You also has to remember 1280x1024 is 130% of 720p resolution.What are you talking about? A 2006 graphics card, the GeForce 8800 GTX, runs Crysis 2 with better quality/framerate than all those four titles you mentioned.
(The 9800GT is similar to the 8800GTX)
-
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.
PC vs. Next Gen Consoles: Your current rig really won't cut it
- Thread starter Kosma
- Start date
Exactly and a lot of console games were sub 720 as well.
I H8 Memes
Member
Sure upgrades will be needed probably by the mid of next console cycle. That's how it goes in PC gaming, you trade freedom, mods, free online, dedicated servers, cheaper games, all for a higher cost of entry. But it will be a few years before anyone has to worry about that and even then the increase in how much a game demands wont be very high.
We have already gone from barren rooms in the PS2 days to a normal amount of clutter and geometry in todays games. Without their being much to increase geometry wise, and with studios really being hamstrung on how much they can spend building a game world, the increase in what tomorrows consoles do over todays isnt going to be very high. They wont be building bigger worlds, and they wont really be building more detailed worlds. The only areas that will really see improvements will be mostly in resolution but also in AA methods, lighting, shadows, and overall quality of image and textures.
The amount of people that plays these games has pretty much topped off. Everyone who wants to game on a console pretty much already does. And right now any big increase in the prices of games is going to end up being offset by less games being sold. So there isnt any real room to increase budgets for game development. Dont expect anywhere near the same increases in what games look like compared to last gen. Most of the increases will be to IQ.
What I would really like to see is better AI. But nobody wants to spend any money tackling the most challenging problem facing the future of gaming. not much return on that investment.
We have already gone from barren rooms in the PS2 days to a normal amount of clutter and geometry in todays games. Without their being much to increase geometry wise, and with studios really being hamstrung on how much they can spend building a game world, the increase in what tomorrows consoles do over todays isnt going to be very high. They wont be building bigger worlds, and they wont really be building more detailed worlds. The only areas that will really see improvements will be mostly in resolution but also in AA methods, lighting, shadows, and overall quality of image and textures.
The amount of people that plays these games has pretty much topped off. Everyone who wants to game on a console pretty much already does. And right now any big increase in the prices of games is going to end up being offset by less games being sold. So there isnt any real room to increase budgets for game development. Dont expect anywhere near the same increases in what games look like compared to last gen. Most of the increases will be to IQ.
What I would really like to see is better AI. But nobody wants to spend any money tackling the most challenging problem facing the future of gaming. not much return on that investment.
When all you can criticise is the formatting of a post, you know there is something weak with your argument.
MrCookiepants
Member
My brother bought a new PC right around CoD4's release. The game ran beautifully on the highest settings.
Black Ops II runs like absolute dog shit on the same rig. It's weird.
Black Ops II runs like absolute dog shit on the same rig. It's weird.
Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't most or all consoles been launched like that in the past?
DonMigs85
Member
To be sure, it's probably best to upgrade shortly after the 720 or PS4 or whatever releases.
For example, the Geforce 8800 came out shortly after the PS3's launch, and that GPU is still capable of running any PC game today at least slightly better than the consoles.
However if you got just a Geforce 7800, which is similar to what the PS3 had (actually it even has more bandwidth and ROPs), it probably wouldn't perform quite as well accounting for PC game overhead and lack of optimization.
For example, the Geforce 8800 came out shortly after the PS3's launch, and that GPU is still capable of running any PC game today at least slightly better than the consoles.
However if you got just a Geforce 7800, which is similar to what the PS3 had (actually it even has more bandwidth and ROPs), it probably wouldn't perform quite as well accounting for PC game overhead and lack of optimization.
At 720P?
Yes they will!
Each core of the Xenon can only pull off around 0.2 IPC avg in game loads (that number comes direct from MS BTW), P4 is around 0.4 and C2D should be about 2x that per a core.
The fact is that Xenon was a POS that is well known to stall like crazy.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Depends. 360 was pretty much the same as or better than what you could get in 2005. PS2 was beast on launch. It gets weird when you go further back because console and PC architecture only started merging a lot with the XBOX1, in the early days you get stuff like the absence of 3D accelerators or the inability for PCs to do smooth scrolling.
