well of course they were going to try to squeeze a little more performance out of the machine when they showed themselves to be significantly under-powered
yeah right that explains the millions of computers using gpu's that outclass current gen consoles since 2006 and millions more that match or surpass the new ones now....
Now your aiming for 30 million marks for a single game across multiple platforms to compare because even the on PS3 the highest sold game isnt even an exclusive.
There are 260 million consoles between all 3,and all is not say an done for 2 of them yet.
Mario kart sold 35 million copies on Wii...And is exclusive..
Again that is sad when you have to add all consoles to reach those numbers and 100 million are Wii's..... lol
Fact is that pc gaming brings in more money then console gaming because there are more avenues to make money and the sheer amount of people world wide. even in 2010 Pc gaming made 20% of digital and retail game sales while it took all consoles and handhelds to make up 43% of the revenue. Since 2011 Pc gaming revenue has surpassed console numbers.
AMD INTERVIEW: “THE PC WILL ALWAYS BE OUT IN FRONT”
I think it depends on the games you looked at. It was still very early with the tools and environment for a lot of those games. I think if you looked at the lectures given by Mark Cerny, a lot of the things that Microsoft and Sony are doing to customise the performance out of these machines, I think you’re going to see some fantastic looking games. At the same time, the PC has always been on the front. With the increase in performance over the last couple of years, we’re literally at a breakneck pace, delivering more and more graphics performance for PC game devs. I think that’s going to continue to be the case. The PC will always be out in front, because the cost of the part, and the type of the part we supply, are much more expensive, bigger and hotter than anything you’re going to see in a console. Games are going to look great on both sides, but if you look at pure visual fidelity, the PC is able to display on multiple screens, driving a tremendous number of pixels on the PC, compared to the consoles which use a single 720p/1080p screen. - Neal Robison, Senior Director of Global Software Alliances at AMD
Are you stupid or what you really most be or you just really have problems understanding things,what i told him wasn't trying to claim that consoles are better for graphics,dude WTF this is your damn problem you take thing to literal and make argument about things no one is arguing about.
Fun Fact...
http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html
Look at the top rated games of all time on GR and tell me PC are better for gaming,the when was the last time a PC game was even relevant.? The highest game on GR for PC is The damn Orange box which is a damn multiplatform game,the second highest again Half Life 2,oh wait that game is part of the Orange Box to then Portal 2 also multiplatform,both games from Valve both FP and both multiplatforms.
Fact is most great games are for consoles,PC is a totally different market that share some games,nothing more nothing less,having infinite power mean little when most users don't even care for it,a fact steam has also corroborate most people don't care for those ultra expensive GPU and most people on PC have GPU that are under PS4 hardware performance period.
You can't quote all the titans and r290 you want fact is most people don't care for PC,the fact that this thread is about the xbox one,and hermit are here trying to flash their silly PC says it all,Ron your I7 cost almost as much as the PS4 alone who knows if more..
Your the stupid person who makes stupid claims by stating PC advantage over consoles are only theoretical. LOL
Your "Orange Box to Portal 2" doesn't address your statement on PC advantage over consoles are only theoretical.
From http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/the-orange-box-review
Contrary to popular opinion, I must admit that my initial impressions of the Xbox 360 conversion of The Orange Box were not that favourable. The Source Engine that powers Valve's games is simply untouchable on PC; its ability to scale the 3D to match the power of the graphics hardware running it is phenomenal, to the point where even a low-power computer runs Half-Life 2 extremely well. The Xbox 360, by contrast, is pegged at a maximum frame rate of 30 frames-per-second at 720p, without any form of anti-aliasing to smooth off the visuals. The notion that my three-year-old PC ran the game better than the 360 (at 1920x1200 to boot) just seems wrong - I expected more from an engine that performed so well on its original platform.
........
It's this notion of consistency that ultimately sinks the PlayStation 3 rendition of The Orange Box, because frankly there isn't any. But first impressions of the conversion are actually rather favourable. Half-Life 2 kicks off and it's virtually identical performance-wise to the Xbox 360 game, to the point where I was ready to dismiss out of hand the early reports of the PS3 version's inadequacies. There's the odd dropped frame here and there, but then, the Xbox 360 version performed in a very similar manner - a touch of lag just before a whopper explosion kicked off, the occasional loss of smoothness as you pan around the scenery - all par for the course when playing Half-Life 2 on console. But the further you get into the game on PS3, the more scenarios crop up that hint that the Source Engine is struggling, even with a three-year-old game.
My Core i7 based box cost less than a console LOL i.e. it's linked against my income tax. It's advantage when working in the computer software industry.
Your the stupid person who makes stupid claims by stating PC advantage over consoles are only theoretical. LOL
Your "Orange Box to Portal 2" doesn't address your statement on PC advantage over consoles are only theoretical.
From http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/the-orange-box-review
Contrary to popular opinion, I must admit that my initial impressions of the Xbox 360 conversion of The Orange Box were not that favourable. The Source Engine that powers Valve's games is simply untouchable on PC; its ability to scale the 3D to match the power of the graphics hardware running it is phenomenal, to the point where even a low-power computer runs Half-Life 2 extremely well. The Xbox 360, by contrast, is pegged at a maximum frame rate of 30 frames-per-second at 720p, without any form of anti-aliasing to smooth off the visuals. The notion that my three-year-old PC ran the game better than the 360 (at 1920x1200 to boot) just seems wrong - I expected more from an engine that performed so well on its original platform.
........
