were powered by Nvidia chips 😂. This video is silly.
@@reav3rtm Not sure about that but your comment is silly. You cannot compare with the ps5 with pathtracing since the ps5 does not or cannot even run that tech in any of the games shown here. He just compared with the ps5's raytracing modes in cyberpunk (which has light rt shadows) and raster in Alan Wake 2 and plague tale requiem.
@@reav3rtm jealousy hits hard for you huh it's okay to be poor
Another day another digital foundry comically bad comparison of Nvidia vs AMD GPUs.
3060 takes less watts and still beats it. You can't beat a desktop with a APU build.
Runs like crap on this VR card and great on PS5 PSVR2.
3060 matches the PS5 performance generally, that's is until it starts to stutter because of the 6gb VRAM.
@@onapersonalnote7045 PCvr performance is bad because it's not well optimized that's why there are consoles for a fraction of the price of a PC. PC performance vs console is nonsense. I have an rtx 3060 ti 8gb Quest 3 and PSVR2, on PC the latency is a disaster, decompression is all wrong and on PSVR2 it runs like a dream! I don't want a PC ever again, I got caught up in performance numbers, the PC is an unoptimized mess.
3060 has 12Gb Vram and vram, is not the only factor for performance ps5 still get beaten by a 2070super
@@onapersonalnote7045
You guys are really collectively sounding like Nvidia shills these days. Ray Tracing is half baked trash, DLSS should be looked at as last ditch effort to claw back performance and not a normalized standard to be praised and factored into normal testing.
When turn it on it makes the games run smooth and that's all I care about,
Surely ppl on the comment section will behave like gentleman and not partake in tribalistic behavior...
A plague tale runs like shit on PS5 compared to other games.
Edit: Most of these games are build on DirectX focused engines and as a consequence run worse on PS5 lol.
As of February 2024 can you build a PC with identical fps for below the MSRP of a PS5? If not when will we get there? My buddy wants a system for Baldur's Gate 3 and has been out of gaming for 15 years.
No. Still a few years off.
Maybe try used market or your friend can always try getting a steam deck for 300 bucks, not as much performance as a ps5 but a way bigger library and you can take it anywhere like a switch.
The real question is can you buy a PS5 that has the ability to do everything a PC can do? The answer is no, which explains why a decent PC is more expensive. I literally have 50 years of games at my fingertips on a gaming PC, everything from arcade only through every console generation. Top titles from Playstation's history like Metal Gear Solid 4, which you can't play on any modern console but runs rather well these days in PS3 emulation with high res and framerate enhancements! PC plays all of Microsoft's modern top titles, most of Sony's except for the very most recent ones that haven't yet been ported, but probably will be. That's why you pay more, and that's why PC is still such good value regardless.
@@pgr3290 Absurd. ps5 is just a pc, you just need a different OS.
Trying to match the console MSRP usually isn't possible until very late into the generation. That's expected, since the consoles are subsidized by higher game prices and the subscription for online play.
What you can get is a sizeable performance boost for a reasonable extra cost. Matching at 500 is hard, but getting twice the performance at 800-1000 is certainly possible. It's a good chunk of extra money, but the experience is a lot better. And if you buy a lot of games, it does end up being cheaper.
The real value of PC gaming happens when you start upgrading. Once you don't have to buy every component new, you really can get a lot of bang/buck
That 2018 hardware like the ps5 and xbsx is 3x behind in 2024 is not surprising tbh.
@AlphaF28
Tech isn’t almost doubling performance yearly. This isn’t even true biannually.
Moore’s law is kinda dead. Which you can see with how low cpu gains are generation over generation.
The only reason the 40XX series is 3x faster than the PS5 or XBSX is 1.) the consoles are running AMD 2.) nvidia has DLSS 3.) Framegen and lastly 4.) the current consoles have very low RT performance.
If you’d take pure rasterized performance without RT and compare it with consoles the differences wouldn’t be threefold. And if you’d take RT rasterized without up scaling the same.
If you compare only rasterized performance the 30XX and 40XX series didn’t double performance on their previous generation. The same goes for AMD.
However, since DLSS and framegen look and run well (mostly) it’s a factor that makes current consoles wish for an upgrade sooner rather than later.
Tbh I don’t need a PS5 Pro, I’m down for a PS6 and new Xbox at the end of 2026 if it has nvidia, DLSS, frame gen and an equivalent to the 50XX series.
