|
|
| Page 26 of 158 |
Pitzzu
Posts: 247
Location: Israel
|
 Posted: Thu, 21st Feb 2013 13:56 Post subject: |
|
 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 21st Feb 2013 13:57 Post subject: |
|
|
The audience doesn't want to pay more than $400 for a powerful PC. THat's what the ps4 offers them. Now let's see how it goes (thought the keynote was disappointing, but didn't expect anything more powerful than a current gen PC).
YOu guys are acting as if a console could be more powerful than a PC and be cheap at the same price ? Come on, a PC will always be superior, deal with it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sausje
Banned
Posts: 17716
Location: Limboland, Netherlands
|
| Posted: Thu, 21st Feb 2013 14:02 Post subject: |
|
|
Then it's about time that the correct phrase is going to be used.
Instead of calling this next gen gaming, people should start calling it "next gen console gaming", because compared to PC it's just current gen >.<
Proud member of Frustrated Association of International Losers Failing Against the Gifted and Superior (F.A.I.L.F.A.G.S)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Thu, 21st Feb 2013 14:07 Post subject: |
|
|
You're right in that you can't compare the specs 1:1. Consoles have less overhead -but they do have overhead just the same, contrary to another popular argument-, some of the hardware is much more tightly coupled (unified GDDR5 = win), but there are also some points most console people bring in which are just outright lies.
Allow me to demonstrate:
| Guerrilla060185 wrote: | | For example, to get the same textures you get with xbox 360s shared 512 MB you need at least 2-2.5GB on a pc (incl. graphics ram). |
Horsecrap, dear sir. How the fuck would textures at the same quality be bigger on the PC? The 360 doesn't have any magical texture compression that would allow them to squeeze better textures into less memory - it's the other way around in fact. Unfortunately textures haven't changed much in the past decade and they'll always be the biggest memory hogs. Aside from that, they live purely in the VRAM, so even if you'd dedicated all 512 megabytes of a 360 to the GPU (which you can't anyway), in 2005/2006 256 MB VRAM was the absolute standard, with mid to high end having 512 MB of VRAM.
And no, texture quality on the 360 or PS3 is not good.
| Quote: | | Or to rephrase it, buy a 6 year old state of the art pc, and it won't put out nearly the same graphical fidelity the xbox 360 got now... |
For the price of the 360? No, you wouldn't have made that back in 2006.
But move up a year and suddenly you have the magical G92 (8800 GT) which could in fact run Crysis above 30 FPS at 1280x1024 already - that's a higher resolution than consoles as well (42% more pixels over 720p, let alone the crappy resolution of 960x544 and the other strange ones a lot of games use). Couple that with today's FXAA/MLAA, the slightly lower resolution and you'll be able to cross the 40 FPS line with it. G92 was a die shrink of G80, which in turn had a lot of stuff that they also backported into G70 for the PS3's RSX. Do keep in mind that games on consoles 5-6 years ago looked worse than they do now and none of them back then used any AA. Most still only use FXAA or MLAA and often don't even run at 720p.
So let's say the PS4 launches at 400 EUR. Can you build a PC that can run games as well as the PS4 will be able to at that price point right now? But a year from now, that'll change. And a decent gaming PC now (which you can build for somewhere around 600-700 EUR, provided you do some overclocking) will already be able to.
Don't get me wrong, the PS4 will deliver brilliant visuals at a lower price point than a PC for at least a year (although that's still debatable, since we'll be 2 generations ahead by the time the PS4 launches), but the outright lies such as the above irk me.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 21st Feb 2013 14:21 Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by paxsali on Thu, 4th Jul 2024 22:07; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 21st Feb 2013 14:44 Post subject: |
|
|
I agree and that was to be expected.
| sausje wrote: | Then it's about time that the correct phrase is going to be used.
Instead of calling this next gen gaming, people should start calling it "next gen console gaming", because compared to PC it's just current gen >.< |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 21st Feb 2013 14:49 Post subject: |
|
|
Well of course it's standardization, but that's what allows optimization. They have years to optimize for just one or two (in the case of multiplat. titles) standardized hardware constellations. Which comes to the same conclusion and doesn't change anything = better graphics on lesser hardware.
