So many here clueless when it comes to console/PC hardware

#1 Posted by Xplode_games (618 posts) -

So many threads with so many heated arguments because most of you think you're true experts yet you continue to prove how ignorant you are when it comes to graphics hardware.

That's why last gen Sony execs made a claim about PS3 being so powerful that could run games at 120fps and everyone ate it up. That claim made about as much sense as the 4d claim. Yet you guys ate it up. Because you're clueless.

This gen it's the same thing. Now it's 1080p and 60fps. The PS4 and X1 can render every game at 1080p/60. But they don't because developers want the games to actually look good. You got that, devs DON'T DO 1080p/60 IN ORDER TO MAKE THE GAMES LOOK GOOD!

I know some of you are blown away by that and some of you half get it but still think ok that's true but only because next gen hardware is so crappy. Not true.

Even if the PS4/X1 had 3.0Ghz 8 core CPU and a Radeon R9 280X GPU, the games wouldn't be 1080p/60. The standard of graphics would be higher and the devs in order to MAKE THE GAMES LOOK THE BEST POSSIBLE would cut the fps and/or the res.

I repeat THE STANDARD OF GRAPHICS WOULD BE HIGHER but in order to optimize the FIXED hardware the devs would cut the average fps and/or resolution.

Just to exaggerate my point a bit, do you guys realize that devs could make games for PS4/X1 at 4K res and 120 fps IF THEY CUT DOWN THE DETAIL AND EFFECTS DRAMATICALLY? Or they could crank up the details and graphical effects super high but run the game at 480p and 5fps. Both cases would look like garbage.

They optimize the game to look the best for the fixed hardware. They crank up effects the highest they can while maintaining a good res and playable fps. It's a balance they are need to achieve to make the game look the best. And if the PS4/X1 were twice as powerful, the same would be true.

Why are so many guys here confused by the difference with fixed hardware and an upgradeable PC?

#2 Posted by BldgIrsh (3021 posts) -

So. The devs can either make pong at 4k 144 FPS on the next-gen if they wanted to or make a detailed game at a lower res and FPS because it's more "detailed."

You lost me.

#3 Posted by Gamerno6666 (3691 posts) -

ok.

#4 Posted by Gaming-Planet (14685 posts) -

The problem with these consoles is that the developers have tech that can't be possible at 1080p running at 60fps because they decided to go with outdated low/mid range hardware, so they compromise resolution and frame rate to get the desired graphic fidelity.

I think most of us are aware of that, but we have resolution wars because MS and Sony are using it to sell their products like it's a new thing because console gamers are casuals and aren't tech-savvy.

#5 Edited by Vecna (3419 posts) -

What you say has some truth; however it simply does not change the fact that these next gen consoles were released with low/mid range hardware.

This generational leap should have been a lot more significant. When you buy a next generation console, you expect there to be a large leap in power and graphical fidelity. It just isn't there.

There is an expected divide between console and pc hardware; however this usually becomes more apparent as the generation progresses. This generation has started with a massive divide and it will only continue to get larger. I have no idea how these companies believe it when they say these consoles will last up to ten years. That is completely absurd.

The only thing that confuses me is the console owners arguing about power, when in reality, they are both crap.

You will have compromise on any platform with performance when fidelity continues to improve. This is expected. The problem is these consoles seem more in line with PS3.5 and Xbox 360.5. There isn't a leap, it is a mild improvement at best.

#6 Posted by commonfate (12990 posts) -

That explains why TLOU got a remaster targeted at 1080P/60FPS.

Much insight, such post. wow

#8 Edited by mikhail (2697 posts) -

@commonfate said:

That explains why TLOU got a remaster targeted at 1080P/60FPS.

Much insight, such post. wow

Except that it still can't maintain a stable 60fps, even in scenes where there is only a few characters on the screen. Mid-40's and low 50's on the regular. On a three year old remastered game. That's what you get when you build a console with an underpowered APU. In this segment, TLOU doesn't even hit 60fps for a single frame.

#9 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@Vecna said:

This generational leap should have been a lot more significant. When you buy a next generation console, you expect there to be a large leap in power and graphical fidelity. It just isn't there.

The leap is about the same as it's always been. The difference is that last gen was longer than usual.

#10 Edited by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@mikhail said:

@commonfate said:

That explains why TLOU got a remaster targeted at 1080P/60FPS.

Much insight, such post. wow

Except that it still can't maintain a stable 60fps, even in scenes where there is only a few characters on the screen. Mid-40's and low 50's on the regular. On a three year old remastered game. That's what you get when you build a console with an underpowered APU. In this segment, TLOU doesn't even hit 60fps for a single frame.

Biased much? That video shows the fps is at 60 about 95% of the time. 3 year old game?

