Doppel
Lifer
- Feb 5, 2011
- 13,306
- 3
- 0
Unlike the Wii U these will actually be more powerful than the current generation, though
The primary reason I don't like Planetside or other MMO games. I prefer relatively small room with 10 to 16 people max, on a time limit where you can see how you/your team did this round.
Different strokes for different folks
Last edited:
The primary reason I don't like Planetside or other MMO games. I prefer relatively small room with 10 to 16 people max, on a time limit where you can see how you/your team did this round.
Different strokes for different folks
Yea I agree with you there.. I want to play and KNOW I am making a difference when I own people. When you play with 2k people no matter how well you play you really cant accomplish much. In a 8v8 game one player can carry a team to a win..
tipoo
Senior member
- Oct 4, 2012
- 245
- 7
- 81
By that you mean that there is a rumor that the current dev kits are using a 5*** series card. People have short memories, the early 360 dev kits had x800 (not 1800) series cards, then they got the x1800s, then the final chip in the 360. The current dev kits are far from final. The Wii U dev kits changed right up to the console launch.
reallyscrued
Platinum Member
- Jul 28, 2004
- 2,618
- 5
- 81
What?
A console needs to be engineered, designed, mass produced, for all of its components and then assembled and distributed. Within that time of picking a CPU/GPU/RAM configuration and interfaces, there are always newer technologies that are released for the PC platform that outdo the console counterparts. You can think of PC advances as a continuous waveform akin to phyletic gradualism while console jumps happen in big, dramatic, yet static changes (punctuated equilibrium). Odd example, but it was the closest thing I could think of.
Next, there are generally limits manufacturers inherently put as to how much energy can be drawn by a console, which is treated much like an appliance by the masses, stuck into an entertainment center and forgotten about. You will never see a console that pulls over 400 watts from the wall, mark my words; but you can easily put together a Tri-SLI GPU computer that can. Within the same technological generation, one machine which pulls 100 watts or lower of power cannot compete with one that pulls 400-600 watts; it's just not physically possible. Combine that with the traditional fact that PC gamers almost always use displays of higher detail since they sit closer to the screen and it's not refutable, PC will always have higher graphical fidelity.
HOWEVER, if in the future, somehow we see a repeat of the 8bit/16bit generation where console architecture and personal computer architecture are so vastly different that higher power draw won't necessarily result in better on screen performance, things may change. But the 2D reign is over and sprites have been replaced with polygons; I don't see it changing.
As for what PS4 graphics will look like, if Sony is still around to put out a powerhouse, I expect it to look something like this:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=457378
Nvidiaguy07
Platinum Member
- Feb 22, 2008
- 2,846
- 4
- 81
Yea pretty much, first gen games wont be that impressive. To this day though, im still impressed with what they can do with such old hardware. Halo 4 is a pretty damn good looking game. I would love to see what that would look like on a PC (MS should have ported it to windows 8 rt, and sold it for PC - give gamers a reason to upgrade to windows 8)
Pretty sure they DO have control on the console market. Does MS really want to kill sony though? or do they want them around as a clearly lesser competitor (Intel vs AMD).
Tons of misconceptions in this thread, not a lot of informed perspective either. Guess I'll start with the misconceptions.
It is looking like MS will be dead last this generation- worse then they did last gen in terms of ranking. Since launch, the PS3 has outsold the 360 overall by close to ten million units. The 360 does very well in North America, quite a bit worse in Europe and LOLWUT in Japan. In terms of units moved they made huge progress this gen, closing in on 75 million units shipped at this point, but still quite a ways behind the Wii and about to be passed by the PS3.
The 360 launched with R500 while the PC was still on R4xx parts. I'm not trying to say your point doesn't have merit, but it is by no means absolute. The CPU side is obviously *VERY* different with the PC being far behind the consoles on a normal basis.
I remember back when this had some truth. Now we are stating down consoles with 3840x2160 support while the overwhelming majority of PCs are still 1920x1080. PC users have demanded garbage displays for years, and they have gotten what they wanted. Yes, you can bring up multi monitor, but consoles have supported that for many years already.