PC GAF just vomited a little in their mouths at this notion.
Oracle Dragon
Member
Thats a really interesting vid, though there are two things I don't like about it:
A) He's running at a higher resolution than the 360 version.
B) How did he record the video? If he is using Fraps on a dual core machine like that, recording is a significant performance hit.
It will be interesting to see if the next gen consoles play out the same way as previous years... though my Steam backlog is so huge I'm in no real danger of playing any "modern" games anyways... I'm busy playing Drakensang and Neverwinter Nights 2 on my 560Ti on which it runs quite excellent
Projectjustice
Banned
I think ill be ok OP. My quad core 3.7ghz, gtx 560ti 448 and 14gb of ram will be good.
Only thing im planning is to go 8 core cpu this year.
Only thing im planning is to go 8 core cpu this year.
I lean towards agreeing with Kosmo on this.
Launch games will be fine. Hell, I'm willing to be most games will look and run better on high end PCs of today for launch titles.
That wont last long however.
I give it a year before we start seeing an alarming amount of multiplatform software that runs better on consoles than i7+680 rigs.
Expect memory and multi-core cpus (6 or more) to play a huge factor next gen.
When the time comes, that's when i have a decision to make. Do I upgrade or get a 720/PS4?
Launch games will be fine. Hell, I'm willing to be most games will look and run better on high end PCs of today for launch titles.
That wont last long however.
I give it a year before we start seeing an alarming amount of multiplatform software that runs better on consoles than i7+680 rigs.
Expect memory and multi-core cpus (6 or more) to play a huge factor next gen.
When the time comes, that's when i have a decision to make. Do I upgrade or get a 720/PS4?
shinobi602
Member
Could it be possible that MS/ Sony have worked with AMD to create extremely customized GPU solutions that could equate to a 580 or even 670 in terms of raw power, with a smaller power draw/wattage? The 360 launched with a GPU equivalent of dual 6800 Ultras.
I mean everything else in the consoles are customized (CPU, RAM, etc)...
I mean everything else in the consoles are customized (CPU, RAM, etc)...
Yea, but were comparing console performance with PC performance and that is the max resolution most top AAA console games run at. I guess we can tone down the AA and effects too because the consoles don't have much of that going on. I think 60 fps is well safe.
Pachterballs
Banned
the games will be highly optimised for the consoles onces devs get used to the specs and you can get some bloody incredible visuals. That's the difference between consoles and pc. It might not be so apparent next gen as visuals stepup but damn if the benchmark console titles don't have the right blend of art+tech.
Chittagong
Gold Member
Just run the games in 640p 30fps like the current gen consoles do and they'll run a-ok on mid/high 2005 PCs. Comparing higher resolutions is absurd as the requirements increase sharply when going to 720p and beyond.
shinobi602
Member
My current rig displays imagery like this at 30 fps (at 2560 x 1600p actually).
Are you saying that next gen consoles will spit out better imagery at 30 fps?
Hot damn next gen is going to be a monster!
Obviously not at that resolution, but if next gen system can't surpass FC3 visually, I'll be pretty fucking disappointed.
Optimization will win out. Console Games have a static spec and they are optimised for it extremely well. If they still have to port the entire game over to the PC it will not be optimised as well as we don't have a static spec. Secondly once the game is out on the console they have to release a port ASAP as newer games come out and people may lose interest. So optimisation is not a priority as one would hope. It all depends on how long it takes to port the game over initially.
Optimisation is poorly done from Console to PC ports. It has always been an issue until that is we got new engines that has become platform agnostic can run on top of all 3 platforms such as the cry engine, rage engine, etc.
I say this is going to be a wait and see approach to this. Solely because so much has changed, I don't see a 600W console sitting in the living room but at the same time we don't know how PC will be treated by the devs or publishers as a whole. PC felt shunned at the beginning of the last console cycle release. Its time to see if we revert back to that or if we get treated as a true 3rd platform.
Optimisation is poorly done from Console to PC ports. It has always been an issue until that is we got new engines that has become platform agnostic can run on top of all 3 platforms such as the cry engine, rage engine, etc.