Loading Video...

#11 Posted by mikhail (2697 posts) -

My work here is done, Cranler has appeared

#12 Posted by gameofthering (10515 posts) -

I think everybody on system wars just copies and pastes information and pretends to understand.

#13 Posted by inb4uall (6550 posts) -

@Xplode_games said:

Even if the PS4/X1 had 3.0Ghz 8 core CPU and a Radeon R9 280X GPU, the games wouldn't be 1080p/60. The standard of graphics would be higher and the devs in order to MAKE THE GAMES LOOK THE BEST POSSIBLE would cut the fps and/or the res.

You're clearly the ignorant one. You clearly don't know what makes a CPU fast. It's not just what it's clocked at or just having a shit ton of cores. You need to look at instructions per cycle along with clock speed.

Also you're clearly incorrect. 60 fps/1080p is the standard on PC for a reason.

#14 Posted by slimdogmilionar (754 posts) -

This is so true. I made a post somewhat along these lines not too long ago but it just got ignored but the fact remains that it should be more about textures than 1080p. I'd 720p native at 60fps with more defined textures over 1080p/60fps any day, most people get caught with 1080p because PC can do 1080p. What makes PC better though is the fact that it can do 1080p and maintain detailed textures while consoles have to sacrifice to hit 1080p. I'm not trying to turn this into a war but from most of the PS4 and XB1 games I've seen compared so far I think XB1 has better textures in a lot of places but it gets overlooked because 1080p is the new fad with console gamers, 1080p just makes the picture sharper. I'd rather a more detailed picture than an extremely sharp one with bland textures.

#15 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (19052 posts) -

Well consoles are built for convenience (read: built for lazy idiots)

#17 Edited by mikhail (2697 posts) -

@slimdogmilionar: Games on console will always have to compromise between graphical fidelity and a high, stable framerate. The underpowered PS4 & Xbox One can't have both.

#18 Posted by edwardecl (2239 posts) -

Finally someone that gets it. I was beginning to think everyone on the planet was retarded.

#19 Edited by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -

@Xplode_games said:

So many threads with so many heated arguments because most of you think you're true experts yet you continue to prove how ignorant you are when it comes to graphics hardware.

That's why last gen Sony execs made a claim about PS3 being so powerful that could run games at 120fps and everyone ate it up. That claim made about as much sense as the 4d claim. Yet you guys ate it up. Because you're clueless.

While I agree a lot here are clueless (on a lot more than just hardware), you seem just as clueless. 4D has been around for a few gens now. It wasn't new last gen. 4D was introduced during the PS1 gen.

#21 Posted by intotheminx (1059 posts) -

Who cares? It's a shame the argument for gaming has shifted to resolution and fps. The only thing that should matter is if the game looks good and plays smooth. As soon as Sony and Microsoft opened their mouths about resolution and frame rate EVERYONE became experts all of a sudden. Why weren't half of you throwing a fit when most games were 30 fps on console last gen? It was hardly mentioned at all and everyone loved those games. It's a shame a game cannot be enjoyable to you guys without demanding graphics and x amount of fps now. Take the Portal games for example, they weren't exactly graphical kings, in fact they could be played on the common laptop, but that didn't diminish the quality of the game.

Sony and Microsoft should stop worrying about resolution and get back to making quality games.

#22 Posted by Heil68 (48431 posts) -

So i should get an Alienware laptop?

#23 Posted by Gue1 (11605 posts) -

@Cranler said:

@Vecna said:

This generational leap should have been a lot more significant. When you buy a next generation console, you expect there to be a large leap in power and graphical fidelity. It just isn't there.

The leap is about the same as it's always been. The difference is that last gen was longer than usual.

Xbox had a 6 Gglops GPU while the PS3/x360 have GPU's of 192+ Gflops. That's 32 times the flops. So the expected growth should be 32-64 times but it would be ridiculous. The new consoles would need at least a 6 Tflops GPU.

Even then, the new consoles are more than a decent leap for the asking price, they are like 3-4 times more powerful. And not just in hardware but in tools too which should make development more straightforward and faster. The new consoles have new instructions sets to take advantage of new architecture improvements like GPGPU on the GPU and Out of Order in the CPU.

But the biggest threat to generation leaps has always been the same. Development costs are not going down no matter how much more straight forward technology is becoming. Why? Because we have mocap with real actors now, bigger emphasis in writing, higher quality of music and sound design and artists have to create assets of even higher quality.

#24 Posted by locopatho (21367 posts) -

@intotheminx said:

Who cares? It's a shame the argument for gaming has shifted to resolution and fps. The only thing that should matter is if the game looks good and plays smooth.

Those are subjective, people like to argue hard numbers here.

