Carmack says gamers confused PS3 version of RAGE with high-end PC

[QUOTE="getyeryayasout"]Graphically Rage is a looker, but I'm having a hard time getting excited for this game. If it looks and runs that well on consoles then PC version should really be a showpiece.ChubbyGuy40

They have it running at 30FPS on Sandy Bridge graphics, which are really weak. Had to have been talking about the lower-end SB graphics (Ones that aren't on the OC-able CPUs) He also stated that they're working very close with Intel at this very moment to get it at 60FPS:shock: He even said a cheap, dedicated card will run it much better.

Even low-end hardware is gonna love this game. Obvious it was consoles first, but the level of optimization Carmack put into it is second to none. Can't wait because afterwards, Carmack said his team is putting their full focus back into PC. Haven't seen RAGE yet of course, but I bet if this was real, it was probably 360 gamers :P

I think the controller would have given it away.

They were prob just checking to see if the ps3 could be nicked.

tenaka2

PC can use a PS3 controller too so it wouldnt be giving anything away.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

I think the controller would have given it away.

They were prob just checking to see if the ps3 could be nicked.

pelvist

PC can use a PS3 controller too so it wouldnt be giving anything away.

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

lol what gamers are these? I've heard no one make that claim...sounds like Carmack is hearing things.

zxcqweasd1

Dude can you please shave the pubes off your face? Or just take your whole ugly face out of your avatar? It really grates on my nerves bro. Your posts are crap but that face on top of it just makes it that much worse.

[QUOTE="pelvist"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

I think the controller would have given it away.

They were prob just checking to see if the ps3 could be nicked.

delta3074

PC can use a PS3 controller too so it wouldnt be giving anything away.

Rage seens like one of these games that will be proud to have mouse and anti-aliasing support... I'm not confident about it, seens to me like the PC version will not get the love it deserves.

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

lol what gamers are these? I've heard no one make that claim...sounds like Carmack is hearing things.

zxcqweasd1

Dude can you please shave the pubes off your face? Or just take your whole ugly face out of your avatar? It really grates on my nerves bro. Your posts are crap but that face on top of it just makes it that much worse.

going overboard...:(

Sounds like someone is proud of himself for finally learning how to program on the PS3. ;)

Consoles have been holding back PC capability for so long, that often the only difference on PC in cross platform games; is resolution and frame rate.

Since Rage is a 60fps game, I am not surprised they assumed it was the PC version. Though quite frankly, they musn't have a eye for resolution.

Doesn't stop console gamers from spinning this as a statement of their systems capabilities of course.

I do the same at home. PS3 graphics better than my high end PC. That is untill i walk 10 steps infront:P

I do the same at home. PS3 graphics better than my high end PC. That is untill i walk 10 steps infront:P

mattuk69

[QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

lol what gamers are these? I've heard no one make that claim...sounds like Carmack is hearing things.

SPYDER0416

He probably was hearing things... things being said in the vicinity of his location, where you were not.

OWNED.

But seriously, I don't understand the uproar. He's been mentioning PS3's power forever and all this really means is that the PS3 version looks amazing. So in other words, all you butthurt PC gamers will have an even better looking then normal game.

Jeez, some people I swear...

Cute how even today, there are still people who want to believe their PS3 is on par with a high end PC...;)

But isn't the PS3 the most powerful piece of kit on the planet, why would people need to check it's running on PS3

I never heard of anyone checking to see if the game was running on a 360

So in other words, all you butthurt PC gamers will have an even better looking then normal game.

Jeez, some people I swear...

SPYDER0416

Yeah, it's totally unreasonable for PC gamers with 2010/11 hardware to not be happy; with what is probably going to be a un-enhanced console port. From a developer that has historically been known to take advantage of PC hardware at that. Totally unreasonable.

They should also have no problem with the suggestion that a console released in 2006 is producing compariable results to their modern gaming PCs. Those elitist arrogant PC gamers, thinking years of technological progress means anything.

I don't understand why are all the hermits getting so upset...the PC is not light years ahead of the PS3 as the delusional hermits want you to believe. Aside from increased resolution, AA/AF, you are getting the exact same consolized to PC ports.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

So in other words, all you butthurt PC gamers will have an even better looking then normal game.

Jeez, some people I swear...

AnnoyedDragon

Yeah, it's totally unreasonable for PC gamers with 2010/11 hardware to not be happy; with what is probably going to be a un-enhanced console port. From a developer that has historically been known to take advantage of PC hardware at that. Totally unreasonable.

They should also have no problem with the suggestion that a console released in 2006 is producing compariable results to their modern gaming PCs. Those elitist arrogant PC gamers, thinking years of technological progress means anything.

" It is interesting that on the PC side, we have systems that are 10 times more powerful than the consoles. But it's frustrating in that a lot of the PC systems that are many times more powerful still have trouble holding the same 60 frames-per-second rate because of API overhead, API clocking issues, and things like that. We're working with Intel and Nvidia on all these issues, but it is kind of frustrating when I know that the hardware is vastly more powerful but because we don't have quite as tight control over it, a lot of power goes to waste."

