OMG that game was SOOO laggy with 4 people and the settings maxed out.
Consoles also have the advantage of using joysticks, perfect dark got away with it because the I/O is so clumsy, sure the game is running at 8fps (not even joking) but it looks smoothish because you cant really turn as fast or as precisely as with a mouse.
The main reason though why consoles can run stuff better is because developers can make things specifically for the hardware. Knowing the exact amount of ram, video memory, exact cpu horsepower lets u do magical things
To the ports topic... its so annoying a manufacture will spend all this time on a game, then port it over to the PC and it will turn out complete shit on the I/O... Farcry 2/Bioshock anyone? The game has innate mouse acceleration that maybe has been fixed by now, but rendered the game unplayable for me because of it
LOL; i remember i got into a discussion with some guy about this, every console FPS i can think of has some sort of auto-aim feature though
LOL; i remember i got into a discussion with some guy about this, every console FPS i can think of has some sort of auto-aim feature though
1. literally ALL games allow mouse acceleration to be dialed down to zero
2. auto-aiming makes console FPS gaming even more pathetic - and still has no chance against skilled-seasoned online FPS players, trust me.
2. auto-aiming makes console FPS gaming even more pathetic - and still has no chance against skilled-seasoned online FPS players, trust me.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
not even that, many cheat, esp ps3 games 630p or so. even lower resolution. can also skip out on fsaa at times as well.
anyways the newest gpus are going to be able to power those new 12 megapixel display port arrays. thats real power.
grandtheft auto is poorly optimized i bet. for some games theres probably little incentive for the pc version. piracy much higher....
Originally posted by: T2k
1. literally ALL games allow mouse acceleration to be dialed down to zero
2. auto-aiming makes console FPS gaming even more pathetic - and still has no chance against skilled-seasoned online FPS players, trust me.
Slow down the aiming enough and the mouse will be handicapped enough that a joystick can keep up. I used to play gears of war on the PC using an xbox 360 controller and generally do better than the people I was playing against. Head shots were super easy, and the game moved so slow that a mouse wasn't really an advantage.
Originally posted by: Fox5
Originally posted by: T2k
1. literally ALL games allow mouse acceleration to be dialed down to zero
2. auto-aiming makes console FPS gaming even more pathetic - and still has no chance against skilled-seasoned online FPS players, trust me.
Slow down the aiming enough and the mouse will be handicapped enough that a joystick can keep up.
?
ROFL
Gears of War is a PoS MP game plus you must be playing against amaeurs (free fragging zone.
)If you have ever played UT2k4 or old Quakes or any fast-paced FPS competitively you would know what I am talking about - there's no chance in hell you and your gamepad could keep up with a skilled kb+m player.
Originally posted by: T2k
Originally posted by: Fox5
Originally posted by: T2k
1. literally ALL games allow mouse acceleration to be dialed down to zero
2. auto-aiming makes console FPS gaming even more pathetic - and still has no chance against skilled-seasoned online FPS players, trust me.
Slow down the aiming enough and the mouse will be handicapped enough that a joystick can keep up.
?
ROFL
Gears of War is a PoS MP game plus you must be playing against amaeurs (free fragging zone.
If you have ever played UT2k4 or old Quakes or any fast-paced FPS competitively you would know what I am talking about - there's no chance in hell you and your gamepad could keep up with a skilled kb+m player.
I have, and I was pretty good at them, usually finishing near the top in any public game. Also played in a few clans.
You're missing my point, gears of war slowed down the aiming so much that the quicker movements of a mouse were no longer an advantage. I'd imagine something similar applies to halo and many other console fpses. Fast-paced fps games aren't in vogue anymore, left 4 dead and tf2 are probably the two fastest paced popular fps games right now, and they're pretty slow compared to something like unreal.
Which console supports dx10 though?
I'm not accusing the OP of anything, but I've noticed alot of pro-console (no pun intended) crowd confuse artwork and textures with actual graphics. There are alot of beautiful games for consoles, but they just cannot compete with even a midrange PC these days.
