60fps vs 1080p

  • 163 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for KungfuKitten
KungfuKitten

27389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#151 KungfuKitten
Member since 2006 • 27389 Posts

sad that like 8 years after pc have been doing it consoles still have to "choose" one. Just one should be unacceptable

Krelian-co
I wonder why this gap is so big. Perhaps it costs them a lot of money to offer people all those 'services'.
Avatar image for MrGeezer
MrGeezer

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#152 MrGeezer
Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

sad that like 8 years after pc have been doing it consoles still have to "choose" one. Just one should be unacceptable

Krelian-co
The only reason why PC doesn't have to "choose one" is because PC is not one single system. As long as consoles are dealing with the same hardware and are not upgradable, it will ALWAYS be a matter of choosing one or the other (at least sometimes, at the developer's discretion).
Avatar image for C_Rule
C_Rule

9816

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#153 C_Rule
Member since 2008 • 9816 Posts
1080p and 120fps, thanks.
Avatar image for KungfuKitten
KungfuKitten

27389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#154 KungfuKitten
Member since 2006 • 27389 Posts

[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]

sad that like 8 years after pc have been doing it consoles still have to "choose" one. Just one should be unacceptable

MrGeezer

The only reason why PC doesn't have to "choose one" is because PC is not one single system. As long as consoles are dealing with the same hardware and are not upgradable, it will ALWAYS be a matter of choosing one or the other (at least sometimes, at the developer's discretion).

It's just weird that for the same money (if you include royalties and fees) you get a way more capable PC than console hardware, with more software support and services to boot.
I would expect a console to be more bang/buck effective, because it is standardized and mass produced, can run more efficiently and is closed so they can maximize users/service. Maybe having to create the services themselves, the overhead and the marketing for consoles cost so much that it completely negates any advantages, and then some.

Avatar image for Metallic_Blade
Metallic_Blade

565

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#155 Metallic_Blade
Member since 2005 • 565 Posts

Definitely frame-rate over resolution. I remember I tried playing Left 4 Dead one time before I had a decent graphics card in my system. Let's just say that playing the game at 10-15 FPS wasn't the most enjoyable experience. 

Avatar image for WilliamRLBaker
WilliamRLBaker

28915

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#156 WilliamRLBaker
Member since 2006 • 28915 Posts

>2013

>Consolites think its either one or the other

Such low standards, really disusting

ClassicRockFTW
its one or the other on most gaming pcs if we look at the spec totals steam released.
Avatar image for gpuking
gpuking

3914

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#157 gpuking
Member since 2004 • 3914 Posts

[QUOTE="gpuking"]Just how many of you have the rigs to run next gen games at 1080p/60fps? Yeah it took two or was it three 7990s to run BF4 Fishing at Baku level at 60fps, I highly doubt any of you has a single 7990 much less crossfire. You can't even run a current gen Crysis 3 at 60fps without going sli or xfire. Games like TW3 and BF4 all look better than Crysis 3 so tell me how some of you are seemingly so confident to take that for granted? It's one thing to run crossgen games at 1080p/60fps but a whole different ballpark to run a native nextgen game at that setting.PernicioEnigma
My 780 can run Crysis 3 maxed at 1080p with an average of around 80fps. I think it's debatable whether TW3 or BF4 looks better than Crysis 3, and that doesn't necessarily mean they'll be more demanding than Crysis 3. BF3 for example runs really well, and it doesn't look much worse than BF4.

Nope, it really doesn't. Doens't even average 60fps as matter of fact.

Crysis_01.png

Avatar image for deactivated-58e448fd89d82
deactivated-58e448fd89d82

4494

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#158 deactivated-58e448fd89d82
Member since 2010 • 4494 Posts

[QUOTE="PernicioEnigma"][QUOTE="gpuking"]Just how many of you have the rigs to run next gen games at 1080p/60fps? Yeah it took two or was it three 7990s to run BF4 Fishing at Baku level at 60fps, I highly doubt any of you has a single 7990 much less crossfire. You can't even run a current gen Crysis 3 at 60fps without going sli or xfire. Games like TW3 and BF4 all look better than Crysis 3 so tell me how some of you are seemingly so confident to take that for granted? It's one thing to run crossgen games at 1080p/60fps but a whole different ballpark to run a native nextgen game at that setting.gpuking

My 780 can run Crysis 3 maxed at 1080p with an average of around 80fps. I think it's debatable whether TW3 or BF4 looks better than Crysis 3, and that doesn't necessarily mean they'll be more demanding than Crysis 3. BF3 for example runs really well, and it doesn't look much worse than BF4.

Nope, it really doesn't. Doens't even average 60fps as matter of fact.

Crysis_01.png

 

 

 

 

+1.

