No the discussion was about there was no AAA PC graphic powerhouse since Crysis. I mentioned BF3. You are suddenly talking about Next-gen. You say it looks like a high res console port? But of what game? It sure as hell doesn't look like the console version of BF3. You do know that Crysis was ported to the 360 as well. Pretty much anything can be downgraded to run on consoles. So I'm not sure what exactly your standard is.
-
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
I'm with you. When I played BF3 on Ultra at 1080p it certainly looked much better than the PS3 and 360 version but if that is next-gen I will be very disappointed.
Luckily Watch Dogs and other tech demos already showed that it isn't all we're going to get.
Even based on a 360p YouTube video you can discern the difference between an exclusive PS2 and PS3 game. That's the point when something looks leaps and bounds better.
Everything will just be bigger and better, not just resolution and AA.
Well I figured I would be set with one 680 to start with and then another one later on( or go full retard with 690) and that I would have been set for the next generation when it comes to multi plattform titles but this thread gave me a hard wake up call.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
Maxed out, vanilla Crysis looks better than maxed out, vanilla BF3 and it came out 5 years ago. Do you agree?
Yes, the IQ upgrade is big, it's significant, but it's not enough to be 'next-gen'. Watch Dogs and 1313 do look the part.
cobragt4001
Banned
Hasn't the whole process of game development changed for the best?
Is that the point of the thread? Despite the title of the thread it seems to be about how the high end of pc is no longer end during the latter years of console cycle. eg. This generation lasted long enough that a high end pc went from dual core to quad core and so forth and so forth.
cobragt4001
Banned
BF3 looks better than crysis, what are you talking about?
Shrike_Priest
Member
Someone bookmark this thread, and then add a calendar event for 2015 to go back and sift through it for quotes. No matter who "wins" the argument, it's gonna be a goldmine.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
Aside from the number of vehicles and characters on screen, I disagree.
I think where this argument really starts to fall apart is the PC market isn't where it was 7 years ago.
GPU/CPU power is really starting to get exponential. Look at the 3DMark score change between the 7800 and what the enthusiast level is now.
Look at the difference between the 580 and the 660 ti, its ridiculous. The change between 560 ti and 660 ti is well over double, didn't show that one.
This argument alone is a massive correlation does not imply causation fallacy. You just cannot compare where we are now to where we were 7 years ago, its ridiculously short sighted and foolish.
GPU/CPU power is really starting to get exponential. Look at the 3DMark score change between the 7800 and what the enthusiast level is now.
Look at the difference between the 580 and the 660 ti, its ridiculous. The change between 560 ti and 660 ti is well over double, didn't show that one.
This argument alone is a massive correlation does not imply causation fallacy. You just cannot compare where we are now to where we were 7 years ago, its ridiculously short sighted and foolish.
Angelus Errare
Banned
So here's someone running Dead Space 2 on a 7800GTX.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilaUEsFzB2M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilaUEsFzB2M
Not even close. I was pretty disappointed with Crysis graphic wise, I really thought that's it? Gameplay is excellent though. It was one of the first games played on my PC(that I build 1,5 year ago). Vanilla Crysis chugged all the time and didn't really have good textures either, that game was really made into something by the modding community.
cobragt4001
Banned
Not even that, from graphical realism bf3 kills crysis.
I never said its shit. But its not exactly high end.
Yeah, those do look good.
Do we have release dates for them? Nope. Will they look as good on next-gen consoles as the footage we have seen? My prediction is "nope". Crysis 3 especially, I bet will look nothing like the videos we have seen.
While I agree with the OP that you won't be able to last with a current high-end PC through the next-gen (which I guess could easily last to 2020 or something crazy) I disagree with you that the launch titles for next-gen will be graphically better than anything a current PC can run.
derExperte
Member
A friend plays BF3 on three 1600x1200 monitors, Ultra with 64 players. I think a lot of people would call that experience truly NextGen compared to the current consoles.
I think where this argument really starts to fall apart is the PC market isn't where it was 7 years ago.
GPU/CPU power is really starting to get exponential. Look at the 3DMark score change between the 7800 and what the enthusiast level is now.
Look at the difference between the 580 and the 660 ti, its ridiculous. The change between 560 ti and 660 ti is well over double, didn't show that one.
Uhm which 3D mark is this? 06? Also that's the GT not the GTX.
Obviously an old card won't run new tests well that have been made to test new tech. Also new cards will run circles around old cards in old tests.
And that's a really normal difference, if you look in the OP the 7800GTX (4800) is twice the 3D mark of the 6800 ultra (2800)... This seems the same gap to me (i.e twice the power). Nothing has changed in how cards increase in power it seems.
To get back to the original point of this thread:
When the Xbox 360 was released, the TDP of a high-end GPU was 120 Watts.
When the next generation of consoles will release, the TDP of a high-end GPU will be 300 Watts.
That's the central issue with extrapolating 1:1 from the current generation to the upcoming one.
