palpabl_purpura
Member
Yes, but the post suggested that PC hardware would somehow be less viable which is false..
It is. The consoles are older than your PC. And they are still viable. You're helping my argument.
Yes, but the post suggested that PC hardware would somehow be less viable which is false..
You do realize that 360/PS3 are older than your hardware, and games are still being released?
It is. The consoles are older than your PC. And they are still viable. You're helping my argument.
How'd that work out for you?Yeah man, these arguments about "my resolution is higher than yours even though PC gamers are laughing at this shit" are nothing like dick measuring contests. My bad. I retract that.
I did, how about you do the math.
Yes, but if you read the whole thread it's all explained and even if with the hardware being newer specifically the 8800GT it still holds up and performance didn't fall off a cliff. If you want to discuss that topic further we can do it in the other thread. I don't want to derail this one any further.
I never said consoles weren't viable I was mearly refuting the statement that equal or even better PC hardware becomes less viable. No one can help your argument.
Okay, but I just don't see your point. 360/PS3 are almost three years older than your hardware, and you benchmarked a nearly 2 year old game.
It's not the size, it's how you use it. Consoles are the king when it comes to efficient use of resources and have a longer viable lifespan. .
You said
Insinuating that consoles have a longer viable lifespan. I provided benchmarks proving that a 7 year old GPU even down clocked by 50% still could hang with the consoles. One of which was 1yr older (Ps3 2006) and another 2yr older(Xbox 360), both of which were built with specs far beyond PCs of the day. A 8800GT down clocked 50% is really close to an Xbox 360 GPU in theoretical performance.
The consoles are older, bottom line. Why don't you benchmark Shadow of Mordor or Dragon Age Inquisition on your 7 year old PC and get back to me. You don't even meet the minimum CPU requirements for DAO, but I can buy both games for my PS3 from 2006. BS Infinite is an old game.
Current consoles are behind current PC hardware, that wasn't the case in 2005/2006. Shadows of Mordor has content on PC not available on console and I don't know about Dragon Age, but if your willing to buy me copies I'll gladly benchmark them. 2013 is old? Also the PS360 Shadows of Mordor is terrible.
Yep 2013 is old. It will be 2015 in little over 1 month. In 2013, you were doing pretty good with 2 GB of VRAM. Now if you want all the bells and whistles (2K, heavy Ambien Occlusion, Ultra everything) it's simply not enough. So a lot changes in 2 years. Now you can still run games, but by the poster's description of why he values PC gaming (again 2K, high level AA, AO, ultra everything) this would simply not be an option for him. Personally, I'm fine running a game on medium settings, and that wasn't his perspective. The poster wants to max out everything, so his perception of viability may be different from yours or mine. Which brings us back to the point. What one considers terrible (in your case Shadow of Mordor PS3/Xbox) once again is subjective. For the same reason, some people are content with the PS3 version of Bayonetta, and others consider it unplayable. At the end of the day, I can play new releases (this month) on my 8 year old PS3 or 9 year old 360, but the same cannot be said about your 7 year old PC.
BTW- I hope you have upgraded. Have you purchased or played a AAA PC title released in the past 2-3 months for your 7 year old system?
It's not about the degree to which there is aliasing, it's about the degree to which there are scaling artifacts.
My gaming PC is an i5 with a 7870XT 2GB which so far is fine as long as your not running the Ultra Textures. The 8800GT benches were just for fun. I installed it in my HTPC just to see how it held up. My conclusion from my benches is that PC hardware holds up just as well as console hardware as long as it's a quality port. This hardware is scalable. My 8800GT down clocked is just as powerful as a 360 GPU and unless the PC version has extra features that can't be turned off it will play the same games as PS360. It's pretty obvious that if you want all the bells and whistles your going to have problems, but if your goal is to play at console equivalent setting with console equivalent hardware the PC can do it and the consoles have no advantage. Console optimization outside of a few exclusives equates to lowering resolution or removing/lowering settings. BioShock Infinite came out March 2013. By matching the resolution and settings of the Xbox 360 I was able to match the performance with equivalent PC hardware.
You can keep moving goal posts, but if your argument is that these consoles are getting inferior versions that don't exist on PC that I can't run on my 7 yr old PC , that's a poor argument.
