@MBirdy88: You honestly act like I have never gamed on a pc monitor. I have a PC and a 20 inch monitor with it. I have gamed on pc for years. There is nothing about a desktop setup that has any advantage over mine. I sit about 10 feet from a 65 inch screen , fully reclined and I can see everything. The only reason anyone would defend gaming at a desk is because they can't afford to do anything else sorry that's a fact.
When I choose to update my pc it will be right next to my consoles on my tv( if I choose to upgrade). And Lmao if you think the PS4 will be Sony's primary console for 7 years. They launched at a cheaper price for a reason. I give these consoles 5 years MAX. The X86 allows easy backwards compatibility and when they come my tv will be ready. I also find it funny you have no clue what your talking about with upscaling. Any high end TV or Receiver will upscale with 0 loss in quality.
PS. You can't call anyone a Peasants when you game at your desk.
@deathlordcrime: yes that's it if a 4k tv , 2 theater chairs, 5.1 surround sound and every console available if that isn't impressive then please show me better because I haven't seen it yet. The speakers are inset as well so if you look at the ceiling you will see them.
@deathlordcrime: yes that's it if a 4k tv , 2 theater chairs, 5.1 surround sound and every console available if that isn't impressive then please show me better because I haven't seen it yet. The speakers are inset as well so if you look at the ceiling you will see them.
@deathlordcrime: yes that's it if a 4k tv , 2 theater chairs, 5.1 surround sound and every console available if that isn't impressive then please show me better because I haven't seen it yet. The speakers are inset as well so if you look at the ceiling you will see them.
Source of that info. That's a lot of conjured up text from simply observing Crysis 2 on an x1950 pro. You must have read that from some credible place. And not created it out of thin air. I mean you're right. The CPU overhead is overwhelmed by very powerful CPU's in modern PC's. So essentially a PC with a 7850, a Phenom ii x4 3.0GHz, and 8GB of RAM should perform at least as good as a PS4 throughout it's life no matter how much tighter the single spec code is on PS4?
You are yet to link to where you gotten this exact information and how you came to the exact conclusion. I'm guessing it's not something you pieced together yourself, but a very credible and reliable source that explains pretty much everything you said verbatum while confirming that 2x performance claims are only CPU bound.
Just a simple URL adress would suffice :)
Its not just from Crysis 2, many examples from other games as well. Also should note as well that Crysis 2 was running on dx 9 API which has more overhead then dx10 and more so then dx11. DX10 introduced Fully programmable pipelines, SM 4.0 , Geometry Shaders, Texture Arrays, Predicated Rendering, and DX 11 improved upon dx10 with Tessellation, Multi-threaded Rendering, Compute Shaders. SSAO, HDAO, and more Post-Processing etc. DX11 with its native support of multithreading allows the cpu to allocate more cpu resources more efficiently toward gpu. So yes an example of a Phenom 2 x4 etc will provide on par experience as PS4 with multiplat games.
Now you cant just link one specific site showing all the reasons and facts why and how. But its a magnitude of info from many sources. But to sum everything up cpu controls all the data and processes it for the next steps for its destination. Direct x, its main purpose of being an all in one compatible API able to handle a slew of configurations has more checks and balances to ensure hardware will work together. Which creates more work. Trying to make the same number of draw calls with direct x 9 would need nearly 2x the cpu cycles if you were using equal cpu's vs console OS/API environment. Hence the 2x performance claims, which in real world scenarios would never happen since the gap in cpu performance, and the lack of cpu's that are equal.
