palpabl_purpura
Member
It is. The consoles are older than your PC. And they are still viable. You're helping my argument.
-
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.
Rumor: Far Cry 4 Xbox One runs at ~1400x1080
- Thread starter chadskin
- Start date
It is. The consoles are older than your PC. And they are still viable. You're helping my argument.
Beerman462
Member
Yes, but if you read the whole thread it's all explained and even if with the hardware being newer specifically the 8800GT it still holds up and performance didn't fall off a cliff. If you want to discuss that topic further we can do it in the other thread. I don't want to derail this one any further.
I never said consoles weren't viable I was mearly refuting the statement that equal or even better PC hardware becomes less viable. No one can help your argument.
How'd that work out for you?
VaultBoy101
Member
Math: not even once.
palpabl_purpura
Member
Okay, but I just don't see your point. 360/PS3 are almost three years older than your hardware, and you benchmarked a nearly 2 year old game.
Beerman462
Member
You said
Insinuating that consoles have a longer viable lifespan. I provided benchmarks proving that a 7 year old GPU even down clocked by 50% still could hang with the consoles. One of which was 1yr older (Ps3 2006) and another 2yr older(Xbox 360), both of which were built with specs far beyond PCs of the day. An 8800GT down clocked 50% is really close to an Xbox 360 GPU in theoretical performance.
palpabl_purpura
Member
The consoles are older, bottom line. Why don't you benchmark Shadow of Mordor or Dragon Age Inquisition on your 7 year old PC and get back to me. You don't even meet the minimum CPU requirements for DAO, but I can buy both games for my PS3 from 2006. BS Infinite is an old game.
Beerman462
Member
Current consoles are behind current PC hardware, that wasn't the case in 2005/2006. Shadows of Mordor has content on PC not available on PS360 and I don't know about Dragon Age, but if your willing to buy me copies I'll gladly benchmark them. 2013 is old? Also the PS360 Shadows of Mordor is terrible.
palpabl_purpura
Member
Yep 2013 is old. It will be 2015 in little over 1 month. In 2013, you were doing pretty good with 2 GB of VRAM. Now if you want all the bells and whistles (2K, heavy Ambien Occlusion, Ultra everything) it's simply not enough. So a lot changes in 2 years. Now you can still run games, but by the poster's description of why he values PC gaming (again 2K, high level AA, AO, ultra everything) this would simply not be an option for him. Personally, I'm fine running a game on medium settings, and that wasn't his perspective. The poster wants to max out everything, so his perception of viability may be different from yours or mine. Which brings us back to the point. What one considers terrible (in your case Shadow of Mordor PS3/Xbox) once again is subjective. For the same reason, some people are content with the PS3 version of Bayonetta, and others consider it unplayable. At the end of the day, I can play new releases (this month) on my 8 year old PS3 or 9 year old 360, but the same cannot be said about your 7 year old PC.
BTW- I hope you have upgraded. Have you purchased or played a AAA PC title released in the past 2-3 months for your 7 year old system?
Beerman462
Member
My gaming PC is an i5 with a 7870XT 2GB which so far is fine as long as your not running Ultra Textures. The 8800GT benches were just for fun. I installed it in my HTPC just to see how it held up. My conclusion from my benches is that PC hardware holds up just as well as console hardware as long as it's a quality port. This hardware is scalable. My 8800GT down clocked is just as powerful as a 360 GPU and unless the PC version has extra features that can't be turned off it will play the same games as PS360. It's pretty obvious that if you want all the bells and whistles your going to have problems, but if your goal is to play at console equivalent setting with console equivalent hardware the PC can do it and the consoles have no advantage. Console optimization outside of a few exclusives equates to lowering resolution or removing/lowering settings. BioShock Infinite came out March 2013. By matching the resolution and settings of the Xbox 360 I was able to match the performance with equivalent PC hardware.
You can keep moving goal posts, but if your argument is that these consoles are getting inferior versions that don't exist on PC that I can't run on my 7 yr old PC , that's a poor argument.
JigglesBunny
Banned
I could have told you it wasn't true 1080p from the second I grabbed the controller.
It doesn't look as clean or crisp as people say the PS4 is.