The poster's point was that console were meaningless to him because he wants to play at 2K, ultra everything etc. That was exactly the point. It's not about what you want or what I want, but his argument was PCs are his platform of choice because he can run AO, high level AA, 2K on everything. My point was that is not a viable 6 year plan. It's maybe a 3-4 year plan at best. These games don't run on older PCs because it's not worth the man hours to optimize them, unlike consoles, where the incentive is clearly present. So you may call them inferior versions, and you are correct to some extent. How inferior they are is a subjective matter, and dependent on what you value in gaming. If you value a system with the longest lifespan possible with generally better optimization, you will pick console. If you want all the bells and whistles, but don't mind getting into an arms race with developers who are subsidized with cutting edge workstations from hardware manufacturers (in order to in turn, push the latest, most expensive chipsets on the consumer market), then be my guest.
Your response to him was that consoles were more viable long term. If you want to get technical this is patently false, because consoles have a shelf life, they will eventually lose support completely. PCs from 10 years ago can still run PC games released today, maybe not AAA console ports, but they can still run current PC games (WoW/indies). If you value the system with the longest life span it is easily PC and not even a question. How many PS360 games can you play on PS4 and XB1? It's less then 20 for sure and you have to double dip for any of them, but you can play hundreds of PC games on even the most modest i3/750Ti, so no matter how you try to frame it PC is the platform with the greatest amount of longevity, forward and backward.
You are right, and now you have proof to back up the dumb myth of accelerated hardware degradation, but some people are so stuck in their view points that it doesn't matter.
Longevity with regards to backwards compatibility and maintaining a library is a complete no brainer. It is nuts to me that people are ready to shell out another $60 for a 'remastered' version of a game they paid full price for not one year ago. This is the kind of stuff you can do to any pc game you own as you upgrade hardware without having to pay for some new version.
Good oneit's an open world game so how many dancers can the PS4 version have on screen at once vs the XBO version?
Not my fault they didn't understand what I meant.
72,000 extra pixels than 900p. Whopeee!
Your response to him was that consoles were more viable long term. If you want to get technical this is patently false, because consoles have a shelf life, they will eventually lose support completely. PCs from 10 years ago can still run PC games released today, maybe not AAA console ports, but they can still run current PC games (WoW/indies). If you value the system with the longest life span it is easily PC and not even a question. How many PS360 games can you play on PS4 and XB1? It's less then 20 for sure and you have to double dip for any of them, but you can play hundreds of PC games on even the most modest i3/750Ti, so no matter how you try to frame it PC is the platform with the greatest amount of longevity, forward and backward.
Yep, that PR where there's no PR, nobody says a word about it, and nobody calls it 1080p. The sneakiest kind of PR.
How'd that work out for you?
You've proved the exact opposite. 360/PS3 are still getting AAA releases today- games you cannot play on your 7 year old setup (which is newer) because you do not meet the minimum system reqs.
Pr or no pr having the native vertical res makes a huge difference.
I hope it becomes standard.
Is it 'easier' to do this resolution than 900p?
If anything its marginally harder, but it has less artefacts post scaling.
How'd that work out for you?
Yep 2013 is old. It will be 2015 in little over 1 month. In 2013, you were doing pretty good with 2 GB of VRAM. Now if you want all the bells and whistles (2K, heavy Ambien Occlusion, Ultra everything) it's simply not enough. So a lot changes in 2 years. Now you can still run games, but by the poster's description of why he values PC gaming (again 2K, high level AA, AO, ultra everything) this would simply not be an option for him. Personally, I'm fine running a game on medium settings, and that wasn't his perspective. The poster wants to max out everything, so his perception of viability may be different from yours or mine. Which brings us back to the point. What one considers terrible (in your case Shadow of Mordor PS3/Xbox) once again is subjective. For the same reason, some people are content with the PS3 version of Bayonetta, and others consider it unplayable. At the end of the day, I can play new releases (this month) on my 8 year old PS3 or 9 year old 360, but the same cannot be said about your 7 year old PC.
BTW- I hope you have upgraded. Have you purchased or played a AAA PC title released in the past 2-3 months for your 7 year old system?
