Sir Walter Taffy
Member
Those fish are going to look beautiful.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
PC Call of Duty Ghosts using higher-res textures than next-gen console versions
- Thread starter x3sphere
- Start date
SirButterstick
Banned
Dat bush pop-in at 3:12 - 3:19. LOL.
shinobi602
Member
COD: Ghosts isn't a looker, visually. Nothing there that the Xbone or PS4 can't run circles around.
The 7970 wattage is greater than the entire power draw of the PS4 =P
Zombie James
Banned
That makes no sense given the specs.
Who's spending $3k on a pc?
You expecting the exact same from PS4 and Xbox One when compared to PC is laughable. There's obvious differences. Your GDDR5 RAM isn't going to handle everything. There's other components that come into play.
Edit: This post isn't meant to be a "LOL CONSOLES!!!" post. I'm just stating that there's obvious differences in power when it comes to PC and consoles.
nhlducks35
Member
God no.
PC on low settings looks 10x better than the X360/PS3 version of the game. The consoles are hampered by blurry AA, pop-in, low res textures, lowered player count, and lower resolution.
shinobi602
Member
SirButterstick
Banned
Amd paid just under 4000 for each of the pcs they sent to ea/dice. The cases were custom made as well, though.
Not exactly, this is a little bit different this time
The thing is, you need to keep in consideration that I already have a PC (a laptop in this case), so, for someone like myself, going with a PC now for gaming would be expensive!
You can say I could sell my current laptop but that would be a loss for me.
Financially, going with a PS4 would wiser
Of course, I will not argue with that, also please see above ^
Junior Mint
Member
Yeah I feel bad for anyone who could only play it on consoles with the horrific graphics and the gimped player count that pretty much destroys the BF3 experience.
This is coming from someone who owned the PS3 version.
jonscrambler
Member
it makes perfect sense given the specs
About 2k maybe a bit more. Nobody is going to need that to play BF4 1080p60. Maybe if you want to run it at 3840x2160.
SirMossyBloke
Member
I am stunned I had so much fun then. Stunned.
Dr Mayonnaise
Member
This statement is kinda misleading.... Sure PS4 may be running at 1080p and 60fps but they don't say what they had to turn off or lower to get that. Not saying that it will look bad on PS4, but you cant take statements like that with anything but a grain of salt. Hell my old Phenom X4 965 with 4gigs of ram and a 1GB GTX 550TI would hit 60fps at 1080p in BF3 but it was on medium settings
OldAsUrSock
Banned
So I take it you do not think that Frostbite 3 or Unreal Engine 3 are new engines either?
SniperHunter
Banned
looks like this will turn into pc vs consoles thread # 5534232221
Well, this should be expected for any titles in the future. The "next" part in the "next-gen" catch phrase last about the time between the moment they say "And here is a demo of X (not the WiiU game) game our new <next-gen> system" and the game shows up running on the hardware.
So, about 5 seconds.
So, about 5 seconds.
InvaderZimmer
Member
Consoles will always have limitations due to the fact they aren't upgradable. It's about time developers stopped gimping PC versions to the lowest common denominator.
Always-honest
Banned
Not sure what that means... But anyway, what pc will profit from this? And why isn't Ps4 capable of the highest textures?
Memory and performance-wise, the consoles should be able to handle it.
The sensible answer would be that the PS4/XBone versions are using textures optimised for the fixed resolution target of 1080p, whereas the PC version may use higher res versions for higher resolutions
Portugeezer
Member
Dafuq, all dat RAM and GDDR5?
Ah forget it, not like the engine is some engineering marvel.
Ah forget it, not like the engine is some engineering marvel.
It would be so much easier if the console heathens would just admit once and for all that PC is eternally better.
Agreed, both consoles should be able to handle the higher textures at 1080p. I would expect downgrades in shaders/AA/etc but not textures.
Maybe at 30fps, remember you requiere a good GPU, CPU to process those textures a larger memory pool is just that, storage.
TouchMyBox
Member
You say that as if games don't make use of 1-2GB of system ram as well.
So a 4GB GTX 770 should be more than enough to compete, RAM-wise.
The Janitor
Member
Patrick never mentioned 1080P did he? That's just assumed by whoever wrote the article...
Exactly. Last gen engine, running on next-gen machines, and better textures on the PC version. I don't think people will be running out to grab Titans to max CoD out anytime soon.
dragonbane
Member
Hardware wise they are, but there is no reason next gen consoles can't max out a shitty looking CoD.
Who knows? Maybe they're not as powerful as we thought.
OldAsUrSock
Banned
Has any game announced so far not using an updated last gen engine?
legacyzero
Banned
Save this for when they (don't) announce dedi servers and Mod Tools. THEN we can celebrate.Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more...
I don't know. It's just strange to me since in Skyrim I get the same performance +/- 1-2% when using the standard highest textures and the 2K re-texture pack with double the memory usage.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
But do you really think COD: Ghosts will use all of that VRAM plus another 3 GB of system RAM? If not, the PS4 version should at least be able to match it memory-wise, with its 6 GB of usable GDDR5 memory (not confirmed, I know, but seems likely). So why would the PS4 version have to suffer lower-res textures? Surely the slower CPU doesn't affect texture resolution? My understanding is that that is purely on the GPU side, but please correct me if I'm wrong.
Also, on my relatively weak 2011 gaming laptop (it was about upper midrange back then, I'd say) with 2 GB VRAM I can always seem to max out texture resolution and AF without it noticeably affecting my performance, even if I need to lower other settings to, say, Medium (which I often need to do with stuff like geometry, probably because of my rather weak dual core CPU).
That is pretty much what you get from the Launch titles of next-gen systems. Easier to use slightly tweaked old-ass engines and then slowly move on to upgraded version once the install base picks up and they drop the old one.
Lol...get used to this.
Quite expensive, but you do realize that PC was rendering the game at 60 FPS at 4K resolution, right?
A $600 PC could max BF4 at 1080p. Easily.
This isn't true. PC version on low settings has similar issues and worse smoke (pixelated), particle effects, worse shadows (blocky, jagged etc). Textures are comparable when you install the game on consoles.
That doesn't read like a confirmation at all. "the full Battlefield experience". To me doesn't equal 100% confirmed 1080p/60fps.
1080p is actually not stated in the interview he links to:
"64-player multiplayer and 60fps means next-gen console players are "getting the full Battlefield experience", Bach said."
OldAsUrSock
Banned
No, many times the low PC settings are better than what the PS3 and 360 were churning out.