And of course the overhead plays its part in this, but that's still not interfering with my post.
You didn't even disagree with me it seems
And yeah we fall for that every new generation because we get unprecedentet gaming experiences which are also available on pc's in higher fidelity, but are only possible due to console money. So we get a jump in game quality if a new game console comes out that we wouldn't get if we just had pc as a platform. Games of the scope of Watchdogs just wouldn't be possible...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WaldoJ
VIP Member
Posts: 32678
|
| Posted: Thu, 21st Feb 2013 15:08 Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think you played crysis 1 recently.
| Sin317 wrote: | | I win, you lose. Or Go fuck yourself. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 21st Feb 2013 15:14 Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by paxsali on Thu, 4th Jul 2024 22:07; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 21st Feb 2013 15:38 Post subject: |
|
|
I hate to put my self in the pc gamer category cause they always have an elitist stick up their ass, console does have a benefit over pc that draws me in for a lot of reasons.
-put the game in and play, it works off the bat no tweaking no crashing and no annoying protection in the way.
-online cheating is 1/100th what it is in pc gaming. It can completely ruin the game if it becomes a big problem for a particular game.
-cost/upkeep, the console will always play the games designed for it how they were designed for it and I wont need to shell out cash for a new video card/computer ever 2-3 years.
-for me playing with my friends, I may be a nerdgasmer when it comes to electronics but my friends aren't and I like to be able to jump on and party up with my brothers and friends and play.
-pc will always have the graphics win over consoles but its lonely and full of bugs/costs.
come flame me all you guys want but I play both and stick to pc where I find it to be better suited (skyrim/dishonored recently).
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 21st Feb 2013 15:41 Post subject: |
|
|
Also i think you can't compare price 1:1, because if i'm not wrong sony and ms sold their consoles at loss for many years(and i am sure it will happen again), so it means for every console they sell the actual cost of it is higher. That doesnt happen on pc side, becouse there is so much competition and some psu or motherboard manufacturer doesnt get compensation from selling pc games.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Thu, 21st Feb 2013 15:48 Post subject: |
|
|
| Guerrilla060185 wrote: | | they look better than they ever could on a pc with 1gb of ram |
No, they don't :S
Like I said, even if you could dedicated the full 512 MB in the 360 to the GPU, even 6 years ago 512 MB VRAM was already becoming standard. Again, textures do not live in system RAM, they are moved through VRAM. A PC with 1GB of RAM and 256 MB of VRAM was common good 6 years ago. That 256 megs of VRAM is about the same, perhaps slightly less than game developers have for the GPU in the 360 as well (it may be 512 MB overall, but some of it goes to the OS/D3D, some of it to sound, some of it to the game's gameplay data, and so on). Please, do explain how exactly a 360 could possibly have better looking textures than even a PC from 6 years ago that has the same amount of memory for the GPU. A 360 has just that single set of 512 MB for everything. 6 years ago you already had 1 GB for the OS, sound, physics, gameplay and whatever else - in addition to the 256 megs VRAM for a mid-end, 512 megs for a high-end card.
| Quote: | But how many great looking pc only games are there? Console is where the games are at  |
Not enough, because consoles have been holding PCs back due to the multiplatform nonsense. However, every multiplatform graphical powerhouse has consistently looked better on the PC. BC2, BF3, Shift 1+2, Crysis 2 (even though it still looked like crap on the PC without all the patches/fixes/packs/tweaks, it was better than consoles). Fuck, even crap like Mafia 2 looks much better on PC and you most certainly don't need an amazing rig to play that.
| Quote: | | No Pc i know of that's 6 years old can push the same graphics.... |
You don't know much then. The E6xxx CPUs (released in 2006), an 8800 GTS 640, some 2 gigs of RAM. Would've set you back some $750-800 back in 2006 and that was with that top of the line $449 8800 GTS 640 (that's 640 megs of VRAM alone). Plenty of people STILL have a system along those lines now or replaced them only very recently, do you really think they've not been playing games for 6 years? Of course they have.
