Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition Playstation 4 Vs PC Graphics Analysis

Tomb Raider Definitive Edition has now landed on the Playstation 4 and Xbox One, and there were questions from the beginning of just how much ‘different’ the next gen consoles would look compared to a high spec PC. I’ll say from the outset, that there are advantages with both versions, but which one is best for your money?

Read Full Story >>
Sammy7773402d ago

PS4 version is holding against PC version with max settings . Impressive nonetheless

xPhearR3dx3402d ago

How is it impressive? TR is practically a year old. For hardware that just launched a little over 2 months ago, it damn well better hold its own against the year old PC version when the game was "re-worked" and upgraded for next-gen.

Sammy7773402d ago

The game was just ported to the PS4. It was made more for the PC in mind than PS4. Ofcourse, ps4 is a closed system and the game would have looked much better on PS4 had it been made ground up for PS4 exclusively. It was made with "parity" in mind with xbox one version

Bathyj3402d ago

So what if its a year old game, how does that diminish that PS4 has a comparable version.

Has PC graphics evolved so much since its release that a year old game is now obsolete, or is TR PC still pretty much at the same level it was when it came out?

Are you saying PS4 is only 1 year behind PC graphics since you assume it should be identical to a year old PC game?

BitbyDeath3401d ago

Impressive cause before tomb raider came out the pc elitists were stating PS4 would only be as good as a 3-4 year old pc, no way would they admit it to being equal to a current high end pc.

LackTrue4K3401d ago

and here come the PC users trying to downplay every thing console related.

Irishguy953401d ago (Edited 3401d ago )

It's a PC game that wasn't cutting edge, a year ago. A year is a big difference Bathey

This little thing called moores law keeps PC power improving at a huge rate.

Tomb Raider Recommended was a geforce 480, which btw is a slightly stronger card that the Ps4's card. When tech enthusiasts were saying the new consoles tech is 2011, they weren't lying.

I'm not surprised the 'definitive edition' is actually worse. It doesn't look improved at all and it doesn't even have tessellation. It just looks...different colored and a different model for Lara. It's like SE just had it 'changed' so that it would look different. To justify the name and cost.

In reality PC tech is well ahead of the two consoles. It's weird in that way, the Ps4 and X1 won't have the same legs as the Ps3 and 360

BitbyDeath3401d ago

"It's a PC game that wasn't cutting edge, a year ago."

Yet it is still one of the better looking games on PC today.

"This little thing called moores law keeps PC power improving at a huge rate."

Consoles have a little thing called 'Optimisation' which keeps them improving at a huge rate too.

'Tomb Raider Recommended was a geforce 480, which btw is a slightly stronger card that the Ps4's card.'

And yet PS4 is equalling/beating it on high settings, that tell you something about console hardware?

You cannot compare PC hardware to console hardware. The numbers do not equal in what they put out.

For example their is no way you could run 'The Last of Us' on a PC with 512mb of ram and a geforce 7800. You could not even run a recent OS on 512mb of ram let alone the game itself which would likely need between 2GB-4GB on a PC.

Somebody3401d ago

"and here come the PC users trying to downplay every thing console related. "

Just like how console users trying to downplay everything PC related.

PC gamers talk about DX11, console fans are there to remind them the were few games supporting the API. PC gamers talk about RAM, console fans are there to remind them that their PS4 and 360 can still play games with a measly 512mb RAM. PC gamers talk about 1080P and 4K, both software and hardware-wise,coming to the PC, console fans are there to remind them about gamplay>graphic/resolutions .

Software_Lover3401d ago (Edited 3401d ago )


The game was not "just ported" to ps4. They reworked it as a new game. new textures, new effects, new foliage, etc.

MadLad3401d ago (Edited 3401d ago )

You can now build a PC that can run this game at 60fps in the sub $700 range. It doesn't take a high-end rig to run this game at the visual quality and performance seen in the PS4 version. I am not debating the PS4 is powerful. I am arguing against what you consider to be "high-end".
I am just calling out the "high-end" comment. Obviously devs rarely make full use of the latest and greatest PC tech. I was just saying that PC hardware has been improving fast and it only takes a moderately powerful rig to get the performance we are seeing here.

BitbyDeath3401d ago


I'm not saying PC is not powerful, just you cannot compare PC and console numbers, when the output is different.

Walking Dead Season 2 for example requires 3GB RAM on PC. It is by no means a complex game, graphically it is closer to a PS2 game than a PS4 one.