I say this is going to be a wait and see approach to this. Solely because so much has changed, I don't see a 600W console sitting in the living room but at the same time we don't know how PC will be treated by the devs or publishers as a whole. PC felt shunned at the beginning of the last console cycle release. Its time to see if we revert back to that or if we get treated as a true 3rd platform.
chaosblade
Unconfirmed Member
Has anyone ever really said they wouldn't need to upgrade components part of the way through the generation? Even taking consoles out of the equation that is a stupid thing to say.
I think if you built a pretty good mid-high end PC in the last year or two you will probably transition into next gen fine, but obviously anybody is going to need to upgrade at some point. I'm sure those 2005-2006 high end rigs are doing great on games released in the last couple years, right?
I think if you built a pretty good mid-high end PC in the last year or two you will probably transition into next gen fine, but obviously anybody is going to need to upgrade at some point. I'm sure those 2005-2006 high end rigs are doing great on games released in the last couple years, right?
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
14GB?!?!?! MAGIC STICKS!
And I do agree with notion that lots on PC are an playing at higher resolutions than 1080p. I just started playing games with downsampling and can currently run games at 2560x1440 at 30fps. This is on a 6970 and 2500k. I would go higher but my decent LCD TV won't allow it.
I made a post about the resolution difference since starting to downsample. Spec Ops The Line image comparison from the lttp thread.......
Guess the resolutions, playing with downsampling via AMD Downsampling mod/app
First
Second
Third
Guess which res is highest.
Answers
1 - 1360x768
2 - 2049x1152
3 - 2560x1440
That would be a fair comparison but it would also be PC's coming down to console levels but I suspect if you match the AA and res of consoles games, PC will run it all at a smoother fps.
They have. Some even said that in this very thread.
The consoles will do it just fine. And then the developers will turn it all off, scale it all back and use the extra cycles to do something else.
As for the topic in general.
My PC is 2 years old now, it's is a Sandy 2500k, 4gb ram and an AMD 6950 which thinks it's a 6970. It's old hat. But that's fine with me as the games I currently want to play I can do so at full beans. In 18 months I'll probably replace it all, and 3-4 years later I'll do it again. It's part of the circle of life for me as a PC gamer. When I was younger (before the glorious Q6600, bless you Intel) I would replace my entire machine every 12-18 months.
The next generation of consoles is unlikely to change how often I upgrade my machine.
I look forward to the new consoles, for they shall bring new games.
What I do wonder is how the rumours of the PS4/XB3 being closer to PC type hardware will affect porting.
Horsemama1956
Member
If the rumours are true about the next consoles using x86 processors, then i don't think PC's will have much trouble. I don't care how well optimized console games are, you can only do so much with a wattage limitation.
No.
The 6800 was over a year older than the 360 and the 7800 was also launched before the 360.
angular graphics
Banned
Yes. That's also a 140% higher framerate than the console standard "30". While running on higher quality settings too.
FC3 doesn't even look that good most of the time. It's a really inconsistent looking game with shit textures. Watch Dogs already looks more impressive with the 1 demo we saw.
Then again Ubi apparently knows how to do live bullshot videos now so who knows what that game will really look like.
I'm just saying it weakens his argument. Writing everything in bold looks like he has to speak louder than anyone to be heard. I wasn't attacking his point, and quite frankly I'm not very skilled at those technical discussions. So yes, it was a mere rhetorical criticism.
Projectjustice
Banned
Im good playing games at 1080p 60fps. I could go higher resolution but I prefer the smoother framerate. Im going to be doing the same next generations of games. Anyone else doing the same?
DonMigs85
Member
There's a good chance the new consoles will have GPUs at least matching the 560 in performance.
Dictator93
Member
IMO, not sure why this thread is still going after the whole thermal package argumentation comes into play. It basically disproves the OP.
Thermal package changes the way next gen is built. Current gen high end comps at the same resolution and IQ settings as the next gen console games will most likely be more than fine and probably run at a higher framerate.
Thermal package changes the way next gen is built. Current gen high end comps at the same resolution and IQ settings as the next gen console games will most likely be more than fine and probably run at a higher framerate.
This is simply not true, and all of this was an issue last gen too.
Projectjustice
Banned
Im well aware of that but im not going to jump the gun just in case it doesnt happen. Im going to be able to upgrade to nvidia 7xx series if thats the case.
I will be shocked if a GTX780 cannot run WD or SW1313 better than the next-gen consoles.
