Is 1080p really needed in games ?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#251 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (16406 posts) -

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

Is it final that the next-gen consoles will have games only at 720p? I would think some of the more "shallow" games (eg Bulletstorm-type games) will be able to run at 1080p smoothly enough (not necessarily at 60 fps).

Cranler

NMothing has been said either way afaik. Carmack did say he expects most console games to remain at 30fps which is good for pc gaming. 720p/30fps console standard would be best for the pc gaming community.

If next-gen console games will still be at a consistent 30fps, then some genres such as racing games may lend themselves well to 1080p while others like open-world games can remain at 720p. I think we'll see a combination of both resolutions. If developers have some leeway with native resolutions this gen, I don't see why it won't be the same for next-gen.

#252 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

Is it final that the next-gen consoles will have games only at 720p? I would think some of the more "shallow" games (eg Bulletstorm-type games) will be able to run at 1080p smoothly enough (not necessarily at 60 fps).

Exxite

I hope at the start they aim for 1920x1080@60fps minimum. If it dips below 60fps occasionally that's not big deal. I'd rather late into next console gen developers have to start dialing some effects down to get more of another effect in or vice versa. The technology exists to do it right now. So it would be nice to at least start off not much behind the pc.

Look at these frame rates guys http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/508?vs=555 . In batman arkham city at 1920x1200 at extreme quality and 4xaa both cards are over 90fps average. Cheaper cards aren't much slower.

For the consoles to settle for less would just suck. I like my ps3 and will probably get a ps4 so I'm hoping for great looking games with minimal upscaling.

Arkham City at extreme quality would be a major letdown for next gen console graphics. Even Crysis Warhead level graphics would be a letdown. And those benches show it getting fps in the 50's.
#253 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

Is it final that the next-gen consoles will have games only at 720p? I would think some of the more "shallow" games (eg Bulletstorm-type games) will be able to run at 1080p smoothly enough (not necessarily at 60 fps).

jun_aka_pekto

NMothing has been said either way afaik. Carmack did say he expects most console games to remain at 30fps which is good for pc gaming. 720p/30fps console standard would be best for the pc gaming community.

If next-gen console games will still be at a consistent 30fps, then some genres such as racing games may lend themselves well to 1080p while others like open-world games can remain at 720p. I think we'll see a combination of both resolutions. If developers have some leeway with native resolutions this gen, I don't see why it won't be the same for next-gen.

Just like we saw 600p and even 540p this gen maybe will see things like 900p or 850p.
#254 Posted by Exxite (171 posts) -

[QUOTE="Exxite"]

[QUOTE="NoodleFighter"]

Isn't there 4k blu ray in the works?

NoodleFighter

Bluray is just the disc media. You can put whatever type of video you want on a bluray. Now for it to play on a blurray player it needs to be using codecs that the player understands, but as long as the codec allows for the resolution of 4k and the decoder inside the bluray player can decode it fast enough sure why not.

The only other issue is the size the video must actually fit on the disc. I dunno how much a 4k resolution video in h.264@ 3 hours takes up for size. My guess would be 50gb or so just randomly throwing that out there.

Well what I actually meant was that 4k versions of movies for Blu ray are in the works and some are coming out this year like the Amazing Spiderman, The Other Guys, Total Recall, Battle: Los Angeles

That sounds cool. I wonder if it's only the movies filmed in IMAX though.

#255 Posted by Exxite (171 posts) -

[QUOTE="Exxite"]

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

Is it final that the next-gen consoles will have games only at 720p? I would think some of the more "shallow" games (eg Bulletstorm-type games) will be able to run at 1080p smoothly enough (not necessarily at 60 fps).

Cranler

I hope at the start they aim for 1920x1080@60fps minimum. If it dips below 60fps occasionally that's not big deal. I'd rather late into next console gen developers have to start dialing some effects down to get more of another effect in or vice versa. The technology exists to do it right now. So it would be nice to at least start off not much behind the pc.

Look at these frame rates guys http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/508?vs=555 . In batman arkham city at 1920x1200 at extreme quality and 4xaa both cards are over 90fps average. Cheaper cards aren't much slower.

For the consoles to settle for less would just suck. I like my ps3 and will probably get a ps4 so I'm hoping for great looking games with minimal upscaling.

Arkham City at extreme quality would be a major letdown for next gen console graphics. Even Crysis Warhead level graphics would be a letdown. And those benches show it getting fps in the 50's.

