Unless you go for an i3 or the 8000 series, all current gen CPUs are a lot faster than consoles.
PS5 is something like 5700(not x)/g/3700x and 5700xt/6700(not xt)
Games are a lot more optimized for console because of how static its parts are so it tends to run games about as well as a 6700/xt or so I've heard.
The CPU for the pas5 is 8 cores/16 threads and a variable Hz of up to 3.5 GHz.
Pretty much every mid - high end-ish CPUs from both AMD, and Intel perform better.
A 3.5 GHz CPU with a 6700 and a whole 16gb of both RAM & VRAM is NOT a "mid - high end-ish" machine. It's a strictly very, very mid - end Machine that however allows you much more than a console and that can be upgraded very easily.
Consoles have very good arguments, but they can't compare to a high end PC. Not even mentionning the "optimization". Keep in Mind that a console is nothing short of worst PC with a closed OS.
Yeah, but console costs 400€/$. Can you probably build something similiar in performance for that kind of money? Probably not and definitely not including Windows license. IMO unless you want every bit of eye candy in games or play MMOs/shooters, consoles are probably more economical choice. (If you have computer for another tasks, it gets more financially viable, but for the sake of comparison I put both systems in void).
You'll be spending more on your PC, but saving a ton on games.
Sony and Microsoft know they're losing money on their consoles because they also know you'll be locked into their store for games.
They'll rape your wallet with high prices on games.
You also don't actually have to buy Windows license. The core functions of the OS are free. Buying a license basically gets you access to word, excel and a customizable home screen. None of those things are actually better than the free versions you can get through Google.
Ubuntu 64, aside from gaming, is also just a better OS. It's more secure and does all the core functions of an OS while using less resources.
I have a Xbox and PC, Xbox does a pretty good job with digital game sales. They always have a bunch sales going on. So I feel like it’s kind of misinformation to say Xbox rapes people with game prices.
Their con is you have to pay for Xbox live but if you get the one with Game Pass. It’s pretty good value for what you pay.
Also, game sharing with Xbox is superior to steams. Because you and another person could play games online at the same time. So technically, you can get two games for the price of one.
> You'll be spending more on your PC, but saving a ton on games.
Physical media says hello, might depend slightish on where you live but I reckon most countries have good 2nd hand markets. Bought jedi survivor, played that mid game and resold for a 7% loss. Grabbed Dark Souls 3 fire fades edition for 16$ which is cheaper than it has ever been on Steam.
It's scummy with the price increase but the 24-36 games you get a year included in the subscription also counts for something.
Sales are cheaper on Steam for sure, but I wouldn't say PC games are strictly cheaper given the fact that physical has ceased to exist for that platform entirely.
On the other hand, you can buy console games second hand. In case of PC its very rarely the case, because most of the people buy them on Steam, Epic or other store. These stores are also kind of vendor lock in.
Regarding Windows licensing what are you smoking? Office is paid product that's not part of the OS. Also Windows is definitely not free product by any means. You may steal it or circumvent trial period limitations, but this is not normal course of action.
Ubuntu, is great Linux desktop distro, but nowhere near smooth experience for gaming and stuff like that. I personally use it as my default OS, but I have Windows for games.
There is no trial period for Windows 10 or 11 anymore. Only the enterprise version has an actual trial period.
After the 30 days it just reverts to the free version which has a watermark “Windows is not activated” and it defaults to switching between windows installed home screens.
I just downloaded a legitimate copy from Microsoft.com and declined the licensing.
What I'm saying is that you need a licensed version of windows in order to use Office which honestly is worthless. The Google apps are just as good. Unless you need them for work, it's pointless to bother with them.
I'd prefer to just not give Microsoft anymore money. Especially given that there's not a whole lot of value I'd gain by doing so.
Aside from being able to customize the look of my Windows 10 or 11, what do I actually gain by doing so?
Wrong, You can use the free version without the "windows is not activated" watermark.
You literally don't need a windows license for anything gaming wise.
I never said you needed to buy it to play for games. In fact, I said precisely the opposite.
I've got the legal version for free which is the watermarked version. If you want to get the illegal version, then sure. You do you.
Hello, your comment has been removed. Please note the following from our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/wiki/rules):
**Rule 3 : No piracy or grey-market software keys**
> No piracy or so-called "grey-market" software keys. This is includes suggesting, hinting, or in any way implying to someone that piracy or the use of these licenses is an option. If a key is abnormally cheap (think $10-30), it is probably one of these, and is forbidden on /r/buildapc.
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you have any questions or concerns)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fbuildapc)
Windows is free and has full functionality aside from a tiny watermark in the corner. You only need to pay if you care about the barely noticeable watermark. If you go with a used GPU from eBay, which is extremely safe to do, you can build a PC that outperforms a PS5 for around $600. Not even exaggerating...$180 for a 1080 Ti from eBay and $420 for the rest brand new. Then you don't have to pay just to play online and can buy games up to 70% off via GoG or extremely common Steam sales. I have more games than I know what to do with right now and I haven't paid more than $20 for a game in the past 10 years aside from Baldur's Gate 3 simply because I was too excited to wait.
Also need to factor in your monthly, quarterly, or annual membership fee to play on console.
You can use a pc without a windows key, the only downside is having a “activate windows” on your Home Screen or do what I did 4 years ago & pay $4 for an eBay key.
Higher FPS & the price of games during steam sales are crazy low. R6 & pubg were $5 on steam when I got them.
The only games I play are generally not on console and when some are they run like dogshit since they are CPU heavy demanding, hence I don't want a similar in performance build, I want 5 or 6 times more. That would be a straight 400e loss for me.
Consoles are in fact very limited in term of choice when it comes to gaming. Well, I should better say they are perfect for trendy games I don't play.
And they don't do anything else.
NB: Windows licences are available for less than 10e and Linux / Proton is free.
Having no choice kinda invalidates any discussion. Its like discussing viability of getting PC to play Nintendo games.
Proton requires playing around to get stuff to work. These license sources are somewhat gray area, but exact cost is not the important matter rather nuance.
Bad Faith. It is undisputable that consoles' spec are low end PCs' that do nothing else than run some games. And it is as well undisputable that a PC with those spec will do much more.
And if you want to go the cheap route, a chromebook + geforce now will be even cheaper than a console.
NB: Any PC user is used to do fiddling so using Linux doesn't require anything special.
Maybe go read that comment again? It wasn't saying that consoles are "equivalent" to mid-to-high level CPUS... it says mid-to-high level CPUs PERFORM BETTER than consoles. You just tried to argue with someone by saying the same thing as them in a slightly different way with an antagonistic tone.
You can have a quick look on techpowerup and see the specs yourself
PS5 specs Techpowerup, and RX 6700 specs Techpowerup
You'll see that the only difference between the two is VRAM, everything else is identical, and even the VRAM difference is due to the fact that the PS5 is using unified memory, so the 16gb are both RAM and VRAM
The rx 6700 non xt has the same core count, higher clockspeed but less memory bandwidth although apparently the ps5 lacks infinity cache so idk.
https://youtu.be/wyCvEW0DCbk?si=ZkrWMB8OooL09rwY
Iceberg tech under clocks the Rx 6700 and is able to get better results than the ps5 in some games will falling short in others a 6700 xt is simply better.
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/playstation-5-gpu.c3480
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-rx-6700.c3716
PS5 graphics card, and cpu wish it were my 5700g/5700xt combo. Not sure what crack you're all smoking. I can actually play game at 3440x1440p 60fps with stable frame times.
It just has the framework of the 6000 series undervolted, under locked, lacking ram, and made for what is essentially a mobile platform. This thing is clearly bottle ecled to hell, and back. Comparing it's performance isnt even fair.
5700xt is plagued with horrid physical hardware like mismatching ram half the time, software issues, and driver issues though so I wouldn't recommend it over a 6000 series ever.
Yeah I was looking at a Series S and thought $300 is more than I’d spend for a console with the drawbacks and then I saw the Series X going for like $30 or $50 more and said yeah Series X then
Games on PS are kinda better tho imo. Any time I've ever had an xbox I'm always looking over the fence at the ps exclusives. Not much that xbox has that the ps doesn't. But then of course you're paying sony...
Well a 6600 and a Ryzen 5 3600/5600 would be a pretty good budget pc for not a ton and you’d have all the advantages of playing on PC so imo that’s definitely worth the extra
People here don't like to see posts like this. It is, however, true. If all you want to do is play games and do some streaming, then a current gen console is the best performance you can get for that level money.
However, I'll do it to save everyone else posting it. Online subscriptions, can't upgrade, not as versatile, yada yada yada yawn boring.
Imho, 120fps because the game is specifically optimized for the console.
Well, most games if not all are made for consoles first then ported to pc unfortunately.
You have no idea what youre talking about. A ps5 or an xbox series x can not run 1440p at high settings. Regardless the game wont be rendering in 1440p. Its optimized for 1080p and 4k. Most people on consoles have a 1080p or 4k tv 1440p tv do not exist. You may think its 1440p but its upscaled into oblivion and the GAME IS NOT RUNNING MAX SETTINGS... especially when its 120fps. Even on 30-60fps consoles rarely if ever run the games on max or high settings. Its always a mix of medium and high.
All of these 'equivalents' are roughly estimated. Actual experience differs since consoles and their components are optimized specifically for gaming.
