[metacore]

Originally Posted by TheWretched

I used to have an 8800GTS 320 too... and to my knowledge, it can play most current games (at least at 720 without AA) quite well, still. I have upgraded since, though. Even Crysis 2 runs rather well on low to medium settings (which is higher than what the consoles produce) at 1680x1050. The fps do dip, but they do on consoles, too.

Since last fall it just could not (with exeption of mass effect 3 and batman). And crysis 2 runs at about 30fps (with huge dips and freezes ) with lowest settings and definitely not and at 1680x1050. Strange thing, it's running better than MW3 on this set.

Originally Posted by almighty

A 9600GT can play all console ports at better settings and frame rates then a console.

Maybe it could in 2008 but in 2011/2012 it just can't.

[almighty]

Originally Posted by metacore

Maybe it could in 2008 but in 2011/2012 it just can't.

Wanna bet?

[metacore]

Originally Posted by pjbliverpool

The only way for this to be true is if you are running the PC games at much higher settings than the console. The following benchmarks show that even the integrated HD4000 can easily handle BF3 at low settings and console+ resolutions and the 8800GTS would easily outperform an HD4000.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...iew/page14.asp

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5771/t...770k-review/14

I said : " (playable only in tank and jet levels)" , and you are linking benchmarks from "thunder run"(tank level). Anything other than this level( maybe train), with only two shooting AI's and performance is unacceptable ( muliplayer basically unplayable). Yo can see in this movie ( from 3:00)
http://youtu.be/ylYwTWV1aHg

Guy claims it is running at 720p medium . Look at that dips ( or more accurately freezes), look at those shadows, which are somehow much worse than console version. Moreover scenes in this movie are nothing intensive, add few more solders, runing and grenades and you are seeing slide show. Ironically MW3 was even worse.

Originally Posted by pjbliverpool

Today's games are already optimised from the ground up for consoles, that's not going to change significantly next generation - engines are still going to be built on PC workstations. What will change is the PC's ability to rely on a much more efficient API (DX11) than it's had to do this generation (DX9), a lack of requirement to use more power running at higher resolutions because consoles will also be targeting 1080p and most importantly, the far greater relative limitation on power draw for the consoles this time round. I expect all this all adds up to even mid range PC's faring well in next gen console games from day 1 and the gap widening rapidly from there.

I was talking about beginnig of last gen, remember quake, oblivion ports?, Those were pcgames/engines fast ported to xbox 360. Remember all the shock /complaining about in order CPUs, multi threading and necessity of rebuilding engines etc?.And by the time they were somehow optimized, and pc cached up with brute force... This will not be the case this time. Another thing is full switch to console centric development. Look at skyrim which stock version is closer between pc and 360 than oblivion was six years ago...
This time with this console centric development, new hardware which may have strong points where pc's are weak (interposers with very low latency connections/ high bandwidth, some crazy threading like 4 way IBM in P7/a2, edrams. I bet minimum one of these will end up in consoles.) AND add much smaller/ maybe none( from prespective of average pc)power advantage... There are truly none developers interested in truly pushing PC anymore. Another thing, there are surely powerful forces, namely console manufactures which will depend on seeing these boxes as truly next gen by publics end even geeks and may persuade devs to making console versions stand out for some time/not making pc version/making conversion from last gen machines.
Remember pc versions of Just cause, GRAW, not releasing force unleashed,cod 3, bad company "because pc is to slow". I feel that combination of all this, will make few years of nasty ports on PC ( an probably there will be no light in the tunnel for pc gamers like crysis was last time...)Console exclusives level , let alone higher will be no match for small pc devs.

About API. I don't listen too much these reassurances about efficiency, Dx11 pc-console parity? yeah right , just like parity of dx9 with console and pc at the beginnings... Gosh, I remember all these buzzwords : dx10,stream out, SM4.0, geometry shading and fake screens from flight simulator, and now these "monster" can't even play b3 like a console... Few years later we have third generation of dx11 cards and not a single game have efficient, groundbreaking implementation of any features . Consoles will gain new efficiencies too, and soon we will see new excuses about new API needed, and at the same time excuses about fragmentation of pc base which will be cause of not using it...

[metacore]

Guys calm down. I think Solarus knows there is huge the diffrence in hardware, Moores law is still relentless . He probably means how little of this is translating to accutual games.

Just look at this(or comparison of pc and console version of Medal of honor from last page), top of the line console and pc graphics at the of last gen

Timesplitters future perfect
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9g9fHF3z_Q

FEAR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0d85UexLzw


No contest, even on low quality video.Even IQ gap was much larger last time... And this was norm 4-5years after last console launches, today after nearly 7 years , it's not even funny... No wonder people claiming they can't see the difference... Do you really see improvements of this scale in any pc comparison videos? If there was mearly one game with this gulf, no one would argue that he can't see diffrence.
When i look at this DF comparison videos and articles with paeans about pc versions and think about specifications of current PCs i only think something is terribly wrong.