It's this notion of consistency that ultimately sinks the PlayStation 3 rendition of The Orange Box, because frankly there isn't any. But first impressions of the conversion are actually rather favourable. Half-Life 2 kicks off and it's virtually identical performance-wise to the Xbox 360 game, to the point where I was ready to dismiss out of hand the early reports of the PS3 version's inadequacies. There's the odd dropped frame here and there, but then, the Xbox 360 version performed in a very similar manner - a touch of lag just before a whopper explosion kicked off, the occasional loss of smoothness as you pan around the scenery - all par for the course when playing Half-Life 2 on console. But the further you get into the game on PS3, the more scenarios crop up that hint that the Source Engine is struggling, even with a three-year-old game.
My Core i7 based box cost less than a console LOL i.e. it's linked against my income tax. It's advantage when working in the computer software industry.
See that your a moron i didn't say the difference was theoretical,i say he could argue his theories on why PC is better. hahahaa So yeah confirmed you are arguing about something no one imply..
Yes is does because Orange box and Portal 2 are not exclusive PC games,they are multiplatforms,so do you have mario galaxy on PC.? Or uncharted 2.? No.?
Thats the point.
Your I7 cost as much as a PS4 period that is a fact,it could have cost you 3 cents for every one else is $300+.
You haven't answered my question. How is the Netflix app better on PS4 other than not being behind a paywall?
Is more streamline,less cumbersome to browse,hell the xbox one version even lack a new release section and you have to browse every section to see whats new.
Is not new the only time netflix was better on the xbox brand was when the PS3 didn't have it or have it on disc,after the PS3 got the real app,everything changed,hell the PS3 even had 5.1 sound the xbox 360 lack it,apparently the app continues to have things over the xbox one on the PS4 version.
Not to mention that you need to double dip to get in on xbox one.
Okay, thanks. Did not know about it since I haven't seen the Xbone Netflix interface.
Your the stupid person who makes stupid claims by stating PC advantage over consoles are only theoretical. LOL
Your "Orange Box to Portal 2" doesn't address your statement on PC advantage over consoles are only theoretical.
From http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/the-orange-box-review
Contrary to popular opinion, I must admit that my initial impressions of the Xbox 360 conversion of The Orange Box were not that favourable. The Source Engine that powers Valve's games is simply untouchable on PC; its ability to scale the 3D to match the power of the graphics hardware running it is phenomenal, to the point where even a low-power computer runs Half-Life 2 extremely well. The Xbox 360, by contrast, is pegged at a maximum frame rate of 30 frames-per-second at 720p, without any form of anti-aliasing to smooth off the visuals. The notion that my three-year-old PC ran the game better than the 360 (at 1920x1200 to boot) just seems wrong - I expected more from an engine that performed so well on its original platform.
........
It's this notion of consistency that ultimately sinks the PlayStation 3 rendition of The Orange Box, because frankly there isn't any. But first impressions of the conversion are actually rather favourable. Half-Life 2 kicks off and it's virtually identical performance-wise to the Xbox 360 game, to the point where I was ready to dismiss out of hand the early reports of the PS3 version's inadequacies. There's the odd dropped frame here and there, but then, the Xbox 360 version performed in a very similar manner - a touch of lag just before a whopper explosion kicked off, the occasional loss of smoothness as you pan around the scenery - all par for the course when playing Half-Life 2 on console. But the further you get into the game on PS3, the more scenarios crop up that hint that the Source Engine is struggling, even with a three-year-old game.
My Core i7 based box cost less than a console LOL i.e. it's linked against my income tax. It's advantage when working in the computer software industry.
See that your a moron i didn't say the difference was theoretical,i say he could argue his theories on why PC is better. hahahaa So yeah confirmed you are arguing about something no one imply..
Yes is does because Orange box and Portal 2 are not exclusive PC games,they are multiplatforms,so do you have mario galaxy on PC.? Or uncharted 2.? No.?
Thats the point.
Your I7 cost as much as a PS4 period that is a fact,it could have cost you 3 cents for every one else is $300+.
From $299 and some cost more than twice what the PS4 cost.
Have a nice Christmas dude.
LOL. seanmcloughlin's post context was about hardware performance..
seanmcloughlin: "Proving yet again that cows are hypocrites and it only matters when their system finally has it. Otherwise it doesn't count".
-----
Couth_: WTF? I am a PC gamers and I care about the hardware in the consoles that I buy as well. Why does it make someone a fanboy to care about the specs in an electronic device they are buying? notsureifsrs
------
Couth_: because they always said they didnt care before and now they do. Of course you care because youre not a hypocrite fanboy
Not sure you understood what I said
-----
You: The funny thing here is that this is a thread about console specs,so PC spec are as meaningless as Michael Jordan is to Boxing,yeah Michael also play sport but is a different kind of sport,consoles and PC are different markets no matter how much damage controls you people try to bring into this threads it is like that period irrelevant.
When i make a PS4 vs PC thread yeah come and express all those theories on why PC is better and why should i not care about consoles,other wise you are just damage controlling in a topic that doesn't even concern hermits..
-----
When it comes to hardware PC performance (i.e. next-gen consoles are X86 PC+AMD GCN based) , there's are no theories on gaming PCs being better than consoles. seanmcloughlin's gaming PC > consoles POV are not theories.
@Thunder7151: Most of the time I don't know care about which console is more powerful but what you said about ryse is 100 percent correct. To think the ps4 can't do ryse exactly like the Xbox one is suicide. Complete and utter suicide
LOL. seanmcloughlin's post context was about hardware performance..
seanmcloughlin: "Proving yet again that cows are hypocrites and it only matters when their system finally has it. Otherwise it doesn't count".
