Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
They pulled it from their ass.
720p was likely pulled out of some insider's ass. The 60 fps was an offhand statement about the developer wanting to hit 60 being turned into a "fact."
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Shadow of Mordor DF Face-Off
- Thread starter neogaffer1
- Start date
They pulled it from their ass.
720p was likely pulled out of some insider's ass. The 60 fps was an offhand statement about the developer wanting to hit 60 being turned into a "fact."
hUMA architecture, GDDR5, CPU use less resources for OS etc ( even is lower clock CPU frequency in PS4 ).
GPU is one of the main reason :
Xbone: 1.31 TF GPU (12 CUs) for games -56% less
Xbone: 768 Shaders -50.5% less
Xbone: 48 Texture units -50% less
Xbone: 16 ROPS -100% less
Xbone: 2 ACE/ 16 queues -400% less
Xbone: 13.65GPixels/s -88% less
Xbone: 40.90GTexels/s -40% less
PS4: 1.84TF GPU ( 18 CUs) for games +56% more
PS4: 1152 Shaders +50.5%
PS4: 72 Texture units +50%
PS4: 32 ROPS + 100%
PS4: 8 ACE/64 queues 400%
PS4: 25.60GPixels/s +88%
PS4: 57.60GTexels/s +40%
It's just observations based on the individual screenshot comparisons in the article. But most of them seem pretty clear.
Also, I don't play the game, but from what I've seen in the screenshot thread it doesn't deserve to be called ugly:
Well I think he's saying that a PC with an entry class GPU such as a 560Ti and a cheap AMD CPU (the lowest one in the benchmarks on GameGPU is a FX6100 that did 65fps as a minimum, it's fair to say that an even cheaper one could do 30fps min easily) fares better, once again going by the benchmarks (that were done on max settings), than a PS4 (a fixed platform with all the benefits that come with one optimisation wise) with a pretty decent GPU (allegedly between a 7850/7870) and a, let's admit it, mediocre CPU.
I have to say I'm a little surpised they couldn't do better on PS4.
PS4 is so much more advanced that we need a DF article to point every single difference.
This is exactly how I feel. No one noticed the differences until they are highlighted. Just enjoy the fames. As long as it's a locked framerate it's fine. The only thing I wish I'd that I got it on pc really but I didn't trust my 570s
Bananajama
Banned
I have bad news for You. Prepare for more games in this resolution few years from now.
370-400 sure. PC hardware is not subsidized and planned to be manufactured in dozen of milions
The reason they do this is to make sure that the part they don't test is influencing the outcome as little as possible.
If you e.g. would test the gpu performance with a slow cpu, you would get worthless results, cause the game runs only as fast as the slowest part allows.
What do you think will happen if you use a cheap mobo, the $100 gpu and the $50 cpu?
I can build a pc for 400, same price as the consoles, that outperforms both by a respectable margin and this was possible since the launch and it will only get worse by the time, till price drops are happening.
There is a reason why both, for the first time, make a profit with these boxes.
Wut.
vpance
Member
That's because he cropped the image and zoomed up 2x. PS4 is a little soft but not this soft. Looks much sharper in the original pic.
Bananajama
Banned
geordiemp
Member
Straight form your ass.
Only sub HD game I have is Watchdogs..
What you on about god knows.
Newer frostbite games are coming in at 1080 = PVZ etc. Only BF4 was 900p and it was a launch version.
Jesus... as a PC gamer, sometimes I feel there are few who understand that consoles are supposed to be accessible, cheap, bang for your buck hardware, that at some point will be $300. They're not designed for the performance enthusiast consumer, and the results are great for what they are (well mostly the ps4).
The point of PC gaming is scalable performance according to your budget, it's obvious you can outperform consoles if you build or upgrade to new hardware releases, what is the point of bragging about 780ti benchmarks? the discussion will get nowhere and only makes the poster look ridiculous.
The point of PC gaming is scalable performance according to your budget, it's obvious you can outperform consoles if you build or upgrade to new hardware releases, what is the point of bragging about 780ti benchmarks? the discussion will get nowhere and only makes the poster look ridiculous.
http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/pLYRYJ
292 pounds, although that would be without an OS, or the typical 8GB RAM and 1TB HDD. Could probably do better without that i3 though.
Can you give an example of this magic pc?
BF4.
Yeah, because we all spent considerable time on both versions and should have been able to tell the differences.
Looks better than anything last gen. Linear or otherwise.
geordiemp
Member
I don't have BF4
Wish I never bought Watchdogs.
Poor optimisation and sub optimal game seem to go hand in hand sometimes. Funny that...
I don't see the bluray player.
There are several threads about this already with good examples.
----
Oh yeah, because tech requirements wont increase in later years, oh wait they will. And because console has static hardware, the compromises will be done and the first thing to cut, without lowering fidelity, is the resolution.
And newsflash 900p looks still pretty good on TVs, especially for general audience.