Since we roughly know the processing power of the jaguar architecture which is roughly 15% faster then AMD's bobcat series clock per clock and tests showing the difference between bobcat vs Athlon X2 and Athlon 2 series at same clock rate and core count (1.6 ghz and two cores) shows that jag's are only slightly faster then the old Athlon x2 K8 chip but is nearly 30% slower clock per clock then Athlon 2 (K10). So if we were to simplify performance rates, jag would 100 per core(usable) so 100x6=600, Now an Athlon 2 X4 at 1.6 ghz would be like 130x4= 520, so once we start pumping up the clock rate to 2.4 ghz, that is a 50% increase in clockrate, would increase the rate to 195 per core so 195x4= 780. Which means 2.4 ghz Athlon 2 X4 would be about 25% faster, and with 3.2 ghz it would be about 50% faster. And Phenom 2's being 10-15% faster then Athlon 2's and all other AMD FX series having 6 and 8 cores those jag's dont stance a chance. Lets not even go into intel's side lol.
I'm sure the Nvidia ceo is more biased than a gamer.
I'm sorry but this must be a troll. This is the worst damage control I've ever seen. You really want people to take your word (which you have yet to cite) over the CEO of Nvidia?
Terrible terrible troll. Get banned again please. What are you up to, 5 alts?
Derp.
Your lack of citation and failure in refuting of the OP is astounding.
Please prove the NVidia CEO's data was wrong. I do not want your onion, this is something that requires hard sourced data.
@AM-Gamer said:ell me they are sitting there with perfect posture . Watch anyone staring at a monitor. Thats why most of you look like hunched over trolls so yes I would say you pc gamers do have that probem. And no a 24 inch montior isnt going to be better then any TV. Your lack of knowledge is funny at this point.
There are multiple websites that measure things like contrast and black levels. Mine is among the highest for an LED tv although Plasmas always win in that regard( I still dont like the like the look of Plasmas). You dont spend nearly 5k on a tv without doing research.
Loses gfx debate that this thread was about (like you didn't think you'd lose a gfx debate against PC every gen), switches subject to Posture and TV debate.
Either you are a troll or a worse debater than Cranler, which is it?
All that matters to me is the games. Killzone 4 might not be on top hardware but damn the lighting system in it sure looks better than any of the games I have on PC at least as far as variety and amount of light sources. It could probably look better on PC but little that helps. Drive Club looks to be more visually stunning than Grid autosport or The Crew on PC...but again, it's not about what could be or what the specs say it should be...but what it is. If devs make exclusives that you find enjoyable then no reason to not have both.After all, A console is the cost of a video card. I have a 680gtx and I would rather buy a PS4 if I didn't have one than buy a 970 considering all I'd gain is some more frame rates.
There might be many "light sources" in KZSF but none of all those fires are casting any shadows.
Here the lightning looks out of place and no shadows. KZSF's lightning manages to look really good at times but if you haven't seen better lightning in any game you have on pc, then you only have old pc games.
I've noticed that PC games and PC gamers have a distorted sense of reality when it comes to shadows.
In that second picture....that lamp isn't going to cast a too many shadow so close to the matress. Like how I'm sitting in my room right now....there are no shadows....but in games in general...but more so in PC games...just b/c they can....they create shadows all over the place...where they don't belong.
So while some think shadows are cool and all...it's not realistic and looks stupid. Just like how fire doesn't cast a shadow in the middle of the day....like the 1st picture when you think it should.
@deathlordcrime: I'd say mine beats all but two. My speakers are in the ceiling. I didn't want Shit everywhere.
And are those system war users? I don't think so.
Oh so you say lol Well all I see is a TV and a plain stand maybe you got one of those tiny speaker on the ceiling of your attic room.
All of those picture are from neogaf and one does have a GS acc. I'm not familiar with threads here to go looking for them since and I never mention anything about people on system war set up.