When the Xbox 360 was released, the TDP of a high-end GPU was 120 Watts.
When the next generation of consoles will release, the TDP of a high-end GPU will be 300 Watts.
That's the central issue with extrapolating 1:1 from the current generation to the upcoming one.
Liquid_Bike
Member
Everybody seems to be overlooking this and most console games struggle to maintain 30fps its usually more like 24fps with frequent dips.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
I think you'll be surprised RE: the bolded. They wouldn't be creating the assets at that quality if they weren't targeted for next-gen console specs (referring to WD and 1313). I expect 1080p Watch Dogs, 1313, Crysis 3 (if they do a "GOTY" type of edition) in the first year of next-gen, no question about it. They'll look as good as the footage we've seen, probably better considering how old the footage will be by the time they come out.
Did you see the power increase between the x800/6800 and the 7800GTX?
Its double too. Nothing new under the sun
longdi
Banned
sure it is a next gen experience but just not graphically. imo the graphics are just hirez current gen assets as someone said.
a true next gen graphics engine will bump up these assets. then the next gen consoles will run 32 players FB3.0 while next gen PC will still run 64 players matches.
I hope you are right but I doubt it.
MoonLightWave
Member
It was at first, but then it changed.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
And there you have it.
It wasn't an upressed console port, but I wouldn't call it a game pushing pc's either. When the game came out I could run it a 1080p 60fps at max setting easily.
When Crysis came out I had a pretty good PC (although not top of the line) but I spend a lot of time tweaking just to get it to run at a good framerate at less than maximum settings. Crysis was, although not well optimized, a game that could really be maxed out 1 or 2 years after release. Battlefield 3 could be maxed on day one. There hasn't really been any PC-game in the last couple of years that really gave concurrent hardware a lot of trouble. Maybe Crysis 3 will be next?
When Crysis came out I had a pretty good PC (although not top of the line) but I spend a lot of time tweaking just to get it to run at a good framerate at less than maximum settings. Crysis was, although not well optimized, a game that could really be maxed out 1 or 2 years after release. Battlefield 3 could be maxed on day one. There hasn't really been any PC-game in the last couple of years that really gave concurrent hardware a lot of trouble. Maybe Crysis 3 will be next?
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
It gives that effect or it's rendering that in a more traditional way. It's pretty impressive at times though with all that debris scattered.
Who's kidding who, I played it at 1440p last night and it looks visually outstanding. If next gen games can look about that clean in terms of at least 1080p 60fps then I don't think anyone will be complaining except PC gamers who've been experiencing that level of IQ and fluidity for at least 1-2 years now.
This is not a novel concept except for those who have yet to experience that visual splendor. Kind of like those who swear by 120hz and those who hardly have seen true 120 are skeptical as to what makes it better. I don't really care myself but I read all the debates on the subject none the less.
I think Crysis is pretty inconsistent at times though. The lighting and other effects in BF3 impress me more than Crysis for some reason. Crysis 2 is another story and more on par if not better than BF3. On PC, it all looks glorious.
And what the result? A console showing that looks pathetic in comparison. Seriously, there were massive compromises.
I don't think any PC gamers expect to get through the ENTIRETY of the next console gen on just one computer they bought this year. Everyone's probably gonna have to upgrade a component or two at least once. It's very likely though that they'll have to upgrade in order to run some new high-end PC game, not a console game.
The main problem with your point is that those optimized, coded-to-the-metal games, will be exclusives, probably 1st party, and won't have PC versions. You'll have to buy a console in order to play those games no matter how good they compare to PC games.
We also don't know if those same closed-box rules will apply next gen. The best rumors suggest that next gen console hardware will be more similar to PC than ever, using a lot of off-the-shelf components which would mitigate the advantages of console optimization and coding to the metal. I also seriously doubt any next gen console will have 32GB of RAM and an SSD. 8 is the most optimistic we've seen suggested, but not 32.
The main problem with your point is that those optimized, coded-to-the-metal games, will be exclusives, probably 1st party, and won't have PC versions. You'll have to buy a console in order to play those games no matter how good they compare to PC games.
We also don't know if those same closed-box rules will apply next gen. The best rumors suggest that next gen console hardware will be more similar to PC than ever, using a lot of off-the-shelf components which would mitigate the advantages of console optimization and coding to the metal. I also seriously doubt any next gen console will have 32GB of RAM and an SSD. 8 is the most optimistic we've seen suggested, but not 32.
BlockheadBrown
Member
Taking my initial tongue-in-cheek reply aside, the OP's point is a decent enough one. Frankly, I'm looking more at getting one of the next gen systems and not upgrading the PC. The cost involved overall doesn't justify it very much. I love the PC I have. I can run the stuff I have now just fine. Assuming the next generation of games lasts at least another 5 years, I'd be better off leaving my PC as is and getting a console for the majority of my gaming. That said, it'll be interesting to see what we expect out of the consoles (and PCs) after this upcoming gen. Looking forward to it.
