The Big Bad Console Thread - Sway your Station with an Xboner !
- Thread starter Xexx
- Start date
It isn't the exact same hardware you could put in a PC either. Both the specs for the X720 and PS4, that we "know" about, have some additional custom chips on them that certain things can be offloaded to.
There's a bit more to it with how it's put together and how it all works together beyond just the APU's raw numbers too.
http://www.techradar.com/us/news/gam...uldn-t-1141607
It's obviously not going to compare to a high end PC, but it's going to push more than people are giving it credit for and it will certainly look a hell of a lot better than current consoles do.
There's a bit more to it with how it's put together and how it all works together beyond just the APU's raw numbers too.
http://www.techradar.com/us/news/gam...uldn-t-1141607
It's obviously not going to compare to a high end PC, but it's going to push more than people are giving it credit for and it will certainly look a hell of a lot better than current consoles do.
Fadaar
That guy
- 11,232
- 12,294
From what I've noticed over the last couple years, physics and shadows seem to have the largest impact on performance in games. Like for me I can run WoW at any resolution on max settings, but if I turn shadows from the highest setting down to say medium my framerate jumps like 15-20 higher. Same with PhysX in quite a few different games, Arkham Asylum being one of them.
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 49,543
- 88,430
This is true for most people. I'm not sure about this but I think it's because game engines typically rely on the CPU to do a lot of the shadow work (I'm not sure why).
Erronius
<WoW Guild Officer>
- 17,325
- 44,982
Sure we know. But the resolution debates are already terrible to begin with, and introducing more unknown variables for games that have yet to be made isn't going to make the topic more manageable.
Plus while I speak for myself here, I'm a lazy fuck and if someone else frames the debate as Res @ FPS, then fuck it.
The rub though is that no one can say exactly how +% gooder it is really supposed to be but we're supposed to believe that'people aren't giving it enough credit'because'there's a bit more to it with how it's put together'when even the Jaguar homers can't point to anything solid to base that belief on beyond the fundamental design architecture itself. Maybe it will gain another 10% in whatever arbitrary metric they later use, maybe it will gain 50% - we just don't know. I'm totally on board with the idea that Jaguar will net a boost from its APU architecture, but if they don't net an absolutely monstrous gain then it's completely possible that it won't be a huge improvement over comparable raw PC components. FWIW I hope its performance is phenomenal even if it encroaches on high end PC territory (as I would think that eventually any advance would benefit PCs as well), I just question how good it will actually be when delivered.
How it's going to compare to PCs is pretty irrelevant to me personally. It's going to be a huge jump over current consoles and that's all I care about.
I have definately noticed that same thing with shadows. Usually I just turn them off and i can go up a whole tier. Say High->Ultra just by turning off shadows.
AMD chips have been shit for years, though.
Nah. It's going to be animprovementbut nothing like as much as the previous console generations, relatively speaking.
Joeboo
Molten Core Raider
- 8,157
- 140
Well though, to be fair every single new console generation hasn't been as much of a leap forward as the one previous to it. The visible diffirence between a SNES and a Playstation was a hell of a lot wider than the gap between a PS2 and PS3.
Basically because of stuff like this:
Basically because of stuff like this:
Poly count isn't really important, true. There will be an absolutely massive jump in texture quality though. Current console textures look like someone ate them out of a dead elephant's asshole and then vomited them back up into a cesspool.
Joeboo
Molten Core Raider
- 8,157
- 140
But the same general concept can be applied to anything graphically. You eventually hit a point of diminishing returns to where you might increase texture resolution tenfold, but you aren't seeing a tenfold increase in noticable graphic quality, for instance. That's why SNES Starfox to Starfox 64 looks like a much larger leap forward in technology than something like Gran Turismo 4 to 5. That's why something like Half Life 2 still looks relatively alright compared to FPS games releasing this year, even though it's almost 10-year old technology at this point. Doubling or tripling(or more) computing and graphical power isn't changing the way games look as noticably as it did in the early days of 3D gaming.
For instance, Half Life 2 is closer in time to Duke Nukem 3D than it is to games today like Crysis 3. Which gap looks like a bigger leap forward?
I just find it shocking that images 1 and 2 are closer in time together than 2 & 3
For instance, Half Life 2 is closer in time to Duke Nukem 3D than it is to games today like Crysis 3. Which gap looks like a bigger leap forward?
I just find it shocking that images 1 and 2 are closer in time together than 2 & 3
Right, eventually you will hit a diminishing returns on textures, but that sure as fuck isn't happening yet with consoles. Current console textures are flat out horrendous and the difference between them and a high-res texture pack is as massive as any other jump has been. It is an absolutely huge jump in quality, there's no ifs ands or buts about it.
You are blind if you cannot see the difference between a game that has high resolution textures and one that uses console level textures and are basically talking out of your ass.
You are blind if you cannot see the difference between a game that has high resolution textures and one that uses console level textures and are basically talking out of your ass.
Lenas
Trump's Staff
- 7,698
- 2,412
90% of the reason people say PC games look so superior to consoles is the high quality textures. They're all using the same base models, same amount of polygons. The PC gets the edge up when you add in HQ texture packs and post effects like AA/AF. Now consoles will be able to do that, and given the sizes of our TV's and the distances from which we sit, >1080p is kind of going to be irrelevant for anyone without a projector.
I would also contest that Duke Nukem and Half Life are as different graphically as you claim they are. D3D had a 3D world with 2D sprites, the only difference in HL is throwing 3D characters and better textures into the mix. In today's games you also have to think about particle effects, post processing, preloading, lighting, environmental animation, reflections... It's orders of magnitude more complicated and it's very apparent if you sit and look at the details.
I would also contest that Duke Nukem and Half Life are as different graphically as you claim they are. D3D had a 3D world with 2D sprites, the only difference in HL is throwing 3D characters and better textures into the mix. In today's games you also have to think about particle effects, post processing, preloading, lighting, environmental animation, reflections... It's orders of magnitude more complicated and it's very apparent if you sit and look at the details.
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 49,543
- 88,430
I'm not even sure what the argument is here. Is anyone here arguing that the next gen consoles won't be able to give dramatically better graphics than current gen?
I don't understand what the use is in comparing the delta between 1998-2002 tech and 2008-2012 tech. Are you guys are inferring that we're approaching the point where more processing power won't result in more capability or graphics? If so you're completely wrong.
I don't understand what the use is in comparing the delta between 1998-2002 tech and 2008-2012 tech. Are you guys are inferring that we're approaching the point where more processing power won't result in more capability or graphics? If so you're completely wrong.
Some people were saying that there wasn't going to be much of an improvement between this generation and the next one.
They are grossly wrong, just on how big the jump in texture quality will be alone.
Xalara
Golden Squire
- 826
- 81
Uhhh no. While Intel has been beating AMD in quite a few ways, AMD's chips aren't anywhere close to being "shit" for their pricepoint, especially when it comes to computer graphics where the CPU doesn't matter nearly as much as the video card.
Plus given AMD's computer graphics experience they were probably the better choice overall no matter how you slice it.