It's not the consoles that are holding PC's back, it's the gpu's.

I don't understand why are all the hermits getting so upset...the PC is not light years ahead of the PS3 as the delusional hermits want you to believe. Aside from increased resolution, AA/AF, you are getting the exact same consolized to PC ports.

Adamantium4k2

John Carmack talking about it.. and a bunch of other stuff, 20m interview. (the power of the pc isn't the primary focus of the interview.)

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

So in other words, all you butthurt PC gamers will have an even better looking then normal game.

Jeez, some people I swear...

nygiantsfan1

Yeah, it's totally unreasonable for PC gamers with 2010/11 hardware to not be happy; with what is probably going to be a un-enhanced console port. From a developer that has historically been known to take advantage of PC hardware at that. Totally unreasonable.

They should also have no problem with the suggestion that a console released in 2006 is producing compariable results to their modern gaming PCs. Those elitist arrogant PC gamers, thinking years of technological progress means anything.

" It is interesting that on the PC side, we have systems that are 10 times more powerful than the consoles. But it's frustrating in that a lot of the PC systems that are many times more powerful still have trouble holding the same 60 frames-per-second rate because of API overhead, API clocking issues, and things like that. We're working with Intel and Nvidia on all these issues, but it is kind of frustrating when I know that the hardware is vastly more powerful but because we don't have quite as tight control over it, a lot of power goes to waste."

It's not the consoles that are holding PC's back, it's the gpu's.

I don't understand why are all the hermits getting so upset...the PC is not light years ahead of the PS3 as the delusional hermits want you to believe. Aside from increased resolution, AA/AF, you are getting the exact same consolized to PC ports.

Adamantium4k2

oh yes it is..your talking about 2005-06 hardware which is indeed outdated.

[QUOTE="Adamantium4k2"]

I don't understand why are all the hermits getting so upset...the PC is not light years ahead of the PS3 as the delusional hermits want you to believe. Aside from increased resolution, AA/AF, you are getting the exact same consolized to PC ports.

lawlessx

oh yes it is..your talking about 2005-06 hardware which is indeed outdated.

I don't understand why are all the hermits getting so upset...the PC is not light years ahead of the PS3 as the delusional hermits want you to believe. Aside from increased resolution, AA/AF, you are getting the exact same consolized to PC ports.

Adamantium4k2

You say you don't understand why PC gamers are irritated, and then go on to recognise that PC capability is being severly held back by console limited game development.

I think you are aware of exactly what is getting under hermits skin, but threw in that delusional part to provoke a aggrivated response.

Here's what Carmack had to say about that...

" It is interesting that on the PC side, we have systems that are 10 times more powerful than the consoles. But it's frustrating in that a lot of the PC systems that are many times more powerful still have trouble holding the same 60 frames-per-second rate because of API overhead, API clocking issues, and things like that. We're working with Intel and Nvidia on all these issues, but it is kind of frustrating when I know that the hardware is vastly more powerful but because we don't have quite as tight control over it, a lot of power goes to waste."

It's not the consoles that are holding PC's back, it's the gpu's.

nygiantsfan1

He could have said the same thing at any point in PC gaming's history since the GPUs invention, and would have been right.

The utilization difference between PC and console is common knowledge, it has always been there. Taking this comment, and making it out to suggest that PCs hardware advantages today are being invalidated by API issues, is taking his comment to a extreme exaggeration.

To put into perspective just how extreme, a 2006 8 series card will max Mass Effect 2 at above console resolutions. What makes you think the API would be of any relevance, in regard to the performance difference between console and PC, in 2011?

lol what gamers are these? I've heard no one make that claim...sounds like Carmack is hearing things.

WilliamRLBaker

[QUOTE="pelvist"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

I think the controller would have given it away.

They were prob just checking to see if the ps3 could be nicked.

delta3074

PC can use a PS3 controller too so it wouldnt be giving anything away.

They wouldnt, same reason they wouldnt say its PS3 and have PC's under the counter.

it must be ps3 gamers confusing the 2..lmaooooo does this game runs at 1080 and a steady 60 frames on the ps3 with max AA? Rahnyc4

I don't understand why are all the hermits getting so upset...the PC is not light years ahead of the PS3 as the delusional hermits want you to believe. Aside from increased resolution, AA/AF, you are getting the exact same consolized to PC ports.

Adamantium4k2

lol what gamers are these? I've heard no one make that claim...sounds like Carmack is hearing things.

WilliamRLBaker

so Carmack is now a liar? rofl.

too bad they did not look under kiosks when it was the 360.

I thought Carmack was PC gamers darling? So he gives props to consoles for 2 seconds and he's a pariah. :P

[QUOTE="Adamantium4k2"]

I don't understand why are all the hermits getting so upset...the PC is not light years ahead of the PS3 as the delusional hermits want you to believe. Aside from increased resolution, AA/AF, you are getting the exact same consolized to PC ports.

