GTA V PC (Normal/V.High) vs. PS3 vs. PS4 Screenshot Comparison Shows That The Wait Was Worth It

Khurram Imtiaz

Editor-in-Chief at GearNuke. I am a hardcore Final Fantasy fan and lover of JRPGs. When I am not posting news, I can be seen sharing my thoughts over at Twitter.

You can follow me on Twitter and Google+

View all posts
  • New meta


  • New meta

    Actually PC Normal (min settings) are better than PS4. Look at the draw distance and sharpness. Limiting the color gamut does not make it look better to the photoshop specialist.

    • New meta

      They didn’t even show PC Ultra… And PS3 is at much lower resolution, so wtf comparison. Do you even know how many things like shadows, shaders, etc.. – each of them can cost 30fps (PS4).

      • New meta

        In PC you have DoF(depth of field) which is expensive effect enabled. In PS you have short drawing distance which relieves gpu immensely. You can’t compare them. PS is made to look OK from a TV viewing distance and cheap TVs suck as “gaming monitors” – mine is calibrated, fast, responsive and doubles as photoshop workstation. So I can see the cheap filters and limited colors(more saturation like this) they apply to PS to make it look better but it is not.

      • Dr. MKhalil

        PC with Ultra and may 4K with Ultra ,,,,,, PS4 cry hhhh 🙂 ,,,,, X1 die 🙂

  • The Herald Of GabeN

    No competition. PC wins again.

  • Sunny

    PS4 only outputs lossy compressed JPG
    Steam allows for uncompressed lossless PNG

    Did you do JPG for PC version too Khurram Imtiaz? Makes it more fair

  • Matt

    Comparing the PS3 vs PC justs makes it more noticeable how ugly that blue fog is.


  • Joshua Pirog

    Another article trolling about a 3rd party title looking best on PC, on gearnuke? Shocker.

    • Alex_Atkin_UK

      It does bug me how the majority of reports are saying “PC version at 4K beats PS4”, because yeah its a no brainer. It bloody better do, considering the GPU alone to achieve that costs more than a PS4, if you want 60fps at 4K you are talking GPU cost alone many times more than a PS4.

      But its interesting to see how well PS4 compares at the same resolution and on GPUs your average person is more likely to own.

      • Vitaliy Yurkin

        …Uh, no. A GPU to play GTAV at roundabout 4k will be worth just about the price of a PS4 + $100. Or should I say, two GPU’s; two 290’s, when OC’d, will easily play 4k GTA at a stable 60 FPS. And 290’s AFAIK are about $250 each, so $500 total.

        Remember, that’s both 4k and 60 FPS, on ultra. That’s a massive step up from the PS4 versions, which boasts neither of those features. As opposed to PS4’s upscaled 900p to 1080p, 30 FPS, and low-medium settings.

        • Alex_Atkin_UK

          TotalBiscuit got 60-70fps on a single GTX 980, with all the advanced graphics options off. With 8xMSAA he was down to 60-70fps on DUAL 980s at night time, which he said has higher frame rates than day time as the drawing distance is lower. These are the results at 1080p!

          The people comparing 4K on PC to PS4 are not using like-for-like settings, in fact they often are using official Rockstar screenshots which you can bet are cranked up to the very top settings, running on a beast of a machine.

          Then there are UK prices that may also make a big difference. A single GTX 980 costs £120 more than a PS4 here. It also doesn’t factor in that a lot of console gamers choose that system because they don’t want the noise of quad-SLI GPUs in their living room, nor the electricity bill to run them.

  • App le

    Am I the only one who thinks that the PS4 / (and EVEN) PS3 version looks better?

    • Charles Charalambous

      This comparison is actually awful.I played the PS3 version and now play the PC version full bell and whistles everything on and it looks infinitely better than these screenshots. I also run it at 2k, once I get my 2nd 970 back I will be 4king it 60fps. These screenshots are not wha tthey say to be. There is no reflections msaa, there is no decent aa settings no txaa,, no high quality shadows no extended distance scaling no nothing.