@04dcarraher: how are you going to call me an idiot and your dumbass comes in here says what I already told him. The PS4s processor would murder that spec on any game that that was heavily multithreaded. 2x the performance of an equivalent spec pc. A 7850 simply won't touch a PS4.
lol because you are proving the point that you have no understanding what the hell your posting.... "equivalent spec PC" means same type of cpu, and same type of gpu. which means that if a pc had a 6 core AMD cpu at 1.6 ghz and a 7850 then yes the PS4 can allow more performance. In a console the cpu does not have fight with the overheads like what are pc. Problem is that the 2x performance claims will not happen because of a few reasons
1. Cpu power of modern cpu's drawf what the PS4's measly cpu could ever dream of doing. It only takes an Athlon 2 X4 above 2.4 ghz to be able to out process the jag with the 6 usable cores @ 1.6 ghz in PS4. Clock per clock the jag architecture is only slightly faster then AMD's Athlon X2's from 2006... So as long as you have at least quad core cpu from 2008+ above 2.4 ghz PS4 cpu cant touch it. which means those cpu's have enough processing power to handle the overheads. Now if you have an intel made cpu from 2010 onward its game over big time.
2. All overheads are handled by the cpu which means that gpu does not magically gain more performance ie 1.7 TFLOP is still 1.7 TFLOP , just because its in a console, What low level coding and customizing settings to fit the gpu's abilities allow the cpu to feed the gpu the data it needs and allows the cpu to do the other tasks it needs to do without having to waste more cpu cycles getting through the overheads. the gpu then with its tweaked settings should in theory allow a smooth experience with the best settings that gpu can handle.
Fact is that we have seen plenty of examples that the PS4's cpu is holding back the gpu and developers are pushing the gpu to its limit.... which translates into lower fps and or dips.
Source of that info. That's a lot of conjured up text from simply observing Crysis 2 on an x1950 pro. You must have read that from some credible place. And not created it out of thin air. I mean you're right. The CPU overhead is overwhelmed by very powerful CPU's in modern PC's. So essentially a PC with a 7850, a Phenom ii x4 3.0GHz, and 8GB of RAM should perform at least as good as a PS4 throughout it's life no matter how much tighter the single spec code is on PS4?
You are yet to link to where you gotten this exact information and how you came to the exact conclusion. I'm guessing it's not something you pieced together yourself, but a very credible and reliable source that explains pretty much everything you said verbatum while confirming that 2x performance claims are only CPU bound.
Just a simple URL adress would suffice :)
If you knew how an API works then you would know that it is CPU bound.
@Jankarcop: What graphics debate did I lose troll? The only debate I had regarding graphics was that a 660 won't beat a PS4 for long. Some games it already doesn't.
And who the **** are you calling a troll? You going to act like a Cow tomorrow?
@Jankarcop: The only debate I had regarding graphics was that a 660 won't beat a PS4 for long.
And there are cards that beat 660 and PS4, (which will drop in price faster than PS4, as we've seen for 4 gens) and new cards will be introduced.
There is no catch up period anymore. That only occurs the first year or two of console releases. PS4 will stay behind.This has happened for 3 gens now, what makes this new gen any different?
All you've got now is "bu bu teh posture" 2004 level bait.
Keep trolling though, I'm sure it'll magically make games look better on PS4.
All that matters to me is the games. Killzone 4 might not be on top hardware but damn the lighting system in it sure looks better than any of the games I have on PC at least as far as variety and amount of light sources. It could probably look better on PC but little that helps. Drive Club looks to be more visually stunning than Grid autosport or The Crew on PC...but again, it's not about what could be or what the specs say it should be...but what it is. If devs make exclusives that you find enjoyable then no reason to not have both.After all, A console is the cost of a video card. I have a 680gtx and I would rather buy a PS4 if I didn't have one than buy a 970 considering all I'd gain is some more frame rates.
There might be many "light sources" in KZSF but none of all those fires are casting any shadows.
Here the lightning looks out of place and no shadows. KZSF's lightning manages to look really good at times but if you haven't seen better lightning in any game you have on pc, then you only have old pc games.
I've noticed that PC games and PC gamers have a distorted sense of reality when it comes to shadows.