As soon as Sony and Microsoft opened their mouths about resolution and frame rate EVERYONE became experts all of a sudden.

It's not just Sony and MS, and it's not just recent. Nintendo and Sega were throwing bit counts and "Blast Processing!" around 25 years ago.

Why weren't half of you throwing a fit when most games were 30 fps on console last gen?

Because that was last gen, the systems were older and weaker, and after 8 years and another pile of money we now expect better.

It was hardly mentioned at all and everyone loved those games. It's a shame a game cannot be enjoyable to you guys without demanding graphics and x amount of fps now. Take the Portal games for example, they weren't exactly graphical kings, in fact they could be played on the common laptop, but that didn't diminish the quality of the game.

Sony and Microsoft should stop worrying about resolution and get back to making quality games.

Most people don't care as much as system wars would have you believe. Comparing even early 360 games (such as Perfect Dark Zero) to the latest ones (such as Halo 4) shows insane improvements. I think that very, very few people actually have an issue with current graphics. They just want something from these new consoles, after spending so much on them.

#25 Posted by mikhail (2697 posts) -

@Heil68 said:

So i should get an Alienware laptop?

Why do console gamers always insist on using the most overpriced examples of PC hardware to prove their incorrect points? No self respecting PC gamer buys a piece of crap Alienware.

#26 Edited by Heil68 (48431 posts) -

@mikhail said:

@Heil68 said:

So i should get an Alienware laptop?

Why do console gamers always insist on using the most overpriced examples of PC hardware to prove their incorrect points? No self respecting PC gamer buys a piece of crap Alienware.

So I need a Falcon Mach V to compete with consoles?

#27 Posted by BldgIrsh (3021 posts) -

@Heil68: A Commodore 64. The devs will balance out its power and you'll get beautiful games if you like text based and using your imagination as the graphics.

#28 Posted by Heil68 (48431 posts) -

@bldgirsh said:

@Heil68: A Commodore 64. The devs will balance out its power and you'll get beautiful games if you like text based and using your imagination as the graphics.

Awww Sweet, I can finally revisit some of those text based gems from the past.

#29 Posted by NFJSupreme (5498 posts) -

I've said this same thing a thousand times before. It will land on deaf ears. People like to bask in their own ignorance. Fact is 1080p and 60fps will never be standard on consoles.

#30 Posted by MonsieurX (32067 posts) -

@Heil68 said:

So i should get an Alienware laptop?

Sager

#31 Posted by pelvist (5296 posts) -

@bldgirsh: Nah, it was only capable of 320x200 max resolution and even then that allowed for only 2 colours per 8x8 character block, unless you where using multicolor mode which allowed for double that amount of colors but limited the resolution to 160x200. You would be shafted in both resolution and graphical fidelity at todays standards ...but at least you would have some good games to play. :)

#32 Edited by BldgIrsh (3021 posts) -

@pelvist: Oh boy I must've gave you a nostalgia trip xP

#34 Posted by parkurtommo (28095 posts) -

@bldgirsh said:

So. The devs can either make pong at 4k 144 FPS on the next-gen if they wanted to or make a detailed game at a lower res and FPS because it's more "detailed."

You lost me.

Yep that's what they do.

#35 Edited by pelvist (5296 posts) -

@bldgirsh: @scottpsfan14: Just a bit, I have a lot of fond memories of that era. Amstrad CPC was my favorite until the Amiga arrived.

#36 Posted by aroxx_ab (11055 posts) -

@mikhail said:

@commonfate said:

That explains why TLOU got a remaster targeted at 1080P/60FPS.

Much insight, such post. wow

Except that it still can't maintain a stable 60fps, even in scenes where there is only a few characters on the screen. Mid-40's and low 50's on the regular. On a three year old remastered game. That's what you get when you build a console with an underpowered APU. In this segment, TLOU doesn't even hit 60fps for a single frame.

PC cant keep stable fps in games either, it go ping pong depending on what happens on screen...

#37 Posted by WallofTruth (2308 posts) -

@Heil68 said:

So i should get an Alienware laptop?

Depends on what indie games you want to play.

#38 Posted by lostrib (44053 posts) -

That is way too much capslock for me to even consider reading that

#39 Edited by Ballroompirate (23870 posts) -

@gameofthering said:

I think everybody on system wars just copies and pastes information and pretends to understand.

#40 Posted by edwardecl (2239 posts) -
@lostrib said:

That is way too much capslock for me to even consider reading that

CAPSLOCK is the BEST way to EMPHASISE your WORDS.

#41 Posted by glez13 (9065 posts) -

@mikhail said:

My work here is done, Cranler has appeared

He just demonstrated that you are a biased fanboy...