 

He must be on crack, i am going 780 SLi with a 2560x1440 display, i won't be able to max crysis 3 with above 60fps constant.

Avatar image for mastershake575
mastershake575

8574

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#159 mastershake575
Member since 2007 • 8574 Posts

Just how many of you have the rigs to run next gen games at 1080p/60fps? Yeah it took two or was it three 7990s to run BF4 Fishing at Baku level at 60fps, I highly doubt any of you has a single 7990 much less crossfiregpuking
lol. Its obvious by the 2nd sentence that you have no clue what your talking about. The Battlefield 4 demo was running on a single 7990 which is a dual card (its 2x7970ghz built into a single card). The reason they needed a 7990 was because its was running at 2.5 times the resolution of 1080p (the demo was 3072 x 1728 aka 3K resolution).

Troll harder. The demo was running 2.5x the resolution of 1080p on a pre-alpha beta and it was still getting 60+FPS all maxed on 2x7970. My video card (which I paid less than $200 for) is basically a stock 7970 so I should easily get 1080P 60+FPS no problem (my card was less than $200 in todays price, imagine what I could buy when they release there new cards this winter).

So to sum things up you have no idea what your talking about. A single 7990 was able to max the game at 3K resolution without any problems. My sub $200 video card (which is nothing special at all) will most likely max the game at 1080p so not only is your battlefield 4 rant wrong, but your rant about "how many of you have rigs good enough" talk is BS also (a TON of people have a better GPU than I do).

Avatar image for mastershake575
mastershake575

8574

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#160 mastershake575
Member since 2007 • 8574 Posts

Nope, it really doesn't. Doens't even average 60fps as matter of fact.

Crysis_01.png

gpuking

lol. Its obvious you don't own the game. If you turn motion blur to medium (which is a preference setting) and shaders to medium (you can't even notice shaders on medium if you have shadows on very high) then your FPS almost doubles........ (thus he is getting 60+ FPS).

Avatar image for mitu123
mitu123

155290

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 0

#161 mitu123
Member since 2006 • 155290 Posts

Just how many of you have the rigs to run next gen games at 1080p/60fps? Yeah it took two or was it three 7990s to run BF4 Fishing at Baku level at 60fps, I highly doubt any of you has a single 7990 much less crossfire. You can't even run a current gen Crysis 3 at 60fps without going sli or xfire. Games like TW3 and BF4 all look better than Crysis 3 so tell me how some of you are seemingly so confident to take that for granted? It's one thing to run crossgen games at 1080p/60fps but a whole different ballpark to run a native nextgen game at that setting.gpuking
WTF? Three 7990s isn't possible and 2 would be Quad Crossfire.:| 

Also triple and quad crossfire doesn't scale at 1080p...

Avatar image for Cranler
Cranler

8809

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#162 Cranler
Member since 2005 • 8809 Posts
Just how many of you have the rigs to run next gen games at 1080p/60fps? Yeah it took two or was it three 7990s to run BF4 Fishing at Baku level at 60fps, I highly doubt any of you has a single 7990 much less crossfire. You can't even run a current gen Crysis 3 at 60fps without going sli or xfire. Games like TW3 and BF4 all look better than Crysis 3 so tell me how some of you are seemingly so confident to take that for granted? It's one thing to run crossgen games at 1080p/60fps but a whole different ballpark to run a native nextgen game at that setting.gpuking
Crysis 3 can easily be ran at 60fps on a single card by dropping a couple of settings that have very minimal visual impact. Medium shaders for example looks almost identical to max and runs way better.
Avatar image for MrGeezer
MrGeezer

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#163 MrGeezer
Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="Krelian-co"]

sad that like 8 years after pc have been doing it consoles still have to "choose" one. Just one should be unacceptable

KungfuKitten

The only reason why PC doesn't have to "choose one" is because PC is not one single system. As long as consoles are dealing with the same hardware and are not upgradable, it will ALWAYS be a matter of choosing one or the other (at least sometimes, at the developer's discretion).

It's just weird that for the same money (if you include royalties and fees) you get a way more capable PC than console hardware, with more software support and services to boot.
I would expect a console to be more bang/buck effective, because it is standardized and mass produced, can run more efficiently and is closed so they can maximize users/service. Maybe having to create the services themselves, the overhead and the marketing for consoles cost so much that it completely negates any advantages, and then some.

You're talking more about whether or not consoles are a good deal (in terms of both cost and performance) compared to PC. That's really an entirely separate issue than what I was talking about. Even if the new consoles were twice as powerful as the most powerful PC and only cost half as much, the same thing would still be happening. There would still be developers releasing games at less-than-optimal framerates or resolutions because for that particular game they think it's better to use more system resources to throw more pretty stuff on the screen. It's not really an issue of power or price, it's a matter of the hardware being a constant.