"Due to the higher resolution, there are dips on the PS4 where as the XB1 holds a steady framerate (relevant posted video shows otherwise). To sum up we find that largely both version perform similarly."
You keep posting in circles. And the minimum system requirements are often times not benchmarked correctly.
Regardless of what you are trying to say, but clearly failing to, GPU/CPU from 2007 and above will always come out ahead of the Xbox 360/PS3, at equivalent settings (which official benchmarks are not taken at) unless the port is bad. That's not up for discussion. You can't argue math.
You're talking out of your ass. My system is from 2012-ish with a 2600k and 3gb gtx 580. It kicks the crap out of every game on the new gen consoles still and that isn't likely to end anytime soon. This system has a lot of years left in it and I have the luxury of only upgrading when I feel a big leap has been made in tech.
I'd hazard a guess that my current build could easily ride out the whole gen if I wanted it to.
You've proved the exact opposite. 360/PS3 are still getting AAA releases today- games you cannot play on your 7 year old setup (which is newer) because you do not meet the minimum system reqs.
Congratulations you can play vastly inferior versions on the PS360, missing effects and systems in the PC and current console versions. I could play them on my 7 year old PC at the same settings as PS360 guaranteed, because minimum system requirements are not written in stone. Also you keep harping on the fact that the 8800GT is newer while ignoring the fact that I down clocked it by 50%.
Well, why don't you benchmark DA Inquisition on your fully clocked 8800 GT and get back to me?
Sort of, but graphical comparisons between consoles have at least been pervasive since the SNES/Genesis-gen.Remember when no one on consoles had any real idea what native resolutions games were running at? Now it's like the pixel war.
If bf4 was any indication ps360 settings may be missing from DA:I.Well, why don't you benchmark DA Inquisition and Shadow of Mordor on your fully clocked 8800 GT and get back to me? And while you are at it benchmark the Evil Within.
Sort of, but graphical comparisons between consoles have at least been pervasive since the SNES/Genesis-gen.
Man, I wish they were that direct now.
Plasma handles non native res content much better than LCD.On my plasma everything looks fantastic, I think the display your viewing on makes a hell of a difference.
I don't need to, hardware scales linearly. Just because it's released this month or month from now doesn't change that. Do you think the efficiency only kicks in now? You can gift it to me if you want, but math is on my side. My 8800GT meets the minimum for the GPU and the CPU calls for quad AMD at 2.5 or Intel at 2.0Ghz I guarantee my dual core Intel at 2.4 Ghz will work. Shadows of Mordor on PS360 doesn't have the nemesis system sooo it's a pile of crap and not worth the time.
I don't need to, hardware scales linearly. Just because it's released this month or month from now doesn't change that. Do you think the efficiency only kicks in now? You can gift it to me if you want, but math is on my side. My 8800GT meets the minimum for the GPU and the CPU calls for quad AMD at 2.5 or Intel at 2.0Ghz I guarantee my dual core Intel at 2.4 Ghz will work. Shadows of Mordor on PS360 doesn't have the nemesis system sooo it's a pile of crap and not worth the time.
Don't know where you're getting DX11, but the official site saysNo you need a quad core Intel at 2 GHZ. You do not meet system requirements, CPU wise or GPU wise, since your card isn't DX 11 compatible.
Minimum:
OS
Windows 7 or 8.1 64-bit
CPU
AMD quad core CPU @ 2.5 GHz
Intel quad core CPU @ 2.0 GHz
System RAM
4 GB
Graphics CARD
AMD Radeon HD 4870
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT
Graphics Memory
512 MB
Hard Drive
26 GB
DirectX
10
Don't know where you're getting DX11, but there official site says
http://www.dragonage.com/#!/en_US/news/pc-systems-requirements-revealed
So 8800GT is a go. Also a few games have been listing quad core as a minimum, yet people with dual cores have been playing them. So you might want to check your facts, because your showing your ignorance.
Don't know where you're getting DX11, but the official site says
http://www.dragonage.com/#!/en_US/news/pc-systems-requirements-revealed
So 8800GT is a go. Also a few games have been listing quad core as a minimum, yet people with dual cores have been playing them. So you might want to check your facts, because your showing your ignorance.
I'd definitely prefer devs to use this res over 900p in the future.