PC is capable of much more but devs will never push to the real high end or it'll never sell due to only a small amount of people owning them.

Dude4203401d ago (Edited 3401d ago )

As a PC user, it kind of irritates me that some people call the PS4 2011 tech, it's so stupid. It may only be as good as a mid-range PC of today or the GTX 480, but seriously, can you find me a PC from 2011 that can run games that good on a single chip?

Considering what the PS4 has inside, even I can admit that its performance is pretty impressive. This is 2013 tech, deal with it.

gamer_3401d ago

He actually says it isn't on max settings in his video.
anywway let the fighting in the comments begin :P

starchild3401d ago

People need to learn to look past gamma, contrast and color differences when judging "lighting" (those things can easily be tweaked on the PC with SweetFx or whatever anyway).

I've compared both verisons at length and I can see no significant difference in the actual lighting. What many people call "lighting differences" are in fact simply color, contrast and gamma differences.

In the cave scene some of the differences I noticed are the fact that the PC version has higher resolution textures on the rocks and a little more bumpiness to the shapes of the rocks and ground due to tessellation. Also the PC version has the dappled lighting of the water reflecting on the ceiling and cave walls whereas it is missing on the PS4 version. The bones on the ground are also more detailed on PC due to the tessellation.

Not sure you can see all that in the video, just some things I noticed while comparing them.

In general, the PS4 version always tended to look a little blurrier or softer being played on the same display as the PC at the same resolution. This is likely due to the use FXAA anti-aliasing on the PS4 version and the somewhat lower-res textures in places.

Honestly, the most noticeable difference with the PS4 version by far is the more animated foliage. On PC the grass, shrubs and even trees do animate and move, but they don't move as much or in as many places.

starchild3401d ago

The only major area I disagree with this comparison is with regards to the differing TressFx implementations. He says it is TressFx 2.0 on PS4 and I know Crystal Dynamics has billed it as such, but in reality most of the reason it doesn't look weird as often is because it simply doesn't calculate as much.

First of all, I should say that both versions of TressFx are 85% the same anyway. Most of the time they look and move very similarly. However, Lara's hair in the PC version seems to be more affected by wind and momentum than in the PS4 version.

And I also noticed that the PC version seems to have more individual hair strands and they seem to be thinner and a little less angular in close ups, while the hair strands on the PS4 version seem a little fewer in number and thicker and more wiry. Here are some screenshots to show you what I mean:


Also, it's interesting at the end of the video when Lara is hanging upside down and he says the PC version looks bad and the PS4 version is more accurate, it's clear that while Lara's hair might have whipped around a little strangely in the PC version, at least her ponytail is hanging downward! In that part of the PS4 version Lara's hair and ponytail magically goes in the opposite direction of gravity instead of hanging down towards the ground as you would expect.

Of course the PS4 version isn't going to mess up in situations like that...when the TressFx is essentially turned off or dialed back and isn't accurately modeling the way hair would move in those situations.

So, although the PC version might look a little unnatural in a few places in the game, it is because it is calculating hair physics in situations where it isn't active on the PS4. TressFx on PC is actually calculating more and attempting to be a fuller and more accurate approximation of the way real hair moves.

blackmagic3401d ago

I don't know about that... the AMD HD5970 was launched in 2009 for $380.
850Mhz clock, 2.72 TFLOPS, 25 compute units, 1600 stream processors, 80 texture units
800Mhz clock, 1.84 TFLOPS, 18 compute units, 1154 stream processors, 72 texture units. Doesn't seem like 2013 tech to me.

Just because the pc doesn't have access to the 'definitive' version (yet) doesn't mean it couldn't easily run it, something everyone here seems to be conveniently overlooking.

badboy7763401d ago

Everyone get a Life!!!!!!!!!

xPhearR3dx3401d ago


What I'm saying is, it better look close to the PC version. Everyone knows consoles can run impressive looking games on shit hardware. The PS3 had 256MB of RAM, and put out a beautiful game like The Last of Us. The PS4 has 8GB of GDDR5 for the whole system. It damn well better put out a game like TR with re-worked textures, effects, foliage etc and look just as good if not better than the PC version that released a year ago.

Had TR been PC exclusive and took full advantage of PC hardware, it could look 10x better than both the PC version we got, and the Definitive Version. But it wasn't because it also released on consoles.

There's nothing to be impressed about with TR on PS4. It SHOULD look that good at 1080p 60FPS because it's a next gen console that just launched a few months ago.

Had TR made a graphical jump like NBA 2K14 did from PS3 to PS4, then yes, that would be impressive.