Those benchmarks are with one card. Two 680s in sli you get this http://www.anandtech.com/bench/GPU12/389 . 2560x1600, extreme quality, 4xaa and 109 avg fps. I doubt it ever dropped below 60fps when the average is over 100.

#256 Posted by NaveedLife (17179 posts) -

 .campzor

LMAO. NO need for any more comments really.

#257 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="Exxite"]

I hope at the start they aim for 1920x1080@60fps minimum. If it dips below 60fps occasionally that's not big deal. I'd rather late into next console gen developers have to start dialing some effects down to get more of another effect in or vice versa. The technology exists to do it right now. So it would be nice to at least start off not much behind the pc.

Look at these frame rates guys http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/508?vs=555 . In batman arkham city at 1920x1200 at extreme quality and 4xaa both cards are over 90fps average. Cheaper cards aren't much slower.

For the consoles to settle for less would just suck. I like my ps3 and will probably get a ps4 so I'm hoping for great looking games with minimal upscaling.

Exxite

Arkham City at extreme quality would be a major letdown for next gen console graphics. Even Crysis Warhead level graphics would be a letdown. And those benches show it getting fps in the 50's.

Those benchmarks are with one card. Two 680s in sli you get this http://www.anandtech.com/bench/GPU12/389 . 2560x1600, extreme quality, 4xaa and 109 avg fps. I doubt it ever dropped below 60fps when the average is over 100.

I'd rather have Unreal Engine 4 graphics at 720p than Arkham City graphics at any res. Why are you bringing up 680 sli performance in a next gen console discussion anyway?
#258 Posted by Exxite (171 posts) -

[QUOTE="Exxite"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"] Arkham City at extreme quality would be a major letdown for next gen console graphics. Even Crysis Warhead level graphics would be a letdown. And those benches show it getting fps in the 50's.Cranler

Those benchmarks are with one card. Two 680s in sli you get this http://www.anandtech.com/bench/GPU12/389 . 2560x1600, extreme quality, 4xaa and 109 avg fps. I doubt it ever dropped below 60fps when the average is over 100.

I'd rather have Unreal Engine 4 graphics at 720p than Arkham City graphics at any res. Why are you bringing up 680 sli performance in a next gen console discussion anyway?

I think some of the guys around here really have no idea what fps a computer runs certain games at. So by showing a chart of that some people might see what pcs are doing now and want the next gen consoles to do at least some of that.

#259 Posted by 04dcarraher (19682 posts) -
[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"] Even then its a waste if you prefer 60fps gaming. Even crossfired 7970's wont be get 60+ on all games. Cranler

Your goofy This simple animation shows the difference

http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

Youre stupid. More reading comprehension fails lol. I say 4k is a waste because 60 fps is unattainable and you link a framerate comparison site.

Im stupid? :lol: that's a laugh Your the baron of grey matter when it comes to understanding the differences.
#260 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="Exxite"]

Those benchmarks are with one card. Two 680s in sli you get this http://www.anandtech.com/bench/GPU12/389 . 2560x1600, extreme quality, 4xaa and 109 avg fps. I doubt it ever dropped below 60fps when the average is over 100.

Exxite

I'd rather have Unreal Engine 4 graphics at 720p than Arkham City graphics at any res. Why are you bringing up 680 sli performance in a next gen console discussion anyway?

I think some of the guys around here really have no idea what fps a computer runs certain games at. So by showing a chart of that some people might see what pcs are doing now and want the next gen consoles to do at least some of that.

PC's are running games at crazy resolutions and high fps because graphics have barely evolved in the last 5 years.
#261 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -
[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] Your goofy This simple animation shows the difference

http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

04dcarraher
Youre stupid. More reading comprehension fails lol. I say 4k is a waste because 60 fps is unattainable and you link a framerate comparison site.

Im stupid? :lol: that's a laugh Your the baron of grey matter when it comes to understanding the differences.

Lol at your weak attempt at saving face after your reading comp fail. You still seem to not understand my point. I know all to well about framerate differences. While most people upgrade to 120hz monitors for 3d, I upgraded for the higher fps.
#262 Posted by Metallic_Blade (259 posts) -

What I want to see is games running at 4K and 8K resolutions... then I'll be impressed. Too bad that our display technology is still quite behind to achieve this at a normal consumer level.

#263 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

What I want to see is games running at 4K and 8K resolutions... then I'll be impressed. Too bad that our display technology is still quite behind to achieve this at a normal consumer level.

