News No, the Nvidia RTX 3080 didn’t just kill the PS5 and Xbox Series X

[admin]

A powerful gaming PC is ideal, but it's a lot of money and effort compared to just buying an PS5 or Xbox Series X.

No, the Nvidia RTX 3080 didn’t just kill the PS5 and Xbox Series X : Read more

 

[UA2K]

I read the article thoroughly, and i have to say, in my opinion, that some of the points that have been made are pretty pointless, and straight out put there to cater towards the console fans. Before the fanboys start frantically looking for their controller, trying to type from their PS4 browser in the most inconvenient way known to mankind, let me explain.

I don't believe, for a second, not even in my most delusional dreams, that a Ryzen 7 1800x will create a bottleneck with a 3070. If you don't believe me, you can check here, by putting a 2080ti in the 'Video Card' section . What you get is a 0.16% bottleneck in 1080p and a whopping 2% in 4K! Oh shoot, that is so much loss (sarcastically speaking)! EVEN IF the 3070 is faster than a 2080Ti, i strongly doubt the values are gonna be that much higher.

As far as the RAM, SSD and motherboard, who spread the idea that you need to have the latest and most expensive SSD to play a game at the best of your system's capabilities? If that was the case, consoles would be the worst choice, considering that you can't upgrade them.

Now, the 'pointless power' part is just hilarious. That point can be used for consoles too: do YOU have a 4K HDR monitor to enjoy that upscaled resolution and 30fps consoles were offering you last gen? If you didn't, then buying a PS4 Pro was completely pointless. Even then, you can get a 2K, 144hz, 1ms for 250-300$ from Amazon ( this is just an example ). Before people jump the gun and say 'HA! MORE MONEY!', you had to buy that beautiful 4K HDR TV you're plugging your shiny, plasticky, 500$ Blu-Ray reader to. And considering how 99% of the console playerbase was brainwashed for years with the words of 'FOUR KAY THIRTY FPS!', and most PC players would go for 1080p 144hz (which are dirt cheap right now), the point doesn't really hold that much.

Also, I don't think that people that are making rigs with the RTX 3090 for lots of doubloons are gonna be worrying about spending another 3-4k on an 8K monitor, OR they're gonna use it for productivity, for which you don't need 8K. Also, mark my words: when consoles are gonna reach 8K territory, the console community is gonna jump at it like a pack of hyenas on a dead gazelle, screaming 'EIGHT KAY THIRTY FPS!' from the top of their lungs, and suddenly become sensitive and rational when PC is gonna reach 16K, or the next big milestone.

Ultimately, I'm not saying that consoles are just fancy and expensive Blu-Ray readers (as I said earlier), but, as the writer said, convenience is king in a lot of things. So I'm just gonna sit back, relax, and play my favourite N64 game, or my favourite PS2 game, or my favourite NDS game, or my... you know where this is going. And if I fancy to lanch a PC game that used to be a PlayStation exclusive while chatting with my best friend online, without paying for achievements, all while scrolling down the endless column of PC exclusives at 80% discount on Steam, I can do that. All while people brag about how fast their SSD is.

Thank you for your patience, and have a nice day.

 

[munirmaf]

Agree...
The general sentiment of the article is "sometimes worse can be better", but the gap in performance is too large to try to justify that.
I know its not the same thing, but its like saying you should buy a PS2 not a PS3... because the PS2 has great games, the PS3 is more expensive, and plus you have a crap TV anyways... which admittedly all may be true... but, come on, we all know that thats not what you should do.

 

[felicityc]

Heck, I imagine there's a few of you even eyeing up building a monstrously expensive gaming PC with the $1,499 GeForce RTX 3090 at its heart. And more power to you, just don't forget to get an 8K monitor... if you can find one.

It's not really running 8k. It's using dlss 2.0, so it's much more efficient than running a raw 8k video decode. That is, if the programs support DLSS- which they increasingly will unless we get stuck on consoles, who only just now realized fast storage might help. You can also run 8k- or 4k, even- on a 1080p monitor, just if you go too high the pixel density is kind of silly. There's this special thing called downsampling you might want to try in your gpu settings... but you have an rx590.

I have a 1080p 60Hz display plugged into my gaming PC.