AndrewLB3401d ago

Why the heck do they keep comparing a re-done version of Tomb Raider to a year+ old PC version what was at the time a console port? And a poor console port at that.

it's like saying... "Look how PS4 blows away Xbox 360 game ported to PC!"

... ridiculous.

Army_of_Darkness3401d ago (Edited 3401d ago )


Funny how when the ps4 can handle Tomb raider as well as a high end pc it is suddenly outdated after a year, yet pc fanboy's love to brag about a game called crysis that was made when?? oh right, nov. 2007 was it?? LOL!

I can't image the chaos it would bring to the world if Crytek made Crysis for the ps4 in 1080p @60fps... There would be a massive amount of Exploding PC fannie heads!

MicDude3401d ago (Edited 3401d ago )

Tomb Raider DE looks like the devs took the Sharpshooters ENB from Skyrim and applied it to Tomb Raider. Does anyone else see it?

MicDude3401d ago (Edited 3401d ago )

Sorry Double post

Spartan1193401d ago (Edited 3401d ago )

"The game was just ported to the PS4. It was made more for the PC in mind than PS4. Ofcourse, ps4 is a closed system and the game would have looked much better on PS4 had it been made ground up for PS4 exclusively. It was made with "parity" in mind with xbox one version"

You keep telling yourself that Sammy. The game was not just ported over to the ps4 from PC. It was reworked and rebuilt for PS4 and X1. The PS4 version was not gimped to be on par with the X1 version either.

Dude4203401d ago

@ blackmagic

Did you bother to read my post? You may have a 5970 (which is dual GPU btw), but you're still missing the point.

Again, find me a PC back in 2009 or 2011 that can run graphics this good which has a CPU and GPU on one chip. We're talking about an APU with the strength of an HD7850/7870 here, not a seperate CPU and GPU. Again, 2013 tech.

blackmagic3401d ago (Edited 3401d ago )

The specs quoted are for the 5870 not 5970... typo on the 9 I guess.
The 5970 puts out 4.64 TFLOPS, also from 2009.

You would have to be retarded to build a gaming pc using an APU. Buying an APU in the pc world means you are buying a substandard cpu paired with a mediocre gpu and mounting it on a feature deficient, underperforming motherboard and you can forget about dual GPUs too. Then you are locked into that combination pretty much until you are ready to replace all three. The reason you can't find an APU from 2009 or 2011 more powerful than Sony's is because no one wants them. The only people buying APUs in the pc world are budget buyers looking for a box to check facebook on.

Building an APU is a budget move. Sony may have the "most powerful APU" on the market but they are using it primarily because it is cheaper to build a ps4 with an APU than it is with separates.

FOUR YEARS ago I built my pc, HD5870 GPU and Phenom II X4 965, and I am tickled pink that it is keeping up just fine with the brand new consoles despite it being what I consider to be an old PC now.

Now, my point is, I was expecting to see the PS4 and xbox one mop the floor with my 4 year old pc but that didn't happen. At all. And that was really a big surprise to me especially when I am already at that point when I am starting to get the upgrade itch to replace my old PC.

Dude4203401d ago

@ black

You're clearly not getting what my whole point was. Just because you had a powerful card from 4 years ago, doesn't mean any card with same performance is considered 2009 tech. Are you going to tell me the HD7850 is considered 2009 tech even though it's slightly faster than an HD 5870? No, it can't be because it's an improved architecture unlike the older cards.

Regarding the PS4 APU, again you have to look at it from a technical point of view. This is a custom made APU that...

- Performs on par with an HD7850/7870.
- It's a CPU and GPU combined on one chip.
- Peak system wattage of PS4 is 140W.
- It's a very small form factor system.

So again I ask, what system from 2009-2011 is able to pull that off? This is new tech, new architecture, more efficient, much smaller, something that didn't exist a few years ago. This is 2013 tech no matter how you spin it.

This wasn't about how whether or not the PS4 mopping the floor with high-end PC's, this is about the tech involved that allows it to perform the way it can. I'm not a console person, but even I can say it's pretty impressive.

Heck, KZ: Shadowfall may not look as good as a fully fledged out PC game, but it looks damn good and it runs at 1080P. I'm sorry if you and other don't see it the same way I do. IMO, 2013 tech, end of story.

blackmagic3400d ago (Edited 3400d ago )

Easy, eurocom panther 2, launched february 2011.
I7-990x six core core cpu @ 3.7Ghz, 12Mb cache
Dual HD 6990M in crossfire with 4GB GDDR5, 3.2 TFLOPS
4x 1TB Hard drives (there are 4 hard drive bays)
blu-ray burner

Oh, and did I mention it's a laptop? Similar in size to the PS4 but is mobile, includes a 17 inch 1080p screen, keyboard, space for FOUR hard drives and runs off of the built in battery so, yeah sorry, I don't find the ps4 impressive AT ALL spec wise.

