WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:08.839 All right, everyone. Sit down and buckle up because we're about to go on one hell 00:00:03.439 --> 00:00:08.839 of a high definition ride at 792p. 00:00:15.360 --> 00:00:21.279 With its power loss protection, affordability, and performance, the 00:00:18.880 --> 00:00:26.480 SP920 from A Data makes upgrading to an SSD remarkably safe and simple. We're 00:00:24.160 --> 00:00:30.720 going to try and quantify just how not nextG the nextG consoles are. And we're 00:00:29.519 --> 00:00:34.640 going to do this by taking our test bench and figuring out exactly how much 00:00:32.960 --> 00:00:39.840 graphics horsepower is needed to deliver the console grade experience in Watchd 00:00:37.200 --> 00:00:44.320 Dogs versus how much raw power it would need to deliver a PCRA experience. 00:00:42.399 --> 00:00:48.480 Basically, high resolutions and much higher frame rates. We know that our 00:00:46.320 --> 00:00:52.640 test bench is overkill and not really comparable to a console, but we chose 00:00:50.399 --> 00:00:56.879 these parts in our experiment to remove potential bottlenecks and focus on our 00:00:54.640 --> 00:01:00.800 funky thought experiment in terms of GPU clock speeds, an extremely important 00:00:58.719 --> 00:01:04.000 factor for gaming. Bear in mind that by removing these bottlenecks, we're 00:01:02.000 --> 00:01:07.439 keeping the test as fair as possible. And if anything, our lower graphics 00:01:05.600 --> 00:01:12.320 configuration gets an advantage from the OP CPU and RAM. But how do you remove as 00:01:10.720 --> 00:01:16.720 many variables as possible and bring everything down to GPU clock speed? 00:01:14.400 --> 00:01:21.200 well, by strapping a GTX 480 to it. I chose a GTX 480 because of its ability 00:01:18.960 --> 00:01:25.119 to underclock and overclock quite well, giving it a wide range of possible 00:01:23.040 --> 00:01:29.439 performance levels. Things to note are that the Xbox One and PS4, while closer 00:01:27.680 --> 00:01:33.280 to typical PC architecture than any console generation before, are still 00:01:31.520 --> 00:01:36.880 actually quite different. We're also not covering power consumption, and we're 00:01:35.200 --> 00:01:41.680 running everything on high settings all the time. We expect the devs want that 00:01:39.360 --> 00:01:45.280 experience on any given platform as a baseline. So changing it between runs, 00:01:43.280 --> 00:01:49.119 which is add more variables. And again, we're just focusing on GPU clock speed. 00:01:47.600 --> 00:01:56.079 The lowest clock speed I could get on my GTX 480 was 405. And this allowed me to 00:01:52.079 --> 00:01:58.479 run the game at 792p and about 32 to 33 00:01:56.079 --> 00:02:04.640 FPS. Yeah, I actually couldn't underclock my 5-year-old GPU to be as 00:02:01.200 --> 00:02:06.000 slow as a nextG console. PC master race 00:02:04.640 --> 00:02:11.440 problems. If we don't nerf our 5-year-old GPU quite so hard, we can get 00:02:08.319 --> 00:02:13.360 pretty easily to 1080p 30 FPS, but 60 00:02:11.440 --> 00:02:18.720 FPS is a completely different ballgame. 1080p 60 FPS wasn't going to happen on 00:02:15.920 --> 00:02:24.000 our poor old 480. But good old awkward 792p was able to run at 60 FPS if I 00:02:21.520 --> 00:02:29.520 cranked this GPU clock speed up to 875 MHz. So yeah, Ubisoft FPS and resolution 00:02:27.280 --> 00:02:32.800 are numbers and so is clock speed. And those so-called nextG consoles should 00:02:31.280 --> 00:02:36.239 have had a lot more of all three. Again, guys, I can't stress enough, these are 00:02:34.319 --> 00:02:40.640 very different architectures, and we're only interested in seeing how much more 00:02:37.760 --> 00:02:48.400 raw power the GPU of a platform that can run at 792p 30fps would need to run at 00:02:44.239 --> 00:02:50.160 1080p 30 FPS and 792p 60 FPS. And it was 00:02:48.400 --> 00:02:55.360 interesting to see how borderline these nextG consoles actually are, because 00:02:52.480 --> 00:03:00.400 going from 792p to 1080p only required about 40% more raw power, while doubling 00:02:57.920 --> 00:03:04.319 the FPS required more than double that raw power. Uh, this is bad news for 00:03:02.959 --> 00:03:09.280 gamers who think they're going to get 60 FPS beautifully rendered games this gen 00:03:06.640 --> 00:03:12.480 because they're not even close. But this was just a quick and dirty thought 00:03:10.720 --> 00:03:16.480 experiment. And while it does show a representation of the power needed to 00:03:14.159 --> 00:03:20.640 get these consoles up to speed, calling it a perfect representation of the 00:03:17.920 --> 00:03:24.560 competitive landscape may be a bit of a stretch. Also, for the console guys, 00:03:22.560 --> 00:03:29.920 there are things coming down the line like MS Cloud for Xbox One and DirectX12 00:03:27.360 --> 00:03:34.080 for nextG consoles in general that may help them, but after looking at the 00:03:32.159 --> 00:03:38.000 performance needed for them to catch up, I think it's possible they're going to 00:03:35.680 --> 00:03:41.120 need a little bit more than just that. All right, guys. That was just kind of 00:03:39.440 --> 00:03:46.560 some food for thought. I hope you guys liked it. If you want to see more like this, let me know in the comments below. 00:03:44.239 --> 00:03:49.599 Like, dislike, comment, subscribe, jump over to the forum and let me know there. 00:03:48.080 --> 00:03:53.200 If you PM me, there's even more likeliness that I'll get it. While you're on the forum, if you don't like 00:03:52.080 --> 00:03:58.080 the ads, be sure to become a contributor. That gets rid of all the ads at any contribution level. And if 00:03:56.480 --> 00:04:01.200 you want a shirt like the one Lionus is wearing, not the one I'm wearing, be 00:03:59.519 --> 00:04:04.159 sure to check out our shirts link in the description below to get a shirt. Thanks 00:04:02.959 --> 00:04:10.560 a lot for watching and I'll see you guys next time. Take it off. Do it. Do it. Go. We'll get more views. We'll get more 00:04:07.680 --> 00:04:14.040 likes. Go. Like for movies.