Metallic_Blade
7970's crossfired would probably get 5 fps on Battlefield 3 maxed at 8k.
#264 Posted by Exxite (171 posts) -

[QUOTE="Metallic_Blade"]

What I want to see is games running at 4K and 8K resolutions... then I'll be impressed. Too bad that our display technology is still quite behind to achieve this at a normal consumer level.

Cranler

7970's crossfired would probably get 5 fps on Battlefield 3 maxed at 8k.

I don't know if they would be that low. 4k resolution is 4096x2304. In these benchmarks at 5760x1200 http://hardocp.com/article/2012/12/04/gtx_680_vs_radeon_hd_7970_multidisplay_showdown/5 they do alright. 5760x1200 and 4096x2304 are not far off. Maybe the min fps would drop to 20s or low 30s. Then again they are also throwing aa and af. With no aa and af on that setup would run games at 4k np.

#265 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="Metallic_Blade"]

What I want to see is games running at 4K and 8K resolutions... then I'll be impressed. Too bad that our display technology is still quite behind to achieve this at a normal consumer level.

Exxite

7970's crossfired would probably get 5 fps on Battlefield 3 maxed at 8k.

I don't know if they would be that low. 4k resolution is 4096x2304. In these benchmarks at 5760x1200 http://hardocp.com/article/2012/12/04/gtx_680_vs_radeon_hd_7970_multidisplay_showdown/5 they do alright. 5760x1200 and 4096x2304 are not far off. Maybe the min fps would drop to 20s or low 30s. Then again they are also throwing aa and af. With no aa and af on that setup would run games at 4k np.

A single 7970 gets 22 fps at 4k with ultra settings. They dont mention whether aa is enabled. http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2012/6/18/the-4k-graphics-card-shootout.aspx

I also expect BF 4 to have a decent step up in graphics since it will likely be a launch game for nextbox. Playing BF 4 maxed at 4k may be impossible even with the GTX 780 or 8970.

#266 Posted by NoodleFighter (7088 posts) -

[QUOTE="Exxite"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"] 7970's crossfired would probably get 5 fps on Battlefield 3 maxed at 8k. Cranler

I don't know if they would be that low. 4k resolution is 4096x2304. In these benchmarks at 5760x1200 http://hardocp.com/article/2012/12/04/gtx_680_vs_radeon_hd_7970_multidisplay_showdown/5 they do alright. 5760x1200 and 4096x2304 are not far off. Maybe the min fps would drop to 20s or low 30s. Then again they are also throwing aa and af. With no aa and af on that setup would run games at 4k np.

A single 7970 gets 22 fps at 4k with ultra settings. They dont mention whether aa is enabled. http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2012/6/18/the-4k-graphics-card-shootout.aspx

I also expect BF 4 to have a decent step up in graphics since it will likely be a launch game for nextbox. Playing BF 4 maxed at 4k may be impossible even with the GTX 780 or 8970.

AA is probably enabled seeing as how they're basically the same resolutions except one is having the resolution displayed through multiple monitors, which than again may be effecting how it renders stuff.

GDDR6 is supposedly going to come out next year and be the new GDDR3, seeing as it's aimed to last till at least 2020, so the boost in VRAM performance should make higher resolutions and textures more accessible for newer generations of GPUs.

#267 Posted by Phazevariance (10981 posts) -

I run all my PC games at 2560x1440. Native monitor res too.

#268 Posted by 04dcarraher (19682 posts) -
[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="Cranler"] Youre stupid. More reading comprehension fails lol. I say 4k is a waste because 60 fps is unattainable and you link a framerate comparison site.

Im stupid? :lol: that's a laugh Your the baron of grey matter when it comes to understanding the differences.

Lol at your weak attempt at saving face after your reading comp fail. You still seem to not understand my point. I know all to well about framerate differences. While most people upgrade to 120hz monitors for 3d, I upgraded for the higher fps.

Yet you make pointless posts
#269 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] Im stupid? :lol: that's a laugh Your the baron of grey matter when it comes to understanding the differences. 04dcarraher
Lol at your weak attempt at saving face after your reading comp fail. You still seem to not understand my point. I know all to well about framerate differences. While most people upgrade to 120hz monitors for 3d, I upgraded for the higher fps.