Young pup, heh. Wizardry came out before the NES. I am guessing you were brought up in a house ignorant to PCs in general and are young? Overall consoles had an edge, but in terms of the complexity of the games PCs were ahead of consoles for a long, long time.
That is mainly due to 'Farmville and WoW'- core PC game sales have been declining for some time. Casual games and MMOs are doing very well, other genres not so much.
Consoles overwhelmingly don't use PC parts, there have only been a few exceptions ever really. At release the PSX was ahead of anything on the PC for graphics tech, the N64 was bested by a couple of months, the DC was comparable, the 360 was flat out ahead of the highest end PC GPU, the PS3 edged out the 8800 to the market to be equal to the top tier current GPUs(although that changed within a couple weeks). No, consoles aren't normally three years behind, not even close normally.
While as a gamer I can understand the thought behind that, reality is that they can't build consoles fast enough for launch, they don't need to have a larger library for the launch window. The PS2 actually proved you can launch without a single game of worth and dominate.
It is looking like MS will be dead last this generation- worse then they did last gen in terms of ranking. Since launch, the PS3 has outsold the 360 overall by close to ten million units. The 360 does very well in North America, quite a bit worse in Europe and LOLWUT in Japan. In terms of units moved they made huge progress this gen, closing in on 75 million units shipped at this point, but still quite a ways behind the Wii and about to be passed by the PS3.
The 360 launched with R500 while the PC was still on R4xx parts. I'm not trying to say your point doesn't have merit, but it is by no means absolute. The CPU side is obviously *VERY* different with the PC being far behind the consoles on a normal basis.
I remember back when this had some truth. Now we are stating down consoles with 3840x2160 support while the overwhelming majority of PCs are still 1920x1080. PC users have demanded garbage displays for years, and they have gotten what they wanted. Yes, you can bring up multi monitor, but consoles have supported that for many years already.
Young pup, heh. Wizardry came out before the NES. I am guessing you were brought up in a house ignorant to PCs in general and are young? Overall consoles had an edge, but in terms of the complexity of the games PCs were ahead of consoles for a long, long time.
That is mainly due to 'Farmville and WoW'- core PC game sales have been declining for some time. Casual games and MMOs are doing very well, other genres not so much.
Consoles overwhelmingly don't use PC parts, there have only been a few exceptions ever really. At release the PSX was ahead of anything on the PC for graphics tech, the N64 was bested by a couple of months, the DC was comparable, the 360 was flat out ahead of the highest end PC GPU, the PS3 edged out the 8800 to the market to be equal to the top tier current GPUs(although that changed within a couple weeks). No, consoles aren't normally three years behind, not even close normally.
While as a gamer I can understand the thought behind that, reality is that they can't build consoles fast enough for launch, they don't need to have a larger library for the launch window. The PS2 actually proved you can launch without a single game of worth and dominate.
reallyscrued
Platinum Member
- Jul 28, 2004
- 2,618
- 5
- 81
Ugh, you know, while I was typing my previous post, that exact example popped into my head but I wrote it out anyway and hoped nobody would catch me on it.
Okay, for 1 generation, Microsoft managed to launch at the exact right time to nab a nextgen part while the PC counterpart hadn't been released for retail purchase yet. The 360 launched May of 2005 while the X1000 series cards weren't out until October, and even then the Xenos used advanced features that weren't available until the HD2000s came out in 2007.
You're right, it's by no means absolute, but to argue otherwise would be to suggest the NextBox and the PS4 is going to have an HD8000 with HD9000 features, which seems highly unlikely.
Whoa, what are you using for comparisons here...? I think art direction may have clouded your judgement a bit.
The Playstation? Really? You could argued the 3DO was ahead of PC but not the Playstation. The PSfat launched in 1994, it's best looking game at the time, Ridge Racer ran at 320*240 and looked like this:
The Nintendo 64 launched in 1996 and by then we had Quake, and the 1024x768 resolution. That launched across all platforms so its easy to make comparisons there, 3dfx released it's first Voodoo graphics card in '96 and PC just left console gaming behind.
The Dreamcast launched in '98 that was supposed to bridge the gap made by Voodoo's graphics but in February of 98, 3dfx released the Voodoo 2 and a year later UT99 and Quake 3 Arena were released, and then Hardware T&L became the badboy on the block with games like Max Payne. Stuff the Dreamcast couldn't do.