Why? Even my third monitor, which was on clearance at microcenter and 60hz, can overclock to 75hz. If you haven't increased either resolution or refresh rate in the past six years, I wouldn't call that a gaming PC.

As someone who has a gaming PC, I’d agree with that in essence. But in practice there's some nuance here. And a compelling argument to be had that even if you love PC gaming, you shouldn’t dismiss the next-generation consoles.

Console apologetics are not required, consoles remain luddite affairs that have to innovate something we didn't really need and nvidia managed to literally get around by reducing how much storage speed the new 30 series needs. That was an actual bottleneck- SSD speed, since streaming textures is difficult. What did Sony do? Make SSD go zoooom

Nvidia optimized the video stream to have a lower requirement with better performance. They only needed that for the 3090 and 8k video. You don't really need that fast of an SSD for most games- just an SSD will do, but most people seemed to miss that memo.

My gaming machine has a Ryzen 7 1800X, 16GB of DDR4 RAM, and a Radeon RX 590, all sitting in a motherboard that’s a few years old and has a very fiddly name. It’s a solid gaming machine able to run most games with settings maxed out at 1080p. But if I was to pop an RTX 3070 into it, the GPU would be held back by the first-generation Ryzen CPU, despite the processor sporting eight cores.

No it won't. You're running 1080p60fps. You should consider a 2070 or something from the now abandoned 20 series, they should be cheap soon.

While you could stick a GeForce RTX 3080 or RTX 3070 into your PC, if it’s not partnered the latest and most efficient Intel or AMD processors as well as speedy RAM and SSDs, you could effectively hold back the performance of your shiny new graphics card.

No, it's not like ikea or legos. It's easier. It's literally plug into the slot and turn a screw. The hard part are the drivers and settings that not everyone gets to learn everything about.

So for me to get the most out of all the tech Nvidia has put into its RTX 3000-series, I’d need a new processor, a new motherboard, and likely new RAM. And while I’m there I might as well upgrade the power supply unit.

No need for a new processor, but likely suggested. You don't need new RAM, RAM hasn't really changed for years unless you are specifically going for very fast DDR4. Since you didn't mention speed I have to wonder if XMP is on.

Suddenly that $500 PS5 with ray-tracing support and 4K at 60fps performance seems like a bargain, even if it means games might not look quite as good.

I don't know. Is your television a higher resolution with a 60hz refresh rate? If so, why aren't you using it for your PC? Might as well.

Convenience is king in a lot of things, especially for people short on time. And that’s why even in the face of Nvidia’s new GeForce graphics cards the PS5 and Xbox Series X cannot be dismissed, despite the cries of PC fans.

This might have worked 10 years ago but Steam and over platforms have made it as baby-friendly as possible with things like big picture mode. Even my ISP gives me a launching platform if I chose to use it.

It's not like 240hz is new. C'mon. 144hz I upgraded to in 2014 for CS:GO, and even then I was late to the party. I think it's absurd that tech writers can be so far behind the curve when this is their whole job.

 

[UA2K]

My gaming machine has a Ryzen 7 1800X, 16GB of DDR4 RAM, and a Radeon RX 590, all sitting in a motherboard that’s a few years old and has a very fiddly name. It’s a solid gaming machine able to run most games with settings maxed out at 1080p. But if I was to pop an RTX 3070 into it, the GPU would be held back by the first-generation Ryzen CPU, despite the processor sporting eight cores.

The more I read it, the more I think this guy either doesn't have a PC, and some random dude suggested him 'put Ryzen 1st gen in there, it's a high-end processor from 3 years ago, people will think it's too old for that videocard', or has never taken 5 mins of his time to make a small research about them, or even worse, bought a preassembled PC and decided to make an article saying how much more convenient console is while not knowing how it goes in the PC gaming world.