      Also a lot of the extra effects on PC only show theirself in motion, still images do not tell you much. Hopign Gamersyde do a proper comparison.

    • Solace Kane

      No, not just you. I thought it was only me but I was thinking the same thing. in some of the ps3 screenshots they come off as less washed out and more vivid and on some of the ps4 it seems like there’s more detail on some items.

      I think this is one of those you have to see it in motion to truly see which is superior.

      • Alex_Atkin_UK

        Screenshots are extremely misleading though, as having played it on PS3 and then on PS4, its a night/day improvement on PS4 IMO. Not to mention the frame rate on PS3 is a bit on the rough side.

        I have to admit I expected a bigger graphical difference on PC though. That said, there is no denying that playing at 60+fps would be an improvement, but not enough for me to buy it a third time (until its comes down in price).

    • Marc Domange

      No I have the same feeling

    • KeplerNoMore

      I am playing it on normal and have to say that the PS3 still looks better, on high you can see little extra details (like grass, trees, rocks, water) that the PS4 doesnt have, but overall its not that great as a leap. All this 4k hype killed it

    • nate

      Normal on PC is the lowest setting, so that’s not impossible.

    • Demetrius Radford

      Yeah PC lowest setting and pc textures look better but ps3 looks better overall

    • App le

      And not that I am making some promo for Crysis, but really – a 8/9 year older game really beats GTA V graphics wise, just look at these screenshots.

      Keep in mind, that you do not even have to have so much power to make it run – without jaggy edges…

      • Matt

        Crisis can’t 1080p/60fps

        • App le

          “Crisis can’t 1080p/60fps”

          Really? I have 180 FPS on it. Have you even played it?

          • Matt

            No it literally can’t… The refresh is limited to 24hz when playing in 1080p.

          • App le

            Yes it can. If you just did a quick youtube search for a gameplay, you would see that there are countless that are in 60 fps or more.
            More importantly – Crysis has NO REFRESH RATE LIMIT (it can support even up to 1000hz+)=1000fps.

          • Matt

            I witnessed the problem myself… the only way to subvert it is to make a custom resolution in the Nvidia control panel. YOU should do a google search for Crysis 1080/24hz

          • Wally Gurney

            Your first mistake was going with Nvidia… Your second was not knowing wtf your talking about , for Nvidia drivers play Crysis hit alt+enter until you find the correct video driver and Crysis will run much smoother on the 800 series I think there’s 4-5 video modes to cycle thru

          • Matt

            It’s not a driver related otherwise it would’ve been dealt with automatically instead of having to create a custom resolution or cycle through legacy drivers. It’s not a question of it running smoother it’s the fact that the game only outputs 24hz when running 1080p whether it be under certain circumstances or not.

            I’m done interacting with you.

      • Sunny

        so what? at the time that game released i can remember hardly anyone could run that at 1080p on 30fps. now finally we can handle it, these games currently made now put a mindset to make it run on as many possible hardware from launch.

        of course another game could do what Crysis did make it very future proof but since no one can hardly run it as it’s finest it will lose alot of sales, that’s why game devs don’t take the risk…p.s crysis games are still terrible though xD nice graphics but that’s about it.

    • Christopher Prats

      On some instances it does, like in the first one, but it looks better in others.

    • New meta

      You are mistaken, my friend. Sharpening dark/white filters, shallow drawing distance and limited color gamut is not better. They already do the same they did at the end of the PS3 life – blazing lights and invisibly dark walls to reduce detail but make it seem more contrasty/sharp.

      • New meta

        Once consoles were good buy. “New generation” sucks ass. Sony has almost bankrupted its PS division, so they no more make them at a loss. From 400$ hardware you should substract winnings – at least 200$. Even AMD is only 24% last time I read.

    • You Are Flat Out Wrong


      Get your eyes tested

      • App le

        Obviously I am not talking about that – I am talking about shaders. (Btw – do you actually know what they are? =p)

        • Steve Bike

          Not even close.