At this point, resolutions of PC gaming always trumped whatever consoles had to offer and it has stayed that way. The PS2/Xbox/GCN were great but were all very limited in one way or another, (either slow RAM, or missing GPU features, etc) and PC gaming continued at big caches of VRAM and system RAM.
Even if you claim the 360 beat out the PC...that's true...for a single GPU machine. SLi was (re?)introduced with the Geforce 6xxx series in 2004 (a year before the 360) and a 6800 GT x2 with 256 Megabytes of VRAM could rock Doom 3, Half Life 2, and Farcry at crazy high resolutions. That's 32 pixel pipelines and an effective 256 megabit memory interface, and DirectX9.0c support, before the 360.
PC wins out on graphics, man...too bad shit ain't fun to play on it though. I'm going back to playing RE4 on my Wii.
EDIT: Hazy memory of the GeForce 6 series specs.
Last edited:
You a young pup? Go ahead and link up some glorious software rendered games from the PC circa 1994. I was long out of school by the time the PSX launched, PC graphics didn't take off until 3Dfx launched the original Voodoo some two years after then PSX. PC graphics flat out sucked prior to that.
Yep, you are very young, heh. 1024x768 running Quake in 1996? Using what? Imaginary Pixie accelerator or something? In 1998 we could run 1024x768 if we ran SLI Voodoo2s, only 800x600 if we were using a single card(that was the maximum resolution, performance still sucked).
DC was dead and buried at that point, the PS2 launched in '99- it is the system that gave us GT4 running 1080i. Yes, it would have been going up against a Voodoo3, a contest it would have very easily won.
Since when? Since after the GeForce hit? The problem moving forward is that due to PC gamers demanding low resolution at this point that is about to go away. 4K TVs are shipping already, the PS4 will certainly support it. You will be able to pick, low res PC gaming, or high resolution console gaming. Thank the PC gaming community and their demands for hyper low resolution for the last ten years for that one.
Three really shitty looking games, what's your point exactly? If you take outdated games and throw thousands of dollars of hardware at it you can run it at a higher resolution on the PC? I guess, up until this coming generation, that was a valid point. Sadly, 4K is going to take that away from PC gaming.
Now if you limit it to discussing raw GPU power, PCs dominate most of the time, but at launch against the consoles on a historic basis PCs don't look all that great. And then we get into the other half of the equation, the CPUs, where consoles tend to violently sodomize PCs. When the GeForce launched it pushed a whopping 10 million verts/sec, which was extremely impressive for a PC, and one sixth of what the PS2 could do that was already out. True, the PS2 was doing that with its' CPU which PCs would just roll over and cry at the time trying that, but the fact remains that some of the tasks that PCs use GPUs for, the consoles could fall back on to their CPU to do the same.
Now? It isn't remotely close. The thing is we are comparing cutting edge PCs to seven year old consoles(six in the case of the PS3). I'm speaking on a historical basis, at launch console hardware has actually held up rather well.
Zodiark1593
Platinum Member
- Oct 21, 2012
- 2,230
- 4
- 81
Supporting 4K and being able to render fast enough to actually play games at that resolution are entirely different aspects. In a rather extreme example, a Radeon 5450 can render any game at max settings + 2560 x 1440 resolution and even 4x AA on top. Does that mean it will be fast enough to actually be playable. Big NO.
Unless the PS4 can actually render highly detailed games at 4K resolution fast enough to be playable (quite unlikely given current GPU tech), it won't matter in the slightest, except maybe for movies.
You should take some time to understand the entire architecture, and not just bits and pieces.
The PS2's Emotion Engine housed a MIPS processor (for game logic), and a pair of vector processors. The vector processors, referred to as VU0 and VU1 provides the bulk of the system's processing power for Geometry and other effects. Theoretical geometry throughput exceeds 60 Million unlit polygons, however, when you factor in lighting, and any additional effects that would often be run on the VUs, and programming inefficiencies (Microcode is a PITA), 15 million seems a more reasonable estimate.