-----
Couth_: WTF? I am a PC gamers and I care about the hardware in the consoles that I buy as well. Why does it make someone a fanboy to care about the specs in an electronic device they are buying? notsureifsrs
------
Couth_: because they always said they didnt care before and now they do. Of course you care because youre not a hypocrite fanboy
Not sure you understood what I said
-----
You: The funny thing here is that this is a thread about console specs,so PC spec are as meaningless as Michael Jordan is to Boxing,yeah Michael also play sport but is a different kind of sport,consoles and PC are different markets no matter how much damage controls you people try to bring into this threads it is like that period irrelevant.
When i make a PS4 vs PC thread yeah come and express all those theories on why PC is better and why should i not care about consoles,other wise you are just damage controlling in a topic that doesn't even concern hermits..
-----
When it comes to hardware PC performance (i.e. next-gen consoles are X86 PC+AMD GCN based) , there's are no theories on gaming PCs being better than consoles. seanmcloughlin's gaming PC > consoles POV are not theories.
The moron is you.
Have a great festive season.
When i make a PS4 vs PC thread yeah come and express all those theories on why PC is better.
Boom...hahaha
Owned dude like i say i did not imply in any fu**ing way that the difference was theoretical,i told him he could express HIS theories on why PC is better...hahahaa
So yeah you are a moron learn English so you don't miss interpret any sh** people say. hahaha
LOL. seanmcloughlin's post context was about hardware performance..
seanmcloughlin: "Proving yet again that cows are hypocrites and it only matters when their system finally has it. Otherwise it doesn't count".
-----
Couth_: WTF? I am a PC gamers and I care about the hardware in the consoles that I buy as well. Why does it make someone a fanboy to care about the specs in an electronic device they are buying? notsureifsrs
------
Couth_: because they always said they didnt care before and now they do. Of course you care because youre not a hypocrite fanboy
Not sure you understood what I said
-----
You: The funny thing here is that this is a thread about console specs,so PC spec are as meaningless as Michael Jordan is to Boxing,yeah Michael also play sport but is a different kind of sport,consoles and PC are different markets no matter how much damage controls you people try to bring into this threads it is like that period irrelevant.
When i make a PS4 vs PC thread yeah come and express all those theories on why PC is better and why should i not care about consoles,other wise you are just damage controlling in a topic that doesn't even concern hermits..
-----
When it comes to hardware PC performance (i.e. next-gen consoles are X86 PC+AMD GCN based) , there's are no theories on gaming PCs being better than consoles. seanmcloughlin's gaming PC > consoles POV are not theories.
The moron is you.
Have a great festive season.
When i make a PS4 vs PC thread yeah come and express all those theories on why PC is better.
Boom...hahaha
Owned dude like i say i did not imply in any fu**ing way that the difference was theoretical,i told him he could express HIS theories on why PC is better...hahahaa
So yeah you are a moron learn English so you don't miss interpret any sh** people say. hahaha
@circusmonkey said:
@Thunder7151: Most of the time I don't know care about which console is more powerful but what you said about ryse is 100 percent correct. To think the ps4 can't do ryse exactly like the Xbox one is suicide. Complete and utter suicide
Ryse on PS4 would be 1080p 30 FPS or more quite easy.
Once again Bethesda admitted fu**ed up after that nothing more to say.
Please you are a damn lemming you are a so call PS3 owner who doesn't play its games,because your wise doesn't want you touching his PS3 stated by your self.
You have always cheer for the xbox one and every one here old enough knows your angle and what you defend,remember how much you flamed that PS3 high price.? And like a big hypocrite you say nothing about the xbox one,which is even more expensive than the PS3 was.
I don't need to go thread hunting you know what you did and people know it,
PS3
Red Dead Redemption = 1152x640 (QAA)
360
Red Dead Redemption = 1280x720 (2xAA)
128 lines on side, 80 lines less on the other..
This ^^^ is what you and the rest of the hypocrites that scream now that 720p and 1080p is not big difference,flamed the PS3 for..
Now lets compare that to the difference this gen...
BF4.
1680x900 PS4
1280x720p xbox one.
400 lines less in one side,180 lines on another.
COD Ghost.
1920x1080 PS4
1280x720p xbox one.
640 line on one side, 360 line on the other.
But but 720p and 1080p is the same...
Your theory is flawed because of scale. You see, 16x9 pixels vs 8x5 pixels, is 8 side pixels difference and 4 verticle. Not many lines, yet DOUBLE the resolution. As you scale this up to:
"Red Dead Redemption = 1152x640 (QAA) vs 1280x720 (2xAA) - 128 lines on side, 80 lines less on the other"
the lines increase but the ratio is not 'double".
---------------
Then you go to BF4 1680 x 900 (X1) vs 1920 x 1080 (PS4)
yes the lines difference increases but the ratio does not. Its not 50% difference here, and in fact having 180 less lines vertical is not even that noticeable but the ratio is barely 15% difference. That the 'blurriness' you claim is less and less noticeable as resolutions get higher.
The difference between a game two generations ago, or even last gen with a resolution difference ratio is far more noticeable than 1080p and slightly less than 1080p resolution differences of this gen. You fail.
-------------
Lets say we measure 4k gaming resolutions.
3840 × 2160 pixels vs 3456 x 1944 pixels. This is 4k vs 90% of 4k. The line difference is 384 side and 216 vertical yet its only 10% smaller. Anyone on a 4k tv wouldn't even notice. Again, scale it up and the lines increase but the ratio is negligible and the visual difference is negligible. The lines aren't as important as percentage/ratio of difference.
bu - bu -but the lines are so much greater on the ps4... the LINES.. the LINES! won't somebody please think of the LINES of pixels!!
Once again Bethesda admitted fu**ed up after that nothing more to say.