I regret the purchase.
It doesn't look as clean or crisp as people say the PS4 is.
I regret the purchase.
The concept of not having to scale in one of the two dimensions is great PR bullshit when considered in isolation.
1080pr essentially trades "no vertical scaling" for more horizontal scaling. You still have less horizontal information when compared to 900p, even though you now claim more vertical pixels. You end up doing more horizontal interpolation than 900p, even if you do none vertically. It evens out in the end.
palpabl_purpura
Member
The poster's point was that console were meaningless to him because he wants to play at 2K, ultra everything etc. That was exactly the point. It's not about what you want or what I want, but his argument was PCs are his platform of choice because he can run AO, high level AA, 2K on everything. My point was that is not a viable 6 year plan. It's maybe a 3-4 year plan at best. These games don't run on older PCs because it's not worth the man hours to optimize them, unlike consoles, where the incentive is clearly present. So you may call them inferior versions, and you are correct to some extent. How inferior they are is a subjective matter, and dependent on what you value in gaming. If you value a system with the longest lifespan possible with generally better optimization, you will pick console. If you want all the bells and whistles, but don't mind getting into an arms race with developers who are subsidized with cutting edge workstations from hardware manufacturers (in order to in turn, push the latest, most expensive chipsets on the consumer market), then be my guest.
Beerman462
Member
Your response to him was that consoles were more viable long term. If you want to get technical this is patently false, because consoles have a shelf life, they will eventually lose support completely. PCs from 10 years ago can still run PC games released today, maybe not AAA console ports, but they can still run current PC games (WoW/indies). If you value the system with the longest life span it is easily PC and not even a question. How many PS360 games can you play on PS4 and XB1? It's less then 20 for sure and you have to double dip for any of them, but you can play hundreds of PC games on even the most modest i3/750Ti, so no matter how you try to frame it PC is the platform with the greatest amount of longevity, forward and backward.
grandwizard
Member
You are right, and now you have proof to back up the dumb myth of accelerated hardware degradation, but some people are so stuck in their view points that it doesn't matter.
Longevity with regards to backwards compatibility and maintaining a library is a complete no brainer. It is nuts to me that people are ready to shell out another $60 for a 'remastered' version of a game they paid full price for not one year ago. This is the kind of stuff you can do to any pc game you own as you upgrade hardware without having to pay for some new version.
Surface of Me
I'm not an NPC. And neither are we.
Using H2A and SO as examples, I prefer 900p. SO seems to have a better IQ than H2A.
Beerman462
Member
Yup, as with anything in life. If you are willing to spend more money upfront, and moderate amounts down the line you will reap the benefit. If you want to pay the bare minimum(consoles) then you will get the bare minimum.
The only case where this breaks down is exclusives. PS4 is worth every penny if you want Uncharted, Bloodbourne, or any other Sony property, which I do. I will buy a PS4 next year fo sho.
Good one
I'm glad you are happy about it,you should be. Not only is it a few more pixels, it is also reducing scaling artefacts by scaling only horizontally. The overall result should be better IQ than 1600x900 would have been.
palpabl_purpura
Member
You've proved the exact opposite. 360/PS3 are still getting AAA releases today- games you cannot play on your 7 year old setup (which is newer) because you do not meet the minimum system reqs.
Yeah such a careful un-PR move to try and fool the 5 persons who care, I mean they've got to be subtle about it right !
Audioboxer
Member
lol, sorry, so ruthless I had to chuckle.
Banana Aeon
Member
You keep posting in circles. And the minimum system requirements are often times not benchmarked correctly.
Regardless of what you are trying to say, but clearly failing to, GPU/CPU from 2007 and above will always come out ahead of the Xbox 360/PS3, at equivalent settings (which official benchmarks are not taken at) unless the port is bad. That's not up for discussion. You can't argue math.
boredandlazy
Member
Yes it's definitely the better choice. Grand Turismo games on PS3 still look terrific and they were 1280 and 1440 x1080p respectively. Although that was also because the PS3 only had a horizontal scaler so they didn't really have a choice.
cheezcake
Member
If anything its marginally harder, but it has less artefacts post scaling.