The reason the PS2 had superior polygon throughput compared to PCs of the time were the specialized vector processors. It wasn't until (a little) later on that PC GPUs also began using specialized units for polygon generation and lighting(the original GeForce). Up to then, PCs relied upon the CPU to create the polygons.
Heh, you are clearly new around here
You mean a pair of vector co-processors. Neither of them were able to issue or resign instructions independent of the main MIPS core.
How is that different then any T&L throughput number ever published? I compared peak to peak, real world using your number the PS2 was still 50% *faster* then the GeForce's *peak* rate(accurate peak number for lit polys is 36million for the PS2). BTW- You can't say that later GPUs such as the GeForce, the GeForce was the first GPU- everything before that was simply a rasterizer. Having hardware dedicated to additional computational workloads outside of basic raster ops is what makes a GPU a GPU.
mmntech
Lifer
- Sep 20, 2007
- 17,501
- 12
- 0
There was a rumour going around awhile ago that the Durango was going to feature a quad-core CPU and AMD 6670 GPU. Supposedly the CPU will allow simultaneous multi-threading. AMD chips don't support SMT so it means either another IBM chip, or a return to Intel. Both Sony and Microsoft have shown interest in moving to off-the-shelf components so the latter definitely wouldn't surprise me.
Early rumours on the Orbis suggest that it was also going to feature an AMD GPU as well as an AMD CPU. So I wonder if they'll attempt to use AMD's APU and run it as a SoC from the get go. It would certainly reduce costs significantly.
Most certainly graphics will be better but it won't be like the leap from the sixth to the seventh generation was. If the rumours are true, they'll look as good as your typical contemporary PC game. I'm tempted to say that they're switching to a common architecture with shorter generational intervals and (potentially) cheaper hardware. The 360 and PS3 were designed to last ten years. You won't see that repeated with the eighth generation.
Right now it's all just rumour and speculation. We'll most likely get better information from the horse's mouth at CES next week.
Early rumours on the Orbis suggest that it was also going to feature an AMD GPU as well as an AMD CPU. So I wonder if they'll attempt to use AMD's APU and run it as a SoC from the get go. It would certainly reduce costs significantly.
Most certainly graphics will be better but it won't be like the leap from the sixth to the seventh generation was. If the rumours are true, they'll look as good as your typical contemporary PC game. I'm tempted to say that they're switching to a common architecture with shorter generational intervals and (potentially) cheaper hardware. The 360 and PS3 were designed to last ten years. You won't see that repeated with the eighth generation.
Right now it's all just rumour and speculation. We'll most likely get better information from the horse's mouth at CES next week.
Arkaign
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2006
- 20,736
- 1,379
- 126
PS4 + 4K = HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH
I'll give you a hint, the GPU grunt behind Crossfire 7970 6GB (2x6GB models) is STILL not enough to reasonably play max settings at 2560x1440. And we're talking about ~$1k worth of GPUs with HUGE coolers and complex PCB, good luck stuffing those into a console case along with feeding the thing 500w+ to keep it going.
PS4 specs are already nailed down, and there's no way in helllllll that 4K will be doable in any real form with the specs it will have.
Don't get me wrong, #1 I'm excited about 4K and hope it becomes reasonable to game at that res before too much more time passes, and #2, I think the PS4/X720 or whatever they get called will be pretty sweet, but this next gen is NOT going to be 4K friendly. In fact, it will probably be worse than the current gen was (X360/PS3 could techinically do 1080, but most games rendered under that, but enough examples are out there of decent 1080 games for them), but PS4/X720 will not be able to do anything convincingly at 4K without severe overcompensation by drastically reducing native rendering.
Remember, 4K = ~8+ million pixels
Lowly 2560x1440, which is enough to bring $1k in GPU power down enough not to be able to max out the latest games at a high framerate = ~3.6 million pixels
In other words, you'd need something in the range of FOUR times the power of a 7970, and probably 6-8GB video memory to make 4K gaming decent.
Trust me, I've followed gaming tech since the Atari 400, 4K won't be really here for gaming until PS5/Xbox4.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH
I'll give you a hint, the GPU grunt behind Crossfire 7970 6GB (2x6GB models) is STILL not enough to reasonably play max settings at 2560x1440. And we're talking about ~$1k worth of GPUs with HUGE coolers and complex PCB, good luck stuffing those into a console case along with feeding the thing 500w+ to keep it going.