CRysis cannot run in its full glory on a console. The latest crop of GPU's finally can run it in its full glory at a semi respectable rate.
The consoles are profoundly better designed for games, and the PC does have more power in most areas although x86 CPUs aren't in the league of the more powerful console offerings, not even remotely close. Certain developers use the CPUs on the consoles to offload tasks that would be handled on the GPU on the PC side for numerous reasons(take a game like Unchartered2, it would never run on a 7900 on the PC side, but with Cell helping it out a lot, it manages just fine). Take something like the 360 GPU, the amount of eDRAM it has on die allows it to offer free MSAA with no performance hit, this can happen on the consoles as they have a very specific target resolution, something that PC parts wouldn't be able to viably do unless they wanted an insane amount to handle 25x16x8 which we don't have the spare die space for at the moment.
The memory architecture of the consoles is also far more flexible for gaming, the 360 uses a close to pure UMA while the PS3 has 2 pools of memory but offers both the CPU and the GPU access to either pool(some latency drawbacks to discourage it, but still doable). This makes it so that the consoles have a much easier time handling CPU offloading of graphics rendering tasks even for time sensitive features, something PCs are not good at at all.
Right now PCs have far more powerful GPUs and much larger amounts of RAM. Consoles have raw CPU power and more flexible/faster(in some cases- ie eDRAM) RAM.
GTAIV looks like crap on the PC or the consoles, it is a very bad example of a game for either side of the gaming coin. If you want to compare the strengths of the systems, you need to get into exclusive content(say GoW2/Forza3, GT5/Unchartered2, Crysis/Warhead). Ports are always going to suck horribly, you have to deal with the outdated GPUs on the console side and the patheticly slow CPUs on the PC side. If you deal with ports you are going to deal with games that leave the console CPUs idle most of the time, as they will have to to run on the PCs, and then have graphics designed to scale by amount of available memory and fillratre- in other words, something using the PC mindset which works terribly on the console side.
Most 360 games runs 720p and they almost all run with AA, it is free on the system unless you do something very out of the ordinary. It is why it has the amount of eDRAM that it does, to handle free MSAA. Don't know much of anything about the consoles I take it? Seems to be a common element in this thread
Much like GT5 can't run on PCs due to the obnoxiously slow i7s dragging the PC down so badly. Actually, I guess that isn't entirely accurate, but I would imagine these boards would get fairly angry if a game requried nV/PhysX to be able to run at all.
Activision has been quite clear that MW2 for the PC is a console port. The PC versions sells such a pittance to the consoles you really can't expect anything else. Just to give you an idea, CoD W@W sold comparably on the consoles to what WoW has on the PC. The scales of economy are on a completely different scale.
This is the biggest factor. PC gamers don't buy many games, their console counterparts buy a ton. PC gaming hardware has significantly outpaced PC games sales for a while now in terms of dollar amounts, the other side is slanted enormously in the other direction. Consoles make publishers tons of money, PC games make them almost nothing unless they are MMOs.
Compared to the PC crowd that thinks because a game runs at 8FPS on CF 5870s it must look better then anything else. DX10 doesn't do anything DX9 didn't do. In terms of end visuals, DX11 doesn't do anything DX9 couldn't do either. May make things easier for the developers, but what version of DX it supports it of no concern when discussing how good something looks. For the record, I don't think Crysis will port over well at all, although I hope Crytek proves me wrong, their code base is horribly bloated compared to what Carmack/Sweeney push out(which is fine on the PC where you can just keep throwing hardware at it, doesn't work on the consoles though).
Yikes, was thinking at first that that was how bad Crysis was going to look coming over to the consoles, but it looks like its' just a really bad screenshot taken on older(pre 5870) ATi hardware. ~4 poly rocks and terribad texture filtering on off angle surfaces, water effects that look like something from the PS1 era, terribad blurring combined with half baked DoF, what appears to be an extremely cheap alpha texture fog hack with some bloom thrown in and piss poor weapon model- very poor screenshot to show off graphics with an engine as powerful as Crysis. I guess the foliage looks decent, nothing else though.