The gen has been impressive the first two years but burned out quickly when it comes to tech, performance and games.
This has to be the least impressive gen for both Sony and MS ever.
@@Lock2002fulUou are wrong them being Nvidia hardware is not the only reason and they don’t need to have DLSS on a damn 4090 or 4080 to be 3x more powerful than a PS5 GPU.
@@Lock2002ful Your post is terrible, consoles also use upscales like DLSS and FSR, in fact a game in this very video was using FSR on PS5 :P
@@Battleneter Jedi Survivor uses FSR on PS5 and looks a bit ropey. It also stutters like crazy in parts of Koboh and looks like they will never fix it (probably can't). Trash UE4 engine and trash EA devs.
@@ZackSNetwork
In this very video as well as others you can see that amd is terrible from a visual and performance standpoint in comparison to nvidia.
Also gen on gen the 4080 (super) is about 40% faster than the 3080. The 3080 released at the end of 2020, the 4080 two years later. That’s 40% in two years, not double the performance every year. nvidia and DLSS with frame gen is the reason that the 40XX series is 3x times faster than current consoles.
Also, not everything has to be a fight. I was simply conveying information. Not everything is about being right or wrong. No one cares, no reason to get defensive and emotional. If your statement had been a fact, I wouldn’t have said anything but what you said isn’t true and that’s ok. No reason to die on that hill just because you weren’t correct about something technical.
I have a 4060 laptop that runs everything better than my Series X.
Which model
It better be given the overall price of your laptop
Dis they really compare the PS5 with the 4080 super and 4090....? Even ponies won't go that far
Please stop saying "quote on quote"! John started saying it too. Why? That´s a bad habbit.
It's "quote, unquote" in case it becomes a staple of parlance :)
Almost spelling Hobbit is a bad habit.
😂 My native language isn´t english. But I think you all understood the point
If you're going to criticise others' grammar and speech, make sure you get yours right.
@rob4222 sorry. Too funny to pass up. What's your native language so I can mangle it for you?
Is Richard a PC Master Race enthusiast? Why did he compare DLS to the PS5? Give native 4K a shot with a 4080, and you might find yourself dismayed, spending £1000 solely on the GPU and still achieving only 25 fps at native resolution without DLSS.
Because fsr upscaling is being used on the ps5 and it gives more of a like for like comparison
And how often in games is a ps5 doing native resolutions unless it’s 30fps @1440 mostly. You do realise the 4080s has more than 5x the power and 3x performance of the ps5. So on a like for like on native 4K if a 4080 gets 25fps you are in single figures with a ps5. This would be on ultra settings on a demanding game so you wouldn’t even be able to do a direct comparison.
Why does this old man know so much about gaming, its creeps me tf out
Ok now compare 500 $ PC with the PS5 and then we will talk
1:13 Peasants
My Ps5 plays Cod better than my 4070 , ryzen 7700x setup. Yes I get way more FPS on pc but it looks so much better on console.
*Sponsored by Nvidia 😂
Don't compared:)) console is really shit.
4 years old PS5 vs 4090 WTF 😂. And still up until now PS5 Frame per dollar better than any Pc out there. You cant beat Console value.
The price of rtx4080super is also 3x of the ps5😢😢😂😂
If there's a used ps5, its 4x the price.😂😂😂😂😢😢😢😢😢
This Video just proves that AMD GPUs are no competition whatsoever. Thanks, AMD. And AVATAR has no offical DLSS 3 Support ingame. So DF uses paid mods for comparison? WTF? Or typing error? Did he mean DLSS 2?
No, this video just shows how biased and silly DF really are. How about power consumption normalised tests? Comparing 400++ Watt PC setup with 200 Watt console. Really truthful comparison 😂
But hey, let's not have common sense get in the way of DF agenda to up Nvidia in every possible way.
@@reav3rtmfrl I hate digital foundry.
And when they refused to show their process of how they get info like fps and resolution from the consoles is very concerning.
@@reav3rtmobviously console manufacturers are scared to increase power lol due to crybabies caring for electricity that can't afford to pay 😂 man my 4090 barely consumes that much depending on the game obviously the highest it hit was 470 watts majority of the time it mostly hits 200 to 380 you people really care but don't show proof of your stupidity of how power works 🤡🤡🤡
@@reav3rtmThe point of the video is to compare the best of PC hardware to what consoles offer. Your comment about power consumption is stupid. The 4090 is over 3x more powerful than the PS5 GPU and a 7800x3d is like 3x faster. So if they consume around 300watts of power that makes them beyond more efficient than a 200+watt PS5.
