HDR + Atmos is more quantifiable than FPS and Higher Settings

My bad, the 26 times consoles are mentioned in the first page and 72 time on the second page made me think it had something to do with consoles and pc.

Go in peace brother.

All of those mentions are by PC gamers desperate to pick a fight.

If you say so man, the thread was made with the same argument by the same guy as his previous thread.

10% @ 140w...

Anyway I have RX-A3070

That seems better, 9.2 setup and Atmos.

http://www.avhub.com.au/product-reviews/sound-image/yamaha-aventage-rx-a3070-av-receiver-review-480130

Check it out, it uses the same 32-bit DAC's as the new soundblaster card. Bit of a heftier price tag though. But has a lot more amplifier to it I guess.

Ya I lied the first time

It has 2 DAC’s

? and? I would hope it has a lot more than 2 to be honest.

Why would it be true the 2nd time

And I won your own comparison.

SAD

This guy continues to look for affirmation for the supposed superiority on his particular console gaming setup where there is none.

Try as he might, it's a continual lost cause.

Hahah, what did you "win" exactly?

you tell me.

trophy? Cookie?

Yes, you are full of lies...

Lists a $2000 USD receiver and says he only spent $1000 USD on his audio setup. You are a fucking clown.

Comparison is not a competition.

The Soundblaster AE-5 utilises the exact same audio DAC's. Ergo quality will be pretty much the same.

What the soundblaster doesn't have is a 9.2 amplifier. Kind of wouldn't expect that though for a PC soundcard.

But it does have the advantage in price by a country mile. ~$200 as opposed to $3000.

Still not getting what you were trying to say by the receiver having 2 DAC's. Can you elaborate on that?

Oops I forgot a 0.

Thanks for catching that love ❤️

Though the Yamaha RXV381 is only ~$375 which would make a lot more sense for his first claim.
https://www.selby.com.au/yamaha-rx-v381b-81-series-5-1-channel-receiver-rxv381b.html?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIkYjS9oP82AIVzgYqCh36JQhTEAYYASABEgJPO_D_BwE

@GioVela2010: So it's a $10,000 system now? :|

But doesn't want to update his pc cause..... reasons??

It’s a 9 channel receiver, therefore the 8 channel DAC dosnt cut it.

The inferior of the 2 DACS in the RXA3070 is equivalent to the one in the Soundcard, it’s called a ES9016

The Main/Superior DAC in the RXA3070 is a ES9028Pro.

Yes, but it is just an entry level AVR with no Atmos support. Also, he has Dynaudio speakers which are not cheap. His equipment is good, but his overall setup is not as good as he thinks. His statements are all over the place and I am not quite sure what his agenda is other than looking like a clown.

Well they should, 60 fps is objectively superior. As is better settings and resolution.

The game on PC looks and runs better. It's better.

30 fps (with dips) at worse settings. Totally better than PC.

Well said brother

No they are pretty much the same DAC in terms of quality.

http://www.esstech.com/index.php/en/products/sabre-digital-analog-converters/audiophile-dacs/sabre-pro-dacs/es9026pro/

http://www.esstech.com/index.php/en/products/sabre-digital-analog-converters/audiophile-dacs/classic-sabre-8-channel-dacs/es9016/

Looks like they were a "pin upgrade" of the of 9016's. Sounds like that was just a change in pin configuration to be compatible with new layouts.

http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/ess-technology-introduces-sabre-pro-series-dacs-setting-new-performance-bar-with-unprecedented-2085982.htm

Either way, the soundcard is not going to feature all the bell's and whistles of a $3000 receiver. So not sure what you are trying to prove here?

again very well said brother

Got it the wrong way around. it's the graphics and resolution that come at the cost of performance; ie. higher resolution and graphics assets impacts what fps the game can run at, all depending on the hardware of course. Remember, frame rate is not a variable that's an option in the settings for players to configure their game experience, it's really more a result of the final output of the game after the hardware deals with all the variables.

On PC, this sacrifice rarely has to be made for 1080p High/Ultra settings where 60 fps (and above) and above can be achieved. It's when you get into 4K that maintaining frame rate becomes more challenging, contingent on the players budget. On console, it's not so much making the best decision as it is what's the necessary compromise to keep an average 30 fps.

Saying they "choose" to go with 30 fps rings hollow when the limitations of consoles don't afford them much headroom to achieve 60 fps without having to go to PC equivalent of all Low settings. So they may as well peak the graphics as much as they can. But don't try to fool the rest of us to think they opt for 30 fps out of a deliberate "artistic choice", it's making do the best they can with what they have to work with.

Otherwise wouldn't ALL console games target 30 fps? Yet we DO see games, the ones with more linear design and limited scale environments (thus decreasing rendering demand) like Racers and Fighters deliver on 60 fps. So I guess frame rate really IS important, and they would want to see it in more games. Just that designing for console holds back that potential for larger scale and more demanding rendering.

Or I guess you actually swallowed that "cinematic" excuse.

