The 360/PS3 had hardware that was comparable to a decent gaming PC when they came out as well. It didn't take long for PCs to blow them away again, but that was expected. When the next generation of consoles comes out, they'll capitalize on all the progress made in the PC world again, and the cycle continues.
The Big Bad Console Thread - Sway your Station with an Xboner !
- Thread starter Xexx
- Start date
Joeboo
Molten Core Raider
- 8,157
- 140
While I'd obviously take anti-aliasing over not having it, it isn't near as much of an issue when you're sitting 10 feet from a 50+ inch TV as it is sitting 36 inches in front of a monitor at the same resolution. The natural shittiness of TV resolution compared to a monitor provides a little bit of the same effect as anti-aliasing on their own.
The PS4 is confirmed tonotsupport 4k for gaming and the hardware couldn't handle that resolution at any decent framerate even if it did "support" it. It will, however, play 4k Blu-rays. The X720 will likely be much the same.
None of that matters though, because for Normal Human vision there's not really any difference between 1080p and 2160p at regular TV viewing distances. So unless you're some dick who was blessed by nature with 20/10 vision and are more awesome than the rest of us you don't have to ever worry about 4k.
The viewing distance to fully see 1080p of detail on a 50 inch HDTV is about 6.5 feet. 10 feet away from a 50 inch would definitely mask a lot of aliasing, but that'd be sitting too far from it.
Given what we know of the PS4's hardware though it shouldn't be too hard to run a decent amount of AA on its 1080p output.
The thing that annoyed me most this last generation actually wasn't the terrible AA level and bad jaggies (though it was definitely the second most annoying thing), it was the complete lack of AF. I'm not sure if any X360/PS3 game ever actually used AF at all and it made some things extremely painful to look at.
The X720/PS4 better fucking be running 16x AF on every damned game. That shit takes barely any resources to crank it up to max.
Big Phoenix
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 47,652
- 102,777
Who says they will even push 1080p? The biggest joke of the 360/PS3 is that they dont even push 720p resolution for the vast majority of their titles.
That's not true, the majority of them are 720p:http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241
The PS4 hardware that's been outlined should be able to do 1080p with relative ease.
Edit: Oh wow, there's even Wii U games on that list now.
What the fuck is up with Black Ops 2's resolutions?
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 49,543
- 88,430
aliasing isn't really a big deal in most environments at high resolutions. The more straight edges you have (ex: cities) the more of a problem it is. GTAIV, for example, was an aliased nightmare.
But really, nominal anti aliasing has come a long way since 360/ps3 released. There's very little performance hit for good AA these days.
The problem with that idea is that it's mutually contradictory with the xbox mini - both of them can't be true, wasn't the idea of the mini that you plug it into the 720 to use it's drive etc ? That make no sense at all if they all have a 360 SOC in them anyway.
Also, from a programming point of view, that kind of setup would be filled with fail and would totally defeat the purpose of going to a generic x86 setup.
Fadaar
That guy
- 11,232
- 12,294
That's the exact game I was thinking of too. GTA IV on consoles looked so awful without AF and AA. You can also notice it in the CoD games (lolz) in the outdoor maps pretty easily. Watching my roommate play Black Ops 2 and it makes my eyes bleed at all the jagged edges...
The COD engine hasn'treallybeen updated since launch so every time they want to do more stuff with it they drop the resolution to compensate.
Foggy
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 6,389
- 5,008
And people bitch about EA serializing their games. At least EA updates their games when they release quick turn arounds. BF4 gets a new version of frostbite instead of making the game look shittier. COD has only gotten worse since the first MW. Fuck Activision.
Big Phoenix
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 47,652
- 102,777
Ok I guess its closer to like half the games use less than 1280x720 or some weird combination of AA+lower res or something. Either way its not 1280x720, let alone close to being 60fps.
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 49,543
- 88,430
I'm not sure if you're making this argument but I'm doubtful that PS4/XBox720 games will consistently run at 60fps + 1080p. Maybe at the start when the hardware is like a giant empty room, but eventually when devs have to decide between fancy new post-processing bullshit and 1080p I think many will cut 1080p.
Big Phoenix
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 47,652
- 102,777
Thats a guarantee considering how old the hardware already is. I wouldnt be surprised if launch titles have trouble mainting 60fps @ 1080.