Please you are a damn lemming you are a so call PS3 owner who doesn't play its games,because your wise doesn't want you touching his PS3 stated by your self.
You have always cheer for the xbox one and every one here old enough knows your angle and what you defend,remember how much you flamed that PS3 high price.? And like a big hypocrite you say nothing about the xbox one,which is even more expensive than the PS3 was.
I don't need to go thread hunting you know what you did and people know it,
PS3
Red Dead Redemption = 1152x640 (QAA)
360
Red Dead Redemption = 1280x720 (2xAA)
128 lines on side, 80 lines less on the other..
This ^^^ is what you and the rest of the hypocrites that scream now that 720p and 1080p is not big difference,flamed the PS3 for..
Now lets compare that to the difference this gen...
BF4.
1680x900 PS4
1280x720p xbox one.
400 lines less in one side,180 lines on another.
COD Ghost.
1920x1080 PS4
1280x720p xbox one.
640 line on one side, 360 line on the other.
But but 720p and 1080p is the same...
Your theory is flawed because of scale. You see, 16x9 pixels vs 8x5 pixels, is 8 side pixels difference and 4 verticle. Not many lines, yet DOUBLE the resolution. As you scale this up to:
"Red Dead Redemption = 1152x640 (QAA) vs 1280x720 (2xAA) - 128 lines on side, 80 lines less on the other"
the lines increase but the ratio is not 'double".
---------------
Then you go to BF4 1680 x 900 (X1) vs 1920 x 1080 (PS4)
yes the lines difference increases but the ratio does not. Its not 50% difference here, and in fact having 180 less lines vertical is not even that noticeable but the ratio is barely 15% difference. That the 'blurriness' you claim is less and less noticeable as resolutions get higher.
The difference between a game two generations ago, or even last gen with a resolution difference ratio is far more noticeable than 1080p and slightly less than 1080p resolution differences of this gen. You fail.
-------------
...
For BF4 next gen consoles, http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-battlefield-4-next-gen-face-off
LOL. seanmcloughlin's post context was about hardware performance..
seanmcloughlin: "Proving yet again that cows are hypocrites and it only matters when their system finally has it. Otherwise it doesn't count".
-----
Couth_: WTF? I am a PC gamers and I care about the hardware in the consoles that I buy as well. Why does it make someone a fanboy to care about the specs in an electronic device they are buying? notsureifsrs
------
Couth_: because they always said they didnt care before and now they do. Of course you care because youre not a hypocrite fanboy
Not sure you understood what I said
-----
You: The funny thing here is that this is a thread about console specs,so PC spec are as meaningless as Michael Jordan is to Boxing,yeah Michael also play sport but is a different kind of sport,consoles and PC are different markets no matter how much damage controls you people try to bring into this threads it is like that period irrelevant.
When i make a PS4 vs PC thread yeah come and express all those theories on why PC is better and why should i not care about consoles,other wise you are just damage controlling in a topic that doesn't even concern hermits..
-----
When it comes to hardware PC performance (i.e. next-gen consoles are X86 PC+AMD GCN based) , there's are no theories on gaming PCs being better than consoles. seanmcloughlin's gaming PC > consoles POV are not theories.
The moron is you.
Have a great festive season.
When i make a PS4 vs PC thread yeah come and express all those theories on why PC is better.
Boom...hahaha
Owned dude like i say i did not imply in any fu**ing way that the difference was theoretical,i told him he could express HIS theories on why PC is better...hahahaa
So yeah you are a moron learn English so you don't miss interpret any sh** people say. hahaha
LOL... For "HIS theories", there shouldn't be any theories between PC and consoles.
You asserted "theories" to his views, but there are no theories between gaming PCs and consoles i.e. the comparison between PCs and consoles are not like Alcubierre's warp drive theory.
"HIS theories" on gaming PC > consoles are grounded on repeatable results, while Alcubierre's warp drive theory has yet to be tested in real life.
Your theory is flawed because of scale. You see, 16x9 pixels vs 8x5 pixels, is 8 side pixels difference and 4 verticle. Not many lines, yet DOUBLE the resolution. As you scale this up to:
"Red Dead Redemption = 1152x640 (QAA) vs 1280x720 (2xAA) - 128 lines on side, 80 lines less on the other"
the lines increase but the ratio is not 'double".
---------------
Then you go to BF4 1680 x 900 (X1) vs 1920 x 1080 (PS4)
yes the lines difference increases but the ratio does not. Its not 50% difference here, and in fact having 180 less lines vertical is not even that noticeable but the ratio is barely 15% difference. That the 'blurriness' you claim is less and less noticeable as resolutions get higher.
The difference between a game two generations ago, or even last gen with a resolution difference ratio is far more noticeable than 1080p and slightly less than 1080p resolution differences of this gen. You fail.
-------------
Lets say we measure 4k gaming resolutions.
3840 × 2160 pixels vs 3456 x 1944 pixels. This is 4k vs 90% of 4k. The line difference is 384 side and 216 vertical yet its only 10% smaller. Anyone on a 4k tv wouldn't even notice. Again, scale it up and the lines increase but the ratio is negligible and the visual difference is negligible. The lines aren't as important as percentage/ratio of difference.
bu - bu -but the lines are so much greater on the ps4... the LINES.. the LINES! won't somebody please think of the LINES of pixels!!
You are an idiot the difference between the PS4 and xbox one is bigger than the one between some multiplatforms on PS3 vs xbox 360,we are talking here 1080p vs 720p get the fu** out the difference between those 2 resolutions is actually bigger than from 480p to 720p idiot.
But some how is irrelevant until you get to see both games running and the xbox one version look like a blur mess,MS to compensate use a sharpening filter,which does 2 things 1 crush blacks,get all the freaking jaggies and make them ultra visible.