Dude4203399d ago

@ black

And again you miss the point. Those are 2 seperate components (1 CPU, 1 GPU), not one APU. All of that, plus that seperate GPU is apparently equivalent to the HD6870, hardly impressive considering the gargantuan price and the fans need to cool the system down. The power draw is immense too. The PS4 is only $400 and has the same performance.

Geez, these new manufacturing methods sure brought costs 2013.

Try again...

blackmagic3399d ago (Edited 3399d ago )

First things first. There is absolutely NOTHING, N-O-T-H-I-N-G, tehnologically advanced about putting a GPU and CPU on one piece of silicon. The chip is just a bigger single unit versus two smaller units and it forces ridiculous shortcomings ie the cpu has only 4mb of L2 cache to share amongst 8 processors and NO L1 or L3 cache, and doesn't even incorporate any SSE5 instruction sets like XOP, FMA4, and CVT16 which AMD implemented on their desktop processors in 2009! Two compute units had to be disabled on every GPU in order to increase yield because the chip is so large, yay apu.

And you keep going on about the power sipping like that's an impressive performance feature for a device that is plugged in to the wall. Seriously, I would prefer it consumed 1500 watts and was actually impressive performance wise, not the gimped APU Sony used. And Btw, that laptop only uses 300 Watts despite having to power 4 hard drives and a display vs 1 hard drive and no display for the ps4.

And BTW, that laptop has two cards running in crossfireis pushing 3.2TFLOPS of processing power which is phenomenal for a laptop at the beginning of 2011. I do agree that 3.2 TFLOPS today isn't particularly impressive when it's possible to build a quad sli rig pushing 18 TFLOPS which is yet another reason that the PS4's 1.84 TFLOPS is particularly pathetic in today's age of even midrange PC's pushing well past that. Oooo... the power of the APU! Gone are the days of the ps3 or 360 where you had to build a serious rig to keep up at the beginning of the console cycle. Now they are behind the performance curve right out of the gates on day one!!

Finally, the ongoing $400 argument which completely pretends that it doesn't cost $50 a year just to play and pretends that games are a minimum $10 more each. In 5 years, buying ONLY 5 games a year, that's a $500 premium being paid and most gamers play more than 5 games a year! FIVE HUNDRED DOLLAR PREMIUM, ahhh, the rewards of being a console owner.

Dude4203398d ago (Edited 3398d ago )

I'm not a console owner, I actually own a Gaming PC in case you're wondering.

You're argument is nothing but hot air as all you try to do is pin the shortcomings of the APU as if it was the bane of the chip. I bet you just wiki'd to see what features the chip was missing and tried to use that to support you're argument lol. What's funny is that the only negative aspect of the chip has to do with the CPU, yet you completely overlook the kind of architecture inside.

For example, the PS4 chip features HSA. While HSA won't necessarily boost GPU performance, it can actually use the GPU to help the CPU complete tasks which minimizes the bottleneck when it comes to calculations such as Physics (developers just have to optimize it). Again, the APU GPU is as powerful as a 7870 and that's pretty good for a single chip.

Why are you throwing the yield argument? This happens to every manufactured chip, Intel and Nvidia do this too. I don't know how this is a bad thing for AMD's APU, it's common practice.

What difference does it make that Sony charges $50 a year for online service? We're talking about the hardware here, not Sony's policies. Besides, that laptop you're referring to retailed for a gargantuan price of $3000 and over, that 2011 laptop better be impressive.

Yeah, some sacrifices had to be made to keep costs down, but overall it seems that the chip inside the PS4 has done a pretty good job thus far. So try again...

Besides, I don't know why you act like I'm saying PS4 is the second coming or came from aliens? I know it's not and I know it's not the best performing platform compared to PC. However, you seem to have an issue with me calling this particular APU 2013 tech, which it ACTUALLY is considering it has HSA and GCN. But whatever dude, I'm on my last bubble so this debate ends here. You can have the last word if you want, but you need to have your issues checked.