PS4 specs are already nailed down, and there's no way in helllllll that 4K will be doable in any real form with the specs it will have.
Don't get me wrong, #1 I'm excited about 4K and hope it becomes reasonable to game at that res before too much more time passes, and #2, I think the PS4/X720 or whatever they get called will be pretty sweet, but this next gen is NOT going to be 4K friendly. In fact, it will probably be worse than the current gen was (X360/PS3 could techinically do 1080, but most games rendered under that, but enough examples are out there of decent 1080 games for them), but PS4/X720 will not be able to do anything convincingly at 4K without severe overcompensation by drastically reducing native rendering.
Remember, 4K = ~8+ million pixels
Lowly 2560x1440, which is enough to bring $1k in GPU power down enough not to be able to max out the latest games at a high framerate = ~3.6 million pixels
In other words, you'd need something in the range of FOUR times the power of a 7970, and probably 6-8GB video memory to make 4K gaming decent.
Trust me, I've followed gaming tech since the Atari 400, 4K won't be really here for gaming until PS5/Xbox4.
destrekor
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2005
- 28,799
- 359
- 126
They also COULD offer 4K support for microgames or whatever you want to call the lighter games that, at least at one point, comprised the bulk of Live/PSN downloadable titles for under $15.
I don't think it would be a stretch to see the system support dashboard/video output at 4K (is there, or will there be, 4K Blu-ray releases?), and in doing so, it makes it possible to output games at that resolution if the developer so chooses to offer the option. And I imagine, for the next generation, we won't see any developers outside of the small indie-like cheap games with simpler graphics (they will always be popular), but who knows if the manufacturers will even allow games to output at that resolution, regardless if they support it for other video output.
As for the argument that consoles are way ahead because of some supposed better support for 4K, you are kidding, right? How is it consoles have better 4K support?
How is it PC gamers fault that PC displays have "lower resolutions" ?
Do you understand manufacturing constraints?
Monitors at 24" or lower are the most common size for PC gaming. Some go grand by going with 27" or 30" - at the lower size, 1920x1080/1200 is not low resolution for a 20" monitor. It is for a 30", and it is not a common 30" computer monitor resolution, they have 2560x1440/1600, and I believe you can pay a fair premium to get that in 24" sizes, not sure about any lower.
That's a high pixel density for that size of panel, and it will be extremely expensive to get a 4K density at that size. It's not a fact that PC gamers are "settling" for low resolutions, it's an available and cost factor. I can guarantee, given the funding, many people will purchase 4K displays when they become available in 27" and 30" formats, and it would be a little while after that before they reach 24" or lower.
Of course TVs, at what, 46, 50, 60", are going to have 4K resolutions before they hit common computer display sizes.
Most people don't care to have that size of display sitting on their desk, a few feet from their eyes. It sounds cool at first, but then the TV as computer display often winds up well short of the mark. It might just be too oppressive for some, and it'll also likely have slower response times that PC gamers, good ones at least, will certainly NOT settle for. It isn't as much of an issue with console gaming due to inherent input lag and lower framerates anyhow, especially the slower controls in whole. It's also not a huge factor when everyone is on the same footing with consoles - on PC, when you have slow response times and the best players have ridiculously fast displays and controls without input lag, there will be a competitive difference.
But quite simply, it will be cheaper and offer a better opportunity to draw in higher profits by focusing on lower-density 50" 4K panels, before manufacturers bring that to a higher density 30" or smaller panel in a market where it would be much tougher to demand a grossly higher retail price. I say that because with new TV generations, a vastly superior new technology can demand a $3000+ higher pricetag than an otherwise comparable monitor of equal display quality (when ignoring the one major difference). The mature tech drops, let's say to $1000 as norm (save fancy features) - the new 4K display, at same level of quality (no other fancy features) could easily command a $4000 MSRP until the market gets saturated with them. You just cannot create that kind of price differential in computer monitors and expect to gain a worthwhile market share.
