Metalmurphy
Member
Er, isn't 720p>1080p a much larger jump in pixel count than 480p>720p?
480p - 337920 pixels
720p - 921600 pixels (+273%)
1080p - 2073600 pixels (+ 225%)
Er, isn't 720p>1080p a much larger jump in pixel count than 480p>720p?
Depends on the game. Platformers? Sure but there is no way in hell that I will be buying next gen consoles if the majority of games are not 1080p. Luckily I won't have to worry about it.720p steady 60fps >>>>>>>> 1080p 30fps
thank you very much.
Read my first post. It doesn't work that way. Take a look at MGS5. That is a current gen game on 7 year old hardware. Then take a look at NFS or Tomb raider for PC. Same game as the current old hardware console but pcs still barely push them at higher resolutions with cards that came out 2 years ago.
MGS5 isn't released yet, is it? I'm a bit weary of judging demos before the actual game is out in the wild. It could be subjective, but I always though games don't look as good on release as compared to when they're demoed months before release. The KZ series is a good example of that.
Why do NVIDIA feel the need to comment on the PS4 every week?
I still don't know how people can play 30fps FPS or racing games, but to each his own.Depends on the game. Platformers? Sure but there is no way in hell that I will be buying next gen consoles if the majority of games are not 1080p. Luckily I won't have to worry about it.
Tell that to people playing Mass Effect on PC. There will be other ports without PC controller support. Also competitive MP without mouse on PC is impossible, so write off shooters too.To be fair, having to touch a mouse or keyboard for maybe 15 seconds isn't nearly the horrible inconvenience you've made it out to be.
Resolution is STILL more important to me.I still don't know how people can play 30fps FPS or racing games, but to each his own.
KZ2 final looked better or at least the same as their demos. I don't believe there is an argument there. Just look for old threads here and pics on gaming sites.
I'd say that the MP beta overall played better than the final MP, but it was definitely not prettier.
Now if you're talking about the infamous E3 CG video, then sure you could say it ended up looking worse. But that wasn't really a demo, it was a target render.
So you did not want to upgrade from a card that uses about 200Watts to a card that only uses 140Watts because you think the computer that ran the higher power could not run it?!!!!
A card that is also an inch shorter!
Unbelievable!
Each unit is a 10x increase. It's odd but it is an acceptable way of doing it.I have to say...the graph doesn't have consistent units on the axis. Looks like a really weird graph.
Right. Well here's the deal: the Titan is indeed a $1000 GPU. The Radeon 7970 is a $400 GPU, available today, and it's more than 2x better than the PS4's GPU in theoretical performance. By the time the PS4 launches, Nvidia and AMD will have new graphics cards out that will offer the same performance at a lower price tag. What this means in practical terms: If back in 2005 you needed a $1200 PC to match or exceed console performance, this time you may only need a $500-$600 PC.
They're not incorrect at all (well, the $3000 is). And they are relevant in some discussions. They are, however, massively overstated and overplayed by people who don't really understand the subject matter, and they are irrelevant to what NV has been doing lately (comparing hardware performance).
I have to say...the graph doesn't have consistent units on the axis. Looks like a really weird graph.
Is this true? Shit, maybe my computer can run a 660. If so, that would be fantastic. I could use my computer for another 3 years or so, and still afford a PS4.
It's the truth if you can't handle that I'm sorry, comparing ARMA to BF3 or CoD is like comparing Ridge Racer to GT5. ARMA takes more skill, time and patience to play and the gameplay attracts and creates some of the best players I've seen in the genre.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiYCKVsPKCk
Despite the 600 line being more efficient than its immediate predecessors, that's really not true. Just compare a midrange card of today against the midrange cards of when the X360/PS3 generation started.
GTX660:
Max power: 140W
Length: 9.5"
Width: Dual-slot
8800GT:
Max power: 105W
Length: 9"
Width: Single-slot
[/B]
I was going to make a lengthy reply but meh. A few pages late as it is.
That PC probably runs on some fairy dust to to be in that price point and keep up with a PS4 for all of next generation.
I say fairy dust because you probably are not accounting for an OS(at least a Win7), no kb/m(even if a cheap combo), no accessories whatsoever, a very cheap MB/PSU that will hinder upgrades later, and the fact that you have to relay on a 7970's price being cut in 50%(not happening, not in only 9 month. Even a 6950 is like $260 and above. Also, no monitor here, but I guess we don't account for HDTV's either.) Had you added like $200 to that figure, I may have agreed, but no. I am building a very tight budget PC right now around an i5/7870 and the prices aren't as amazing as people make them out to be.
The theoretical performance of something is always funny to hear especially since most games aren't that optimized to use much of CPU's 'theoretical performance' and there are examples of software overhead/drivers wasting that performance.
I picked the 8800GT because it was in the first gaming PC I built.You cherry-picked the 8800GT because it was the first card on a new, smaller process that was using older tech. Compare it to another mid-range card after a process change and you'll see the pattern there.
Or, if you disagree with their design philosophy you could just buy a lower-end card that consumes less power -- essentially you're complaining that they didn't go that route.
I have to say...the graph doesn't have consistent units on the axis. Looks like a really weird graph.
I suspect there will be a sharp decrease in people putting weight into Digital Foundry's stuff next generation.
Soooo true!!
Every year since 2006 Sony was LOST and damned and failed whatever. Nothing could save it but in reality it was outselling xbox. NOW, next gen is comin and "they're" kinda acknowlegding Sonys victory but " its too late now, look the 720 is around the corner"
and now they see Playstation beats it with power (again actually) all of a sudden i see articles like "is power really THAT important???" etc
fuck
Typical downgrading western evil media who want the downfall of Sony.
Remember project midway!
That's kind of a subjective thing. I was pretty hyped for KZ2, but after playing it with its tiny FOV and muddy-ass graphics, I thought it looked like shit. Then again, I'm primarily a PC gamer. In fact, I think KZ was the last game I played on the PS3 before I homebrewed it and turned it into a dedicated MAME box.
I still don't know how people can play 30fps FPS or racing games, but to each his own.
I have to say...the graph doesn't have consistent units on the axis. Looks like a really weird graph.
Where is Wii u
What's the point of this comparison when they are taken from different places?
Not at all. People want as good graphics as they can get, but only on a console. No amount of graphics superiority is worth giving up the couch or ease of use or controller (and only controller) for most people. That superiority is getting much less with next gen as we hit the 1080p wall.Or, as an alternative explanation, they only care that their side wins and will move the goal posts accordingly depending on who they're up against.
True, though that says less about the PS4 as it does about the craziness of the high-end GPU market this time around.There is no lead this time around. You're starting with a deficit from the offset.