Umm for what kind of games exactly...?
Two genres that utterly FAIL on consoles: FPS, RTS.
Which all means little when its featureset gets TWO generations behind PC adapters - and that means now...
Absolutely, GTAIV is among one of the lamest, lousiest, shittiest-coded PC ports ever.
Not that iot matters too much - it's a primitive game for primitive people and they do not care anyway.
Rockstar sucks but we knew that.
Awww, did you write Crysis? I hope that was a joke - probably one of the shittiest-coded game EVER. Certain Turks in CEO positions (C.Y.) apparently never heard of optimization but can really get into petty details about the most abusive DRM schemes...
...a disgusting person, he is.
I'm sure you got linky to back it up, right?
I still have my old PhysX card in my PCI slot...
Except IW is a well-known PC developer so no, it's not really. (Under "hardly a console port" I meant it's not s simple port but they do put in a lot of work to make sure it runs the same great way on all 3 platforms - a treatment that most typical ports don't get.)
And yet always the PC where the most buzz come from and still the ONLY platform where new, next-gen, (r)evolutionary graphics (engines) debut.
Console is highly optimized, low-rez mass-development crap and you know that.
Yet they are fucked because without PC they have nothing to copy, nothing to rip-off (btoh hw and sw), right...
And just which games would be that...?
BTW strictly speaking 'looking better than anything else' has little to do with frame rates.
BUt a DX10/11 card is VERY powerful for DX9 engines unlike console's DX9-hacked GPUs which barely can run their stuff in 720p and not even capable to run games in 2K, a resolution most gaming rig can do anytime now.
Hey, Crytek is horrible many ways but don't even dare to equate loser id with Epic... id is pretty much done, they escaped going down by selling out themselves but their engines and games were all UTTER FAILURE ever since Quake 3 - if Rage does not sell well enough I think they are done. Now if you look at Epic Unreal Engines are the most successfull licenses in history...
In terms of actual hardware design? All of them. Developers choices and Sony/MS making it difficult to add in KB/Mouse support keep a decisive edge with PCs for certain types of games. That isn't a limitation of the hardware, but of the software used.
I'll put UC2 up against the best looking PC title to ship this year. The raw horsepower is with the PCs for certain, but we need to see it used which isn't going to happen without the market to back it up unfortunately.
A better looking game on the PC? I'm not comparing how effective the code is, or relative performance, I'm just talking about overall visuals.
Six cores on Cell pegged(that isn't full utilization, but getting there), that is far beyond what i7 is capable of, although a PhysX board or nV GPU would allow it.
It will almost certainly be a good port, but the 360 is the lead development platform. This also means that it won't look all that great on any of the systems.
Alright then, titles on the PC that can come remotely close to Forza3/GT5 or UC2 for starters. PCs only tend to debut things for the FPS or RTS genre, everywhere else they tend to fall behind, sometimes shockingly so(such as with racers).
Like what? The PC based GPUs have done pretty well for the consoles, and they now use HDs, other then that pretty much everything else from the PC platform gets tossed out as legacy garbage not worth putting into any purpose built system. That doesn't just go for the console market, that is for any market that uses computing devices. In terms of games, outside of RTSs and MMOs PCs don't have much of anything going for them- Crysis is the only reasonably recent FPS that I can think of that didn't make it over(not saying I don't prefer them on the PCs, but it certainly isn't a case of the consoles copying when they are increasingly getting the games first).
In general comment, and it certainly doesn't apply to everyone. That said, a whole lot of people equate out poor performance with 'it must be a more advanced graphics engine'. In the case of Crysis, this does work, very little else lately.
id's record is far stronger then Epic's for making engines that perform.
I will gladly revisit this topic when Rage ships. Everything I have seen Megatexturing is going to throttle UE3, even on identical hardware.
IIRC Renderware has easily outdone Unreal Engines, you just focus too much on the PC side of the fence
Renderware isn't remotely close to UE in terms of quality, but in terms of licenses and financial gains, I think it handily bested UE(I am not 100% certain on that, have to go back and check some numbers).