Again, you're comparing _CURRENT_ console games to _OLD_ hardware - back in 2006 there was no FXAA/MLAA, which takes off a huge load. Also note that even back in 2006, PCs didn't even run at resolutions as low as the PS360 anymore, everyone was on 1280x1024 already by then.
Please, do show me a 2006 PS360 game that ran at 720p w/ 4xMSAA at more than 30 FPS. Heck, 720p w/ 2xMSAA I'll settle for. I know for a fact that a system like the above could run Crysis at that resolution. I had a CPU a generation before the E6xxxx series (but it was an Extreme Edition so it matched that performance), an 8800 GTS 640 and 2GB of RAM. And I played Crysis just fine.
And let's not forget that Sony + MS don't make money on their consoles either. That's the big problem when it comes to price comparisons: PC parts are made to:
- Fit into a multitude of configurations
- Be exchangeable
- Be profitable.
None of that on the consoles. Yet the amount of R&D gone into them costs MS & Sony tons of money.
Once more, the PS4 will look brilliant, but please stop the lying horsecrap when you're comparing to PCs. Consoles are expensive and not as good value for the money as often claimed. They're easier to use for gaming because you just stick the game in and go, but the actual hardware and such are most certainly not that much better value than a PC - not even if you look at it purely with gaming as your goal.
Last edited by Werelds on Thu, 21st Feb 2013 15:51; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
headshot
VIP Member
Posts: 35817
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu, 21st Feb 2013 15:50 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
torrentelek
Posts: 80
Location: Eastern Erope \ Hungary
|
| Posted: Thu, 21st Feb 2013 16:47 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
torrentelek
Posts: 80
Location: Eastern Erope \ Hungary
|
| Posted: Thu, 21st Feb 2013 16:51 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 21st Feb 2013 17:12 Post subject: |
|
|
Oh boy I've begun a fight with the master race
| Quote: | | Please, do explain how exactly a 360 could possibly have better looking textures than even a PC from 6 years ago that has the same amount of memory for the GPU |
I can't, I just see gears of war (even part 1) and it looks much better than any game i've ever seen done on a 1GB Ram PC (However, I didn't know textures are done completely in vram now, not that tech savvy sorry )
| Quote: | | Not enough, because consoles have been holding PCs back due to the multiplatform nonsense. |
Again I don't think consoles are holding pcs back that much. There would be no game like Skyrim if there weren't consoles. The userbase would be way to low. Consoles are an important part in pushing games forward. I'm certain we wouldn't be where we are now if there was only pc as a platform.
| Quote: | | However, every multiplatform graphical powerhouse has consistently looked better on the PC. BC2, BF3, Shift 1+2, Crysis 2 (even though it still looked like crap on the PC without all the patches/fixes/packs/tweaks, it was better than consoles). Fuck, even crap like Mafia 2 looks much better on PC and you most certainly don't need an amazing rig to play that. |
Not arguing with that in the slightest, but i didn't to begin with...
I'm not arguing that a below average pc today can push better graphics than the consoles and I'm sorry for technical inaccuracies which certainly are there, I'm arguing that you can't compare the specs 1:1 and that the ps4 just as 720 will push out graphics that will make you stop and say "wow that looks great" and even better than we see on pc today (eventhough the specs aren't as high).
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
torrentelek
Posts: 80
Location: Eastern Erope \ Hungary
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 21st Feb 2013 17:33 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raccoon
Posts: 3160
Location: Poland
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 21st Feb 2013 18:49 Post subject: |
|
|
Comparing PC and consoles specs is an exercise in futility. They do not mean the same thing, as the whole system architecture, both hw and sw, is different. On PC there's tons of overhead: code needs to be more "generic" and make a compromise to run on a vast range of machines, while on consoles you have specific code written and compiled for the hardware. Consoles have generally faster buses, since there the hardware is more coupled and less "general purpose" (ie: unified memory). On consoles there are also less layers of software between the programmer and the hardware, and finally something not to be underestimated: on a console you don't have fucking windows running hundreds of system processes and services in the background.