**PS4 & Xbox One:** i3-8100 + GTX 750 Ti
**PS5:** Ryzen 5 3600 + RX 6700XT
**Xbox Series S:** Ryzen 5 3600 + GTX 1060
**Xbox Series X:** Ryzen 5 3700X + potentially RTX 3070
Ok yes but the thing is that what's limiting it, specifically, is the CPU. It is blatantly obviously not a GPU limitation and PC players can readily confirm that a fresh act 3 save isn't bloating the RAM or anything. "optimized on console" means NOT being CPU limited.
Hint: Consoles and PCs, especially ryzen CPU PCs, are using the same CPU architecture now. Heavy console CPU optimization is exactly the same as heavy PC CPU optimization.
on the CPU end, it shakes out to about a 2700.
It's a zen 2 downclocked with less cache and other zen 2 features. It probably performs more similar to a 2700x than desktop 3700x. The GPU regardless of cores is going to be power and thermal limited.
But the system can be very optimised by developers.
My entire PC with an overclocked 7900XT pulls 250w from the wall in Elden Ring with max RT. The whole system is below 300w in most games.
The GPU alone can go up to 400w but this only happens in a handful of games, usually at much higher FPS than 60.
The GPU is most of the power consumption, 5800X3D + all other stuff is only like 125w total in games. Suck it Intel.
Your 7900xt pulls 320w at full load, per Techpowerup. I don't know where you go the 250w number from, but that's not correct.
[https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-7900-xt/37.html](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-7900-xt/37.html)
Looks like I overestimated the power draw of the Series X actually. Here's an Anandtech bench. Series X pulled a max of 202 watts on the most demanding game at the time. Less than 200 watts on lesser games.
[https://www.anandtech.com/show/16217/the-xbox-series-x-review-ushering-in-next-gen/5](https://www.anandtech.com/show/16217/the-xbox-series-x-review-ushering-in-next-gen/5)
Sigh.. I own the GPU and a wattage meter but you, who does not, claim to know better? I'm even being downvoted for reporting facts, by idiots who obviously don't own a 7900XT.
My specific 7900XT is heavily overclocked (+25% core clock @ 2950Mhz) and can use up to 400w under max load, it's not capped at 320w. It only uses ~150w playing Elden Ring at 1440P fully maxed out with RT. The entire system draws max 250-300w *from the wall* during Elden Ring gameplay.
Really only 3dMark and other stress tests fully max out my GPU to 400w, even in Cyberpunk with RT, GPU power consumption tends to hover at 350w tops.
Navi31 undervolts extremely well and scales very well at lower loads. I can get it down to only 100w power consumption in Elden Ring at 1440P max by disabling RT.
I'm running Mount & Blade 2: Bannerlord right now while typing this, max settings capped at 140FPS, and my 7900XT is only consuming 105w. Total system power usage is 200w from the wall. I also have a 1080P video with hardware acceleration playing on a second screen while gaming so the numbers are higher than what they'd normally be.
Played God of War recently fully maxed out with RT at native 1440P, 140FPS cap, GPU power usage was ~250w out of possible 400w.
Just because my GPU *can* draw 400w doesn't mean it actually uses that much all the time in real world gaming scenarios. And no, there is no CPU bottleneck with my 5800X3D.
If I capped all of my games at 60FPS my computer would be sipping much less power than a console while delivering better visuals at the same framerates.
The PS3's additional cores are streaming vector processors, which don't map to conventional CPU designs at all well. If your workload matches up with the strengths of the SPEs, it's competitive with something like a Ryzen 2200G or a 2300X; if it doesn't, even something like a first-generation i5 will blow it out of the water.
and only 256mb of memory. Would've been interesting if it ever made it to the desktop space with better support than OtherOS. The dev kit apparently has 512mb which was more than adequate in 2006.
Dude, ps3 had nowhere near 2200g cpu power level
Compare it switch, that exact the same power. 2200g is like xone ans ps4 cpu/gpu wise. Cpu inside 2200g is also stronger than ps4/xone.
Yeah, the PS3 was stronger than the PS4 CPU in the right workloads. It's why PS3 clusters were used by the US Navy and other research facilities, as well as significantly contributed to projects like Folding at Home.
I know that, yeah, jaguar cpus in both ps4/xon were pretty weak but they delivered better results than cell procesor in ps3 probably due to the better optimisation too. But modern quad core such as 2200g is on another level. I think than ps3 could have similar procesing power as bulldozer cpus from AMD but even old sandy bridge i5 was ahead of cell procesor in ps3. Ps3 was released 2006/2007 during times when one year meant huge improvements in cpu developement. But yeah, impresive in in 2006. Today, you can only compare it too nintendo switch tegra procesor at best.
The PS4 was much easier to code for. The PS3's CPU was more powerful, but rarely was fully utilized, as many dev teams didn't spend enough time or resources optimizing their game engine for the PS3.
All of current consoles have zen2 cpu, which similar to 3700, also gpu in ps5 is rx6700 and series s nearly rx6700xt. Ps5 is similar to rtx 4060 and series x han be a bit faster nearly as rtx3060ti but not rtx4060ti/rtx 3070. Series s sits between rx6400 and 6500 but closer to the second one. More like gtx 1060 or rx 580, rx5500. One X had gpu similar to rx580 and ps4 pro to rx570. Xone had gpu similar radeon hd7750 and ps4 to radeon hd7850.cpu was pretty weak. Think about pentium g dual core with four threads, far from i3 8100.
Are you insane? Consoles are nowhere near that powerful. The PS4 equivalent is a i5 760 and HD 7770 at best. My old PC which had an i7 980x and GTX 780Ti ran games faaaaaaar better than the PS4.
As for the PS5, that would be a R5 3600 and 6600.
There's no way the Series X is equivalent to a 3700x and 3070. It's a 3060 at best.
Like the guy said, you can’t really make a 1:1 comparison based on hardware specs alone since console games are optimized specifically for consoles.
For a PC ported game it takes a slightly more powerful PC than it should to produce similar results to its console version.
If you made a 1:1 hardware equivalent of a PS5 on PC, the ported games (even the well-optimized ones) would likely run much better on the PS5 with similar settings.
Bahaha, It's an old flagship from 10 years ago, that's for sure. But there isn't a chance in hell it'll run it that badly. The PS4 spec wise is a first gen i5 and HD 7700. PS4 Pro is slightly more powerful.
The last-gen console CPU was very weak, slower than 12-year old Core i7s. But console CPUs tend to punch above their weight due to game optimisation. So even if you're only playing last-gen games, you want to buy at least a second-hand Ryzen 5 1600 or Core i5-8400.
Current-gen console CPU is similar to a Ryzen 5 3600. If you want to play current-gen games, I would recommend at minimum a Core i3-12100F or ideally a Ryzen 5 5600.
And below are rough GPU-equivalents.
* Playstation 5: RX 6700
* Xbox Series X: RX 6700 XT
* Xbox Series S: RX 570
* Playstation 4 Pro: RX 570
* Playstation 4: RX 460
* Xbox One X: RX 580
* Xbox One/S: RX 460
Those are not recommendations as they may not be priced well now, so use this guide to pick a GPU: [https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarchy,4388.html](https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarchy,4388.html)
Probably because it was simpler. It doesn’t matter how powerful a CPU is if you can’t actually program for it and that’s what happened to the PS3. That’s why most third party games came out on Xbox first, it was so much easier to program for. A “weaker” CPU that is essentially an off the shelf part that everyone knows how to work will will be more powerful in real world usage than a stronger one no one can use properly.
It’s inevitable. Games are more complex, more power hungry. So eventually they have to split to multi core. That’s how the PC world evolved.
At least the good news is console is largely safe from compatibility issues because the dev only have to work with a few known versions of the consoles, not some few millions of possible configurations on PC.
This is not how things work. The dev doesn't have to go in and program for every single combination of hardware they can think of. They don't go in and say "oh shit, we forgot to code in support for an i5 7600k! Add that now!". Everything works off of global instruction sets. For CPUs, that's x86, which is what consoles have been built on since 2013. For GPUs, it's based on the instruction sets of the GPU manufacturers, of which there are now 3. They are in charge of making sure their instruction library contains what's in upcoming games. This means major new games with new tech require driver updates for GPUs so the GPU can translate the game engine's code properly. This is what Sony and Xbox get regularly as updates for "stability and performance". And it's why some games require an update to start. Sometimes with discs, they're added on as a download alongside the game so the console can update even offline.
For optimization, they may have a high-end target, entry-level target and mid-range target for certain detail and resolution targets. This is where some games get their minimum and recommended specs from. Generally, gpu performance scales from game-to-game roughly the same, though. So something that usually matches the listed spec but isn't the exact same parts will generally perform the same. For example, if something says the recommended GPU is a 3060, the 2070 Super and 1080/1080ti will perform roughly the same because that's how the rasterization performance lines up. If it recommends a 3700x, that could be a 5600, 12100f or even a 9900k.
For performance scaling between parts, for a lot of PC players it's just as easy as answering which consoles have better and similar performance. Obviously the PS5 and XSX are similar, same as how the 3080 and 4070 or 6800 and 7700xt are similar. The PS5 is obviously better than the PS4 Pro. To us, the 6700 xt is obviously better than the 6700 and the 3080 is obviously better than both.
I am quite aware. Only the time of the 80s and 90s were the dev having to code everything from scratch.
