wraggster
April 21st, 2013, 21:49
The arrival of next-gen consoles could well prove to be a double-edged sword for PC owners used to enjoying the best gameplay experience. On the one hand, it's extremely good news: developers no longer need to create engines for multiple hardware types with little common ground - console and PC development will all be based on x86 computer architecture. By extension, the need to use brute-force processing power to overcome unoptimised PC ports will hopefully become less of an issue, leaving gamers to enjoy the more positive aspects of the platform - upgrading, customising, shaping the experience towards their own requirements.
On the flipside, PlayStation 4 in particular offers a substantial challenge to the PC as the top-end gaming platform - a state of affairs that may surprise many. Sony's new console has often been described as a mid-range gaming PC in terms of its overall technological make-up. Rip apart the various components and the claims have some merit, but with the benefits of a closed box design and a unified memory set-up, the new console has certain qualities that could even give high-end PC rigs a run for their money.
All of which leads us to the point of this article. If you own a PC now, what upgrade paths are available to keep your rig competitive with the next generation of consoles? And if you're planning to buy or build your own gaming PC, what components should you choose to ensure that your hardware provides an excellent experience in line with the capabilities of the next Xbox and PlayStation 4?
Buying new - choosing a platformShould you upgrade your CPU?http://images.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/5/7/3/6/0/5/cpu.jpg.jpg/EG11/resize/600x-1/quality/91
This Crysis 3 frame-rate comparison (http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Crysis-3-PC-235317/Tests/Crysis-3-Test-CPU-Benchmark-1056578/) gives you some idea of how CPU performance scales across generations, and how Core 2 Duo, Core 2 Quad and its AMD contemporaries are finally running out of steam after a great innings. Generally speaking, CPUs tend to have more longevity than graphics cards.
What is also noticeable is that even modern day dual-core Intel and quad-core AMD chips are starting to look a little weak, something we can attest to when we revisit our £300 Digital Foundry PC, where achieving 60FPS gameplay is becoming an ever-increasing challenge (1080p30 is much, much easier to attain with good quality settings). Now is a good time to invest in CPU technology, as performance on upcoming replacements is taking a back seat in favour of power efficiency - both AMD and Intel are only suggesting 5-15 per cent performance gains in their next line of CPUs.
The Intel Core i5 3570K and the AMD FX-8300 remain the best two choices in terms of power vs. price-point. The Intel chip is faster on most existing games, and it's more power-efficient - as well as being an overclocking monster. However, the AMD chip's eight-core layout is a good match for next-gen console and its prowess in highly threaded applications is already coming to the fore in key titles whose engines are designed with next-gen console partly in mind.
If you're using an older platform, consider motherboard and CPU choice carefully. Overclocking isn't particularly daunting these days but it relies upon buying an unlocked processor, a good quality motherboard and a decent after-market heat sink and fan.
Intel or AMD? Since the arrival of Intel's Core 2 Duo processors, AMD has struggled to remain competitive, remaining in the game by offering its higher-tier parts at very competitive prices. In recent years it has bet the farm on multi-core performance - its latest flagship, the FX-8350, offers eight cores at 4.0GHz with no overclocking restrictions, while its Intel competitor - the Core i5 3570K - offers four cores at 3.4GHz. In a world where single-core performance still dominates, the Intel offering is still considered the better buy - it's certainly more power-efficient and has more overclocking potential.
We approached a number of developers on and off the record - each of whom has helped to ship multi-million-selling, triple-A titles - asking them whether an Intel or AMD processor offers the best way to future-proof a games PC built in the here and now. Bearing in mind the historical dominance Intel has enjoyed, the results are intriguing - all of them opted for the FX-8350 over the current default enthusiast's choice, the Core i5 3570K.