Inconsistancy

John Carmack talking about it.. and a bunch of other stuff, 20m interview. (the power of the pc isn't the primary focus of the interview.)

http://e3.gamespot.com/story/6318725/e3-2011-john-carmack-talks-wii-u-playstation-vita-and-next-gen-rage

In above E3 interview he said PC has its own flaws where they have to rely on device driver API layer that slows things down. Thats why they have trouble running rage at 60 FPS on PC despite having more powerfull hardware. I guess PC being light years ahead means nothing unless you can make games look and perform better :P

I thought Carmack was PC gamers darling? So he gives props to consoles for 2 seconds and he's a pariah. :P

Pray_to_me

Maybe I'm confused here, but they were playing with a PS3 controller right? So how could they be confused?

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]

[QUOTE="Adamantium4k2"]

I don't understand why are all the hermits getting so upset...the PC is not light years ahead of the PS3 as the delusional hermits want you to believe. Aside from increased resolution, AA/AF, you are getting the exact same consolized to PC ports.

John Carmack talking about it.. and a bunch of other stuff, 20m interview. (the power of the pc isn't the primary focus of the interview.)

http://e3.gamespot.com/story/6318725/e3-2011-john-carmack-talks-wii-u-playstation-vita-and-next-gen-rage

In above E34 interview he said PC has its own flaws where they have to rely on device driver API layer that slows things down. Thats why they have trouble running rage at 60 FPS on PC despite having more powerfull hardware. I guess PC being light years ahead means nothing unless you can make run games look and perform better :P

http://e3.gamespot.com/story/6318725/e3-2011-john-carmack-talks-wii-u-playstation-vita-and-next-gen-rage

In above E34 interview he said PC has its own flaws where they have to rely on device driver API layer that slows things down. Thats why they have trouble running rage at 60 FPS on PC despite having more powerfull hardware. I guess PC being light years ahead means nothing unless you can make run games look and perform better :P

fun-da-mental

This was countered on the previous page...

That means it'll look better than Uncharted 3.>.>

it must be ps3 gamers confusing the 2..lmaooooo does this game runs at 1080 and a steady 60 frames on the ps3 with max AA? Rahnyc4

Probably not, but looking at your specs, I doubt your PC will be able to run it at those settings either.

I only have a 9800gt (

I only have a 9800gt (

dxmcat

I only have a 9800gt (

dxmcat

I "only" had a 8800GT a while back. But the thing to remember about old bang for your buck PC cards, is they will still out perform consoles in most well optimized games. The only problem is the incompetent developers who cannot be bothered to optimize their ports.

When it's done right, oldies like that still walk all over consoles.

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

lol what gamers are these? I've heard no one make that claim...sounds like Carmack is hearing things.

Pug-Nasty

He probably was hearing things... things being said in the vicinity of his location, where you were not.

:lol: Well said

[QUOTE="zxcqweasd1"]

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

lol what gamers are these? I've heard no one make that claim...sounds like Carmack is hearing things.

LeonSykes10

Dude can you please shave the pubes off your face? Or just take your whole ugly face out of your avatar? It really grates on my nerves bro. Your posts are crap but that face on top of it just makes it that much worse.

going overboard...:(

I lol'd hard.

Here's what Carmack had to say about that...

" It is interesting that on the PC side, we have systems that are 10 times more powerful than the consoles. But it's frustrating in that a lot of the PC systems that are many times more powerful still have trouble holding the same 60 frames-per-second rate because of API overhead, API clocking issues, and things like that. We're working with Intel and Nvidia on all these issues, but it is kind of frustrating when I know that the hardware is vastly more powerful but because we don't have quite as tight control over it, a lot of power goes to waste."

It's not the consoles that are holding PC's back, it's the gpu's.

nygiantsfan1

Note NVIDIA and Intel not AMD.

With suitable hardware, there are plenty of PC games running around 60 frames-per-second rate.

-------------

As an example, http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=192969

Geforce GTX 275 frame rate stalls with World of Warcraft.

-----------

An article on frame stalls with Occlusion Queries (OpenGL/DirectX9) http://http.developer.nvidia.com/GPUGems/gpugems_ch29.html

Although this approach is much better than the original one, it still won't give enough time to the GPU to actually render all the geometry that the CPU has fed to it, which means that stall has not been completely eliminated

.....

Sometimes even testing the next frame induces a stall, because some drivers let the GPU render two or three frames behind by actually queuing the SwapBuffers request. This could be an issue, but the performance loss is normally less than 10 percent, which is acceptable, considering the speed-up that occlusion queries offer.

[QUOTE="dxmcat"]

I only have a 9800gt (

AnnoyedDragon

I "only" had a 8800GT a while back. But the thing to remember about old bang for your buck PC cards, is they will still out perform consoles in most well optimized games. The only problem is the incompetent developers who cannot be bothered to optimize their ports.

When it's done right, oldies like that still walk all over consoles.

A bunch of guys were praising his game, what's so hard to believe?

PS3 > High End PC confirmed? just kidding, but Carmack is the OG of PC gaming. He knows what hes talking aboutdrakekratos