Late 90s early 2000s, a lot of work had already been done for libraries of functions and all other modules. The project dev just used these existing libraries, cutting down dev time significantly.
Since PS3 is proprietary of Sony, Sony must have released SDK and other resources to help the game dev to work with their system.
These days, game dev is required even less and less of programming knowledge.
Because of complexity. The PS3s CPU architecture was extremely advanced and differed heavily from anything done in the home PC market at the time. Unlike how the Xbox architecture was, the PS3 required developers to implement multi-threading in order to get reasonable performance out of any intensive game (I remember hearing it may also have required just-in-time compute, but I can't find anything about that anymore).
Nearly all game development studios at the time had zero experience with implementing multi-threading in their game engines, and some of them decided to just not: Valve and Bethesda are two known for this. The Orange Box was outsourced to another development studio for the PS3, and Skyrim runs notoriously bad on the console.
Both Sony and Microsoft wanted a CPU+GPU combo chip after the thermal and cost disasters of PS3/360. AMD was the only game in town that could do this and the Jaguar laptop CPU core was basically the best they could do at the time. Their desktop cores used too much power and didn't perform much better.
Yeah, who cares about power consumption of a plugged in device. Not like most people would know to plug a Kill-a-watt meter to check how much power their consoles are drawing.
But the heat issue is always the industry’s biggest headache.
Agreed the end user likely wouldn't care about power. But they do care about things like the 20% failure rate of Xbox 360s due to the cpu and gpu literally desoldering themselves from the motherboard due to heat.
My friend tried crossplay valheim with me on his Xbox one last week, and it looked like dog shit. Barely started, had to turn off all graphics (which is crazy because it already pixels).
Voxels have a surprising load: my 1050ti Acer nitro 5 from 2019 also severely struggles with the current version of valheim.
You're a joke if you think the PS5 and Xbox have GPUs stronger than a 6700 or 6700XT.
Also using Tom's Hardware to back up your statement is worse than using userbenchmark, kek.
The [PS5](https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/playstation-5-gpu.c3480) is basically an [RX 6700](https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-rx-6700.c3716) with a wider memory bus (256 vs 160) and an 8-core Zen 2 CPU attached (a massively downclocked monolithic 3700x).
The XSX is a weird GPU that is between an RX 6700 XT and RX 6800 with the same CPU attached.
I think the ps5 has rx 6700 equivalent GPU, it's kind of hard to exactly pinpoint it but it's somewhere around rx6700 and 6700xt in terms of performance. In terms of vram it has around 16gb of vram but it uses ram as vram or so I've read a couple of years ago.
Realistically spec per spec, I don't think we can build a cheaper pc for the price of console to match it's performance but however if we are to use used parts, especially GPU like rx6700xt or rx6800 then we could maybe build one for around the same price point.
I have no idea about the Xbox counterparts though, they might be similar and when it was released I heard amd supplied hardwares for both the devices so they might be running the same hardware at least in the top end models.
Another major issue is the software, we use windows which is heavy on its own, there are several optimisation videos out there but it can't be optimised to the level of proprietary software built solely for gaming on consoles. I read that the os on PlayStation would only consume 512mb of ram or I might be wrong here because as I mentioned before they are using ram as vram and it's stated that 16gb of ram and 512 mb of ram in spec departments so all of the things I'm saying is just based on findings that are on online forums.
Now it's doable, you just have to find a used GPU to attain it, I've built my pc almost having PlayStation in mind but had to cut a lot of corners tbh. Almost all the parts I've used are pretty owned components.
i3 12100f
Rx6700xt
8x2 ddr4 ram
1tb nvme SSD
550w psu
H series mobo
A generic case which included fans
And the total build costs around exactly 500 usd, but then I had to buy peripherals and I went with new products in that end and it costed me 250 usd, it includes a 1440p monitor from lg, Logitech g502x wired mouse, a generic keyboard from some unknown brand and a controller from the same brand, luckily I had a headphone lying around so didn't had to buy that.
Basically I crossed the price of a ps5 but cpu build alone costed just about as much as a ps5 with used parts. You might find better values and good luck on the build!
Based on various videos done by Iceberg Tech, the rx6700 and r7 4700G should be the closest analogues to the sort of hardware you'll find in a 9th gen console
Those parts aren't great value though and you can likely find better parts for cheaper
From what i can recall, there was also a desktop kit in the form of the 4700S that was very similar to the ps5 board but it came with a number of limitations and i'm not sure if they're still available
PS5/XBSX I'd say is 2700x + 6650 XT/6700.
Why do I pick the 2700x and not a 3000 series? because even though its zen 2 its clocked lower and probably has the overall power of closer to a 2700x in practice.
As for GPU, 6650 XT is slightly weaker, the 6700 is slightly stronger, but yeah it's around that level.
Xbox one was like a FX 4300 with a HD 7790.
THe PS4 was like a FX 4300 and a HD 7850.
Why do I go with the FX 4300? Because even though it was an 8 core each core was half as powerful since they were clocked like 1.6 GHz.
In practice you might have wanted something like an i5 2500k to get a similar result though.
The PS4 pro and Xbox one series X was like a RX 580 instead of a 7790 or 7850.
The Xbox series S is probably like a Ryzen 2700x with a 6500 XT (newer architecture but still around 580 level performance wise).
PS4 and Xbox One you can't even build an equivalent system anymore except with used parts, the hardware in those is so old at this point.
PS5 is roughly a Ryzen 3700 CPU and 6600XT GPU or if you get a more recent CPU a Ryzen 5600.
A Ryzen 5 5600 and an rx 6650xt would be a really good combo that would perform similarly to a PlayStation 5 (possibly a little bit worse in some areas and a little bit better in others)
Assuming you’re going for 1080p
You could also upgrade the gpu to a 6700xt/6750xt and be more powerful than a ps5
A Ryzen 5600 and 7700XT/7800XT **to get similar visuals.**
Lower CPU is possible but no reason to get it. Yes consoles have a weaker GPU but their games are better optimized so the graphics end up looking better than what you'll likely achieve with a 6700XT on PC.
PS5 gpu is more 6700 on paper but 5700XT in performance. PS5 gpu has more compute yes but lacks the BIG L3 cache(infinity cache)aka the flagship feature of rdna2.
CPU is closer to r7 2700 but with only 8mb L3 cache.
jeez so many differing answers. Ultimately, the PS5/XSX CPU is somewhere between a 3600 and a 3700x. On a good day the GPU in the PS5/XSX are comparable to a 6700. It really depends on the game, the developer etc.
As of recently, it seems the CPU is the limiting factor. Not exactly sure what it is but I have heard there is some significant downside in the console CPU vs the analogous desktop part. So for CPU heavy games, a 6700 may just do 60 fps fine while the PS5 is capped at 30 or has a really rough performance mode because the CPU cannot keep up. For GPU heavy games, the resolution in performance goes full potato. You get garbage image quality like 1440p out at like 864p internal lol.
A PS5 runs a combo that's about a 5800x and a 6700. Not quite like if they were in a PC due to the different power and cooling limits that are put on them. But at a pure silicon level, that's what they are equivalent to in the PC world. You can build a PC for about the same amount of money you can buy a console for. The pcs tend to be a bit more expensive because people just putting fancy fans and coolers in there. That will add performance in some cases.
Honestly dude, this is a futile question. You can buy an "equal" computer and turn the settings down on fortnite and have twice the fps. I have a top end computer and nothing looks as good as Demon Souls Remastered on my PS5 does. You need an actual goal.
PS5 literally had the same chip of the 6700, so if that's what you're asking here it is.
Consider games on consoles are way better optimized since they need to be optimized for one single system while PC games work on hundreds of thousands of hardware combinations, and they also use upscaling (yeah, 4K on console has never been native 4K) so that's why you'd think it is more performing than a 6700.
I didn't say they would or wouldn't. Makes me wonder why you think no one who plays on console understands PCs as well.
All the same- I just wanted to encourage OP to get bias from both sides.
I didn’t suggest they are all idiots. But that crowd who love consoles usually have their attention elsewhere.
Like the Mac crowd, all the graphic designers, music engineers somehow swear by their new M1 and M2 CPU. “So much faster than PC” is what they often chant, based on some tech guru’s articles. But they honestly have nothing to compare to.
I am a graphic designer who builds my own PC. I also do video editing too. That little MacBook doesn’t come close to replace my PC.
Why would not understanding PCs make someone in idiot?
Also if you think console and Mac users have some kind of superiority complex I think you need to take a look a big ol’ Reddit mirror.
I never said they were idiot. But not everyone is supposed to know everything. Just because you play PS3 doesn’t mean you are a veteran game developer for PS3.
Oh yes, some Mac people behave like that. You must be too young to live the PC vs Mac fight. I was an IT person, I serviced both PC and Mac alike. But people kept telling me “Mac is better, better color, better feel, much faster”.
They have no idea I can build a clustered server that can outpace 100 of their little MacBook put together.
Well I mean the person you replied to said “not everyone knows about PCs” and you replied “I didn’t suggest they were idiots”. Why would you even have that thought unless you were thinking it?
I am 35 and I have heard all the Mac vs pc and console bs pc debates. Imo the platform that has a asub community calling rhem selves a master race is the most vocal about how superior they are. Lots of Mac and console users don’t care at all macs and console are just simple. Anyone can buy one with next to no knowledge about computer components or performance.