In short, sure, consoles may get nominal 4K support because some people will, over the course of the next generation, pick up 4K displays. But there just won't be the rendering ability to actually play the AAA titles at that resolution, not likely even half that resolution upscaled though perhaps by the end of the generation when coding tricks have been figured out. By the time 4K monitors are available for PCs, PC GPUs will have outpaced the console tech by enough that the PCs will be, for the gamers who are willing to drop a fair bit of money, be able to render that 4K resolution with good visual detail at respectable framerates.
The PS5/Xbox4 generation may very well launch with a better rendering ability at 4K compared to the PC GPUs available at time of launch. But hell no, not this next generation.
Arkaign
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2006
- 20,736
- 1,379
- 126
^^ Exactly.
4K will be *hopefully* supported to some degree by PS4/X720, but it's not going to be full-res full-framerate AAA gaming. It may just be dashboard/OS support, with a handful of super simplified titles (angry birds, et al) that run in basically 2d mode or super basic 3d.
It's not that we don't want that kind of ability, but it's just not realistic at present, and you can basically guarantee it :
(1)- Why would Sony/MS want to increase the MSRP exponentially for their new consoles by overbuilding it for a feature (4K) that virtually nobody will be able to use for the expected life of the consoles?
(2)- The type of hardware needed to do 4K justice doesn't exist yet in a form factor that would fit in a console (size, heat, power, PCB complexity, etc)
(3)- Sony and Microsoft are both REALLY unlikely to want to play loss-leader with new units that lose a ton of money unit for unit at launch. This is not 2005-2006, the economy, and the financials of each company has changed a lot. They are almost certainly looking to either break even, or get a lot closer.
(4)- Reliability. It's really been a nightmare for Microsoft, and even Sony, to support units that have extreme cooling needs. It's not probable that they want to do that again. Simpler, cooler, more reliable is more profitable.
4K will be *hopefully* supported to some degree by PS4/X720, but it's not going to be full-res full-framerate AAA gaming. It may just be dashboard/OS support, with a handful of super simplified titles (angry birds, et al) that run in basically 2d mode or super basic 3d.
It's not that we don't want that kind of ability, but it's just not realistic at present, and you can basically guarantee it :
(1)- Why would Sony/MS want to increase the MSRP exponentially for their new consoles by overbuilding it for a feature (4K) that virtually nobody will be able to use for the expected life of the consoles?
(2)- The type of hardware needed to do 4K justice doesn't exist yet in a form factor that would fit in a console (size, heat, power, PCB complexity, etc)
(3)- Sony and Microsoft are both REALLY unlikely to want to play loss-leader with new units that lose a ton of money unit for unit at launch. This is not 2005-2006, the economy, and the financials of each company has changed a lot. They are almost certainly looking to either break even, or get a lot closer.
(4)- Reliability. It's really been a nightmare for Microsoft, and even Sony, to support units that have extreme cooling needs. It's not probable that they want to do that again. Simpler, cooler, more reliable is more profitable.
Only have time for a quick post, I'll have to get the rest later-
And yet, we already have consoles pushing that many pixels *now*. 720p 3D is 2560x1440, that's with a creaky old G70 class GPU. Don't underestimate the *huge* advantage console optimizations have over PCs which need to support thousands of configurations. Will every game run at 4K? Of course not, but don't try and compare what the generic coded Windows based games can do to a highly optimized fixed platform can offer.
Sony is about to start shipping a new 1080p display, 5". Samsung has been shipping a 2560x1600 panel for a while now, 10". PC displays have stupidly low pixel density outside of a couple of laptops(and even those aren't that great). I'll get in to the rest later, cost analysis of the machines and what type of hardware they can afford to put in etc.
And yet, we already have consoles pushing that many pixels *now*. 720p 3D is 2560x1440, that's with a creaky old G70 class GPU. Don't underestimate the *huge* advantage console optimizations have over PCs which need to support thousands of configurations. Will every game run at 4K? Of course not, but don't try and compare what the generic coded Windows based games can do to a highly optimized fixed platform can offer.
Sony is about to start shipping a new 1080p display, 5". Samsung has been shipping a 2560x1600 panel for a while now, 10". PC displays have stupidly low pixel density outside of a couple of laptops(and even those aren't that great). I'll get in to the rest later, cost analysis of the machines and what type of hardware they can afford to put in etc.
zerocool84
Lifer
- Nov 11, 2004
- 36,041
- 472
- 126
FYI the PS3 3D games are not 2560x1440, it can't handle that resolution. I don't know why you're making that stuff up.
http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2010/06/17/how-ps3-outputs-3d-video/
Consoles have a hard time with 720p let alone 1080p or higher.