 

[felicityc]

Agree...
The general sentiment of the article is "sometimes worse can be better", but the gap in performance is too large to try to justify that.
I know its not the same thing, but its like saying you should buy a PS2 not a PS3... because the PS2 has great games, the PS3 is more expensive, and plus you have a crap TV anyways... which admittedly all may be true... but, come on, we all know that thats not what you should do.

gonna be honest the PS2 has better games, if you had to choose between a ps2 and a ps3 I would still pick a ps2 which is why consoles are silly. my PS2 collection has aged like wine and the PS3 can't backwards compat with it as well. hardly any ps3 games made it into that collection while rule of rose, ace combat 4/5/zero, armored core(s) (the ps3 armored cores are good too tho), front mission, persona 3/4, nocturne, ico, sotc, etc...

god the ps2 was a great console and I think my original USA launch one is barellyyyy functioning

yes people looked at me weird for wanting to play them on original hardware but it's nostalgic, the only thing consoles have, since PC platforms hate giving you anything nostalgic that's authentic

 

[LS3]

It's not really running 8k. It's using dlss 2.0, so it's much more efficient than running a raw 8k video decode. That is, if the programs support DLSS- which they increasingly will unless we get stuck on consoles, who only just now realized fast storage might help. You can also run 8k- or 4k, even- on a 1080p monitor, just if you go too high the pixel density is kind of silly. There's this special thing called downsampling you might want to try in your gpu settings... but you have an rx590.



Why? Even my third monitor, which was on clearance at microcenter and 60hz, can overclock to 75hz. If you haven't increased either resolution or refresh rate in the past six years, I wouldn't call that a gaming PC.



Console apologetics are not required, consoles remain luddite affairs that have to innovate something we didn't really need and nvidia managed to literally get around by reducing how much storage speed the new 30 series needs. That was an actual bottleneck- SSD speed, since streaming textures is difficult. What did Sony do? Make SSD go zoooom

Nvidia optimized the video stream to have a lower requirement with better performance. They only needed that for the 3090 and 8k video. You don't really need that fast of an SSD for most games- just an SSD will do, but most people seemed to miss that memo.


No it won't. You're running 1080p60fps. You should consider a 2070 or something from the now abandoned 20 series, they should be cheap soon.



No, it's not like ikea or legos. It's easier. It's literally plug into the slot and turn a screw. The hard part are the drivers and settings that not everyone gets to learn everything about.



No need for a new processor, but likely suggested. You don't need new RAM, RAM hasn't really changed for years unless you are specifically going for very fast DDR4. Since you didn't mention speed I have to wonder if XMP is on.



I don't know. Is your television a higher resolution with a 60hz refresh rate? If so, why aren't you using it for your PC? Might as well.



This might have worked 10 years ago but Steam and over platforms have made it as baby-friendly as possible with things like big picture mode. Even my ISP gives me a launching platform if I chose to use it.

It's not like 240hz is new. C'mon. 144hz I upgraded to in 2014 for CS:GO, and even then I was late to the party. I think it's absurd that tech writers can be so far behind the curve when this is their whole job.

My thought's exactly. It's insane how this tech writer can state that he has a 1080p 60hz monitor, smartphones produced nearly over the past decade have had at least those specs... the xbox 360 was a 1080p gaming machine, the new console is 50 times more powerful than that... maybe the writer can finally afford to get an xbox one, seeing as it hasn't been discontinued.

 

[AnonymousDoc]

I made an account to comment how poor & flawed an argument this writer had made, but it seems like several others have pointed out the holes in his argument.
GGWP

 

[Eille]

The more I read it, the more I think this guy either doesn't have a PC, and some random dude suggested him 'put Ryzen 1st gen in there, it's a high-end processor from 3 years ago, people will think it's too old for that videocard', or has never taken 5 mins of his time to make a small research about them, or even worse, bought a preassembled PC and decided to make an article saying how much more convenient console is while not knowing how it goes in the PC gaming world.

you may be disagree with him On how PC gaming works. Console is more convenient for many people. Nvidia won’t kill ps5 and Xbox X series because some people want to play video on TV rather than pc monitor and it’s cheaper. There are many games today sold on console than PC. smart phone/Mobile gaming market is still #1 either way because it more convenient than console and PC. It’s not about graphi. No, Nvidia won’t kill PS5 and Xbox X anytime soon.

 

[AnonymousDoc]

you may be disagree with him On how PC gaming works. Console is more convenient for many people. Nvidia won’t kill ps5 and Xbox X series because some people want to play video on TV rather than pc monitor and it’s cheaper. There are many games today sold on console than PC. smart phone/Mobile gaming market is still #1 either way because it more convenient than console and PC. It’s not about graphi. No, Nvidia won’t kill PS5 and Xbox X anytime soon.