Lastly, you prefer impressive performance at 1500W? Man I'd hate to see your electric bill.

blackmagic3398d ago (Edited 3398d ago )


+ Show (28) more repliesLast reply 3398d ago
WalterWJR3401d ago

My life consists of more than just eating vegy bacon dad.

starchild3401d ago

I've played both versions and this is a pretty fair comparison. Visually both versions have their pluses and minuses, but the reason I personally feel the PC version is better is because I can run it at a smooth 60fps and with super clean CGI-like image quality thanks to super sample anti-aliasing. Both of those things have a bigger impact on my visual enjoyment of a game and how well it controls.

TheMadHatter3401d ago


Exactly. I don't understand the logic when gamers compare console hardware to PC. The PS3 had only 512 mb of ram yet it ran games like Uncharted 3 amazingly. Yet a PC with 512 mb could barely run any games.

bryam19823401d ago

lets the real next gen consoles compete sorry xbone not you lol

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3398d ago
fluffydelusions3402d ago

PC could obviously handle this and than some it's just SE being lazy/wanting more money that they don't patch the PC version to DE.

josephayal3402d ago

Pcs will need upgrade to match PS4 performance, Good job sony, good job

MadLad3402d ago

My PC didn't. I haven't touched anything in it since I built it two years ago.
This is a year old port sold at three times the price the game can be found for now. Let's praise the situation though; new tech can run a year old game nicely . . .

MadLad3401d ago (Edited 3401d ago )

To the disagrees, are you disagreeing my PC is two years old and can run this game well, that the game is a year old or that the PC version can be had for $20 or cheaper? I'm a little confused here.

worldwidegaming3401d ago

You just jumped in "doo-doo" coming in here expecting PS fans to NOT click disagree.
Any comments that is not about brown nosing Sony will be disagreed! its sad but TRUE!

Oschino19073401d ago

Except it's not simply a year old port and it has both content and improvements not seen in the version sold at 1/3 the price. If you want just the dlc content the Definitive Edition has you need to buy the $29.99 goty version console or pc.

Maybe you got disagrees for misinformation and trying to spin things with a snide attempt to downplay the PS4 at the end.

Just my observations.

Volkama3401d ago (Edited 3401d ago )

My 2 year old PC (i7-3820, Radeon 6950) can run the game in stereoscopic 3D with the settings cranked up.

His console needs to upgrade to match my 2 year old PC.

BUT as I have the option of upgrading I will do, 2x R9 290s expected this week :D

Oh and the GotY edition cost me somewhere between £5 and £7.

Benchm4rk3401d ago

Don't mind the disagrees mate. I once got spammed with them for saying that my Wii U had got bricked during an update and that id sent it off under warranty to get fixed.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3401d ago
Lonnie183402d ago

New Uncharted 4 will be the true test.

starchild3401d ago

How is that a true test of anything? Uncharted is a flagship franchise on Playstation consoles and it's meant to show off the hardware. Uncharted 4 will be built from the ground up to take maximum advantages of the hardware and it's being created by one of the most talented studios in the industry with a huge budget.

It's going to look great, no question about it.

Xristo3402d ago (Edited 3402d ago )

I bet Minecraft looks just as well on the PS4 (if ever available) as it would on the PC, also. The fact remains is that the PC could do MORE if the developers pushed it. Congrats to the PS4 for getting to the level of graphics that my previous video card (a 3 year old GTX580) maxed out easily. /golfcalp

But just like how I personally don't understand why people own vehicles such as a Bentley because you never know how good/bad something is until you experience something better. That is the same with PC vs Console. Fortunately, I'm on the Bentley side (PC in this case) of this situation.

Edit: Damn, after rereading what I typed, damn, I sound bitter! lol ... anyways, in the end, it's nice to see consoles making a splash in the graphics department (hope they can keep up with the FPS deparptment also). The more consoles can push in graphics, the better the PC ports will be. Just game-on.

WeAreLegion3402d ago

The code for Minecraft will be the same across all consoles, according to their Twitter account. Incredibly disappointing.

Xristo3401d ago

Oh, I agree. It would be awesome to see a nicer looking Minecraft! :) But I was making a point that some graphics are pre-made to a certain level. You COULD make the Tomb Raider graphics even better on the PC with the current technology but the developers went to a certain limit.

TheMadHatter3401d ago

Not necessarily. I own a good gaming PC and a console but I still find it perfectly alright going back to consoles on multiplat games. Played Tomb Raider maxed on PC and it looks amazing. Tried it on PS3, obviously not as good but even if for whatever reason I was suddenly unable to play the PC version, I'd still be cool with the PS3.