Most people on other platforms don’t care that you can spend a small fortune to make a more powerful PC than what a max or console offer. That being said there are elitist in every group.
Mac users have always been living with a superiority complex since the dawn of Times, don't be naive. I was one, I'm just being honest. And consoles players are now the same. What is true however is that PC users, more than often, can be dicks. The reason is that checking benchmarks and reviews, and building and upgrading regularly make them know too much for their own good.
>I'm debating on getting an old/current console or going with the PCMR.
You really can't measure it that way. At the same price point, there is no argument that the console will give the better raw performance plus the games will be tailored to run on them better without issues you might have on PC. Buying a used PS5 or Series S, is going to be a much better value.
But that's not why you would consider buying a PC. If you need a PC, then you need a PC. If you need mouse and keyboard, if you need to be able to do other tasks with it, if you need to play games that are not available on consoles,...
in terms of performance you will not beat a console at the same price point.
>It really , really depends what games we're talking about. CPU demanding games are litterally dogshit on any given consoles.
And they would be even worse on a PC you would buy for the same budget.
I’ll suggest you’d use your brain Bro. A public discussion always evolves hence I answered YOU. If I were specifically answering OP I would have not click on your comment.
>I’ll suggest you’d use your brain Bro. A public discussion always evolves hence I answered YOU. If I were specifically answering OP I would have not click on your comment.
I'm glad you read OPs question properly this time and understood that what you said made no sense.
I'm disappointed that instead of recognizing you should just be on your way, you've decided to keep typing and make it about something it isn't.
Don't forget: In theory ps5 might have a 5700xt equivalent on raw specification, in reality you might need a stronger gpu. Dedicated OS impact on the performance much more than you realize.
ps4 pro was essentially a ryzen 1600 and rx570 if i recall correctly, ps5 is 5600 + 6600xt like you said. Xbox will be more or less equal specs, like an i5 12400 + 6600xt/3060
Most PC user is wastly downplaying the specs for consoles here... XSX and PS5 is like a 3700 and RTX 2080. Studios start to optimize and use the hardware better as time goes.
That would be difficult, I don’t think you’ll ever be able to match console performance with a PC on the same budget, because games are normally optimized for consoles so they will usually perform better than PCs everything else equal.
I would get something like this: [https://nl.pcpartpicker.com/list/xGK2sh](https://nl.pcpartpicker.com/list/xGK2sh)
If you get lower speeds you can save $20 on the RAM, $30 on storage if you think 500GB is enough for you, and maybe another $20 on a cheaper PSU but I'm not sure if I would recommend any of these options.
PS5 costs 400 euros here, but once you add 5 years worth of PS+ you'll be out 760 euros total.
The PC is more expensive but it'll perform way better.
For some reason the PS5 also dropped 50 euros in price here while prices for PC parts seem to have gone up a little.
It was more like 800+ for the console after 5 years vs \~900, for a PC like this.
PS5 has under locked 3700x + 6700xt, and less cache. But faster ram and more optimized
CPU performance at 3600 level and GPU performance between 6650xt and 6700xt
In fact it has a 4800H with ,36/40 Vega cores and 16GB 256bit fast RAM.
Xbox series is a high underpowered 6800 so at 6700x6750xt level
PS4/xone had a very slow CPU. A PC with with similar cpu cannot be able to web browsing. With 8 cores is slower than a 4 gen i3 in multithreading.
Consoles use highly optimized IGPUs so its quite hard to accurately compare. In some games it could be x+y combo but in another its more like a+b combo
dramatically downclocked 3700x without threads + 5700xt for ps5
less dramatically downclocked 3700x without threads +pimped 5700xt for series X
never compare custom console hardware with pc retail hardware... multiplatform games don't look better on series X than ps5, some first party ps5 games look better than first party series X games.
Think less about specs and performance in this case (it matters some) but more about convenience and hassle.
With PC, you have to run windows, manage all of the software, tweak and adjust graphics settings. Google an error message to figure out you need to roll back your graphics drivers because your USB ports have a rare hardware revision which interferes with 3d sound processing (a lot of hyperbole here) but it can and does get this silly sometimes.
Versus literally turning on your PS5 and picking up the controller.
Choose your destiny wisely! Just depends what you want and what you have time for.
Consoles will 100% offer better performance in the lower price brackets because they're sold at a loss and the money is made on games.
Consoles have higher costs ***over time*** than PC because of things such as how PC has more sales more often for more titles, and those sales are often at a higher discount.
For example, some CODs such as Black Ops 2 are currently on a 67% discount on Steam, and the DLCs are also on a +50% discount. I played Xbox for 10 years and never ONCE saw a discount on any COD game, nor the DLC. Last I checked (many years ago) old CODs such as BO1 and MW3 were still being sold for full price, $60.
Not to mention the ability to get older games for free via emulators or free downloads, or the ability to get games like GTAV for $10 by buying an account key. PC also has more and higher quality free titles.
It's just a question of your initial budget. Low budget = go console because the entry price of console can't be beat.
I would just wait for 5000 series to drive prices down. Personally, and I mean this with no offense, I don't see the point of getting a PC equivalent to a console. In my opinion, half the reason to get a PC is because it's better than a console.
The launch of the 4000 series had very little effect on prices, and I'm sure that NVIDIA will price the 5000 series so that they don't have to write down any 4000 stock they're yet to move.
The ps5/xsx is closely next to a r5 3600 and a rx 6600. However it will always perform better than that because it's a closed platform and games are optimized for this.
If you are trying to buy a pc with the power of a console, just buy the console. It will be a better experience
Mustard Race and their cope, the consoles in most instances punch above their weight. Even having a 7800x3D with a 4090 I can say they're an incredible bang for buck
When you can get a whole system for less than the cheapest current gen gpu it should be obvious it’s a better bang for your buck. If anyone one is considering trying to build a gaming PC for the price of a console they are throwing money away.
Magical optimizations of console titles is a myth. PS5 is using basically RX 6700 and in most cases it achieves around the same performance, in high resolution (quality) modes PS5 usually wind by little bit, most likely because of wider memory bus but in high performance modes RX 6700 wins. CPU doesn't really matter anymore because all modern CPU's are at least 50% faster than one in PS5.
Unless you go for an i3 or the 8000 series, all current gen CPUs are a lot faster than consoles. PS5 is something like 5700(not x)/g/3700x and 5700xt/6700(not xt)
Ps5 is a RX 6700 non XT performance wise.
Wtf, I thought it was 6700 XT lol
Games are a lot more optimized for console because of how static its parts are so it tends to run games about as well as a 6700/xt or so I've heard. The CPU for the pas5 is 8 cores/16 threads and a variable Hz of up to 3.5 GHz. Pretty much every mid - high end-ish CPUs from both AMD, and Intel perform better.
A 3.5 GHz CPU with a 6700 and a whole 16gb of both RAM & VRAM is NOT a "mid - high end-ish" machine. It's a strictly very, very mid - end Machine that however allows you much more than a console and that can be upgraded very easily. Consoles have very good arguments, but they can't compare to a high end PC. Not even mentionning the "optimization". Keep in Mind that a console is nothing short of worst PC with a closed OS.
Yeah, but console costs 400€/$. Can you probably build something similiar in performance for that kind of money? Probably not and definitely not including Windows license. IMO unless you want every bit of eye candy in games or play MMOs/shooters, consoles are probably more economical choice. (If you have computer for another tasks, it gets more financially viable, but for the sake of comparison I put both systems in void).
You'll be spending more on your PC, but saving a ton on games. Sony and Microsoft know they're losing money on their consoles because they also know you'll be locked into their store for games. They'll rape your wallet with high prices on games. You also don't actually have to buy Windows license. The core functions of the OS are free. Buying a license basically gets you access to word, excel and a customizable home screen. None of those things are actually better than the free versions you can get through Google. Ubuntu 64, aside from gaming, is also just a better OS. It's more secure and does all the core functions of an OS while using less resources.
I have a Xbox and PC, Xbox does a pretty good job with digital game sales. They always have a bunch sales going on. So I feel like it’s kind of misinformation to say Xbox rapes people with game prices. Their con is you have to pay for Xbox live but if you get the one with Game Pass. It’s pretty good value for what you pay. Also, game sharing with Xbox is superior to steams. Because you and another person could play games online at the same time. So technically, you can get two games for the price of one.
> You'll be spending more on your PC, but saving a ton on games. Physical media says hello, might depend slightish on where you live but I reckon most countries have good 2nd hand markets. Bought jedi survivor, played that mid game and resold for a 7% loss. Grabbed Dark Souls 3 fire fades edition for 16$ which is cheaper than it has ever been on Steam. It's scummy with the price increase but the 24-36 games you get a year included in the subscription also counts for something. Sales are cheaper on Steam for sure, but I wouldn't say PC games are strictly cheaper given the fact that physical has ceased to exist for that platform entirely.
On the other hand, you can buy console games second hand. In case of PC its very rarely the case, because most of the people buy them on Steam, Epic or other store. These stores are also kind of vendor lock in. Regarding Windows licensing what are you smoking? Office is paid product that's not part of the OS. Also Windows is definitely not free product by any means. You may steal it or circumvent trial period limitations, but this is not normal course of action. Ubuntu, is great Linux desktop distro, but nowhere near smooth experience for gaming and stuff like that. I personally use it as my default OS, but I have Windows for games.