In that second picture....that lamp isn't going to cast a too many shadow so close to the matress. Like how I'm sitting in my room right now....there are no shadows....but in games in general...but more so in PC games...just b/c they can....they create shadows all over the place...where they don't belong.
So while some think shadows are cool and all...it's not realistic and looks stupid. Just like how fire doesn't cast a shadow in the middle of the day....like the 1st picture when you think it should.
The fires are in a shadowy area and they are casting lots of lightning but it goes through the debris and rocks so there aren't any shadows at all coming from them. You can clearly see that the areas around the fires are a lot brighter, yet there are no shadows, they seem to be just lightmaps. Just as the lightning from the lamp goes straight through the bed in the second picture as the floor is equally lit under the bed as it is besides it.
@NoodleFighter: You need to tell us the names of these games. Lichdom flopped sales wise. All these high end gpu's and Lichdom never had more that 800 players at one time.
Space games are rendering a lot of open space. It's like when you're in an fps and stare at the sky you see the framerate skyrocket, throw in a few ships and it's still not as demanding as a land based game.
@MK-Professor said:
@monstersfa said:
More like gamer logic as I game on both console and pc.
I didn't see any other pc games released this year that were talked about more here than Divinity and Wasteland.
The only pc exclusive this year that I know of that measures up to the multiplats is Lichdom which is a highly unpopular game.
Steam stats are dominated by graphically outdated games.
Now you change your argument to popular games?
You criticize me for picking top down games which seem to be all the rage on pc so I told you why I didn't mention Lichdom for example.
Civ V you say? Why does this game have lower reqs than most multiplats over the last 3 years? Looks like pc exclusives are holding back pc gaming more than multiplats.
This is a thread about high end gpu sales which are for more advanced graphics. If you want to talk about game complexity you can start a new thread.
This years biggest multiplat on consoles..... is Minecraft.
Source?
@dakan45 said:
@monstersfa Nothing of what you said made any sense "30 fps simply looks smoother on console than pc."
why? HOW explain it to me
"I'm speaking of technical advancement. Notice how multiplats have higher reqs now than most pc exclusives."
That didnt make any sense either. Better graphics have better requirments, obviously AAA multiplats have higher requirements than Low budget pc exlusives, but the same goes for low budget multiplats such as 2d platformers.
"Speaking of shooters, Borderlands 2 pc version has more players than Wasteland 2. RE 4 came out when pc was still the shooter platform."
????
Borderlands 2 is more of a rpg than a shooter, wasterland 2 just came out and its a rpg, RE4 is a survival horror game.
Just wtf are you talking about?
"Google it and do some reading. Console games have some kind of smoothing effect going on."
No they dont, its just a 30 fps lock and games use better animations than in the past, that doesnt make 30 fps smoother on consoles.
"Why is the average multiplat far more demanding than the average pc exclusive? Why are all the most popular pc games technically outdated?"
The average multiplat? You do reallize that there are far more multiplats that are 2d indie games than AAA multiplats?
AAA= high budget therefore its a multiplat and has impressive graphics. A pc exlusive is usually a exlusive becuase its either rts, mmo, etc etc, so pc is the target platform and it must be playable on old pcs as well since they dont go for graphics or its a low budget game which obviously doesnt have the budget of AAA multiplats and exlusive. If a corperation owned pc as a platform they would throw money to make a technologically advanced pc exlusive, but pc is a free platform. Star citizen that has money thrown to it by outside sources is technologically advanced.
You are cluess about everything it seems
@clyde46 said:
@dakan45: Spoken like someone who doesn't know what he's talking about. You do know that many production houses run workstations with Xeons and Quadro cards right?
You talking about cgi video editing. I am talking about basic video editing and the fact of the mattter is, you dont need a freaking gtx680 to edit a freaking video. Then you go to freaking 2gb ram and dual cores. Seriously get your head together, its hard to follow when you cant even explain what you reffering to....also xeons and quadros are not good for games and they are not the cards that nvidia is talking about.