Heh, no- it isn't a console port. It was actually native to PC hardware, Taito Type X2(X squared) to be specific(Windows based, very low end by today's standards). SF4 was ported from PC hardware to the consoles and then to the actual PC platform.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
need proof. input lags supposed to get pretty hideous once you start splitting up games to that level. i seriously doubt there are 6 cores at full utiilization. if that problem were solved pc games would be maxing quad cores all the time now...but they aren't.
id's record is sh*t. look at the number of game licenses that run under unreal, id hasn't been a factor since q3a. the scale of difference in acceptance of their engines is vast, and the engines id has come out with for all their hype have never been as cutting edge as they claim, they are at best equal with unreal. and trailing crytec. carmack lost all interest in gaming, he became mr spaceman, and his indifference is showing.
Ben, I have yet to see any game that utilizes the potential power of the cell architecture. Not only that, but back when the ps3 was still fresh there was a chance it could matter. Currently, though, the GPU gap is too large between PC and consoles. ANd I'm no expert, but even if Cell were capable of offloading graphic processing work, it does not provide too much advantage because the principles involved in Cell are similar to what ATI/NVIDIA HAVE been doing for over a decade now.
This was barely debatable two years ago, less debatable now.
This was barely debatable two years ago, less debatable now.
Qbah
Diamond Member
- Oct 18, 2005
- 3,754
- 10
- 81
Have you ever played on an Xbox 360, BenSkywalker? How can you even think the graphics are comparable between it and the PC? Sure, it doesn't suck beyond belief, but comparable? That's a good one.
I have both, a great PC (retired for the moment though) and an Xbox connected to the same 40" HDTV. Let's compare some of the games:
Fallout 3 - low resolution textures, low resolution screen in general with jaggies everywhere. Noticeable slowdowns sometimes on the Xbox.
Sacred 2 - the cream of the shittyness on an Xbox - extreme slowdowns in a lot of places (think sub-10 FPS!), low rez washed out textures
Gears of War - seriously, LOL, have you seen how low resolution (both textures and screen) is this game on an Xbox? Are you blind?
Mass Effect - see GoW - same washed out jaggy PoS
And the racers you mention - Forza3. As great as it looks, it's still average. Hell, NFS looks comparable if not better. It's not as smooth as Forza3 though. But saying Forza3 is the most beautiful game ever? For the Xbox probably but in general? Hahaha Go launch Crysis or Warhead at Very High- sure, this has been repeated so many times, doesn't make it less right. This game is still lightyears above anything else in terms of visuals. Screenshots don't do it justice.
Now, none of the above (Well, okay, Sacred 2 for the consoles it absolute SUCK!) includes gameplay. It's fun to play on an Xbox - doesn't really matter that it looks worse. But that's not the point in this thread - it's about visuals - something an Xbox can't seriously compete with to a modern PC.
And where did you get the free AA? It's bullshit, don't read marketing slides, see for yourself. The Xbox runs AA? It runs most games at 720p and upscales them to 1080o (my HDTV's native res). Hell, the new MW2 will be what? 600p? That's fucking 1024x600. Do you know what upscaling is? It's like anti-AA. It kills every form of AA that could have been used.
Everything above applies to a PS3 btw.
Again, let me stress one thing - nothing here is about gameplay. Only about graphics. Which in general for a console can be summed up as: low resolution textures, low resolution screen, highly jagged, upscaled image, low framerates (with exceptions) - it especially shows on a HDTV. The hardware limitation shows up painfully.
I have a falcon Elite with ~30 games and am happy playing my games on it btw. But to compare its graphics to a PC? Seriously... no.
I have both, a great PC (retired for the moment though) and an Xbox connected to the same 40" HDTV. Let's compare some of the games:
Fallout 3 - low resolution textures, low resolution screen in general with jaggies everywhere. Noticeable slowdowns sometimes on the Xbox.
