cpu doesn't have any impact on the resolution the game is rendered at
The game not maintining 60 fps or having a shitty draw distance is what you'd expect from jaguar cpu, not 900p
I think he is suggesting that if the gpu is compensating for the cpu [by doing tasks on gpu that are traditionally done on cpus], it allows less resources for traditional gpu centric tasks.
1: do you still have a link to those replies when you mentioned the ps4 paywall? I'd love to look at the reaction then and the stance those same people now hold about the paywall.
I'm still baffled that it gets defended by people
2: If I remember correctly you were wrong about pretty much everything you said in the ps4/xbox one spec rumor threads before the february reveals.
So don't be surprised if people aren't inclined to believe you. If you keep being right people will come around
I don't have a link, but I've since mellowed. Even so, I still think it's a money-grabbing, anti-consumer, anti-gamer, practise.
The funny thing is of course, that I was going to subscribe, because the psn+ service side is pretty fucking awesome. The mandatory nature of paying for multiplayer is still wrong.
The reasons some people give for rationalizing this are stupid. For example, it was argued that this will lead to a better service. I don't see why I have to fund infrastructure improvement. I didn't and don't on Steam. I don't pay for multiplayer on my Apple devices either.
If you do find that thread, the above isn't the worst thing. It was the quietened down effect that was the worst thing. And even a new thread got locked immediately. It was made out to be nothing, when it was something.
I apologise to the insiders and mods if my recollections are wrong, but it was kind of the wrong thing to do. Confirming a rumour from a trusted insider to be false, when it was anything but.