Face it you lemming the xbox one is one weak sauce console that can barely do 900p in anything other than sports and racing games let alone 1080p.
Your theory is flawed because of scale. You see, 16x9 pixels vs 8x5 pixels, is 8 side pixels difference and 4 verticle. Not many lines, yet DOUBLE the resolution. As you scale this up to:
"Red Dead Redemption = 1152x640 (QAA) vs 1280x720 (2xAA) - 128 lines on side, 80 lines less on the other"
the lines increase but the ratio is not 'double".
---------------
Then you go to BF4 1680 x 900 (X1) vs 1920 x 1080 (PS4)
yes the lines difference increases but the ratio does not. Its not 50% difference here, and in fact having 180 less lines vertical is not even that noticeable but the ratio is barely 15% difference. That the 'blurriness' you claim is less and less noticeable as resolutions get higher.
The difference between a game two generations ago, or even last gen with a resolution difference ratio is far more noticeable than 1080p and slightly less than 1080p resolution differences of this gen. You fail.
-------------
Lets say we measure 4k gaming resolutions.
3840 × 2160 pixels vs 3456 x 1944 pixels. This is 4k vs 90% of 4k. The line difference is 384 side and 216 vertical yet its only 10% smaller. Anyone on a 4k tv wouldn't even notice. Again, scale it up and the lines increase but the ratio is negligible and the visual difference is negligible. The lines aren't as important as percentage/ratio of difference.
bu - bu -but the lines are so much greater on the ps4... the LINES.. the LINES! won't somebody please think of the LINES of pixels!!
You are an idiot the difference between the PS4 and xbox one is bigger than the one between some multiplatforms on PS3 vs xbox 360,we are talking here 1080p vs 720p get the fu** out the difference between those 2 resolutions is actually bigger than from 480p to 720p idiot.
But some how is irrelevant until you get to see both games running and the xbox one version look like a blur mess,MS to compensate use a sharpening filter,which does 2 things 1 crush blacks,get all the freaking jaggies and make them ultra visible.
Face it you lemming the xbox one is one weak sauce console that can barely do 900p in anything other than sports and racing games let alone 1080p.
For X1 and PS4, Tomb Raider Definitive Edition is running at 1080p.http://www.vg247.com/2013/12/09/tomb-raider-definitive-edition-xbox-one-runs-at-native-1080p/
Tomb Raider Definitive Edition for GCN based consoles includes AMD's software IP e.g. TressFX. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-12-18-tomb-raider-definitive-edition-is-more-than-a-facelift-dev-insists
We'd love for every Tomb Raider fan to get to experience it on next-gen," Amos continued. "We are definitely looking to draw in those folks who may not have experience it yet on the last generation so they can experience this version on next-generation.
"But even for existing hardcore fans, we are confident in the offering we have as an excellent enhanced experience above and beyond what we'd previously provided. We wouldn't bring it to you all if we felt otherwise. You are the reasons we do what we do."
Other work done to the game includes up-rezzed geometry and textures, but it's clear Lara has enjoyed the most attention. Special materials were added that dynamically change when she wades through mud, gets blood on her, and when it rains or she is wet. The TressFX tech was "custom written and optimised for Lara this first-time out for us on next-gen as we hadn't ever done it before on consoles", Amos explained.
"The amount of extra work - three studios and a full year of development - have pushed the boundaries beyond just TressFX and upgraded textures.
"We now have a new particle system, new lighting work and enhanced shadow-casters, tons of more visual storytelling elements (more debris, more details on walls, more density in the environment for vegetation), upgraded characters (Lara and main story NPCs), and we've also put all of the DLC materials into this version for PS4/Xbox One.
Let see if another AMD Gaming Evolved 1st tier partner can exceed EA DICE's Battlefield 4 results.
References
AMD made additional optimisations for TressFX http://www.gamefront.com/amd-tressfx-2-is-coming-soon/
TressFX is AMD’s realistic hair rendering technology which renders and simulates the physics of thousands of individual strands of hair. It was first used in Crystal Dynamic’s Tomb Raider, released earlier this year. Now AMD is introducing TressFX 2.0, a newer version of TressFX with better performance and easier integration into games. Additionally research is now being done to use TressFX for other things besides hair, like grass and fur. In this talk we will cover how TressFX rendering and physics works, the improvements made in TressFX 2.0, and the research which will be used in future products.
For X1 and PS4, Tomb Raider Definitive Edition is running at 1080p.http://www.vg247.com/2013/12/09/tomb-raider-definitive-edition-xbox-one-runs-at-native-1080p/
Tomb Raider Definitive Edition for GCN based consoles includes AMD's software IP e.g. TressFX. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-12-18-tomb-raider-definitive-edition-is-more-than-a-facelift-dev-insists
We'd love for every Tomb Raider fan to get to experience it on next-gen," Amos continued. "We are definitely looking to draw in those folks who may not have experience it yet on the last generation so they can experience this version on next-generation.
"But even for existing hardcore fans, we are confident in the offering we have as an excellent enhanced experience above and beyond what we'd previously provided. We wouldn't bring it to you all if we felt otherwise. You are the reasons we do what we do."
Other work done to the game includes up-rezzed geometry and textures, but it's clear Lara has enjoyed the most attention. Special materials were added that dynamically change when she wades through mud, gets blood on her, and when it rains or she is wet. The TressFX tech was "custom written and optimised for Lara this first-time out for us on next-gen as we hadn't ever done it before on consoles", Amos explained.
"The amount of extra work - three studios and a full year of development - have pushed the boundaries beyond just TressFX and upgraded textures.