Yet you make pointless posts

This may help you in your future system wars endeavors http://www.scholastic.com/resources/article/reading-comprehension

#270 Posted by 04dcarraher (19682 posts) -

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="Cranler"] Lol at your weak attempt at saving face after your reading comp fail. You still seem to not understand my point. I know all to well about framerate differences. While most people upgrade to 120hz monitors for 3d, I upgraded for the higher fps. Cranler

Yet you make pointless posts

This may help you in your future system wars endeavors http://www.scholastic.com/resources/article/reading-comprehension

:lol: you are full of yourself

#271 Posted by Jebus213 (8893 posts) -
So any interesting documentaries I should watch tonight?
#272 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] Yet you make pointless posts04dcarraher

This may help you in your future system wars endeavors http://www.scholastic.com/resources/article/reading-comprehension

:lol: you are full of yourself

Lol, you had to edit that little post twice? I fail to see how my post makes me full of myself. If my post makes me full of myself then your post where you called me goofy would make you full of yourself.
#273 Posted by 04dcarraher (19682 posts) -
[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"]This may help you in your future system wars endeavors http://www.scholastic.com/resources/article/reading-comprehension

Cranler

:lol: you are full of yourself

Lol, you had to edit that little post twice? I fail to see how my post makes me full of myself. If my post makes me full of myself then your post where you called me goofy would make you full of yourself.

You in denial? or you just like to argue?
#274 Posted by arto1223 (4404 posts) -

Ha, so did LoosingENDS just bail on this thread? Did we scare him off with our logic and screenshots?

#275 Posted by rjdofu (9170 posts) -

Ha, so did LoosingENDS just bail on this thread? Did we scare him off with our logic and screenshots?

arto1223
He just open the discussion. fanboys do the rest. Threads involve PC & graphics are bound to reach 500 posts.
#276 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] :lol: you are full of yourself

04dcarraher

Lol, you had to edit that little post twice? I fail to see how my post makes me full of myself. If my post makes me full of myself then your post where you called me goofy would make you full of yourself.

You in denial? or you just like to argue?

I still fail to see how your misunderstandings and my jokes make me full of myself. Isnt system wars all about arguing?

#277 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

Ha, so did LoosingENDS just bail on this thread? Did we scare him off with our logic and screenshots?

arto1223
None of the screens have any bearing. No one has proven that a game designed for a specific console would look better with reduced graphic settings at 1080p vs 720p with higher graphics settings. I'll tell you this, Halo 3 at 600p on console destroys Halo 2 pc version at 1600p.
#278 Posted by ronvalencia (15130 posts) -

[QUOTE="Exxite"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"] 7970's crossfired would probably get 5 fps on Battlefield 3 maxed at 8k. Cranler

I don't know if they would be that low. 4k resolution is 4096x2304. In these benchmarks at 5760x1200 http://hardocp.com/article/2012/12/04/gtx_680_vs_radeon_hd_7970_multidisplay_showdown/5 they do alright. 5760x1200 and 4096x2304 are not far off. Maybe the min fps would drop to 20s or low 30s. Then again they are also throwing aa and af. With no aa and af on that setup would run games at 4k np.

A single 7970 gets 22 fps at 4k with ultra settings. They dont mention whether aa is enabled. http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2012/6/18/the-4k-graphics-card-shootout.aspx

I also expect BF 4 to have a decent step up in graphics since it will likely be a launch game for nextbox. Playing BF 4 maxed at 4k may be impossible even with the GTX 780 or 8970.

bf3_5760_1080.gif

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Catalyst_12.11_Performance/2.html

All games were set to their highest quality setting unless indicated otherwise.

AA and AF are applied via in-game settings, not via the driver's control panel.

#279 Posted by ferret-gamer (17327 posts) -
[QUOTE="arto1223"]

Ha, so did LoosingENDS just bail on this thread? Did we scare him off with our logic and screenshots?

Cranler
None of the screens have any bearing. No one has proven that a game designed for a specific console would look better with reduced graphic settings at 1080p vs 720p with higher graphics settings. I'll tell you this, Halo 3 at 600p on console destroys Halo 2 pc version at 1600p.

I would take Battlefield 3 at the lowest settings on 1080p over max settings at 720p.
#280 Posted by ChubbyGuy40 (26185 posts) -

4k resolution is 4096x2304.

Exxite

4k is 3840x2160. There's also UHD, also known as 4k for some reason, and it's 4096x2160. UHD is for igital cinema and the other is for everything else like TV and games.

#281 Posted by ChubbyGuy40 (26185 posts) -

[QUOTE="arto1223"]

Ha, so did LoosingENDS just bail on this thread? Did we scare him off with our logic and screenshots?

Cranler

None of the screens have any bearing. No one has proven that a game designed for a specific console would look better with reduced graphic settings at 1080p vs 720p with higher graphics settings. I'll tell you this, Halo 3 at 600p on console destroys Halo 2 pc version at 1600p.