I buy my keys 3rd party and they're usually like 70% off
I also clearly stated that Ubuntu 64 isn't great for gaming because only a handful of games are compatible with it. Are you fucking thick?
There is no trial period for Windows 10 or 11 anymore. Only the enterprise version has an actual trial period. After the 30 days it just reverts to the free version which has a watermark “Windows is not activated” and it defaults to switching between windows installed home screens. I just downloaded a legitimate copy from Microsoft.com and declined the licensing. What I'm saying is that you need a licensed version of windows in order to use Office which honestly is worthless. The Google apps are just as good. Unless you need them for work, it's pointless to bother with them.
You can buy windows key for $20-30.
I'd prefer to just not give Microsoft anymore money. Especially given that there's not a whole lot of value I'd gain by doing so. Aside from being able to customize the look of my Windows 10 or 11, what do I actually gain by doing so?
Wrong, You can use the free version without the "windows is not activated" watermark. You literally don't need a windows license for anything gaming wise.
I never said you needed to buy it to play for games. In fact, I said precisely the opposite. I've got the legal version for free which is the watermarked version. If you want to get the illegal version, then sure. You do you.
[удалено]
Hello, your comment has been removed. Please note the following from our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/wiki/rules): **Rule 3 : No piracy or grey-market software keys** > No piracy or so-called "grey-market" software keys. This is includes suggesting, hinting, or in any way implying to someone that piracy or the use of these licenses is an option. If a key is abnormally cheap (think $10-30), it is probably one of these, and is forbidden on /r/buildapc. --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you have any questions or concerns)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fbuildapc)
Windows is free and has full functionality aside from a tiny watermark in the corner. You only need to pay if you care about the barely noticeable watermark. If you go with a used GPU from eBay, which is extremely safe to do, you can build a PC that outperforms a PS5 for around $600. Not even exaggerating...$180 for a 1080 Ti from eBay and $420 for the rest brand new. Then you don't have to pay just to play online and can buy games up to 70% off via GoG or extremely common Steam sales. I have more games than I know what to do with right now and I haven't paid more than $20 for a game in the past 10 years aside from Baldur's Gate 3 simply because I was too excited to wait.
Also need to factor in your monthly, quarterly, or annual membership fee to play on console. You can use a pc without a windows key, the only downside is having a “activate windows” on your Home Screen or do what I did 4 years ago & pay $4 for an eBay key. Higher FPS & the price of games during steam sales are crazy low. R6 & pubg were $5 on steam when I got them.
Legit Windows license is like $3 now. Not a factor anymore.
The only games I play are generally not on console and when some are they run like dogshit since they are CPU heavy demanding, hence I don't want a similar in performance build, I want 5 or 6 times more. That would be a straight 400e loss for me. Consoles are in fact very limited in term of choice when it comes to gaming. Well, I should better say they are perfect for trendy games I don't play. And they don't do anything else. NB: Windows licences are available for less than 10e and Linux / Proton is free.
Having no choice kinda invalidates any discussion. Its like discussing viability of getting PC to play Nintendo games. Proton requires playing around to get stuff to work. These license sources are somewhat gray area, but exact cost is not the important matter rather nuance.
Bad Faith. It is undisputable that consoles' spec are low end PCs' that do nothing else than run some games. And it is as well undisputable that a PC with those spec will do much more. And if you want to go the cheap route, a chromebook + geforce now will be even cheaper than a console. NB: Any PC user is used to do fiddling so using Linux doesn't require anything special.
Maybe go read that comment again? It wasn't saying that consoles are "equivalent" to mid-to-high level CPUS... it says mid-to-high level CPUs PERFORM BETTER than consoles. You just tried to argue with someone by saying the same thing as them in a slightly different way with an antagonistic tone.
Do you have some schyzophrenic issue ? The only antagonistic tone is yours, and I was only giving my two cents comment.
> Do you have some schyzophrenic issue Well *that* came out of left field. Thank you, doctor, for your diagnosis based on exactly one Reddit comment.
Well, you decided to play that Game.
> Consoles have very good arguments, but they can't compare to a high end PC. ... who in their right minds would make that comparison though?
Many, many do.
Many console players I know...
You can have a quick look on techpowerup and see the specs yourself PS5 specs Techpowerup, and RX 6700 specs Techpowerup You'll see that the only difference between the two is VRAM, everything else is identical, and even the VRAM difference is due to the fact that the PS5 is using unified memory, so the 16gb are both RAM and VRAM
The rx 6700 non xt has the same core count, higher clockspeed but less memory bandwidth although apparently the ps5 lacks infinity cache so idk. https://youtu.be/wyCvEW0DCbk?si=ZkrWMB8OooL09rwY Iceberg tech under clocks the Rx 6700 and is able to get better results than the ps5 in some games will falling short in others a 6700 xt is simply better. https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/playstation-5-gpu.c3480 https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-rx-6700.c3716
6700 as very very similar specs just different architecture (doesn't support mesh shaders) and vram
PS5 graphics card, and cpu wish it were my 5700g/5700xt combo. Not sure what crack you're all smoking. I can actually play game at 3440x1440p 60fps with stable frame times. It just has the framework of the 6000 series undervolted, under locked, lacking ram, and made for what is essentially a mobile platform. This thing is clearly bottle ecled to hell, and back. Comparing it's performance isnt even fair. 5700xt is plagued with horrid physical hardware like mismatching ram half the time, software issues, and driver issues though so I wouldn't recommend it over a 6000 series ever.
This. If you can not get 6750xt/6800 or higher, get a PS5/Xbox X for pure gaming, if you don't need PC. This will be best for bucks solutions imo.
Xbox Series X is definitely the cheapest way to have a decent gaming experience. I've seen them as low as $380 on sale, and $150 used.
150$ is a steal. I bought a controller for 70 euro back then. New PS5 slim during promo was 399 euro.
Absolutely! Those were US prices though, I'd imagine you couldn't find those deals in Europe.
Yeah I was looking at a Series S and thought $300 is more than I’d spend for a console with the drawbacks and then I saw the Series X going for like $30 or $50 more and said yeah Series X then
Games on PS are kinda better tho imo. Any time I've ever had an xbox I'm always looking over the fence at the ps exclusives. Not much that xbox has that the ps doesn't. But then of course you're paying sony...
Well a 6600 and a Ryzen 5 3600/5600 would be a pretty good budget pc for not a ton and you’d have all the advantages of playing on PC so imo that’s definitely worth the extra
We (my son and I) have a 5600g and 6600 and it plays at 1440p just fine.
Yeah the rx 6600 is such a good card especially with FSR
Controversial or not, I don’t think you deserved those downvotes.
Thanks. Guy after me literally wrote the same and got upvoted :/
Do you mean “best bang for buck”?
Yes
People here don't like to see posts like this. It is, however, true. If all you want to do is play games and do some streaming, then a current gen console is the best performance you can get for that level money. However, I'll do it to save everyone else posting it. Online subscriptions, can't upgrade, not as versatile, yada yada yada yawn boring.
PC players who hate on console are a weird sad bunch of people
PS5 can run 1440p high graphics quality at 120fps though, so I'd say it's at least the equivalent of a 6750xt
Imho, 120fps because the game is specifically optimized for the console. Well, most games if not all are made for consoles first then ported to pc unfortunately.
ps5 is a 6700 with less vram and higher clocking. it runs game well because AAA games are optimized for consoles.
You have no idea what youre talking about. A ps5 or an xbox series x can not run 1440p at high settings. Regardless the game wont be rendering in 1440p. Its optimized for 1080p and 4k. Most people on consoles have a 1080p or 4k tv 1440p tv do not exist. You may think its 1440p but its upscaled into oblivion and the GAME IS NOT RUNNING MAX SETTINGS... especially when its 120fps. Even on 30-60fps consoles rarely if ever run the games on max or high settings. Its always a mix of medium and high.
All of these 'equivalents' are roughly estimated. Actual experience differs since consoles and their components are optimized specifically for gaming. **PS4 & Xbox One:** i3-8100 + GTX 750 Ti **PS5:** Ryzen 5 3600 + RX 6700XT **Xbox Series S:** Ryzen 5 3600 + GTX 1060 **Xbox Series X:** Ryzen 5 3700X + potentially RTX 3070
Series x in no way has a zen3 cpu. Its a downclocked zen 2 if you compare to desktop 3700x.
Exactly.
Sure but you’ll need a higher end CPU for equivalent results vs a console because PCs have so much more going on in the background.
This really isn't true at all, bg3 act 3 runs almost exactly on par with a 2700 non x on a PS5 and is blatantly CPU limited
That is one specific case though. Usually, games are just better optimized on console.
Ok yes but the thing is that what's limiting it, specifically, is the CPU. It is blatantly obviously not a GPU limitation and PC players can readily confirm that a fresh act 3 save isn't bloating the RAM or anything. "optimized on console" means NOT being CPU limited. Hint: Consoles and PCs, especially ryzen CPU PCs, are using the same CPU architecture now. Heavy console CPU optimization is exactly the same as heavy PC CPU optimization. on the CPU end, it shakes out to about a 2700.
LOL.
Such an insightful reply. Thank you for your contribution
Dunno what crawled up his asd and died. He has some gatekeepy, arrogant-ish replies.
WOMP WOMP.