9028 not 9026

http://www.esstech.com/index.php/en/products/sabre-digital-analog-converters/audiophile-dacs/sabre-pro-dacs/es9028pro/

Thats -120dB Total Harmonic Distortion + Noise

The Yamaha doesn't have a 9028's that I can tell? Only 9026's?

@GioVela2010 Why do you lie so much?

Sure, that's how it works for you, the player, tweaking the settings to get a frame rate you like.

For the developer, they start with a target frame rate, which gives them a render-time budget, and every bit of processing the game does must happen within that budget so that a frame can be rendered on time. They have many more levers they can pull and settings they can adjust than you do, and their optimization work has to be coordinated across many different engineering teams. The only sensible way to hit a consistent frame rate is to target it from the start and budget from there.

PC gamers buy way over-specced PCs for the games they play. The sacrifice they make is financial.

If what you say is true, then why are developers releasing patches for PS4 Pro and Xbox One X that bump the resolution or add more effects, without touching the frame rate? If developers were so desperate to deliver 60fps but were hamstrung by the limitations of Xbox One and PS4, surely they would jump at the chance to boost the frame rate with the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X patch... after all, PS4 Pro is 3x more powerful, and Xbox One X is 5x more powerful, so they should easily hit 60fps, even with a nice graphics bump. Why would they choose to keep the frame rate at 30 and upgrade the graphics to UHD instead?

The answer is "because they want to." In your words, they made a deliberate "artistic choice." Some PS4 Pro and Xbox One X games let the player choose between high frame rate and better graphics. But most games simply bump the graphics up without changing the frame rate from the base model.

Over and over again, across successive generations of hardware stretching as far back as PS2, developers have consciously and consistently targeted 30fps for the vast majority of games, reserving 60fps for games where it makes sense to sacrifice graphics in order to deliver a greater sense of speed and smoothness, such as racing and flying games, fast-twitch shooters and fighting games.

And even on PC, most games target 30fps, which is why recommended (not minimum) hardware requirements are so low. But PC gamers spend huge amounts of money on vastly over-specced hardware--way beyond what games need to run well--in order to run those games at 60 or 120 or 144fps or whatever. Because they want to brag about it to whoever will listen.

My mistake.

But The 9026Pro is an upgrade of the 9016. The pins are the exact same. You got that part backwards

@UnnDunn: Nobody targets 30fps on PC. If you have to look at the minimum requirements, you should use that as a sign that it is time to upgrade. Also, it is not about bragging rights for PC Gamers (outside of SW). We invest in our rigs because we notice the difference and want the benefits of higher end hardware. I normally play on a 144hz monitor and try to push the frame rate as high as possible because I love it. It makes the game feel so much better. It is fucking painful having to play a console game at 30fps when you are used to the benefits of high frame rates. It is like being used to watching 4K video and then having to go back to an SD cable feed. I don't want to watch SD content just like I do not want to play games at 30fps. They are both shit.

So, is it possible to capture HDR in screenshots now?

Because consoles CPU's are too slow. Thought that was obvious.

I said recommended, not minimum. Developers set recommended requirements based on 1080p and 30fps on medium-high, because that's their frame rate target.

So why don't developers simply do less CPU work in order to hit that precious 60fps? Cut the NPC AI count in half, switch to a less-intense physics model, optimize asset loading routines. If developers are so desperate to hit 60, they can do that. But they don't.

I kinda don’t

@UnnDunn: Of course they could do that and end up with a game that plays like last gen. You seem to be forgetting these are basically mobile CPU’s.

But isn't that worth it to hit that precious 60fps that you love so much? Or are you saying developers choose to target 30fps so they can provide better gameplay? Thanks for finally agreeing with me.

That's not what I'm saying at all but whatever. It's obviously lost on you so I won't waste my time explaining it.

@Juub1990: The cognitive dissonance you're struggling with right now must be a doozy.

@UnnDunn: If you say so. Your posts are too dumb for me to bother so think what you will.

What developer recommends 1080p/30fps medium-high? That is just cruel. Recommended is for 60fps and usually on high. Here is an example:

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/far-cry-5-pc-system-requirements-4k-recommended-sp/1100-6456251/

That's exactly what he's going for, so you're not as confused as you think you are.

For movies Dolby Atmos and hdr do add a lot to the experience, I've always said it's nice to have a crystal picture but it's the sound that's adds the most.

For gaming though I'd take 60fps and regular DD/DTS sound everytime no question, it's all about application.

@BassMan: He said he spend 1k on all his speakers, including has sub lol.

If true, he does not have good speakers

Like i said I forgot a 0.

i built the subwoofer, it’s an 18” driver in a sealed enclosure that can take 2000 watts in short bursts, paired up with a 2400 watt amplifier. Weighs around 100lbs

@GioVela2010: So you paid 10k for your speakers?

If so, that's awesome. It's kind of hard to believe a guy who admits to lying though.

Then again, I'm sure you won't lose any sleep over that haha

Edit: actually check that. You told the guy the cost isn't bad and said yours only cost 1k. Got some more lies up in here