I'll take SMG and Skyward Sword at 1080p over Halo 4 or damn near any other console game.

#282 Posted by Bebi_vegeta (13558 posts) -

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"] The thread is about 720p vs 1080p. Cranler

Hey you're the one who mentionned 600p...

Because its a relevant analogy. Comparing 480i to 1080p is just plain stupid.

If it's relevant for you, it's relevant for anybody.

Why shouldn't DEV use 600p instead?

#283 Posted by l34052 (3216 posts) -

1080p is just the natural progression with technology, those that say its not needed or they dont want it are talking rubbish and if they really believe that why play on 360/ps3/pc when you could have as much fun on an 8 bit console/computer....

I welcome the higher resolution myself and cant wait for the next round consoles and what they may be capable of.

#284 Posted by faizan_faizan (7866 posts) -
[QUOTE="arto1223"]

Ha, so did LoosingENDS just bail on this thread? Did we scare him off with our logic and screenshots?

Cranler
None of the screens have any bearing. No one has proven that a game designed for a specific console would look better with reduced graphic settings at 1080p vs 720p with higher graphics settings. I'll tell you this, Halo 3 at 600p on console destroys Halo 2 pc version at 1600p.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcWFouyK9K8
#285 Posted by Krelian-co (11207 posts) -

 .campzor

#286 Posted by kraken2109 (13075 posts) -
[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="arto1223"]

Ha, so did LoosingENDS just bail on this thread? Did we scare him off with our logic and screenshots?

ferret-gamer
None of the screens have any bearing. No one has proven that a game designed for a specific console would look better with reduced graphic settings at 1080p vs 720p with higher graphics settings. I'll tell you this, Halo 3 at 600p on console destroys Halo 2 pc version at 1600p.

I would take Battlefield 3 at the lowest settings on 1080p over max settings at 720p.

Me too. I use medium settings for higher fps and with some FXAA and 16xAF it looks great.
#287 Posted by SecretPolice (22243 posts) -

Now, now, he does have a point though perhaps one could just consider it just semantics's but still, :o

Unless you think Perfect Dark XBLA ( 1080P @ 60fps :shock: ) > Halo 4, Gears 3 etc. :cool:

#288 Posted by dramaybaz (6020 posts) -

Now, now, he does have a point though perhaps one could just consider it just semantics's but still, :o

Unless you think Perfect Dark XBLA ( 1080P @ 60fps :shock: ) > Halo 4, Gears 3 etc. :cool:

SecretPolice
Talk about same games!
#290 Posted by SecretPolice (22243 posts) -

[QUOTE="SecretPolice"]

Now, now, he does have a point though perhaps one could just consider it just semantics's but still, :o

Unless you think Perfect Dark XBLA ( 1080P @ 60fps :shock: ) > Halo 4, Gears 3 etc. :cool:

dramaybaz

Talk about same games!

Huh, talk about Perfect Dark N64 compared to PD XBLA? Wouldn't make any sense.

Okay, umm, close as I can get... PDZ > PD XBLA :P

#291 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="arto1223"]

I don't know if they would be that low. 4k resolution is 4096x2304. In these benchmarks at 5760x1200 http://hardocp.com/article/2012/12/04/gtx_680_vs_radeon_hd_7970_multidisplay_showdown/5 they do alright. 5760x1200 and 4096x2304 are not far off. Maybe the min fps would drop to 20s or low 30s. Then again they are also throwing aa and af. With no aa and af on that setup would run games at 4k np.

ferret-gamer

A single 7970 gets 22 fps at 4k with ultra settings. They dont mention whether aa is enabled. http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2012/6/18/the-4k-graphics-card-shootout.aspx

I also expect BF 4 to have a decent step up in graphics since it will likely be a launch game for nextbox. Playing BF 4 maxed at 4k may be impossible even with the GTX 780 or 8970.

bf3_5760_1080.gif

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Catalyst_12.11_Performance/2.html

All games were set to their highest quality setting unless indicated otherwise.

AA and AF are applied via in-game settings, not via the driver's control panel.

8.3 million pixels vs 6.2 million.

#292 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

Hey you're the one who mentionned 600p...

Bebi_vegeta

Because its a relevant analogy. Comparing 480i to 1080p is just plain stupid.

If it's relevant for you, it's relevant for anybody.

Why shouldn't DEV use 600p instead?