Sacred 2 - the cream of the shittyness on an Xbox - extreme slowdowns in a lot of places (think sub-10 FPS!), low rez washed out textures
Gears of War - seriously, LOL, have you seen how low resolution (both textures and screen) is this game on an Xbox? Are you blind?
Mass Effect - see GoW - same washed out jaggy PoS
And the racers you mention - Forza3. As great as it looks, it's still average. Hell, NFS looks comparable if not better. It's not as smooth as Forza3 though. But saying Forza3 is the most beautiful game ever? For the Xbox probably but in general? Hahaha Go launch Crysis or Warhead at Very High- sure, this has been repeated so many times, doesn't make it less right. This game is still lightyears above anything else in terms of visuals. Screenshots don't do it justice.
Now, none of the above (Well, okay, Sacred 2 for the consoles it absolute SUCK!) includes gameplay. It's fun to play on an Xbox - doesn't really matter that it looks worse. But that's not the point in this thread - it's about visuals - something an Xbox can't seriously compete with to a modern PC.
And where did you get the free AA? It's bullshit, don't read marketing slides, see for yourself. The Xbox runs AA? It runs most games at 720p and upscales them to 1080o (my HDTV's native res). Hell, the new MW2 will be what? 600p? That's fucking 1024x600. Do you know what upscaling is? It's like anti-AA. It kills every form of AA that could have been used.
Everything above applies to a PS3 btw.
Again, let me stress one thing - nothing here is about gameplay. Only about graphics. Which in general for a console can be summed up as: low resolution textures, low resolution screen, highly jagged, upscaled image, low framerates (with exceptions) - it especially shows on a HDTV. The hardware limitation shows up painfully.
I have a falcon Elite with ~30 games and am happy playing my games on it btw. But to compare its graphics to a PC? Seriously... no.
IBM Cell processor
"Each PPU can complete two double precision operations per clock cycle using a scalar-fused multiply-add instruction, which translates to 6.4 GFLOPS at 3.2 GHz; or eight single precision operations per clock cycle with a vector fused-multiply-add instruction, which translates to 25.6 GFLOPS at 3.2 GHz.[29]"
Intel i7 processor
"As of 2008, the fastest PC processors (quad-core) perform over 70 GFLOPS (Intel Core i7 965 XE) in double precision[11]"
Hey, I think that a 790GX can run xbox 360 games identically (minus AA) is a pretty impressive feat in itself. It also shows that consoles aren't using their gpus any better than PCs, a 790GX has almost identical specs to the 360's gpu, except in memory bandwidth. And hey, it's an IGP. Basically any real video card could run any console port at 1024x768 at 30 to 60 fps with AA.
And i7s could run anything out on the consoles, even something highly optimized for the Cell. They've got nearly the raw flops of the Xbox 360 CPU, and should come a hell of a lot closer to reaching it.
The only part of the xbox 360 that was designed for around console limitations and strengths is its edram. The only part of the ps3 that was is the Cell processor. (maybe)
But graphically, the consoles have nothing on PCs. However, many PC ports offload to the cpu what should be done on the graphics hardware (GTA4, Ghostbusters are practically DX8 level games just relying heavily on the cpu for effects).
6 individually weaker cores....
Plus, i7 has hyperthreading, so it has 8 virtual cores. And each core in the i7 is of a high enough complexity that performance, in many apps, does scale as if it had 8 real cores once hyperthreading is turned on.
I don't think renderware is even in that business anymore, EA folded them into themselves and only use them for internal development now.
SF4 started on the arcades and ran on a 6800 with a single core pentium 4. That kind of system is already capable of running it in its full glory. (though to be fair, a 6800 is better than the ps3's gpu in some aspects, and probably roughly equal overall)
Now then, Gears of War, Lost Planet, RE5, and Devil May Cry 3 were all designed for the consoles first, but are easily destroyed by most pcs. A 4 year old graphics card runs Gears of War fine maxed out though, and easily looks better than Crysis does on a 4 year old graphics card, so that's a point for epic I suppose.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter