trasherhead's forum posts

Avatar image for trasherhead
trasherhead

3058

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

74

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#1 trasherhead
Member since 2005 • 3058 Posts

@zeeshanhaider said:

@trasherhead said:

@zeeshanhaider said:

@Wasdie said:

No they aren't. Graphics can easily scale and the Xbox One and PS4 have enough ram and CPU power to play even the most demanding PC games on the market today and for the foreseeable future. The biggest limitation of the Xbox 360 and PS4 was the 512mbs of ram they had and their aged CPUs.

CPUs today have far more power than games need. Unless a game is poorly coded, it's rare that the CPU is the limitation. The biggest bottleneck on the PC is actually DirectX and OpenGL which have to do a lot more processing on the CPU than the consoles do to render graphics. This is slowly changing with Mantle and newer revisions of DirectX/OpenGL, but it's something the consoles have never had to deal with so their weaker CPUs are not a major issue.

With 8 gbs of total ram a developer can do quite a bit. Actual game logic, level design, AI, pathfinding, and all of those things do not take that much RAM. Even the most graphically intense and CPU demanding games on the PC rarely need more than 3 gbs of system ram. You can do quite a bit with that.

The thing with graphics is they can be scaled a lot more easily. You can much more easily scale back the amount of pretty graphical effects and focus on just the necessities. The PS4 and Xbox One, even the Wii U, are more than capable of running games with the basic graphical features that actually impact gameplay (draw distances, lighting, effects). If you have the power you can start making more rendering passes for more detail, increase the resolution so that more detail is rendered each frame, increase the AA to smooth out jaggies when not running uber high resolutions, and do all of that stuff. It's really easy to just tone that stuff down to make it run on a weaker GPU. A lot of PCs games today can run on a large variety of GPUs with the low end often falling well below what is in the PS4/Xbox One.

So don't worry about it. Now that the devs have 8 gbs of ram and a familiar x84 processor, developers will not be bottlenecked by the console's hardware. They'll still have to design their games around a typical living room setup and controller though.

I respectfully disagree. RAM alone is not the answer. The CPU are damn too weak in next-gen consoles. Pretty damn sure the CPU in PS4 didn't meet the Planet Side 2 teams demand and they had to scale back.

And I highly disagree that the DirectX is actually has any bottleneck on PCs. You your self has said that the biggest impant these APIs have is on the CPU and not on the GPU it self. I'm sure PC gamers have CPUs magnitudes of times more powerful than the ones in 900pStation and 720pBox.

It is just the start and developers already started cutting resolutions ranging from 720p - 900p. I can easily see either more cuts in resolution if they go higher on graphics effects or just not push the boundaries at all which ultimately HOLDS BACK THE PC.

I would really be impressed if I can see any game on consoles matching Crysis 2 technically.

You can disagree with him/her all you like. Doesn't change facts. Ram constraints on the last consoles was part of what held back pc gaming.

The overhead that the pc API's(DX3D/openGL) make is also holding back PC game development, Now with Mantle we might see some changes.

Lastly, as I mention in an earlier post, ignored by all, is the fact that game devs have to take into account that the end user might still be on 32bit OS. limiting their use of RAM to between -3gb on system ram and VRAM combined. This is the reason why Skyrim, though looking good, looks like shit compared to what it could have looked like if they didn't ship with being locked at 2gb.

Well if you call yours fact, at least bring something to back it up or I simply have to accept what you say while I already mentioned the bottlenecks in 900pStation and 720pBox.

Ok, let me put it simpler then. Until PC games has to sacrifice feature sets, such as using DX11.2 instead of DX18.89, then consoles are not holding games back. Textures and models can be easily scaled down to fit within a systems ram and chipset limitations. The fact that all the games coming out now started development before the specs and feature sets were known, MIGHT have something to do with a lot of the titles not performing as well as the devs would hope and like, forcing them to cut corners were it is quickest, resolution.

Avatar image for trasherhead
trasherhead

3058

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

74

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#2  Edited By trasherhead
Member since 2005 • 3058 Posts

@jun_aka_pekto said:

@trasherhead said:

This is the reason why Skyrim, though looking good, looks like shit compared to what it could have looked like if they didn't ship with being locked at 2gb.

Skyrim released in 2011 when consoles had 512mb total RAM/VRAM. Most PCs were already coming out with at least 4gb by 2009 (6gb by the following year).

Of the 4gb, 32-bit XP and 32-bit Vista/Win 7 can address 3.25gb plus whatever VRAM is on the video card. That's still a huge gap between 512mb and 3.25gb + VRAM. I doubt the 32-bit OS is a limiting factor.

The average steam gamer today don't have more then 4GB of ram. But Skyrim was locked to use no more then 2 GB of ram, it was later patched after moders made a fan patch to let it access more then 2GB of ram. Yes, there is a huge gap there, but after you remove what the OS and applications uses, there is considerably less of a gap and you suddenly are down at close to 2gb of ram left total. The only way that consoles were holding it back was because they were both at DX9c feature sets(yes, 360 had a few DX10 features and PS3 was OpenGL), meaning Skyrim had to support that too.

This has been discussed in length before, 32bit os has lingered too long and has been and is a limiting factor.

Avatar image for trasherhead
trasherhead

3058

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

74

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#3 trasherhead
Member since 2005 • 3058 Posts

@zeeshanhaider said:

@Wasdie said:

No they aren't. Graphics can easily scale and the Xbox One and PS4 have enough ram and CPU power to play even the most demanding PC games on the market today and for the foreseeable future. The biggest limitation of the Xbox 360 and PS4 was the 512mbs of ram they had and their aged CPUs.