So, saying "my pc already has a more powerful gpu / more ram than the ps4" means nothing, it won't be able to run the same game as good as a ps4 does, for the exact same reasons why a pc with 512mb of RAM and a ATI x1800 wouldn't be able to run Crysis 3 while an xbox360 can.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 21st Feb 2013 19:03 Post subject: |
|
|
Having the OS with all its processes running in the background doesn't really have an effect on performance, that is just a memory issue. And I am sure if you were to scale Crysis 3 to console levels, that PC might have more of a chance of running it (not going to perform the same, no argument there).
I am not saying you are wrong - we all know of the benefits the consoles have when it comes to getting the most out of the hardware, but just as you said it shouldn't be underestimated, it shouldn't be overestimated either.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 21st Feb 2013 19:13 Post subject: |
|
|
| MinderMast wrote: | Having the OS with all its processes running in the background doesn't really have an effect on performance, that is just a memory issue. And I am sure if you were to scale Crysis 3 to console levels, that PC might have more of a chance of running it (not going to perform the same, no argument there).
I am not saying you are wrong - we all know of the benefits the consoles have when it comes to getting the most out of the hardware, but just as you said it shouldn't be underestimated, it shouldn't be overestimated either. |
True, in fact that's what I was saying: with the amount of RAM you have on the 360/ps3 you can BARELY boot up win7, never mind trying to run Crysis 3 (or any other modern game for that matter), even at the same console settings quality.
Of course there's a limit to what the hardware can do, even with optimization, what I was saying is that directly comparing hardware specs makes little sense.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WaldoJ
VIP Member
Posts: 32678
|
| Posted: Thu, 21st Feb 2013 19:29 Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Zeel wrote: | omg who gives a shit 
you want old games and saves, keep playing your ps3, all this fixation on backwards compatibility |
it builds up your library the instant you get the console.
Replay the uncharted trilogy. Replay the infamous games.
Killzone. etc etc etc.
ps3 had really no good games when it came out. but it did play ps2.
It's not a feature that gets used 24/7 but it's a feature that would get the most use when no games are coming out for the system for a month or two... just lik the wii u  .
| Sin317 wrote: | | I win, you lose. Or Go fuck yourself. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Thu, 21st Feb 2013 20:10 Post subject: |
|
|
| Guerrilla060185 wrote: | | Oh boy I've begun a fight with the master race |
No, you've started a fight with someone who has owned every console except Xboxes + Dreamcast ( ) and who knows the hardware in them all, and in PCs
| Quote: | | I can't, I just see gears of war (even part 1) and it looks much better than any game i've ever seen done on a 1GB Ram PC (However, I didn't know textures are done completely in vram now, not that tech savvy sorry ) |
Textures have always gone into VRAM. And no, Gears of War sure as hell doesn't have textures better than a decent PC game (read: not multiplatform or PC-first approach).
| Quote: | | Again I don't think consoles are holding pcs back that much. There would be no game like Skyrim if there weren't consoles. The userbase would be way to low. Consoles are an important part in pushing games forward. I'm certain we wouldn't be where we are now if there was only pc as a platform. |
Yes, I'm sure Skyrim wouldn't have happened without consoles, it's not as if every single one of its predecessors was developed primarily for the PC and did extremely well on that 
| Quote: | | I'm arguing that you can't compare the specs 1:1 and that the ps4 just as 720 will push out graphics that will make you stop and say "wow that looks great" and even better than we see on pc today (eventhough the specs aren't as high). |
Most specs can't be compared, but some can. Memory is one of them. PC's already had more VRAM back in 2006 as I pointed out above and that is aside from the system RAM. My point wasn't that the PS4 won't produce brilliant visuals, my point is that your statement about textures is just pure nonsense. At no point has the PS3 nor 360 been ahead of a PC in terms of RAM or VRAM, even with taking Windows hogging some of it into account. Very worst case they've been equal, but a typical 2006-2007 PC would already have been ahead of them.
And no, they won't produce better than what we get on PCs now. Better than on an average consumer PC, probably, but a half-decent gaming PC will be able to match already. Why? Because not a single developer will be able to squeeze everything out of the PS3 yet. By the time they can do that, PCs will also have had a couple of new generations of everything and they'll also have sorted out the platform porting - which obviously will be much easier now with "standard" PC hardware. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 26 of 158 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