You have a better argument than the individual who wrote this article.

 

[SIGKILL]

This is the most console peasant article I have ever seen.

 

[bigguskhmus]

For me it certainly killed or more precisely postponed purchasing the console. God damn it even the Nvidia event was more exciting than the last Playstation and Xbox ones. I will get the console(s?), but only when there are enough good games that aren't available on PC. There won't be anything noteworthy on the day new consoles will be available. New consoles are on bar with technology that has been mainstream on PC gaming for at least 3 years already and with new GPUs the gap between PC and consoles will be quite significant (like it has pretty much always been).

About the article. Well, even if there is going to be some bottlenecking in some rare cases, it's going to be rather small percentage and the experience is still times better than on consoles. Plus, you won't be playing at 1080p with 30xx card. You can play with all the bells and whistles on a 10xx card at 1080p. CPU bottlenecking won't be much of an issue on higher resolutions and new CPUs are on the horizon as well.

"it’s often the case that a powerful gaming PC is needed to match the performance of a games console"
This is just total nonsense. Only occasion something like this will happen is, if the PC port of the game is bad and that has nothing to do with hardware, but it means that someone did a lousy job writing a port.

Consoles aren't plug-and-play anymore. You buy a console-> setting up can take hours because of various console updates (even your controller needs updates)-> then you insert the gaming disc, install the game and press pla..... no no no you will first need to download 34.6GB of updates and then, if you are lucky, you will get to play the game.... until the game needs an update again or your dashboard/system needs to update before the game update can be downloaded.

 

[DevinRex]

[]

People can spin the article whatever way they wish, but facts are facts. In the end, price will ultimately determine whether or not casuals (not the enthusiast nerds raging here) will see one component of a PC as a better deal than an all-in-one dedicated plug and play system. Reality says, how powerful something is becomes irrelevant to compare with if it's thousands of dollars more to put together - defeating the purpose of such a compelling sales pitch.

It's no surprise that consoles have consistently destroyed PCs in market share each gen for this reason. Most people are lazy, and don't want to deal with the trouble of building a PC for games, and simply want something "good enough" in the next-gen space that they can plug in and forget. It's hard to hear for PC enthusiasts, but often times those folks are ignorant to how the real world works in terms of how convienence, price, and ease of use all factor into these types of products.

In the end, get what you want. There's pros and cons of both consoles and PCs. And no, no matter what a fanboy tells you, there's no way in hell you will pay for the same or better performance of a modern RTX gaming rig for the same price as next gen systems. As the saying goes, you get what you pay for.

 

[DCGColts]

you may be disagree with him On how PC gaming works. Console is more convenient for many people. Nvidia won’t kill ps5 and Xbox X series because some people want to play video on TV rather than pc monitor and it’s cheaper. There are many games today sold on console than PC. smart phone/Mobile gaming market is still #1 either way because it more convenient than console and PC. It’s not about graphi. No, Nvidia won’t kill PS5 and Xbox X anytime soon.

You are no more knowledgeable than the tool who wrote this article. How does a TV hook up to a console? Guess what PC is exact same way but supports multiple display devices instead of just 1. Next PC won't kill consoles because Console are a totally different environment where you can essentially plug/play. Console won't kill PC because its a totally different environment where you can pick resolution, graphic settings, framerate, and also turn off trash settings like motion blur, dof, film grain, etc...

The author of this article fails to realize Xbox/Sony compete with each other they can kill one and another they don't compete with PC. This author uses the argument of only having a 1080p 60hz monitor wtf is he using with a console? same monitor well new console or 3070 they are both overkill. If using 4k tv with console nothing is stopping you from using it with PC. Reality is if you actually had a gaming PC you would know hooking a TV up to it is possible therefore 8k tv users would be interested in 3090 not just that 4k 120hz players would have very smooth gaming experience of constant frametime at high framerates like 117fps constant on a nice OLED LG 4k tv with gsync compatibility really not sure why LG tvs have gsync compatibility given PCs can only use monitor...This whole thing is just as dumb as people thinking PC is keyboard/mouse only not understanding you can use Xbox or Sony controller if you want.