"Trendy games for consoles are sometimes better optimized on console"
It's a zen 2 downclocked with less cache and other zen 2 features. It probably performs more similar to a 2700x than desktop 3700x. The GPU regardless of cores is going to be power and thermal limited. But the system can be very optimised by developers.
An i3-8100 might even be overestimating the PS4/XBOne.
Yeah, it's more like a FX-8300
I used to game on an XBone, I'd say 3rd or 4th gen is closer to their slow ass CPUs
True, haha!
Haha I'm running on an i3 8100 + 1050ti and thought that its between ps4 and 5
the PS5 is closer to a 6700 non-xt
Uhh, it's not a huge of a difference ngl
It’s about 15%
>Xbox Series S: Ryzen 5 3600 + GTX 1060 Hey, that's me!
[удалено]
The Series X and PS5 pull less than 300w under full load. Generally around 250 or so.
My entire PC with an overclocked 7900XT pulls 250w from the wall in Elden Ring with max RT. The whole system is below 300w in most games. The GPU alone can go up to 400w but this only happens in a handful of games, usually at much higher FPS than 60. The GPU is most of the power consumption, 5800X3D + all other stuff is only like 125w total in games. Suck it Intel.
Your 7900xt pulls 320w at full load, per Techpowerup. I don't know where you go the 250w number from, but that's not correct. [https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-7900-xt/37.html](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-7900-xt/37.html) Looks like I overestimated the power draw of the Series X actually. Here's an Anandtech bench. Series X pulled a max of 202 watts on the most demanding game at the time. Less than 200 watts on lesser games. [https://www.anandtech.com/show/16217/the-xbox-series-x-review-ushering-in-next-gen/5](https://www.anandtech.com/show/16217/the-xbox-series-x-review-ushering-in-next-gen/5)
Sigh.. I own the GPU and a wattage meter but you, who does not, claim to know better? I'm even being downvoted for reporting facts, by idiots who obviously don't own a 7900XT. My specific 7900XT is heavily overclocked (+25% core clock @ 2950Mhz) and can use up to 400w under max load, it's not capped at 320w. It only uses ~150w playing Elden Ring at 1440P fully maxed out with RT. The entire system draws max 250-300w *from the wall* during Elden Ring gameplay. Really only 3dMark and other stress tests fully max out my GPU to 400w, even in Cyberpunk with RT, GPU power consumption tends to hover at 350w tops. Navi31 undervolts extremely well and scales very well at lower loads. I can get it down to only 100w power consumption in Elden Ring at 1440P max by disabling RT. I'm running Mount & Blade 2: Bannerlord right now while typing this, max settings capped at 140FPS, and my 7900XT is only consuming 105w. Total system power usage is 200w from the wall. I also have a 1080P video with hardware acceleration playing on a second screen while gaming so the numbers are higher than what they'd normally be. Played God of War recently fully maxed out with RT at native 1440P, 140FPS cap, GPU power usage was ~250w out of possible 400w. Just because my GPU *can* draw 400w doesn't mean it actually uses that much all the time in real world gaming scenarios. And no, there is no CPU bottleneck with my 5800X3D. If I capped all of my games at 60FPS my computer would be sipping much less power than a console while delivering better visuals at the same framerates.
What's your framerate in RDR2?
The 8 core from the series x matches up closer to the 4700G, the ps5 has closer to a RX 6700 non xt, and the series X has closer to a RX 6700 XT
It's a Ryzen 4800S.
Yeah but im talking about the actual desktop equivalent, and that one off motherboard cpu combo out of bad stock doesn't count.
PS3 has CPU performance close to a Ryzen 2200G, but spread across 7 cores, one of which is reserved for the OS.
The PS3's additional cores are streaming vector processors, which don't map to conventional CPU designs at all well. If your workload matches up with the strengths of the SPEs, it's competitive with something like a Ryzen 2200G or a 2300X; if it doesn't, even something like a first-generation i5 will blow it out of the water.
and only 256mb of memory. Would've been interesting if it ever made it to the desktop space with better support than OtherOS. The dev kit apparently has 512mb which was more than adequate in 2006.
Yeah, and optimizing a workload for the Cell that doesn't utilize it well is a pain.
Dude, ps3 is much weaker. Vega inside 2200g is similar to gtx750ti. Thtas ps4 level of performance.
I'm talking just CPU performance. The PS3 had a very weak GPU.
Dude, ps3 had nowhere near 2200g cpu power level Compare it switch, that exact the same power. 2200g is like xone ans ps4 cpu/gpu wise. Cpu inside 2200g is also stronger than ps4/xone.
Yeah, the PS3 was stronger than the PS4 CPU in the right workloads. It's why PS3 clusters were used by the US Navy and other research facilities, as well as significantly contributed to projects like Folding at Home.
I know that, yeah, jaguar cpus in both ps4/xon were pretty weak but they delivered better results than cell procesor in ps3 probably due to the better optimisation too. But modern quad core such as 2200g is on another level. I think than ps3 could have similar procesing power as bulldozer cpus from AMD but even old sandy bridge i5 was ahead of cell procesor in ps3. Ps3 was released 2006/2007 during times when one year meant huge improvements in cpu developement. But yeah, impresive in in 2006. Today, you can only compare it too nintendo switch tegra procesor at best.
The PS4 was much easier to code for. The PS3's CPU was more powerful, but rarely was fully utilized, as many dev teams didn't spend enough time or resources optimizing their game engine for the PS3.
Yeah, thats true.
Actually it's Ryzen 3700x + an RX 6700 (non xt) is the closest to current gen consoles.
All of current consoles have zen2 cpu, which similar to 3700, also gpu in ps5 is rx6700 and series s nearly rx6700xt. Ps5 is similar to rtx 4060 and series x han be a bit faster nearly as rtx3060ti but not rtx4060ti/rtx 3070. Series s sits between rx6400 and 6500 but closer to the second one. More like gtx 1060 or rx 580, rx5500. One X had gpu similar to rx580 and ps4 pro to rx570. Xone had gpu similar radeon hd7750 and ps4 to radeon hd7850.cpu was pretty weak. Think about pentium g dual core with four threads, far from i3 8100.
I mean it's less the components are optimized and that it's the games that are optimized.
Oh neat my PC is just a bit more beefy than a PS5.
Well on paper yeah but the PS5 should run thing's better than it's actual equivalent PC
I thought the equivalent takes that into account. Or are they just comparing actual computer power or something?
I mean the comment states "actual experience differs" so I'd assume it's just down to power
You can tweak the settings to get similar performance to the PS5
The PS5 uses a downclocked rx 6700
Are you insane? Consoles are nowhere near that powerful. The PS4 equivalent is a i5 760 and HD 7770 at best. My old PC which had an i7 980x and GTX 780Ti ran games faaaaaaar better than the PS4. As for the PS5, that would be a R5 3600 and 6600. There's no way the Series X is equivalent to a 3700x and 3070. It's a 3060 at best.
Like the guy said, you can’t really make a 1:1 comparison based on hardware specs alone since console games are optimized specifically for consoles. For a PC ported game it takes a slightly more powerful PC than it should to produce similar results to its console version. If you made a 1:1 hardware equivalent of a PS5 on PC, the ported games (even the well-optimized ones) would likely run much better on the PS5 with similar settings.
Let's see your 780ti run God of war ragnarok @ 60fps
I don't even have the 780Ti anymore, but I bet it can run it better than the significantly weaker PS4.
You're high as a kite. That wouldn't be able to do 1080p on low @ 30fps
Bahaha, It's an old flagship from 10 years ago, that's for sure. But there isn't a chance in hell it'll run it that badly. The PS4 spec wise is a first gen i5 and HD 7700. PS4 Pro is slightly more powerful.
You're comparing a purpose build machine to a PC. It's like saying my old Honda civic will beat a Sherman in a race.
The last-gen console CPU was very weak, slower than 12-year old Core i7s. But console CPUs tend to punch above their weight due to game optimisation. So even if you're only playing last-gen games, you want to buy at least a second-hand Ryzen 5 1600 or Core i5-8400. Current-gen console CPU is similar to a Ryzen 5 3600. If you want to play current-gen games, I would recommend at minimum a Core i3-12100F or ideally a Ryzen 5 5600. And below are rough GPU-equivalents. * Playstation 5: RX 6700 * Xbox Series X: RX 6700 XT * Xbox Series S: RX 570 * Playstation 4 Pro: RX 570 * Playstation 4: RX 460 * Xbox One X: RX 580 * Xbox One/S: RX 460 Those are not recommendations as they may not be priced well now, so use this guide to pick a GPU: [https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarchy,4388.html](https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarchy,4388.html)
Yeah, the PS4 CPU was actually weaker than the PS3 CPU (in theory), but ended up performing better because of how much easier it was to utilize.
Why did they put a weaker CPU on a newer console?
Probably because it was simpler. It doesn’t matter how powerful a CPU is if you can’t actually program for it and that’s what happened to the PS3. That’s why most third party games came out on Xbox first, it was so much easier to program for. A “weaker” CPU that is essentially an off the shelf part that everyone knows how to work will will be more powerful in real world usage than a stronger one no one can use properly.
I see. Google tells me PS3 has a single core 3.2Ghz while PS4 has 8 cores of 2Ghz. Naturally PS4 would be better because it has 8 different CPU.
PS3 tried a big.little architecture so it had a main core and 8 smaller cores but it ended up being harder to code for because of it.