I'd definitely prefer devs to use this res over 900p in the future.
geordiemp
Member
Great punch line...)
Back on topic, hope both versions have the locked 30 FPS.
Shame about dragon age, looks like it could do with a tweak or 2 on consoles.
UpDownLeftRight
Banned
You're talking out of your ass. My system is from 2012-ish with a 2600k and 3gb gtx 580. It kicks the crap out of every game on the new gen consoles still and that isn't likely to end anytime soon. This system has a lot of years left in it and I have the luxury of only upgrading when I feel a big leap has been made in tech.
I'd hazard a guess that my current build could easily ride out the whole gen if I wanted it to.
palpabl_purpura
Member
Your argument would work if but for one crucial error- you forgot to factor the efficiency of consoles. The 8800 GTX is a newer card, so it better run BS Infinite better. A more fair comparison would be a PC from 2005 running COD: AW from this year vs XB360. Which do you think would win?
Guaranteed you will fail to meet the minimal spec for AAA titles within the lifespan of the PS4/XB1, just like Beerman's 8800GTX/Celron fails to meet the minimal specs for AAA PC games being released today. But PS3/XB1 are still getting AAA games like COD, DA Inquisition, etc despite being older hardware.
Beerman462
Member
Congratulations you can play vastly inferior versions on the PS360, missing effects and systems in the PC and current console versions. I could play them on my 7 year old PC at the same settings as PS360 guaranteed, because minimum system requirements are not written in stone. Also you keep harping on the fact that the 8800GT is newer while ignoring the fact that I down clocked it by 50%.
palpabl_purpura
Member
Well, why don't you benchmark DA Inquisition and Shadow of Mordor on your fully clocked 8800 GT and get back to me? And while you are at it benchmark the Evil Within.
Beerman462
Member
I don't need to, hardware scales linearly. Just because it's released this month or month from now doesn't change that. Do you think the efficiency only kicks in now? You can gift it to me if you want, but math is on my side. My 8800GT meets the minimum for the GPU and the CPU calls for quad AMD at 2.5 or Intel at 2.0Ghz I guarantee my dual core Intel at 2.4 Ghz will work. Shadows of Mordor on PS360 doesn't have the nemesis system sooo it's a pile of crap and not worth the time.
ROUGE_BLOCK
Member
Remember when no one on consoles had any real idea what native resolutions games were running at? Now it's like the pixel war.
Sort of, but graphical comparisons between consoles have at least been pervasive since the SNES/Genesis-gen.
Blooddimond
Member
If bf4 was any indication ps360 settings may be missing from DA:I.
Man, I wish they were that direct now.
"Buy the PS4 because Uncharted will be better than Tomb Raider, and that'll come out on there later anyway."
"Get the XBO, Sony can't be trusted running a bingo night let alone PSN."
Plasma handles non native res content much better than LCD.
palpabl_purpura
Member
Umh, hate to break it to you, but you may want to check out the DAI performance http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=930631thread.
People with I7s aren't even breaking 30 fps at max. Your card isn't even DX 11 compatible, which you need to even boot the game. So there's no way you can benchmark a game when you can't even get to the title screen.
palpabl_purpura
Member
No you need a quad core Intel at 2 GHZ. You do not meet system requirements, CPU wise or GPU wise, since your card isn't DX 11 compatible.
Correction, it's Far Cry 4 that's DX11 compatible. So you can't even boot a game that I can play on my Ps3
Beerman462
Member
Don't know where you're getting DX11, but the official site says
http://www.dragonage.com/#!/en_US/news/pc-systems-requirements-revealed
So 8800GT is a go. Also a few games have been listing quad core as a minimum, yet people with dual cores have been playing them. So you might want to check your facts, because your showing your ignorance.
palpabl_purpura
Member
Sorry, it was Far Cry 4, my mistake, see edit.
palpabl_purpura
Member
No, this game is one of the most CPU intensive games released to date. Facts checked and verified.
cheezcake
Member
Yehp. Unfortunately some people like to deride it as "1080pr" even though it has tangible technical benefits over regular scaling and no game dev has actually marketed any game running at such a resolution as 1080p.