"We now have a new particle system, new lighting work and enhanced shadow-casters, tons of more visual storytelling elements (more debris, more details on walls, more density in the environment for vegetation), upgraded characters (Lara and main story NPCs), and we've also put all of the DLC materials into this version for PS4/Xbox One.
Let see if another AMD Gaming Evolved 1st tier partner can exceed EA DICE's Battlefield 4 results.
References
AMD made additional optimisations for TressFX http://www.gamefront.com/amd-tressfx-2-is-coming-soon/
TressFX is AMD’s realistic hair rendering technology which renders and simulates the physics of thousands of individual strands of hair. It was first used in Crystal Dynamic’s Tomb Raider, released earlier this year. Now AMD is introducing TressFX 2.0, a newer version of TressFX with better performance and easier integration into games. Additionally research is now being done to use TressFX for other things besides hair, like grass and fur. In this talk we will cover how TressFX rendering and physics works, the improvements made in TressFX 2.0, and the research which will be used in future products.
What is our point to show ow powerful the xbox one is, that does 1080p on Tomb Raider.?
Because that prove nothing Tomb Raider can run on 1920x1200 on a 7750 at 30 FPS on high with FXAA and 8XAF.
ugh... if all you guys care so damn much about flops and clocks then why do you all game on consoles?
This gen's consolite fanboys sound like last gen PC elitists
Difference being that the PC elitists actually knew what the **** they were talking about, el tormo just copy/pastes articles from elsewhere then smashes his face against his keyboard to add his own personal touch to them.
For X1 and PS4, Tomb Raider Definitive Edition is running at 1080p.http://www.vg247.com/2013/12/09/tomb-raider-definitive-edition-xbox-one-runs-at-native-1080p/
Tomb Raider Definitive Edition for GCN based consoles includes AMD's software IP e.g. TressFX. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-12-18-tomb-raider-definitive-edition-is-more-than-a-facelift-dev-insists
We'd love for every Tomb Raider fan to get to experience it on next-gen," Amos continued. "We are definitely looking to draw in those folks who may not have experience it yet on the last generation so they can experience this version on next-generation.
"But even for existing hardcore fans, we are confident in the offering we have as an excellent enhanced experience above and beyond what we'd previously provided. We wouldn't bring it to you all if we felt otherwise. You are the reasons we do what we do."
Other work done to the game includes up-rezzed geometry and textures, but it's clear Lara has enjoyed the most attention. Special materials were added that dynamically change when she wades through mud, gets blood on her, and when it rains or she is wet. The TressFX tech was "custom written and optimised for Lara this first-time out for us on next-gen as we hadn't ever done it before on consoles", Amos explained.
"The amount of extra work - three studios and a full year of development - have pushed the boundaries beyond just TressFX and upgraded textures.
"We now have a new particle system, new lighting work and enhanced shadow-casters, tons of more visual storytelling elements (more debris, more details on walls, more density in the environment for vegetation), upgraded characters (Lara and main story NPCs), and we've also put all of the DLC materials into this version for PS4/Xbox One.
Let see if another AMD Gaming Evolved 1st tier partner can exceed EA DICE's Battlefield 4 results.
References
AMD made additional optimisations for TressFX http://www.gamefront.com/amd-tressfx-2-is-coming-soon/
TressFX is AMD’s realistic hair rendering technology which renders and simulates the physics of thousands of individual strands of hair. It was first used in Crystal Dynamic’s Tomb Raider, released earlier this year. Now AMD is introducing TressFX 2.0, a newer version of TressFX with better performance and easier integration into games. Additionally research is now being done to use TressFX for other things besides hair, like grass and fur. In this talk we will cover how TressFX rendering and physics works, the improvements made in TressFX 2.0, and the research which will be used in future products.
What is our point to show ow powerful the xbox one is, that does 1080p on Tomb Raider.?
Because that prove nothing Tomb Raider can run on 1920x1200 on a 7750 at 30 FPS on high with FXAA and 8XAF.
On the 7770 it actually does 40 FPS so yeah the xbox one doing Tomb raider at 1080p mean little.
Citing random benchmarks is meaningless, those specific test were done using a Intel Core i7-3960X (how many times more powerful than ps4/xb1 cpus is that tormo?) plus with only FXAA on.
For X1 and PS4, Tomb Raider Definitive Edition is running at 1080p.http://www.vg247.com/2013/12/09/tomb-raider-definitive-edition-xbox-one-runs-at-native-1080p/
Tomb Raider Definitive Edition for GCN based consoles includes AMD's software IP e.g. TressFX. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-12-18-tomb-raider-definitive-edition-is-more-than-a-facelift-dev-insists
We'd love for every Tomb Raider fan to get to experience it on next-gen," Amos continued. "We are definitely looking to draw in those folks who may not have experience it yet on the last generation so they can experience this version on next-generation.
"But even for existing hardcore fans, we are confident in the offering we have as an excellent enhanced experience above and beyond what we'd previously provided. We wouldn't bring it to you all if we felt otherwise. You are the reasons we do what we do."
Other work done to the game includes up-rezzed geometry and textures, but it's clear Lara has enjoyed the most attention. Special materials were added that dynamically change when she wades through mud, gets blood on her, and when it rains or she is wet. The TressFX tech was "custom written and optimised for Lara this first-time out for us on next-gen as we hadn't ever done it before on consoles", Amos explained.
"The amount of extra work - three studios and a full year of development - have pushed the boundaries beyond just TressFX and upgraded textures.
"We now have a new particle system, new lighting work and enhanced shadow-casters, tons of more visual storytelling elements (more debris, more details on walls, more density in the environment for vegetation), upgraded characters (Lara and main story NPCs), and we've also put all of the DLC materials into this version for PS4/Xbox One.