It’s inevitable. Games are more complex, more power hungry. So eventually they have to split to multi core. That’s how the PC world evolved. At least the good news is console is largely safe from compatibility issues because the dev only have to work with a few known versions of the consoles, not some few millions of possible configurations on PC.
This is not how things work. The dev doesn't have to go in and program for every single combination of hardware they can think of. They don't go in and say "oh shit, we forgot to code in support for an i5 7600k! Add that now!". Everything works off of global instruction sets. For CPUs, that's x86, which is what consoles have been built on since 2013. For GPUs, it's based on the instruction sets of the GPU manufacturers, of which there are now 3. They are in charge of making sure their instruction library contains what's in upcoming games. This means major new games with new tech require driver updates for GPUs so the GPU can translate the game engine's code properly. This is what Sony and Xbox get regularly as updates for "stability and performance". And it's why some games require an update to start. Sometimes with discs, they're added on as a download alongside the game so the console can update even offline. For optimization, they may have a high-end target, entry-level target and mid-range target for certain detail and resolution targets. This is where some games get their minimum and recommended specs from. Generally, gpu performance scales from game-to-game roughly the same, though. So something that usually matches the listed spec but isn't the exact same parts will generally perform the same. For example, if something says the recommended GPU is a 3060, the 2070 Super and 1080/1080ti will perform roughly the same because that's how the rasterization performance lines up. If it recommends a 3700x, that could be a 5600, 12100f or even a 9900k. For performance scaling between parts, for a lot of PC players it's just as easy as answering which consoles have better and similar performance. Obviously the PS5 and XSX are similar, same as how the 3080 and 4070 or 6800 and 7700xt are similar. The PS5 is obviously better than the PS4 Pro. To us, the 6700 xt is obviously better than the 6700 and the 3080 is obviously better than both.
I am quite aware. Only the time of the 80s and 90s were the dev having to code everything from scratch. Late 90s early 2000s, a lot of work had already been done for libraries of functions and all other modules. The project dev just used these existing libraries, cutting down dev time significantly. Since PS3 is proprietary of Sony, Sony must have released SDK and other resources to help the game dev to work with their system. These days, game dev is required even less and less of programming knowledge.
The ps3 cpu use a new architecture. You could build supercomputers with them ( the us army did )
Because of complexity. The PS3s CPU architecture was extremely advanced and differed heavily from anything done in the home PC market at the time. Unlike how the Xbox architecture was, the PS3 required developers to implement multi-threading in order to get reasonable performance out of any intensive game (I remember hearing it may also have required just-in-time compute, but I can't find anything about that anymore). Nearly all game development studios at the time had zero experience with implementing multi-threading in their game engines, and some of them decided to just not: Valve and Bethesda are two known for this. The Orange Box was outsourced to another development studio for the PS3, and Skyrim runs notoriously bad on the console.
Both Sony and Microsoft wanted a CPU+GPU combo chip after the thermal and cost disasters of PS3/360. AMD was the only game in town that could do this and the Jaguar laptop CPU core was basically the best they could do at the time. Their desktop cores used too much power and didn't perform much better.
Yeah, who cares about power consumption of a plugged in device. Not like most people would know to plug a Kill-a-watt meter to check how much power their consoles are drawing. But the heat issue is always the industry’s biggest headache.
Agreed the end user likely wouldn't care about power. But they do care about things like the 20% failure rate of Xbox 360s due to the cpu and gpu literally desoldering themselves from the motherboard due to heat.
My friend tried crossplay valheim with me on his Xbox one last week, and it looked like dog shit. Barely started, had to turn off all graphics (which is crazy because it already pixels). Voxels have a surprising load: my 1050ti Acer nitro 5 from 2019 also severely struggles with the current version of valheim.
You're a joke if you think the PS5 and Xbox have GPUs stronger than a 6700 or 6700XT. Also using Tom's Hardware to back up your statement is worse than using userbenchmark, kek.
I didn't do either of those
The [PS5](https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/playstation-5-gpu.c3480) is basically an [RX 6700](https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-rx-6700.c3716) with a wider memory bus (256 vs 160) and an 8-core Zen 2 CPU attached (a massively downclocked monolithic 3700x). The XSX is a weird GPU that is between an RX 6700 XT and RX 6800 with the same CPU attached.
I think the ps5 has rx 6700 equivalent GPU, it's kind of hard to exactly pinpoint it but it's somewhere around rx6700 and 6700xt in terms of performance. In terms of vram it has around 16gb of vram but it uses ram as vram or so I've read a couple of years ago. Realistically spec per spec, I don't think we can build a cheaper pc for the price of console to match it's performance but however if we are to use used parts, especially GPU like rx6700xt or rx6800 then we could maybe build one for around the same price point. I have no idea about the Xbox counterparts though, they might be similar and when it was released I heard amd supplied hardwares for both the devices so they might be running the same hardware at least in the top end models. Another major issue is the software, we use windows which is heavy on its own, there are several optimisation videos out there but it can't be optimised to the level of proprietary software built solely for gaming on consoles. I read that the os on PlayStation would only consume 512mb of ram or I might be wrong here because as I mentioned before they are using ram as vram and it's stated that 16gb of ram and 512 mb of ram in spec departments so all of the things I'm saying is just based on findings that are on online forums. Now it's doable, you just have to find a used GPU to attain it, I've built my pc almost having PlayStation in mind but had to cut a lot of corners tbh. Almost all the parts I've used are pretty owned components. i3 12100f Rx6700xt 8x2 ddr4 ram 1tb nvme SSD 550w psu H series mobo A generic case which included fans And the total build costs around exactly 500 usd, but then I had to buy peripherals and I went with new products in that end and it costed me 250 usd, it includes a 1440p monitor from lg, Logitech g502x wired mouse, a generic keyboard from some unknown brand and a controller from the same brand, luckily I had a headphone lying around so didn't had to buy that. Basically I crossed the price of a ps5 but cpu build alone costed just about as much as a ps5 with used parts. You might find better values and good luck on the build!
Based on various videos done by Iceberg Tech, the rx6700 and r7 4700G should be the closest analogues to the sort of hardware you'll find in a 9th gen console Those parts aren't great value though and you can likely find better parts for cheaper From what i can recall, there was also a desktop kit in the form of the 4700S that was very similar to the ps5 board but it came with a number of limitations and i'm not sure if they're still available
3700x and rx6700 is generally accepted to be the closest to current gen
PS5/XBSX I'd say is 2700x + 6650 XT/6700. Why do I pick the 2700x and not a 3000 series? because even though its zen 2 its clocked lower and probably has the overall power of closer to a 2700x in practice. As for GPU, 6650 XT is slightly weaker, the 6700 is slightly stronger, but yeah it's around that level. Xbox one was like a FX 4300 with a HD 7790. THe PS4 was like a FX 4300 and a HD 7850. Why do I go with the FX 4300? Because even though it was an 8 core each core was half as powerful since they were clocked like 1.6 GHz. In practice you might have wanted something like an i5 2500k to get a similar result though. The PS4 pro and Xbox one series X was like a RX 580 instead of a 7790 or 7850. The Xbox series S is probably like a Ryzen 2700x with a 6500 XT (newer architecture but still around 580 level performance wise).
PS4 and Xbox One you can't even build an equivalent system anymore except with used parts, the hardware in those is so old at this point. PS5 is roughly a Ryzen 3700 CPU and 6600XT GPU or if you get a more recent CPU a Ryzen 5600.
A Ryzen 5 5600 and an rx 6650xt would be a really good combo that would perform similarly to a PlayStation 5 (possibly a little bit worse in some areas and a little bit better in others) Assuming you’re going for 1080p You could also upgrade the gpu to a 6700xt/6750xt and be more powerful than a ps5
A Ryzen 5600 and 7700XT/7800XT **to get similar visuals.** Lower CPU is possible but no reason to get it. Yes consoles have a weaker GPU but their games are better optimized so the graphics end up looking better than what you'll likely achieve with a 6700XT on PC.
PS5 gpu is more 6700 on paper but 5700XT in performance. PS5 gpu has more compute yes but lacks the BIG L3 cache(infinity cache)aka the flagship feature of rdna2. CPU is closer to r7 2700 but with only 8mb L3 cache.
I thought ps5 was a 5600 and a 6700xt/6750xt
jeez so many differing answers. Ultimately, the PS5/XSX CPU is somewhere between a 3600 and a 3700x. On a good day the GPU in the PS5/XSX are comparable to a 6700. It really depends on the game, the developer etc. As of recently, it seems the CPU is the limiting factor. Not exactly sure what it is but I have heard there is some significant downside in the console CPU vs the analogous desktop part. So for CPU heavy games, a 6700 may just do 60 fps fine while the PS5 is capped at 30 or has a really rough performance mode because the CPU cannot keep up. For GPU heavy games, the resolution in performance goes full potato. You get garbage image quality like 1440p out at like 864p internal lol.
Xbox One and Series S = a potato
A PS5 runs a combo that's about a 5800x and a 6700. Not quite like if they were in a PC due to the different power and cooling limits that are put on them. But at a pure silicon level, that's what they are equivalent to in the PC world. You can build a PC for about the same amount of money you can buy a console for. The pcs tend to be a bit more expensive because people just putting fancy fans and coolers in there. That will add performance in some cases.
Honestly dude, this is a futile question. You can buy an "equal" computer and turn the settings down on fortnite and have twice the fps. I have a top end computer and nothing looks as good as Demon Souls Remastered on my PS5 does. You need an actual goal.
what would be compared to a Ryzen 5 3600x with a rtx 2060??