Please learn math before posting about %.
So? Still a sub full-hd (a standard that's been around for a decade orso) game on the super charged pc called the Playstation 4.
Bananajama
Banned
So an extra £50 with the OS
Less the convenience of a console
Some PC gamers just need to accept a LOT of people prefer ease of a console over a PC
I say this as a devout PC player who rants at mates who plays FPS's with a joypad!
geordiemp
Member
Nope, cant see 900p ever being a standard on Ps4, or even common.
Yes a few launch games (2 I can recall). If Kojima can do 1080/60 open world, API's and routines improving all the time, then I cant see it.
If the new industry wide engines being released such as UE4 are comfortable at 1080p on Ps4, then that's easily attainable by every dev.
I don't think you gain that much from 1080p to 900p in the GPGPU especially on ps4. I imagine the 8 ACE should be on ps4 exactly for a reason like the next years incoming.
geordiemp
Member
I said only sub HD game that I own...is watchdogs...
Did you mis read what I typed.
I know BF was also 900p60, it also was an un-optimised bug ridden mess rushed out to meet the new consoles.
Than correct me. Not write post like that one. Those specs snaking around here pretty long time, since launch.
You apparently misread what was said in the post you originally quoted, try reading that.
Kssio_Aug
Member
What the hell? I've read many and many times people saying the PS4 version was 50~60fps! Not saying the rumours about the XB1 being 720p. I almost bought the PS4 verion for that!
So both versions are 30fps and the main difference is 900p vs 1080p? Thank you DF, the only one we cant trust!
So both versions are 30fps and the main difference is 900p vs 1080p? Thank you DF, the only one we cant trust!
Chobel
Member
How do you expect many people to notice the difference when most people buy only one version of the game?
The challenge was a 300 pound PC to match a console in power, right? Why is it now about convenience?
geordiemp
Member
.
In response to BF4 being 900p.
So the poster suggests more games will be 900p in future on PS4 ?
That's what it reads, which is rubbish.
Whats your point exactly ?
I read your post about Ps4 supercomputer, which is childish, what are you saying ?
I know a lot of you are PC gamers and this is more addressed for consoles but this is the first game where I recall lower vegetation density/object density for one or the other consoles. This could be the start of the inevitable scale backs and cutting of assets for the X One.
I say this thinking that compromises will have to be made to maintain frame rate/res on the One. In this case the cuts can impact gameplay. On one of the shot for shot comparisons I noticed fewer rocks on the Xone version. The rocks are integral to using a sprint ability, therefore fewer rocks equals fewer sprint opportunities and a slower method of traversing the environment in this version.
This is by no means a huge deal or a game changer but I bring it up because this is the first title I recall making sacrifices in areas OTHER than the typical ones, Res/FPS/IQ.
Do fellow Gaffers see this as becoming more pronounced/common over time. I certainly do and have argued before that the cuts will have to be made. It appears to have begun.
I say this thinking that compromises will have to be made to maintain frame rate/res on the One. In this case the cuts can impact gameplay. On one of the shot for shot comparisons I noticed fewer rocks on the Xone version. The rocks are integral to using a sprint ability, therefore fewer rocks equals fewer sprint opportunities and a slower method of traversing the environment in this version.
This is by no means a huge deal or a game changer but I bring it up because this is the first title I recall making sacrifices in areas OTHER than the typical ones, Res/FPS/IQ.
Do fellow Gaffers see this as becoming more pronounced/common over time. I certainly do and have argued before that the cuts will have to be made. It appears to have begun.
clutch.as.it.gets.
Member
Yeah, their post process solution looks like most cheap console pp aa solutions - blurry.
But at least the devs took advantage of PS4s better gpu, and thats the devs and games i`m happily support. Parity "because business reasons" my ass.
But i have to say Shadow of Mordor isn`t that much of a looker, and seeing it only running with 30 frame concerns be a little bit for the future.
See the PC performance thread.
That's not how you calculate relative percentages. For example, 150 is 50% more than 100. 100 is 33% less than 150.
Every pc beat console in the raw power. But if you think to build a rig who can handle all the games with the same configuration of the console at only 399, it's not that easy. Not all games are well optimized like Mordor, on pc.
Bananajama
Banned
For all those PC games that get released on BluRay?
Kilau
Gold Member
When it happens, I will move back to PC gaming primarily. I was ready to get a 4GB 290x to replace my old 6870 but all the talk about 6GB of VRAM pushed me into waiting.
To be honest, I might be a bit interested in console convenience myself. I just wanted to point out that even a cheap PC not much more expensive than a PS4 can push similar graphics (and probably end up being cheaper in the long run, simply to match console performance).
BibiMaghoo
Member
Yeah man, I mean how do you even start your games on PC without the disc in the drive? Crazy world we live in.
Decent bluray player it's on console at 399 & it's not free.
Mr Moose
Member
Missing OS and drive to install OS. And 4GB RAM?