CPUs today have far more power than games need. Unless a game is poorly coded, it's rare that the CPU is the limitation. The biggest bottleneck on the PC is actually DirectX and OpenGL which have to do a lot more processing on the CPU than the consoles do to render graphics. This is slowly changing with Mantle and newer revisions of DirectX/OpenGL, but it's something the consoles have never had to deal with so their weaker CPUs are not a major issue.

With 8 gbs of total ram a developer can do quite a bit. Actual game logic, level design, AI, pathfinding, and all of those things do not take that much RAM. Even the most graphically intense and CPU demanding games on the PC rarely need more than 3 gbs of system ram. You can do quite a bit with that.

The thing with graphics is they can be scaled a lot more easily. You can much more easily scale back the amount of pretty graphical effects and focus on just the necessities. The PS4 and Xbox One, even the Wii U, are more than capable of running games with the basic graphical features that actually impact gameplay (draw distances, lighting, effects). If you have the power you can start making more rendering passes for more detail, increase the resolution so that more detail is rendered each frame, increase the AA to smooth out jaggies when not running uber high resolutions, and do all of that stuff. It's really easy to just tone that stuff down to make it run on a weaker GPU. A lot of PCs games today can run on a large variety of GPUs with the low end often falling well below what is in the PS4/Xbox One.

So don't worry about it. Now that the devs have 8 gbs of ram and a familiar x84 processor, developers will not be bottlenecked by the console's hardware. They'll still have to design their games around a typical living room setup and controller though.

I respectfully disagree. RAM alone is not the answer. The CPU are damn too weak in next-gen consoles. Pretty damn sure the CPU in PS4 didn't meet the Planet Side 2 teams demand and they had to scale back.

And I highly disagree that the DirectX is actually has any bottleneck on PCs. You your self has said that the biggest impant these APIs have is on the CPU and not on the GPU it self. I'm sure PC gamers have CPUs magnitudes of times more powerful than the ones in 900pStation and 720pBox.

It is just the start and developers already started cutting resolutions ranging from 720p - 900p. I can easily see either more cuts in resolution if they go higher on graphics effects or just not push the boundaries at all which ultimately HOLDS BACK THE PC.

I would really be impressed if I can see any game on consoles matching Crysis 2 technically.

You can disagree with him/her all you like. Doesn't change facts. Ram constraints on the last consoles was part of what held back pc gaming.

The overhead that the pc API's(DX3D/openGL) make is also holding back PC game development, Now with Mantle we might see some changes.

Lastly, as I mention in an earlier post, ignored by all, is the fact that game devs have to take into account that the end user might still be on 32bit OS. limiting their use of RAM to between -3gb on system ram and VRAM combined. This is the reason why Skyrim, though looking good, looks like shit compared to what it could have looked like if they didn't ship with being locked at 2gb.

Avatar image for trasherhead
trasherhead

3058

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

74

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#4  Edited By trasherhead
Member since 2005 • 3058 Posts

I care little about what you think, and so does facts.

1. Half of steam users are still on dual cores.

2. Half of steam users are on 4gb of ram or less.

3. More then half of steam users are on mid/low-range or CPU-integrated gpu's.

4. 32bit Windows is still sold and is capping the amount of Ram available, that is 4gb total, to be used. That is for OS and game.

This all adds up to that if you go crazy with spec requirements, then you alienate over half of the potential market.

So no, current gen consoles are not hold back pc gaming yet. When 32 bit windows dies out, then we can start talking.

Avatar image for trasherhead
trasherhead

3058

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

74

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#5  Edited By trasherhead
Member since 2005 • 3058 Posts

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

@Snugenz said:

Not to try and defend the cloud or anything, but the ai is shit on the PC version aswell, so this may seem way out there i know but it might just be the games fault...

I'm pretty sure the servers are connected in some way via the cloud. Also the reason the service was down today for both xboners and PC users.

Yeah it's explained here in greater detail: http://www.respawn.com/news/lets-talk-about-the-xbox-live-cloud/

The servers are the cloud... just marketing speech for servers...

Avatar image for trasherhead
trasherhead

3058

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

74

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#6 trasherhead
Member since 2005 • 3058 Posts

Not really a surprise. It was the same with the 360. The framebuffer was too small then, and with all the new fancy effects stuff, the framebuffer in the XBO is too small again. Whilst on both the PS3 and the PS4 the main pool of RAM is used as a framebuffer. This allows devs to make the buffer as big as it needs be.

Avatar image for trasherhead
trasherhead

3058

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

74

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#7  Edited By trasherhead
Member since 2005 • 3058 Posts

What made it just be ok for me was the story and the characters. The story is awkward and most of the characters just isn't likable and lack any depth to their personality. The pieces just don't seem to connect well with each other. The characters don't act affected by their past or present with little to no character development.

Avatar image for trasherhead
trasherhead

3058

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

74

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#8 trasherhead
Member since 2005 • 3058 Posts

Also, 32bit windows has had just as much impact as limited console resources, if not more.

Avatar image for trasherhead
trasherhead

3058

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

74

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#9  Edited By trasherhead
Member since 2005 • 3058 Posts

@acp_45 said:

OpenGL is a joke or more of a pain in the ass from what I’ve read.

Please don't do this again. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Avatar image for trasherhead
trasherhead

3058

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

74

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#10 trasherhead
Member since 2005 • 3058 Posts

22% for Nintendo failing within 2 years? What has this person been smoking? Nintendo might be suffering a bit now, but it has cash money in the bank to keep going for the next 25 years.