I think you're overestimating how much it takes to run 1080p and underestimating what the current supposed specs can do.
How is the hardware old? It's using a custom APU based on the AMD Jaguar that's not even released yet and was only unveiled in January.
Erronius
<WoW Guild Officer>
- 17,325
- 44,982
On one hand I think it's great that they're going with x86, if the rumors about easier porting is true (especially compared to PS3). And if early pricepoint guesstimates are true (especially if they can go as low as $299, though I wont hold my breath), it would seem to be a pretty good alternative to buying a PC on the current low end of the spectrum. That said, while I don't know exactly what Penix was driving at by saying the hardware was "old", it seems that the performance will only be 'moderate' in some sense by today's current PC performance options, and for a system that hasn't even hit the market yet, I'm guessing it will lag behind as time goes on. So maybe not old hardware at all, but the benchmarks...well, we'll see. Jaguar APUs seems like they'll be natively marketed to tablet and pad use outside of the PS4 realm though, (especially due to size and heat advantages over pure power) so /shrug.
The 60FPS @ 1080p, I mean I dunno. Just looking around online it seems that the debate is currently raging all over the place atm anyways. But I will mention that they were full of incredible claims with the PS3, so I'm not incredibly inclined to believe any claims until it can be confirmed. Ken Kutagari's 2005 claim that the PS3 could put out1080 @ 120fps(lolz) was for all intents and purposes roundly mocked (even if they did come close to that in a roundabout way with a game or two afaikyears later), but at least with the PS4 such a claim isn'tASlaughable as it was with the PS3 in 2005. My gut feeling is that it might very well come down to individual games, and how well they take advantage of the PS4 as to how they perform, more than any kind of brute force ability on the PS4's part to push it.
My own PC, I've been pushing the ghetto-envelope for far too long, and it's as outdated as the PS3 tech might seem to be atm. If people are comparing the GPU to something like a 7850, I mean that's great if you're running a dinosaur box like I am and don't want to spend the money on PC upgrades I guess (even though that's exactly what I'll probably do). All that said, if the PS4 is half the machine that some are making it out to be I'll be happy to see that, even if I have zero intentions of buying one. I don't believe the"PCs are dead"claims, and I'll take console to PC game ports and easier cross platform development any day of the week.
Insomnia ramblings are bad.
The 60FPS @ 1080p, I mean I dunno. Just looking around online it seems that the debate is currently raging all over the place atm anyways. But I will mention that they were full of incredible claims with the PS3, so I'm not incredibly inclined to believe any claims until it can be confirmed. Ken Kutagari's 2005 claim that the PS3 could put out1080 @ 120fps(lolz) was for all intents and purposes roundly mocked (even if they did come close to that in a roundabout way with a game or two afaikyears later), but at least with the PS4 such a claim isn'tASlaughable as it was with the PS3 in 2005. My gut feeling is that it might very well come down to individual games, and how well they take advantage of the PS4 as to how they perform, more than any kind of brute force ability on the PS4's part to push it.
My own PC, I've been pushing the ghetto-envelope for far too long, and it's as outdated as the PS3 tech might seem to be atm. If people are comparing the GPU to something like a 7850, I mean that's great if you're running a dinosaur box like I am and don't want to spend the money on PC upgrades I guess (even though that's exactly what I'll probably do). All that said, if the PS4 is half the machine that some are making it out to be I'll be happy to see that, even if I have zero intentions of buying one. I don't believe the"PCs are dead"claims, and I'll take console to PC game ports and easier cross platform development any day of the week.
Insomnia ramblings are bad.
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 49,543
- 88,430
BigP_sl said:
I'm sure you guys already know this, but the end resolution is just one of the many elements that determine frame rate. And the number of those elements increases every year. Between poly count, texture sizes, LoD bias, physics, actor count, AI, lighting, shadow, AA, tesselation, anistropic filtering, myriad other post processing options, you can make real choices to ditch 60fps and ditch 1080p for good reason.Erronius_sl said:
Joeboo
Molten Core Raider
- 8,157
- 140
Also don't forget that even if a console has the EXACT same hardware as a PC, a game on that console is probably going to perform 20-30% better at least even with the same hardware, just due to the insane amount of optimization that developers can do to a set piece of hardware that doesn't have changing specs.