In conclusion it is you who doesnt know what he is talking about.
It's something I've always noticed. Crysis is the only game I can think of that was tolerable below 50 fps on pc. Every other game looks awful especially Far cry 3. That game is unplayable once the fps gets into the 40's.
What about AAA pc exclusives? Civ Beyond Earth has far lower reqs than upcoming multiplats.
A games player count typically peaks at launch. Wasteland 2 being outplayed by a 2 year old shooter is very telling.
RE 4 is a tps. You kill about 1,000 enemies per playthrough.
Let me be more specific, why are non indie games pc exclusives typically less demanding than multiplats?
So you're saying that all these high end gpu sales really mean nothing since most pc exclusives will be designed for the lowest common denominator?
There used to be a new "Crysis" almost every year from mid 90's to mid 2000's. What happened?
Why should rts's and mmo's not go for high end graphics?
Wasn't World in Conflict and Company of Heroes quite demanding for their time?
All the hermits are claiming pwnage saying that there's more high end pc's than next gen consoles but what good is that if most of the exclusives cater to low end pc's?
@deathlordcrime: yes that's it if a 4k tv , 2 theater chairs, 5.1 surround sound and every console available if that isn't impressive then please show me better because I haven't seen it yet. The speakers are inset as well so if you look at the ceiling you will see them.
The tv is a XBR 900 A 65 inch.
screenshots or it didnt happen!
this is the setup
oh... wall mounted above actually eye-line .... ugh, otherwise, nice for you. still doesn't refute what I have said.... focusing on THAT is far less effective than an upclose monitor. the 4k aspect is useless, you gotta have a serious case of "Buyers Justification" to lie about that.
IPS Panel... vs Bright Plasma .... one is functionally accurate, the other is brighter/darker than the reality of the image.
@MBirdy88: I'm not sure how you mean less effective? In what way?
The tv is actually titled down slightly so it works well. I can watch the 3D with 0 ghosting. And the movie aspect along with the 3D capabilities is why I got it. I hated 3D till I got this tv. It uses passive glasses but the problem with passive glasses is it cuts the resolution in half. The good thing is a 4k tv will still put a 3D movie in 1080P.
@MBirdy88: I'm not sure how you mean less effective? In what way?
The tv is actually titled down slightly so it works well. I can watch the 3D with 0 ghosting. And the movie aspect along with the 3D capabilities is why I got it. I hated 3D till I got this tv. It uses passive glasses but the problem with passive glasses is it cuts the resolution in half. The good thing is a 4k tv will still put a 3D movie in 1080P.
I'm strictly refering to games when I say effectiveness, concentration is higher when sitting upright at a workstation, a monitor's image is more close and personal, and fills most of your viewing space, so you have a mre concetrated clear up close image with say a 24' monitor is the ideal size for eye/head movement.... simply put, the same advantages of a workstation apply to a gaming station.... concentration, best eye coverage and up close focus.
You'r putting far too much enphasis on the TV vs Monitor spec, when the Monitor gives an advantage not possible by the very nature of a home cinema. if you want to mong out... then yea home cinema.... not as ideal for concentrating on games though.... and much easier to miss things. and no that ain't up for debate.
@deathlordcrime: That's not a attic lol. Attics don't have air conditioning. And that's the point I didn't want people to see the speakers. Look at where the ceiling slopes. I have 4 speakers in the ceiling. They are white to blend in with the wall.
Edit: Actually you can't see the speakers on that picture. I should have another with them on there. I will post more later.
This is one game and it doesn't look any better to me than multiplats. Not even close to as groundbreaking as Quake, Quake 2, Unreal, UT2k3, Doom 3 or Crysis.
Been out for a year and is still $60. I thought pc game prices dropped faster than that.
This is one game and it doesn't look any better to me than multiplats. Not even close to as groundbreaking as Quake, Quake 2, Unreal, UT2k3, Doom 3 or Crysis.