Perhaps it's not entirely surprising - Crytek's Crysis 3 is a forward-looking game in many ways, and as these CPU tests by respected German site PC Games Hardware (http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Crysis-3-PC-235317/Tests/Crysis-3-Test-CPU-Benchmark-1056578/) demonstrate, not only does the FX-8350 outperform the i5, it also offers up an additional, minor margin of extra performance over the much more expensive Core i7 3770K - a processor that's around £100 more expensive than the AMD chip. Only the six-core Intel Core i7 3930K - a £480 processor - beats it comprehensively.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen
On the flipside, PlayStation 4 in particular offers a substantial challenge to the PC as the top-end gaming platform - a state of affairs that may surprise many. Sony's new console has often been described as a mid-range gaming PC in terms of its overall technological make-up. Rip apart the various components and the claims have some merit, but with the benefits of a closed box design and a unified memory set-up, the new console has certain qualities that could even give high-end PC rigs a run for their money.
All of which leads us to the point of this article. If you own a PC now, what upgrade paths are available to keep your rig competitive with the next generation of consoles? And if you're planning to buy or build your own gaming PC, what components should you choose to ensure that your hardware provides an excellent experience in line with the capabilities of the next Xbox and PlayStation 4?
Buying new - choosing a platformShould you upgrade your CPU?http://images.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/5/7/3/6/0/5/cpu.jpg.jpg/EG11/resize/600x-1/quality/91
This Crysis 3 frame-rate comparison (http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Crysis-3-PC-235317/Tests/Crysis-3-Test-CPU-Benchmark-1056578/) gives you some idea of how CPU performance scales across generations, and how Core 2 Duo, Core 2 Quad and its AMD contemporaries are finally running out of steam after a great innings. Generally speaking, CPUs tend to have more longevity than graphics cards.
What is also noticeable is that even modern day dual-core Intel and quad-core AMD chips are starting to look a little weak, something we can attest to when we revisit our £300 Digital Foundry PC, where achieving 60FPS gameplay is becoming an ever-increasing challenge (1080p30 is much, much easier to attain with good quality settings). Now is a good time to invest in CPU technology, as performance on upcoming replacements is taking a back seat in favour of power efficiency - both AMD and Intel are only suggesting 5-15 per cent performance gains in their next line of CPUs.
The Intel Core i5 3570K and the AMD FX-8300 remain the best two choices in terms of power vs. price-point. The Intel chip is faster on most existing games, and it's more power-efficient - as well as being an overclocking monster. However, the AMD chip's eight-core layout is a good match for next-gen console and its prowess in highly threaded applications is already coming to the fore in key titles whose engines are designed with next-gen console partly in mind.
If you're using an older platform, consider motherboard and CPU choice carefully. Overclocking isn't particularly daunting these days but it relies upon buying an unlocked processor, a good quality motherboard and a decent after-market heat sink and fan.
Intel or AMD? Since the arrival of Intel's Core 2 Duo processors, AMD has struggled to remain competitive, remaining in the game by offering its higher-tier parts at very competitive prices. In recent years it has bet the farm on multi-core performance - its latest flagship, the FX-8350, offers eight cores at 4.0GHz with no overclocking restrictions, while its Intel competitor - the Core i5 3570K - offers four cores at 3.4GHz. In a world where single-core performance still dominates, the Intel offering is still considered the better buy - it's certainly more power-efficient and has more overclocking potential.
We approached a number of developers on and off the record - each of whom has helped to ship multi-million-selling, triple-A titles - asking them whether an Intel or AMD processor offers the best way to future-proof a games PC built in the here and now. Bearing in mind the historical dominance Intel has enjoyed, the results are intriguing - all of them opted for the FX-8350 over the current default enthusiast's choice, the Core i5 3570K.
Perhaps it's not entirely surprising - Crytek's Crysis 3 is a forward-looking game in many ways, and as these CPU tests by respected German site PC Games Hardware (http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Crysis-3-PC-235317/Tests/Crysis-3-Test-CPU-Benchmark-1056578/) demonstrate, not only does the FX-8350 outperform the i5, it also offers up an additional, minor margin of extra performance over the much more expensive Core i7 3770K - a processor that's around £100 more expensive than the AMD chip. Only the six-core Intel Core i7 3930K - a £480 processor - beats it comprehensively.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen