Not official: https://twitter.com/ATVIAssist/status/387555212883689473
I think PC ports have been terrible for the past 4 years and now we are finally taking a step forward again, like in the glorious early 2000s. Thanks next-gen!PC ports have been excellent for the past 4 years and now by the looks of the 3 system specs we have seen in the last few days we've taken 10 steps back into the early 2000's again....damn thanks next gen!!!
For highly threaded games (like the upcoming console ports), a 8350 is a very cost-effective upgrade for you, considering that you don't need to buy anything else and that it's rather cheap. Whether or not to actually do the upgrade is a question of which games you want to play and if you're happy with your performance in those -- yeah, sorry, that's not particularly helpful .I've got the following at the moment:
Athlon II x4 640 3.00GHz CPU
8 gigs RAM
NVidia GTX 670 GPU
According to certain websites, my motherboard can take the AMD FX-8350 CPU (but only after I update the BIOS). At present, the most my motherboard will take will be the 8300.
What I would like to ask is whether the Athlon is worth sticking with for the foseeable future (6-12 months), or should I be looking to upgrade my CPU asap? Better yet, at what point should I be looking to build myself a new rig (more powerful components with more ram)?
Wait, console to PC ports were awful in the early 2000s. That's not even subjective right there.I think PC ports have been terrible for the past 4 years and now we are finally taking a step forward again, like in the glorious early 2000s. Thanks next-gen!
I agree. I think it's because people are used to judging AA from pictures only. The advantages of TXAA are primarily in the absence of flickering induced by temporal aliasing in motion -- you only really notice how detrimental that is to graphics feeling solid when it's gone.I'm surprised at the hate TXAA receives. It's the best solution this side of SSAA and manages to deliver image quality more in line with a pre-rendered film than a normal game. People seem obsessed with seeing pixels and perceive temporal and shading aliasing as "sharper" when, in reality, it's a flaw in the image.
Exactly. The improvements are dramatic in motion and really improve finer details (such as power lines, fences, and foliage). When offered it's my preferred method of AA (SSAA is tops but still too demanding for my setup).I agree. I think it's because people are used to judging AA from pictures only. The advantages of TXAA are primarily in the absence of flickering induced by temporal aliasing in motion -- you only really notice how detrimental that is to graphics feeling solid when it's gone.
Cheers for that. I was actually looking to maybe upgrade my CPU around November/December. It's either that, or buying a Vita/3DS.For highly threaded games (like the upcoming console ports), a 8350 is a very cost-effective upgrade for you, considering that you don't need to buy anything else and that it's rather cheap. Whether or not to actually do the upgrade is a question of which games you want to play and if you're happy with your performance in those -- yeah, sorry, that's not particularly helpful .
The 50GB thing is probably dummy data or bloated files to discourage piracy
Or better still, non-Bink movies. I'm so sick of that codec.I bet they're taking advantage of bluray to fill the single player campaign with 1080p bink movies.
This is 2013. Every PC gamer downloads games from Steam or other services and disc drives are even getting rare in modern computers.
So if this runs on the 360 and PS3 with just 512MB of memory what excuse do they have? Agreed that it wont look as good as the PC version, but still doesn't warrant needing another 5.5GB of memory??
And no 32 bit support for OS??
PC ports have been excellent for the past 4 years and now by the looks of the 3 system specs we have seen in the last few days we've taken 10 steps back into the early 2000's again....damn thanks next gen!!!
I'm surprised at the hate TXAA receives. It's the best solution this side of SSAA and manages to deliver image quality more in line with a pre-rendered film than a normal game. People seem obsessed with seeing pixels and perceive temporal and shading aliasing as "sharper" when, in reality, it's a flaw in the image.
That said, Ghosts really doesn't look much worse than Titanfall (in fact, I'd argue it looks more impressive in some areas). BF4 is the only game which is a clear step up as they have all but abandoned last generation consoles (as the beta demonstrates).
Is this shot really Ghosts, though? This one stands out to me as it looks more like Black Ops 2. Honestly, many of those shots really do look like Blops 2 to the point where I'm wondering if they really ARE Ghosts shots.
Wait, console to PC ports were awful in the early 2000s. That's not even subjective right there.
I hope these bumps in system requirements for PC versions of games with next gen means that we'll actually get some better looking/running ports on the PC.
But I'm not hopeful.
OK, I thought so. I didn't think there were any jungle areas which looked that bad in Ghosts.That's Blops 2.