Let see if another AMD Gaming Evolved 1st tier partner can exceed EA DICE's Battlefield 4 results.
References
AMD made additional optimisations for TressFX http://www.gamefront.com/amd-tressfx-2-is-coming-soon/
TressFX is AMD’s realistic hair rendering technology which renders and simulates the physics of thousands of individual strands of hair. It was first used in Crystal Dynamic’s Tomb Raider, released earlier this year. Now AMD is introducing TressFX 2.0, a newer version of TressFX with better performance and easier integration into games. Additionally research is now being done to use TressFX for other things besides hair, like grass and fur. In this talk we will cover how TressFX rendering and physics works, the improvements made in TressFX 2.0, and the research which will be used in future products.
What is our point to show ow powerful the xbox one is, that does 1080p on Tomb Raider.?
Because that prove nothing Tomb Raider can run on 1920x1200 on a 7750 at 30 FPS on high with FXAA and 8XAF.
There's no word on a PC release of Definitive Edition, however. "Today we are only talking about Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition on PS4 and Xbox One," Amos said.
Citing random benchmarks is meaningless, those specific test were done using a Intel Core i7-3960X (how many times more powerful than ps4/xb1 cpus is that tormo?) plus with only FXAA on.
There's no word on a PC release of Definitive Edition, however. "Today we are only talking about Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition on PS4 and Xbox One," Amos said.
I don't have to TressFX has like a 13 or 14 FPS hit on performance the 7770 can do 40 FPS on 1920X1200 which is actually higher than 1080p,on high quality.
Lower that resolution on 7770 to 1080p and it probably get a 5 FPS boost to 45 FPS,now apply tressFX and the 7770 could be running that game at 31 or 32 FPS actually faster than the xbox one target,once again Tomb Raider isn't a demanding game,even the 7750 can run at 1080p the xbox one running it mean little.
Now AMD is introducing TressFX 2.0, a newer version of TressFX with better performance and easier integration into games.
From your own link now the performance hit is even lower,so yeah nothing to see here and the xbox one can only do 1080p on games that aren't demanding,like sports,racing,and games like Tomb Raider which even GPU like the 7750 can run on 1080p on high.
oh man the old fart got owned and destroyed once again,that's sad lol.
Dat hurtful butthurt and denial...hahahaha
Don't worry soon SuperDae and Kotaku will unleash the new secret xbox one specs with dual GPU...hahaha
@k1ngd0m4g3rul3z said:
Citing random benchmarks is meaningless, those specific test were done using a Intel Core i7-3960X (how many times more powerful than ps4/xb1 cpus is that tormo?) plus with only FXAA on.
AND NO TRESSFX.
Is Tomb Raider CPU bound.?
Yeah like you will get 8xAA on xbox one...lol
TressFX has a lesser hit to performance now,than it did back when it was introduce,then was like 14 FPS now provably 10 or less,the 7770 was running that game at 1920x1200 a resolution which is completely taboo for the xbox one,the damn thing can barely pull 900p on Ryse,and 720p in FPS.
So yeah the 7770 does 40FPS on higher than 1080p,so yeah on 1080p does more frames,and with TressFX it would still probably fall into 30 FPS or higher.
So no is not meaningless.
PS.
Funny that you call me Tormo when you don't even have a fu**ing month here,Eltormo account has been banned for what 3 years.?
So who's alter are you.? Lets see only few people call me eltormo here.
There's no word on a PC release of Definitive Edition, however. "Today we are only talking about Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition on PS4 and Xbox One," Amos said.
I don't have to TressFX has like a 13 or 14 FPS hit on performance the 7770 can do 40 FPS on 1920X1200 which is actually higher than 1080p,on high quality.
Lower that resolution on 7770 to 1080p and it probably get a 5 FPS boost to 45 FPS,now apply tressFX and the 7770 could be running that game at 31 or 32 FPS actually faster than the xbox one target,once again Tomb Raider isn't a demanding game,even the 7750 can run at 1080p the xbox one running it mean little.
Now AMD is introducing TressFX 2.0, a newer version of TressFX with better performance and easier integration into games.
From your own link now the performance hit is even lower,so yeah nothing to see here and the xbox one can only do 1080p on games that aren't demanding,like sports,racing,and games like Tomb Raider which even GPU like the 7750 can run on 1080p on high.
Please post your sources. You have a habit for not posting your sources/references.
My post was specifically targeted for
"Face it you lemming the xbox one is one weak sauce console that can barely do 900p in anything other than sports and racing games let alone 1080p."
------------
As for TR 2013 at Ultimate Quality, http://kotaku.com/5990848/tomb-raider-performance-test-graphics-and-cpus
Your theory is flawed because of scale. You see, 16x9 pixels vs 8x5 pixels, is 8 side pixels difference and 4 verticle. Not many lines, yet DOUBLE the resolution. As you scale this up to:
"Red Dead Redemption = 1152x640 (QAA) vs 1280x720 (2xAA) - 128 lines on side, 80 lines less on the other"
the lines increase but the ratio is not 'double".
---------------
Then you go to BF4 1680 x 900 (X1) vs 1920 x 1080 (PS4)
yes the lines difference increases but the ratio does not. Its not 50% difference here, and in fact having 180 less lines vertical is not even that noticeable but the ratio is barely 15% difference. That the 'blurriness' you claim is less and less noticeable as resolutions get higher.
The difference between a game two generations ago, or even last gen with a resolution difference ratio is far more noticeable than 1080p and slightly less than 1080p resolution differences of this gen. You fail.