The thread isnt about same game, same graphic setting and then comparing res. Its about high graphics setting 720p vs lower settings at 1080p. My Cod analogy fits that perfectly.
#293 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -
[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="arto1223"]

Ha, so did LoosingENDS just bail on this thread? Did we scare him off with our logic and screenshots?

ferret-gamer
None of the screens have any bearing. No one has proven that a game designed for a specific console would look better with reduced graphic settings at 1080p vs 720p with higher graphics settings. I'll tell you this, Halo 3 at 600p on console destroys Halo 2 pc version at 1600p.

I would take Battlefield 3 at the lowest settings on 1080p over max settings at 720p.

Thats because theirs very little difference in the settings. For me the performance difference between Ultra and low with 1080p 4xaa and 16 af on both is very small, went from 101 fps to 86. Most of that 15fps is mesh quality which determines the draw and wind effect distance. BF 3 isnt like Crysis or Oblivion where low looks completely different.
#294 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -
[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="arto1223"]

Ha, so did LoosingENDS just bail on this thread? Did we scare him off with our logic and screenshots?

faizan_faizan
None of the screens have any bearing. No one has proven that a game designed for a specific console would look better with reduced graphic settings at 1080p vs 720p with higher graphics settings. I'll tell you this, Halo 3 at 600p on console destroys Halo 2 pc version at 1600p.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcWFouyK9K8

Is that supposed to be impressive? Halo 3 looks much better. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLKP0j9ygsU&list=PLCE38EED9A852991B
#295 Posted by arto1223 (4404 posts) -

[QUOTE="arto1223"]

Ha, so did LoosingENDS just bail on this thread? Did we scare him off with our logic and screenshots?

Cranler

I'll tell you this, Halo 3 at 600p on console destroys Halo 2 pc version at 1600p.

Oh, so you're just ignorant.

You would have to be if you think comparing a game that came out on the old XBox and ported over to the PC would look (un-modded) better than a game released many years later with a new engine on a new system. It's funny though, because there is a mod for Halo 2 on the PC that turns it into Halo 3 and it looks far better than the 360 version (in both 720 and 1080 because of all the added effects).

#296 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

[QUOTE="Exxite"]

4k resolution is 4096x2304.

ChubbyGuy40

4k is 3840x2160. There's also UHD, also known as 4k for some reason, and it's 4096x2160. UHD is for igital cinema and the other is for everything else like TV and games.

Can't wait to try that res!

#297 Posted by -Unreal- (24544 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="arto1223"]

Ha, so did LoosingENDS just bail on this thread? Did we scare him off with our logic and screenshots?

arto1223

I'll tell you this, Halo 3 at 600p on console destroys Halo 2 pc version at 1600p.

Oh, so you're just ignorant.

You would have to be if you think comparing a game that came out on the old XBox and ported over to the PC would look (un-modded) better than a game released many years later with a new engine on a new system. It's funny though, because there is a mod for Halo 2 on the PC that turns it into Halo 3 and it looks far better than the 360 version (in both 720 and 1080 because of all the added effects).

Ignore Cranler he's obviously a clueless idiot.

Can you show me that Halo 2 mod?

#298 Posted by glez13 (8876 posts) -

I can't believe what I'm seeing here. This is turning out like that Breath of Fire 4 PC has better graphics than Uncharted 2 thread. :|

#299 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="arto1223"]

Ha, so did LoosingENDS just bail on this thread? Did we scare him off with our logic and screenshots?

arto1223

I'll tell you this, Halo 3 at 600p on console destroys Halo 2 pc version at 1600p.

Oh, so you're just ignorant.

You would have to be if you think comparing a game that came out on the old XBox and ported over to the PC would look (un-modded) better than a game released many years later with a new engine on a new system. It's funny though, because there is a mod for Halo 2 on the PC that turns it into Halo 3 and it looks far better than the 360 version (in both 720 and 1080 because of all the added effects).

Halo 3 is an upgraded version of the engine used for Halo 2. HDR and better shadowing are the big differences between Halo 2 and Halo 3. Many people in this thread speak as if resolution is everything in this thread. If it was then Halo 2 would look better at higher res. How does a graohics mod have any relevance to my point, this thread is about graphics detail settings vs resolution.

#300 Posted by glez13 (8876 posts) -

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="Exxite"]

4k resolution is 4096x2304.

mitu123

4k is 3840x2160. There's also UHD, also known as 4k for some reason, and it's 4096x2160. UHD is for igital cinema and the other is for everything else like TV and games.

Can't wait to try that res!

Isn't that 8K?

I'm to lazy to start the calculator. :P