Do pirates have slower internet connections than normal customers? Else this would be a pretty double edged plan making the digital download version less attractive to customers. Especially since no one is stopping pirates to just rip the dummy date from the release and having a smaller version to download.The 50GB thing is probably dummy data or bloated files to discourage piracy
Suddenly there are a lot of performance/hardware experts here
I will say it again, nvidia exclusive features are performance eaters. If you put all of them into a highly modified old core engine, the problem will be bigger.
There is another recent game running over a highly modified engine and using nvidia feautures; Splinter Cell BlackList.
That game uses nvidia HBAO+ and TXAA and hardware tessellation in modified Unreal Engine 2.5. Can you run maxed Blacklist at 60 fps?. Maybe, if you have a GTX780 or higher gpu.
Exclusives features used as a coat of paint can't transform a "current gen" engine (in fact, previous gen ) in a full next gen game, but that point doesn't reduce requeriments.
Call of Duty Ghosts adds Physx to the ecuation. Usually, physx gpu needs and additional dedicated gpu to run complex effects smoothly (Mirror's Edge in his year, Mafia 2 in his year, Dark Void, Batman, Alice, Borderlands 2, HawKen, PlanetSide 2, etc).
We don't know how Ghosts physx effects will be, but obviously that will affect performance.
The fun of pc games is that the bigger range of graphic possibilities, the better.
And if you can live without HBAO+, TXAA and physx effects, you don't need a GTX780 to play Ghosts at 1080p and 60 fps. Battlefield 3 and 4 doesn't have any of those effects. Features and graphics effects don't establish the final graphic quality of a game, but surely can determine hardware requeriments.
This honestly looks like an Xbox 1 game.
Late to the party but...........GTX780 recommended for a COD game?
all my wut
Damnit man... I still need to play that.Sure. I challenge anyone to identify which game is Chaos Theory on Xbox.
Damnit man... I still need to play that.
Is the new one supposed to be as good as people say it is?
Just found out that my motherboard can't take the 8350 after all - confirmed it with Gigabyte. Can only have the 8300. Is it worth upgrading the CPU to 8300 from the Athlon II x4 640, or would you recommend that I wait a year, and then upgrade my motherboard and CPU at the same time?For highly threaded games (like the upcoming console ports), a 8350 is a very cost-effective upgrade for you, considering that you don't need to buy anything else and that it's rather cheap. Whether or not to actually do the upgrade is a question of which games you want to play and if you're happy with your performance in those -- yeah, sorry, that's not particularly helpful .
Yeah, it's all one big conspiracy.Watch_Dogs also has pretty rediculous requirements and I think it's because they want to make Xbox One/PS4 look more interesting and powerful to mask that they're actually underpowered. It would be shameful to see that PS runs next-gen equivalents of games on much cheaper and older hardware. Solution? Ramp up the requirements.
Yeah, it's all one big conspiracy.
I still don't get this outrage with WD requirements.Watch_Dogs also has pretty rediculous requirements and I think it's because they want to make Xbox One/PS4 look more interesting and powerful to mask that they're actually underpowered. It would be shameful to see that PS runs next-gen equivalents of games on much cheaper and older hardware. Solution? Ramp up the requirements.
Should had known, these sounded crazy after all!
You guys will stop your whining when Nvidia FishX is announced exclusively for CoD: Ghosts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEQ5Yxs9yk8
Looks like COD with a fresh new coat of paint.
I can see the resolution, textures and effects look better, but c'mon, this looks 95% the same as every other COD game. It's the kind of improvement I would expect in a sequel, not a true next-gen experience.
Teh graphics don't really bother me but that small FOV though, ewwwww.
Quick, someone get the tin foil hats out!I don't know if you're beeing sarcastic, but I geniounly think it's a conspiracy.
Then you're being a bit silly. The requirements will not remain the same for games designed with new consoles in mind. Plain and simple.I don't know if you're beeing sarcastic, but I geniounly think it's a conspiracy.
I don't know if you're beeing sarcastic, but I geniounly think it's a conspiracy.
This assumes that console gamers give a damn about how many megahurtz PC games require. That's a pretty outlandish assumption.Watch_Dogs also has pretty rediculous requirements and I think it's because they want to make Xbox One/PS4 look more interesting and powerful to mask that they're actually underpowered. It would be shameful to see that PS runs next-gen equivalents of games on much cheaper and older hardware. Solution? Ramp up the requirements.