-------------
Lets say we measure 4k gaming resolutions.
3840 × 2160 pixels vs 3456 x 1944 pixels. This is 4k vs 90% of 4k. The line difference is 384 side and 216 vertical yet its only 10% smaller. Anyone on a 4k tv wouldn't even notice. Again, scale it up and the lines increase but the ratio is negligible and the visual difference is negligible. The lines aren't as important as percentage/ratio of difference.
bu - bu -but the lines are so much greater on the ps4... the LINES.. the LINES! won't somebody please think of the LINES of pixels!!
You are an idiot the difference between the PS4 and xbox one is bigger than the one between some multiplatforms on PS3 vs xbox 360,we are talking here 1080p vs 720p get the fu** out the difference between those 2 resolutions is actually bigger than from 480p to 720p idiot.
But some how is irrelevant until you get to see both games running and the xbox one version look like a blur mess,MS to compensate use a sharpening filter,which does 2 things 1 crush blacks,get all the freaking jaggies and make them ultra visible.
Face it you lemming the xbox one is one weak sauce console that can barely do 900p in anything other than sports and racing games let alone 1080p.
No, you are definitely the idiot. I think almsot all of GS would agree there. You definitely missed my point, like it went way over your head or something. The higher resolutions get, the less of a difference it makes for how many lines of pixels of difference between the two. If you don't understand that then basic math apparently evades your abilities. Have your controllers all started falling apart yet cow?
Yall still on this same shit torm get off of it, you never have any logical answers only playbacks from the same bullshit yall was talking about in MAY im going to ask you if yall are going by specs and the 7700hd that torm talking about the x1 one has the 7850 prototype that RON speaking of none of you are right I promise you that before march we will know that the x1 has a customized amd r7 260 the only new card that's really amd produced that has a new arch with the r10 that will be showed early next year, not even the r7 290 is the new arch its just advance off of the 7990 and the 7970 cards so why? You will understand why soon read outside of SW, misterxmedia, n4g, and neogaf because in when its all said and done its still a circle of misinformation. Beyond might be the cleanest site from fanboys but I see most of the sony fanboys trying to get info for that site and bring it here like yall know something none of yall have any tech experience and most no life experiences either bunch of youngings.
No, you are definitely the idiot. I think almsot all of GS would agree there. You definitely missed my point, like it went way over your head or something. The higher resolutions get, the less of a difference it makes for how many lines of pixels of difference between the two. If you don't understand that then basic math apparently evades your abilities. Have your controllers all started falling apart yet cow?
That funny because the more resolution you have the sharper things look,that apply not only to 480p vs 720p but to 720p vs 1080p,this is a fact no my opinion,the same with 1440p,4k you name it.
So yeah 1080p >>>>>>> 720p any day period,the rest are just sad excuses to justify the xbox one lack of power.
@ronvalencia said:
Post your source at Ultimate settings.
Depending on the gfx settings, Tomb Raider 2013 (PC) can be demanding.
High = http://www.techspot.com/review/645-tomb-raider-performance/page2.html
-----------
Next-gen consoles' TR DE's gfx setting is somewhere... Wait for Eurogamer's head to head review.
And you are the only blind fanboy who would even think the xbox one would get even close to Ultimate setting...
Ron this is the problem with you,your constant cheer leading for the xbox one,then when you get owned like what happen with COD Ghost you ran and hide on PC.
Tomb Raider will not run on Ultimate on xbox one,i don't even think it will do ultra ,it can't at 1080p at 30 FPS.
No, you are definitely the idiot. I think almsot all of GS would agree there. You definitely missed my point, like it went way over your head or something. The higher resolutions get, the less of a difference it makes for how many lines of pixels of difference between the two. If you don't understand that then basic math apparently evades your abilities. Have your controllers all started falling apart yet cow?
That funny because the more resolution you have the sharper things look,that apply not only to 480p vs 720p but to 720p vs 1080p,this is a fact no my opinion,the same with 1440p,4k you name it.
So yeah 1080p >>>>>>> 720p any day period,the rest are just sad excuses to justify the xbox one lack of power.
@ronvalencia said:
Post your source at Ultimate settings.
Depending on the gfx settings, Tomb Raider 2013 (PC) can be demanding.
High = http://www.techspot.com/review/645-tomb-raider-performance/page2.html
-----------
Next-gen consoles' TR DE's gfx setting is somewhere... Wait for Eurogamer's head to head review.
And you are the only blind fanboy who would even think the xbox one would get even close to Ultimate setting...
Ron this is the problem with you,your constant cheer leading for the xbox one,then when you get owned like what happen with COD Ghost you ran and hide on PC.
Tomb Raider will not run on Ultimate on xbox one,i don't even think it will do ultra ,it can't at 1080p at 30 FPS.
You are adding words that doesn't exist in my post. LOL.
Prudence suggest is to wait for Eurogamer's head to head comparison.
SE has an additional year to rework TR 2013. PC's raw power wouldn't solve a scenario when devs adds different effect types that doesn't exist in the PC version i.e. PC is not a time machine. This is why you have PC owners asking for the TR DE PC update's ETA.
I have shown you COD Ghost being CU limited by estimating the frame rate via CU count and matching the estimated frame rate to the nearest PC Radeon HD GCN SKU.
COD Ghost is not Crysis 2 with NVIDIA patch i.e. it doesn't overload the tessellation related workloads.
7870's 20 CU at 1Ghz = 48 fps / 20 CU = 2.4 x 10 CU = 24 fps estimated.
The real 7770 with 1Ghz and 10 CUs has 26 fps. One can say, COD-Ghost is mostly CU bounded. Similar principle works with Battlefield 4.
Log in to comment