 

[DCGColts]

gonna be honest the PS2 has better games, if you had to choose between a ps2 and a ps3 I would still pick a ps2 which is why consoles are silly. my PS2 collection has aged like wine and the PS3 can't backwards compat with it as well. hardly any ps3 games made it into that collection while rule of rose, ace combat 4/5/zero, armored core(s) (the ps3 armored cores are good too tho), front mission, persona 3/4, nocturne, ico, sotc, etc...

god the ps2 was a great console and I think my original USA launch one is barellyyyy functioning

yes people looked at me weird for wanting to play them on original hardware but it's nostalgic, the only thing consoles have, since PC platforms hate giving you anything nostalgic that's authentic

Would you of felt the same way if ps3 was releasing this year? No you'd be buying one. I don't understand what your argument even is when PC can play any title ever released wtf is can't backwards compat for PC users? it doesn't exist. Which makes your last statement very hard to understand because it makes zero sense. Any PS2 game or PS3 game can be played on PC still unless it wasn't released on PC even then there is still other ways to play them on PC but w/e.

 

[DCGColts]

"it’s often the case that a powerful gaming PC is needed to match the performance of a games console"

It's never the case most of the time its people using 750ti to compare to ps4 failing to understand ps4 has 8gb of vram @ 176gb/s while 750ti has 1gb 86gb/s.
Then ps4 has Shading Units 1152 vs 750ti 640
TMUs 72 vs TMUs40
ROPs 32 vs ROPs 16
Compute Units 18 vs SMM Count 5

Expecting a 750ti to perform game same as ps4 is non sense. Then you got the guys who claim console version of a game is optimized better because x1x version runs game native @30fps and much much stronger hardware struggles to maintain 60fps. In order for console version to be optimized better it would legit have to be capable of higher framerate and if you could find a gpu that had same exact specs as console pc version of game would perform the same assuming you set graphic settings exactly like console version in some cases though even the most powerful console in X1X for example has graphic settings lower than lowest possible on PC. I wouldn't call that better optimization.

Overall I have yet to see one console game optimized better on console than PC and technically optimization is framerate so the version of the game that runs the highest frame rate would be technically the one that is optimized best.

 

[DCGColts]

It's not really running 8k. It's using dlss 2.0, so it's much more efficient than running a raw 8k video decode. That is, if the programs support DLSS- which they increasingly will unless we get stuck on consoles, who only just now realized fast storage might help. You can also run 8k- or 4k, even- on a 1080p monitor, just if you go too high the pixel density is kind of silly. There's this special thing called downsampling you might want to try in your gpu settings... but you have an rx590. /

Console apologetics are not required, consoles remain luddite affairs that have to innovate something we didn't really need and nvidia managed to literally get around by reducing how much storage speed the new 30 series needs. That was an actual bottleneck- SSD speed, since streaming textures is difficult. What did Sony do? Make SSD go zoooom

Nvidia optimized the video stream to have a lower requirement with better performance. They only needed that for the 3090 and 8k video. You don't really need that fast of an SSD for most games- just an SSD will do, but most people seemed to miss that memo.

Couple things to add
- DSR as far as I know only allows for 4x pixels so you need 4k resolution to get 8k.
-Sony didn't just make the ssd go zooom they did something similar to nvidia made a 5000 or 5500mb/s read speed drive do 9000mb/s. RTX IO doubles ssd speeds so a 3500 read speed ssd will do 7000mb/s. At the moment any ssd will do but when games start being made around an ssd your going to IMO at the very least need a NVME drive which isn't that big of a deal but you definitely don't need a PCI-E 4.0 drive.

 

[BigDingus04]

I know I'm going against the grain here, but I agree with his overall point, even if some things he stated don't exactly hold up.

He's certainly right about this, which a lot of people are ignoring -

"...it’s often the case that a powerful gaming PC is needed to match the performance of a games console, even though on paper the PC’s specs all but embarrass the console’s hardware."

Console architecture & PC's modular design don't give you a 1:1 performance comparison. Over the years, people have lost sight of this, as it's common to just call consoles "mini PC's" or "a poor man PC." But that's simply not true, even with consoles based on x86.

Custom APU's and everything streamlined & designed for 1 main goal compared to modular PC components designed with many goals in mind. Along with devs becoming more familiar with the hardware, it's why games tend to get better & better looking on consoles as time goes on, and why in the past, console games could hang with midrange PC's for many years. We've seen data showing the One X, even with its crappy CPU, often outperforms cards that are supposed to be "similarly powerful" on similar games, especially at higher resolutions.