@@ZackSNetwork Then this video is as useless as this comparison. And sad John's face in thumbnail. And sad John in the video silently wishing consoles were more powerful to render his sweet RTX (at 500Watt, but shhh) but because it's RDNA so RT renders slower... Sad video indeed. And sad message :( Unless you think there will be 500Watt console released powered by Nvidia 😂 Then this video makes perfect sense and sobbing is warranted 😂
If it will be ps8-9 it will be possible to be as sharp as the graphics card 😉
The PS6 GPU will be faster than a 4090.
@@03chrisv Well, in about 3 years, you're right 😉
Ps5 pro will be close to 4080 strength, and ps6 will probably blow away a 4090
@@whatupcuz3688 Don't believe it. You still have some catching up to do to keep your graphics as sharp as your graphics card.
PS will not have graphics as high-end as PC graphics cards for a long time.😉👍
Man I love digital foundry but this video is FATALLY flawed and just comes across as an Nvidia adspot. You phrase it as PS5 vs 4080 super, giving it the illusion of a GPU comparison for a $500 product vs $1000 product. This makes the 2-3x performance gain look decent for the 2x in cost. However, what you are in fact testing is a $500 gpu + cpu combo which the ps5 is (something roughly akin to an RX6700 + R5 3600) vs $1000 4080 super + UNAMED cpu of $????. This is extremely poor test methodology, and misleading at best. This video/comparison should be titled 4080super + 14900k(or whatever cpu you are using) vs ps5
It's imho Nvidia product placement video basically. Something they probably have in sponsorship contract with Nvidia.
I wouldn't mind as long as it's disclosed.
Keep in mind a PC is not just a toy, its also a productivity tool and many gamers use it for both. PC games are also often found cheaper as there is real competition in the digital market places unlike consoles. PC you also do not need a yearly subscription to play online, a LOT of hidden costs with consoles.
@@Battleneter Well in this video we are comparing gaming performance, not productivity or game prices or anything else. Both have their advantages/disadvantages/special uses. BUT in this video we looking at GAMING performance of 1 vs the other . I don't need to keep anything in mind to know this video faulty as a gaming comparison.
People have been noticing this a lot. DF is pretty much sponsored by nvidia to be their marketing arm
Its not "2-3x" but 3x when compared with the exact same settings. And no you don't need a 14900k, a 13600k can easily push the exact same framerates here.
Nice nvidia ad... Another one
The PS5 tech is so weak in 2024
It has always been weak... Consoles are for children
@@crazyc9326 PCs are for basement dwellers
PC gamers when their $2000 pc works better than $500 ps5
Cry more baby
Keep in mind a PC is not just a toy, its also a productivity tool and many gamers use it for both. PC games are also often found cheaper as there is real competition in the digital market places unlike consoles. PC you also do not need a yearly subscription to play online, a LOT of hidden costs with consoles.
Console boys when reality slaps them
As an Owner of PS5 and PC. You just can't compare the two. Expensive PC isn't for everybody but no console can even come close to its capabilities.
A PC let's you a lot more than just gaming though, so any direct price comparison is completely nonsensical. An expensive PC just happens to be great for gaming as well.
27fps > 83fps
4090 will likely be in the same performance ballpark as the PS6.
hurry the hell up ps5 pro
It will be equivalent to a RX 6800 or 6800xt. Expecting next generation console performance from a half step console is dumb.
PS5 does it again 😎
Ps5 pro will chew and spit 4080
lol @ 30fps
Consoles are bad.
Makes zero sense to make the 4080 16gb vram. Should be 20gb minimum. Everyone buying ngreedia at these prices are bending over and saying yes sir yes sir 3 bags full 😂
As per all the latest GPU benchmark suits, the 10GB 3080 still edges out the 16GB 6800XT at 4K and below like it used to around launch. 16GB will be absolutely fine for the next 5 years, its not moving as fast as you think it is.
@Battleneter but it's a dick move to make the 4090 24gb then the next rung down 16... just crazy imo
@@Battleneter the devs cheat. They keep the fps high but texture quality suffers due to lack of vram. Plenty of demonstrations of this out there like Hardware Unboxed.
PC master race, console for the poor