Arkaign
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2006
- 20,736
- 1,379
- 126
As noted, that's patently false
http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/36771/cod-black-ops-3d-test
"Side-by-side 3D presents one initial problem; a loss of resolution. As each half of the screen needs to be used for each eye, the images are displayed at half the horizontal resolution. And, as it is (natively) 720p, that leaves you (without upscaling) with a final resolution of 640 x 720.
In fact, there are some that suggest that its real 2D native resolution is 1040 x 608, so the 3D version, if that is correct, is only giving you 520 x 608 - barely more than a conventional DVD vertically and less horizontally. It shows."
and
http://gizmodo.com/5522804/no-surprise-3d-takes-a-toll-on-ps3-resolution-and-framerates
"that's 1080p content at 60fps (2D) turning into 720p content at 30fps (3D)."
Besides, 3d doesn't even come close to the true load of a higher resolution due to the vast majority of the data in L/R frames being identical, just buffered and skewed for perspective. It's not like having entirely different models/textures for each. So you don't need nearly the amount of vram to do 3d at a lower res vs. 2d in 2x resolution w/higher textures/models.
It's apples/oranges.
It most certainly is NOT 2560x1440, nowhere close.
Even if you argued that it was a pure doubling of 720p, you end up with not 1440p, but 1080p.
1280x720 = 921k pixels
1920x1080 = 2M pixels
You'll note that 3d drops the PS3 and X360 to ~30fps (or less, look at AC3) and lowered res/details vs 2d games for AAA titles. Basically they run 720p 3d about as poorly as they run 1080p 2d, which makes sense, as it's a good reflection of quality suffering as things go northward.
Sony and Microsoft won't give a crap about 4K this gen, aside from lip service. 99%+ of their market will be 1080p, so it makes no sense to lose a bunch more money with a much more expensive console to produce, shooting for a target (4K with good framerate/details) that is currently unfeasible.
This honestly reminds me of JFAMD telling us that "IPC will be higher" with BD. I'm not sure how anyone who understands the tech industry and follows semiconductor news could even remotely believe that 4K is going to arrive with PS4/X720 in any real way. PS5/Xbox4? Yes, definitely.
exdeath
Lifer
- Jan 29, 2004
- 13,679
- 10
- 81
I just want to know in this day and age of exhaustively exploiting brands and franchises if we are ever going to have new names for stuff again.
Playstation 6? Geforce 7 (again)? iPhone 15?
It's getting old. Come up with some new names for a change. I might have to just buy Google and Nintendo just for that reason alone. Ah I guess Vita is good too, surprised it wasn't PSP 2.
Playstation 6? Geforce 7 (again)? iPhone 15?
It's getting old. Come up with some new names for a change. I might have to just buy Google and Nintendo just for that reason alone. Ah I guess Vita is good too, surprised it wasn't PSP 2.
Last edited:
zerocool84
Lifer
- Nov 11, 2004
- 36,041
- 472
- 126
I'm sure they will push 4k Bluray but I think that's a good thing. I'm all for things like DVD & Bluray getting a push for more adoption.
Sulaco
Diamond Member
- Mar 28, 2003
- 3,825
- 46
- 91
Brand recognition is massively important, at least that's the thinking.
The Vita is the Vita and not the 'PSP 2' likely because the PSP was largely considered a flop, Sony doesn't want to be associated with that moniker anymore.
The Playstation, Xbox, and Wii brand names are extremely well recognized and successful, so the sequels will almost certainly have those brand names in subsequent launches.
We'd probably be looking at the Gamecube 3 at this point if the original GameCube had been as big a hit as the PS2.
exdeath
Lifer
- Jan 29, 2004
- 13,679
- 10
- 81
Nah I don't think so, or the N64 would have been called the Super Nintendo 2 and the Gamecube would have been called the Super Nintendo 3.
Last edited:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 403
-
Facebook
Twitter