ColonelColon
Member
I wonder if the Steambox could be beneficial to PC gaming in this regard. If it has a fixed spec, then that spec could become the minimum standard for multiplatform PC games. Developers might feel obligated to ensure that their games run optimally on Steambox, rather than simply releasing poorly optimized, half-assed ports.
If it catches on and has some specs that are above that of the consoles it's competing with, sure it could and that'd be most welcome.
My plan is to keep my GTX570 for the first 2 years of the generation and then upgrade to whatever it's on the market as a good card with a great price/power ratio at that time. I don't think any PC gamer ever thought that a current PC build would last a whole console generation with optimal performance.
YEAH ITS ALMOST AS BAD AS WRITING YOUR WHOLE POST IN CAPS!!!!!!!!
I H8 Memes
Member
I'm not sure what people expect next gen consoles to do that arent being done already as far as game design goes. This isnt going to be at all like it was going from last gen to this gen. The improvements will largely be in quality of in game assets, not quantity. Higher rez, higher rez textures, AA, IQ, framerate hopefully.
The crossing into this generation was a huge shift in how game worlds were built. Devs needed to include all the natural clutter that we see in day to day life to go along with the better graphics. That's not going to be necessary this time. We are already there. And budgets aren't going up any higher than they are now even if there were game world improvements to be made.
The crossing into this generation was a huge shift in how game worlds were built. Devs needed to include all the natural clutter that we see in day to day life to go along with the better graphics. That's not going to be necessary this time. We are already there. And budgets aren't going up any higher than they are now even if there were game world improvements to be made.
There are lots of stuff that improves the look of games that you didn't list. Biggest one would probably be animation.
And I disagree that it's not about quantity. Bigger amount of dynamic objects within an environment. Everything being less square is much more important than higher textures on a flat wall.
I think a game like BF3 would be better if it had location based damage instead of headshot (yes/no) and a hitpoint count that is depleted. Shooting someone in the knee while he is in full sprint shouldn't kill that person but he should fall over. Everything being more procedural allows new things, I'm sure.
Edit: I also don't think this jump will be as drastic as PS2->PS3, but we definitely didn't hit a ceiling yet.
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
Good point. Many will lose sight of that groundwork that is now in place to basically plug in faster parts or just be better optimized. The transition from PS2-PS3 was a lot rougher than this next transition that we will see going from current gen to PS4/720.
That's why I don't see costs somehow increasing astronomically like some may think. If anything, games may be easier to make thanks to the increased HW ceiling. I just hope devs don't get lazy and truly code to max out that HW so then PC ports can look all the better.
I dont think it has to do with lazy as it has with money. Any sale on pc is a nice bonus but they wont be losing sleep over spending extra cash to optimize it if they can get away with it.
Pc games are an afterthought made possible due to there being consoles. On their own pcs wouldnt get games like BLOPS2 that cost 60 million etc.
Pc games are an afterthought made possible due to there being consoles. On their own pcs wouldnt get games like BLOPS2 that cost 60 million etc.
The OP is right in a sense that in 5yrs from now our PCs wont be playing the new releases very well. The nextgen consoles will get downports of those games from superior PCs of the time. We will spend $1000+ before then on PC tech to play those games.. but again they will look better than the PS4/720 versions.
shadowsdarknes
Member
Who cares about hardware. The consoles are going to be powerful as Zeus. Console graphics will look better than high end PC games today for about a year than PC developers will catch up again.
Woo-Fu
Banned
I don't need a next gen console, I already have a great gaming PC. When I need to buy a new videocard, I will. That videocard won't cost more than the up front expense of entry into the sony/ms/nintendo walled garden experiences.
Required specs for PC games aren't going to skyrocket. The last spec bump was single core to multi core processors. The spec bump before that was the jump to widescreen resolutions. What is the big change that will be introduced---and become widespread---by the next gen consoles? Oh right, there isn't one that has anything to do with actual performance.
No they won't. Didn't happen last generation, why do you expect it to happen this generation?
Instead we get games like Battlefield 3. I'm comfortable with that.
the revisionist history and outright BS in this thread from the console camp is entertaining, or at least it would be if I hadn't seen it a million times already. Guys, the only people you're convincing are yourselves.
I think if you currently have a system which is able to run Unreal4 / SE engines, which is to say GTX680, then you are safe for maybe another 1-2yrs worth of games.
I truly hope next-gen consoles first-gen games will look something like that!
Yes, I'm very optimistic, but we can dream
I truly hope next-gen consoles first-gen games will look something like that!
Yes, I'm very optimistic, but we can dream
If the majority of games are multiplats....Then no. Higher grade PC hardware will always have the edge.
SW1313 is confirmed to land on PC, same as WD and those games will likely support higher resolutions than the 1080p.
Whether or not this is a significant portion of the PC audience is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is that it's possible on PC.
shadowsdarknes
Member
SW1313 was developed with current PC hardware in mind, as far as I know. Its essentially being ported from PC to next gen consoles if thats the case.