Been out for a year and is still $60. I thought pc game prices dropped faster than that.
lol Doom 3 and Crysis 1? nice one there Cranler
dat quake
Oh yea pcgamer getting a new UT game which will look amazing
This is one game and it doesn't look any better to me than multiplats. Not even close to as groundbreaking as Quake, Quake 2, Unreal, UT2k3, Doom 3 or Crysis.
Been out for a year and is still $60. I thought pc game prices dropped faster than that.
lol Doom 3 and Crysis 1? nice one there Cranler
Oh yea pcgamer getting a new UT game which will look amazing
??????????
Doom 3's graphics were completely mindblowing for it's time. Doom 3 was so demanding that the employees of the store where I bought it were required to mention the requirements to each buyer.
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 is last gen spec req? What do you mean exactly? There also such a thing as optimizing your games for many GPU.
You won't be able to even play arma 3 at anything but mostly low setting and lucky enough to get 30fps with the minimum requirement which aren't even that accurate for many games.
All that matters to me is the games. Killzone 4 might not be on top hardware but damn the lighting system in it sure looks better than any of the games I have on PC at least as far as variety and amount of light sources. It could probably look better on PC but little that helps. Drive Club looks to be more visually stunning than Grid autosport or The Crew on PC...but again, it's not about what could be or what the specs say it should be...but what it is. If devs make exclusives that you find enjoyable then no reason to not have both.After all, A console is the cost of a video card. I have a 680gtx and I would rather buy a PS4 if I didn't have one than buy a 970 considering all I'd gain is some more frame rates.
There might be many "light sources" in KZSF but none of all those fires are casting any shadows.
Here the lightning looks out of place and no shadows. KZSF's lightning manages to look really good at times but if you haven't seen better lightning in any game you have on pc, then you only have old pc games.
I've noticed that PC games and PC gamers have a distorted sense of reality when it comes to shadows.
In that second picture....that lamp isn't going to cast a too many shadow so close to the matress. Like how I'm sitting in my room right now....there are no shadows....but in games in general...but more so in PC games...just b/c they can....they create shadows all over the place...where they don't belong.
So while some think shadows are cool and all...it's not realistic and looks stupid. Just like how fire doesn't cast a shadow in the middle of the day....like the 1st picture when you think it should.
I could care less, it looks good. If I want reality shadows I would play with a flashlight, not a video game.
This is one game and it doesn't look any better to me than multiplats. Not even close to as groundbreaking as Quake, Quake 2, Unreal, UT2k3, Doom 3 or Crysis.
Been out for a year and is still $60. I thought pc game prices dropped faster than that.
lol Doom 3 and Crysis 1? nice one there Cranler
dat quake
Oh yea pcgamer getting a new UT game which will look amazing
..... It's incredibly early alpha ... pretty much EVERYTHING is placeholder....
@miiiiv: I just don't see anything wrong with that image.
The fires are glowing...they create light around them...but there in the section of the room where sunlight is. I don't see how they're suppose to cast shadows in a place that is perfectly lit in the first place.
Too many games now-a-days tend to depict rooms and such like we're in space or on the moon. Where it's like DOOM3 and every shadown is defined and very easy to see....it doesn't look real.
Like how in a room with a light....there will be shadows. Thats not how it works. If I'm in a room with your normal every day lamp or fan light or something...the shadow is so feint that you can barely see it...if there is a shadow at all.
I dunno how to explain it....it's like Tessalation or whatever on steroids.
@mr_huggles_dog: Here's another example. Look at the closest fire, no shadows, they seem to be lightmaps and not dynamic light sources.
Here's another, look at the fire glow to the left.
Don't get me wrong I think KZSF is really good looking game, I was initially responding to someone who claimed that KZSF's lightning is better than anything he's seen. Either he is delusional, hasn't played many games or lying.
Log in to comment