I also would like people to view Steam's own user survey data & look at what the large, large majority of people are gaming with - https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam

The PS5 & the Series X even more so will provide better performance than what most people use. Even with the RTX 20XX series being out for several years now, only a handful of the 90+ million Steam users bothered to upgrade. Even a few years from now when the 40XX series of cards comes out, 80%-90% of Steam users will probably be gaming on rigs putting out less power.

And because each console will outsell the sales of the entire RTX 30XX line, we know developers are going to cater towards the most common & popular denominator as the priority.

Lastly, price definitely matters, even though everyone online has a monster rig that can run 4k at 240hz ultra settings that they built for $500 & a couple of Taco Bell coupons. I built another rig earlier this year, and it was closer to $2,000... i9-9900k, RTX 2070 Super, 32GB DDR4 @ 3200, ROG Maximus Hero XI Z390, 1 TB M.2 NVMe + additional SSD storage, liquid cooling & 800W PSU.

Unfortunately, Intel based motherboards come with PCIe 3.0 instead of 4.0, so doubt I'd get full use out of the 30XX series (since they're supposed to actually make more use of it down the line), but I'm still getting one. But now I'm spending $500 more on a 3070 or $700 more for a 3080, probably only recouping $200 on my GPU reselling. If I don't, people buying a Series X are likely to get similar performance as in actual gameplay as I am at 4k....for 1/3 to 1/4 the price.

TL;DR - The cards are amazing, but the article is right about the overall point. Most people will not be building new rigs around these cards for a similar price as the PS5 or Series X, just as most people won't upgrade to these cards in general given GPU history (as seen per Steam's hardware data).

 

[Levada]

I still don't understand who this author is trying to convince, because the console users will continue to buy consoles and the PC users will continue to by PC hardware, not much is going to change. It seems like a rather pointless article to me, and it sounds more like an attempt to convince a bunch of ignorant PC fanboys talking negative about consoles. Oh well, I guess an an author has to write.... something. hehe

 

[felicityc]

Would you of felt the same way if ps3 was releasing this year? No you'd be buying one. I don't understand what your argument even is when PC can play any title ever released wtf is can't backwards compat for PC users? it doesn't exist. Which makes your last statement very hard to understand because it makes zero sense. Any PS2 game or PS3 game can be played on PC still unless it wasn't released on PC even then there is still other ways to play them on PC but w/e.

haven't a clue what what your attacking me here is for. no, I would not buy the ps3. The last console I bought was the 360 @ launch. yo is like 14 years ago. don't shove words in my mouth without consent pls


novelty argument is lost on people without nostalgia, so don't worry about it. in ten years you'll get out.

Lots of butthurt PCMR fanboys in the comments today. Not that I expected much from Tom's guide after that article they written not too long ago bashing consoles.

People can spin the article whatever way they wish, but facts are facts. In the end, price will ultimately determine whether or not casuals (not the enthusiast nerds raging here) will see one component of a PC as a better deal than an all-in-one dedicated plug and play system. Reality says, how powerful something is becomes irrelevant to compare with if it's thousands of dollars more to put together - defeating the purpose of such a compelling sales pitch.

It's no surprise that consoles have consistently destroyed PCs in market share each gen for this reason. Most people are lazy, and don't want to deal with the trouble of building a PC for games, and simply want something "good enough" in the next-gen space that they can plug in and forget. It's hard to hear for PC enthusiasts, but often times those folks are ignorant to how the real world works in terms of how convienence, price, and ease of use all factor into these types of products.

In the end, get what you want. There's pros and cons of both consoles and PCs. And no, no matter what a fanboy tells you, there's no way in hell you will pay for the same or better performance of a modern RTX gaming rig for the same price as next gen systems. As the saying goes, you get what you pay for.

because much like the author you haven't the slightest clue. laziness is a real bad defense I'm afraid. it just compounds the point that console apologists are wasteful, thoughtless, and ignorant of how currently easy it is now to put together an afternoon's work.

Idc about the consoles really. but the absolute dissonance of the authors ethos claims with his 1080p 60 monitor on his 'gaming rig ' set me off and it's just a joke of an article.

cite the stats pls btw