Contrary to last gen this time PC will have the edge from day one, this is going to be costly as it always have been in the realm of PC gaming but for the enthusiasts it's worth it.
We don't even know for sure next-gen games will run at native 1080p, I'm very optimistic though.
Last gen pc's had the edge day one too in Oblivion/COD2, those pc's cant even play skyrim now. Look at the vids in the op.
Thats the whole point.
I disagree with the OP, but I hope to god he's right.
The fact that I haven't had to upgrade my CPU or mainboard in almost 4 years and can still consider my PC "high-end" is depressing. I really want some impetus to finally upgrade.
Of course, it would also be nice if Intel finally focused a bit on making a fast desktop CPU again, not further reducing their power consumption and integrating more shitty GPU.
The fact that I haven't had to upgrade my CPU or mainboard in almost 4 years and can still consider my PC "high-end" is depressing. I really want some impetus to finally upgrade.
Of course, it would also be nice if Intel finally focused a bit on making a fast desktop CPU again, not further reducing their power consumption and integrating more shitty GPU.
Dictator93
Member
The whole point though is completely wrong though...
Just because a 7800gtx cannot run skyrim well at its PC lowest settings says nothing about this current generation. Graphics cards do not work like they used to. And hell comparing skyrim on low or medium to its console brother is slightly unfair in some aspects. It is most likely using higher precision shaders and higher texture formats and a variety of things.
Last generations scaling has nothing to do with this generations scaling, let alone the capability of console makers to put such power hungry and hot GPUs in their boxes. It is impossible
No, they didn't. I don't remember a GPU featuring programmable shaders and a tri core CPU in 2005.
And who cares if you can't run next-gen games as well as consoles in 2020 ? The whole argument "who need next-gen consoles when you have a PC" still stands because I believe enthusiasts PC gamer will upgrade their rigs.
My GTX670 probably won't run Assassin's Creed 7 very well but that's not a problem since I will have upgraded to play it in 1400p.
I don't know what to expect that's why I'm not upgrading my PC until 2014-15. My new consoles will shit on my PC but that's fine. I'll just use the PC to play current Gen backlog games and use the consoles to play the next Gen stuff until I buy a whole new PC in 2014-15. My PC is hooked to my 73 inch DLP (which looks surprisingly good) so I don't have a need to go over 1080p.
Also thanks again to PC-GAF for beating that dead horse until I cracked and started PC gaming. I always wanted to but your persistence made me push the button and now there will never be a time where I don't have a PC hooked to my TV. Uber console indeed.
Also thanks again to PC-GAF for beating that dead horse until I cracked and started PC gaming. I always wanted to but your persistence made me push the button and now there will never be a time where I don't have a PC hooked to my TV. Uber console indeed.
Gemüsepizza
Member
Would you be happy with 1280x720@30fps with minimal AA? Because if a title has this resolution / framerate on a console with slightly worse specs (but with the advantage of a closed enviroment), then you probably won't be able to play this game on your hardware with much higher resolutions/framerates.
Well, to be fair, the tri core CPU in 360 sucks a lot compared to its PC contemporaries in everything except SIMD performance.
Pretty much.
I wish consoles would get "slightly worse" specs than that!Gemüsepizza;46112033 said:
Gemüsepizza;46112033 said:
And where you are pulling that from ?
You probably don't know it but people were already playing a superior version of Oblivion in 2005....Much higher resolution and framerate.
And my PC at the time (Pentium D 840, 7800GT and 2gb of ram) could not compete with the 360.
You can really compare PC and Consoles.....with console developers can optimize to the max because they only have to focus on one specific hardware.
But PC developers have to make sure the game works for all the different CPU's, RAM, GPU's etc etc they have to focus on, thus making optimization quite limited.
I mean just look at the TLOU and consider how old the PS3 is.
But PC developers have to make sure the game works for all the different CPU's, RAM, GPU's etc etc they have to focus on, thus making optimization quite limited.
I mean just look at the TLOU and consider how old the PS3 is.
well that's the premise of the thread, people who do believe that they won't have to upgrade the entire Gen. It may not pertain to you (or others who will upgrade over time) but that's the topic of discussion as laid out by the OP. Thread whining isn't necessary (plus it's bannable).