#42 Posted by mikhail (2697 posts) -

@glez13 said:

@mikhail said:

My work here is done, Cranler has appeared

He just demonstrated that you are a biased fanboy...

If by biased you mean I think the PS4 is an underpowered piece of garbage, then I guess so!

#43 Edited by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@Gue1 said:

@Cranler said:

@Vecna said:

This generational leap should have been a lot more significant. When you buy a next generation console, you expect there to be a large leap in power and graphical fidelity. It just isn't there.

The leap is about the same as it's always been. The difference is that last gen was longer than usual.

Xbox had a 6 Gglops GPU while the PS3/x360 have GPU's of 192+ Gflops. That's 32 times the flops. So the expected growth should be 32-64 times but it would be ridiculous. The new consoles would need at least a 6 Tflops GPU.

Even then, the new consoles are more than a decent leap for the asking price, they are like 3-4 times more powerful. And not just in hardware but in tools too which should make development more straightforward and faster. The new consoles have new instructions sets to take advantage of new architecture improvements like GPGPU on the GPU and Out of Order in the CPU.

But the biggest threat to generation leaps has always been the same. Development costs are not going down no matter how much more straight forward technology is becoming. Why? Because we have mocap with real actors now, bigger emphasis in writing, higher quality of music and sound design and artists have to create assets of even higher quality.

When it comes to actual performance though the PS3/360 are about 5-6x the power of the xbox. PS 3 has a 7800 comparable gpu and xbox has a Ge Force 3 comparable card. 7800 does not offer 32 times the performance of the Ge Force 3.

Development costs rise but so do sales. The average game sells much better than it did 10 years ago.

#44 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@mikhail said:

@glez13 said:

@mikhail said:

My work here is done, Cranler has appeared

He just demonstrated that you are a biased fanboy...

If by biased you mean I think the PS4 is an underpowered piece of garbage, then I guess so!

You actually took the time to watch the entire video for the spot with the lowest framerate so you could screenshot it to give a false representation of the overall performance.

If they removed the frame cap then the fps average would be 60 easily btw.

#45 Posted by hrt_rulz01 (7460 posts) -

I'm sick of resolution/FPS talk in general... let's just enjoy playing games! Who care's if it's 1080p or 900p for goodness sake.

#46 Posted by ominous_titan (834 posts) -

i admit i am, i just want to have fun gaming experience thats all i care about. im looking at getting a gaming pc

CPU: Intel Core i7-4770K Haswell Quad-Core 3.5GHz LGA 1150 84W Desktop Processor Intel HD Graphics BX80646I74770K

GPU: MSI N660-2GD5/OC GeForce GTX 660 2GB 192-Bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Support Video Card

PSU: CORSAIR TX Series CMPSU-650TX 650W ATX12V / EPS12V SLI CrossFire 80 PLUS BRONZE Certified Active PFC Compatible with Core i7 Power Supply & New 4th Gen CPU Certified Haswell Ready

MOBO: MSI Z87-G43 LGA 1150 Intel Z87 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX High Performance CF Gaming Intel Motherboard

Memory: G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model F3-1600C9D-16GXM

SSD: SAMSUNG 840 EVO MZ-7TE120BW 2.5" 120GB SATA III TLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)

Case: Fractal Design Define R4 Black Pearl w/ USB 3.0 ATX Mid Tower Silent PC Computer Case (Personal Customization)

CPU Cooler: Thermaltake NiC C5 (CLP0608) 120mm Untouchable CPU Cooler

Monitor: S230HL 24"

OS Installed: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit

OS Disc: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit

OS Keys: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit (Licensed), Windows 7 Professional 64-bit (Licensed)

Additional Memory: G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 8GB 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1866 (PC3 14900) Desktop Memory Model F3-14900CL10S-8GBXL

Additional GPU: ZOTAC GeForce GT 610 Synergy Edition 2GB

Additional HDD: 500GB Western Digital Sata 16MB Cache

Additional HDD: HITACHI Deskstar 250GB

I am selling the computer and everything else (HDD's, OS Keys, Discs, Memory, GPU) listed for a total of $1250.00.

PS. I will throw in heavily used (still working well) Razer DeathAdder 3500 DPI gaming mouse, Razor Arctosa, Red Turtle Beaches and a unused, unboxed Microsoft Skype headset.

e-mail or text me!

is this a good deal ?

#47 Posted by ShadowDeathX (10895 posts) -

You also get the people that think they can fit a 175 watt GPU + 85 watt CPU into a game console that costs $500 max.

#48 Posted by cainetao11 (20287 posts) -

I clearly don't give a poop. If when I play a game, it feels fun, I keep playing it. The resolution and FPS is all good knowledge. But f I am enjoying a game, that's really what matters to me.