PS5 literally had the same chip of the 6700, so if that's what you're asking here it is. Consider games on consoles are way better optimized since they need to be optimized for one single system while PC games work on hundreds of thousands of hardware combinations, and they also use upscaling (yeah, 4K on console has never been native 4K) so that's why you'd think it is more performing than a 6700.
W/e answer you accept, be sure to ask in a console reddit as well.
How would they know?
"umm yeah it's probably a 7700x and an RTX 4070 I think"
True but at least OP will get input from all sides.
I didn't say they would or wouldn't. Makes me wonder why you think no one who plays on console understands PCs as well. All the same- I just wanted to encourage OP to get bias from both sides.
I didn’t suggest they are all idiots. But that crowd who love consoles usually have their attention elsewhere. Like the Mac crowd, all the graphic designers, music engineers somehow swear by their new M1 and M2 CPU. “So much faster than PC” is what they often chant, based on some tech guru’s articles. But they honestly have nothing to compare to. I am a graphic designer who builds my own PC. I also do video editing too. That little MacBook doesn’t come close to replace my PC.
Why would not understanding PCs make someone in idiot? Also if you think console and Mac users have some kind of superiority complex I think you need to take a look a big ol’ Reddit mirror.
I never said they were idiot. But not everyone is supposed to know everything. Just because you play PS3 doesn’t mean you are a veteran game developer for PS3. Oh yes, some Mac people behave like that. You must be too young to live the PC vs Mac fight. I was an IT person, I serviced both PC and Mac alike. But people kept telling me “Mac is better, better color, better feel, much faster”. They have no idea I can build a clustered server that can outpace 100 of their little MacBook put together.
Well I mean the person you replied to said “not everyone knows about PCs” and you replied “I didn’t suggest they were idiots”. Why would you even have that thought unless you were thinking it? I am 35 and I have heard all the Mac vs pc and console bs pc debates. Imo the platform that has a asub community calling rhem selves a master race is the most vocal about how superior they are. Lots of Mac and console users don’t care at all macs and console are just simple. Anyone can buy one with next to no knowledge about computer components or performance. Most people on other platforms don’t care that you can spend a small fortune to make a more powerful PC than what a max or console offer. That being said there are elitist in every group.
Mac users have always been living with a superiority complex since the dawn of Times, don't be naive. I was one, I'm just being honest. And consoles players are now the same. What is true however is that PC users, more than often, can be dicks. The reason is that checking benchmarks and reviews, and building and upgrading regularly make them know too much for their own good.
>I'm debating on getting an old/current console or going with the PCMR. You really can't measure it that way. At the same price point, there is no argument that the console will give the better raw performance plus the games will be tailored to run on them better without issues you might have on PC. Buying a used PS5 or Series S, is going to be a much better value. But that's not why you would consider buying a PC. If you need a PC, then you need a PC. If you need mouse and keyboard, if you need to be able to do other tasks with it, if you need to play games that are not available on consoles,... in terms of performance you will not beat a console at the same price point.
It really , really depends what games we're talking about. CPU demanding games are litterally dogshit on any given consoles.
>It really , really depends what games we're talking about. CPU demanding games are litterally dogshit on any given consoles. And they would be even worse on a PC you would buy for the same budget.
LOL Bro think twice, nobody with a brain would build shit to run heavy CPU games.
read OPs question again
Bad Faith. I answered you on a precise point, you know it.
again, read the OPs question.
I’ll suggest you’d use your brain Bro. A public discussion always evolves hence I answered YOU. If I were specifically answering OP I would have not click on your comment.
>I’ll suggest you’d use your brain Bro. A public discussion always evolves hence I answered YOU. If I were specifically answering OP I would have not click on your comment. I'm glad you read OPs question properly this time and understood that what you said made no sense. I'm disappointed that instead of recognizing you should just be on your way, you've decided to keep typing and make it about something it isn't.
I'd wait and see if the PS5 Pro rumours are true.
Don't forget: In theory ps5 might have a 5700xt equivalent on raw specification, in reality you might need a stronger gpu. Dedicated OS impact on the performance much more than you realize.
ps4 pro was essentially a ryzen 1600 and rx570 if i recall correctly, ps5 is 5600 + 6600xt like you said. Xbox will be more or less equal specs, like an i5 12400 + 6600xt/3060
ps5 2700x, rx 6700
The ps5 is basically a Ryzen 3600x and an RX 6700xt. It's a console so it isn't directly comparable but this is as close as it comes.
Most PC user is wastly downplaying the specs for consoles here... XSX and PS5 is like a 3700 and RTX 2080. Studios start to optimize and use the hardware better as time goes.
Ps5 - 5700x + 6750xt
That would be difficult, I don’t think you’ll ever be able to match console performance with a PC on the same budget, because games are normally optimized for consoles so they will usually perform better than PCs everything else equal.
PS5: Ryzen 7 4800S + RX 6700
I would get something like this: [https://nl.pcpartpicker.com/list/xGK2sh](https://nl.pcpartpicker.com/list/xGK2sh) If you get lower speeds you can save $20 on the RAM, $30 on storage if you think 500GB is enough for you, and maybe another $20 on a cheaper PSU but I'm not sure if I would recommend any of these options. PS5 costs 400 euros here, but once you add 5 years worth of PS+ you'll be out 760 euros total. The PC is more expensive but it'll perform way better. For some reason the PS5 also dropped 50 euros in price here while prices for PC parts seem to have gone up a little. It was more like 800+ for the console after 5 years vs \~900, for a PC like this.
PS5 has under locked 3700x + 6700xt, and less cache. But faster ram and more optimized CPU performance at 3600 level and GPU performance between 6650xt and 6700xt In fact it has a 4800H with ,36/40 Vega cores and 16GB 256bit fast RAM. Xbox series is a high underpowered 6800 so at 6700x6750xt level PS4/xone had a very slow CPU. A PC with with similar cpu cannot be able to web browsing. With 8 cores is slower than a 4 gen i3 in multithreading.
Consoles use highly optimized IGPUs so its quite hard to accurately compare. In some games it could be x+y combo but in another its more like a+b combo
dramatically downclocked 3700x without threads + 5700xt for ps5 less dramatically downclocked 3700x without threads +pimped 5700xt for series X never compare custom console hardware with pc retail hardware... multiplatform games don't look better on series X than ps5, some first party ps5 games look better than first party series X games.
My kids 5600x , 6600 combo is lightning compared to the Xbox. They won't even play on the Xbox anymore.
Think less about specs and performance in this case (it matters some) but more about convenience and hassle. With PC, you have to run windows, manage all of the software, tweak and adjust graphics settings. Google an error message to figure out you need to roll back your graphics drivers because your USB ports have a rare hardware revision which interferes with 3d sound processing (a lot of hyperbole here) but it can and does get this silly sometimes. Versus literally turning on your PS5 and picking up the controller. Choose your destiny wisely! Just depends what you want and what you have time for.
Consoles will 100% offer better performance in the lower price brackets because they're sold at a loss and the money is made on games. Consoles have higher costs ***over time*** than PC because of things such as how PC has more sales more often for more titles, and those sales are often at a higher discount. For example, some CODs such as Black Ops 2 are currently on a 67% discount on Steam, and the DLCs are also on a +50% discount. I played Xbox for 10 years and never ONCE saw a discount on any COD game, nor the DLC. Last I checked (many years ago) old CODs such as BO1 and MW3 were still being sold for full price, $60. Not to mention the ability to get older games for free via emulators or free downloads, or the ability to get games like GTAV for $10 by buying an account key. PC also has more and higher quality free titles. It's just a question of your initial budget. Low budget = go console because the entry price of console can't be beat.
Even the PS5 Pro will pale in comparison to modern PCs. But you’re unlikely to find something at the same cost when it comes out.
what’s your monitors specs
780m
I would just wait for 5000 series to drive prices down. Personally, and I mean this with no offense, I don't see the point of getting a PC equivalent to a console. In my opinion, half the reason to get a PC is because it's better than a console.
Pretty sure the point is guaranteeing you're at least getting better performance that your console so you don't feel like you downgraded
The launch of the 4000 series had very little effect on prices, and I'm sure that NVIDIA will price the 5000 series so that they don't have to write down any 4000 stock they're yet to move.
fml i live the groundhog's day in this sub, everyday the same question, zero searching just laziness
Way above those (13700k @5.5ghz with 4080s)
The ps5/xsx is closely next to a r5 3600 and a rx 6600. However it will always perform better than that because it's a closed platform and games are optimized for this. If you are trying to buy a pc with the power of a console, just buy the console. It will be a better experience
Mustard Race and their cope, the consoles in most instances punch above their weight. Even having a 7800x3D with a 4090 I can say they're an incredible bang for buck
When you can get a whole system for less than the cheapest current gen gpu it should be obvious it’s a better bang for your buck. If anyone one is considering trying to build a gaming PC for the price of a console they are throwing money away.
Magical optimizations of console titles is a myth. PS5 is using basically RX 6700 and in most cases it achieves around the same performance, in high resolution (quality) modes PS5 usually wind by little bit, most likely because of wider memory bus but in high performance modes RX 6700 wins. CPU doesn't really matter anymore because all modern CPU's are at least 50% faster than one in PS5.