Pc gamers /graphics enthusiasts should not glorify this minor(optically) , mostly effortless improvements and accustom devs/pubs to this minimal efforts and unoptimized smoke and mirrors(no pun intended), but rather loudly complaining . Maybe then someone would see niche and make exception and really push envelope.

[Solarus]

Originally Posted by TheD

Crysis 1 has hugely cut down GFX on consoles vs the PC version!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...jgWl7tM#t=229s
Second level overlooking the village, seems a bit different doesn't it?!


Witcher 2 also does not look even close to as good and the lighting system is the same or worse, just changing the lighting does not make it technically better!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDQbJ6oQznw
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...d-720p-gallery

the witcher 2 video looks the same except for the tent area, and they probably changed it for artistic reasons. other than that the lighting itself looked just as good if not better on 360. i don't think the inclusion of nuclear bloom on pc means its better. The digital foundry article even says the lighting is better more natural on 360, then you had pc gamers getting mad that the better lighting wasn't in the EE version of witcher2 is telling.

I don't want to turn this into some gamefaq style fight of pc vs console, these are just things that i and others notice. despite wticher being a pc game built for pc it runs just as well on 360. with the supposed power difference i expected alot more. i want to see something that just is impossible for consoles to do.

also isn't crysis on consoles using cryengine 3? i don't think there can be an argument of which version has better lighting.

[Andrew Lauritzen]

Originally Posted by Solarus

the witcher 2 video looks the same except for the tent area, and they probably changed it for artistic reasons. other than that the lighting itself looked just as good if not better on 360.

Lol what? Look at picture 38 (among others)! And by the way that's depth of field you're seeing, not bloom.

Originally Posted by Solarus

with the supposed power difference i expected alot more. i want to see something that just is impossible for consoles to do.

Battlefield 3 high/ultra, especially multiplayer. Just disregard every other game and keep it simple. If you don't see the difference in that example then we're beyond the realm of talking sense, so let's just close the thread.

[metacore]

Originally Posted by almighty

Wanna bet?

Just look at this video, for example
http://youtu.be/dSq_jTiHJ8k

I don't think Xbox can match this fluidity . But how could it, 9600gt is three years younger has 2.5 times texel rate, 50% more shaders, 256 bits , higher clocks and two times memory bandwidth.. oh wait

[TheWretched]

Originally Posted by metacore

Since last fall it just could not (with exeption of mass effect 3 and batman). And crysis 2 runs at about 30fps (with huge dips and freezes ) with lowest settings and definitely not and at 1680x1050. Strange thing, it's running better than MW3 on this set.




Maybe it could in 2008 but in 2011/2012 it just can't.

My memory can be a bit hazy (has been a while since C2... but I do remember playing it first at low and 1680x1050 and later at higher settings... but I am not sure if I lowered the resolution to 720P to raise framerate to a bearable level...

After that I did upgrade for mere 250€ (i.e. new CPU and new GPU), which now performs better than ever. That's less than the 8800GTS cost back in early 2007. (I was lucky that Asus made a bios update to allow the Phenom IIs)

In any case... yes, the game dips a lot, but it does so on the consoles too... A LOT. And that was with a PC build a week before PS3 came out in Europe, too. It was quite a high end system for its time (though not super high end, by any means), but only cost 50% more than a PS3.

I did play Bulletstorm, too. Ran alright, though that's a game that's best experienced at stable 60Hz, if anything.

My point is, most games coming to PC these days (with few exceptions) are console to PC ports. The consoles haven't had any upgrades in terms of performance either. And with "optimization" and good code, you only get so far. In theory (if the PC ports are well made, not like GTA4, which I can't max out on my 2011 system) all games made for PS360 should all still run adequately on my old PC. I can't testify to it anymore (as I don't use it)... but my laptop (5650 Radeon) is comparably fast (a bit slower than the 8800GTS). And that can also run most PC games maxed at 720P. Again, not all of them, and not all of them perform ideally, but most do. And it's also ALWAYS a matter of how good a port is. Assassin's Creed (the series) for example has massive CPU requirements for what it does. GPU not at all. On the other hand, Rage runs away with stable 60Hz (mostly CPU bound, too).

BF3 I haven't really tried, as I refuse to buy into Origin. The beta ran well on my new PC though... and yes, it does look massively better on PC than it does on consoles. Not that it really matters, as the low resolution and no filtering for consoles results in a blurry mess on a bigger TV.

[Andrew Lauritzen]

And lets not get off-topic into the typical "well consoles were cheaper/better when they came out" argument that never ends and quite frankly is pretty boring... it's more fun to talk about the claim that they are comparable to current, *high end* PCs as was made in the original post :P

So enough of this lame consoles vs core 2/8600 comparisons. Lets talk consoles vs i7/GTX 680. The claim is that the latter produce an equivalent experience

[Solarus]

I understand the hardware itself is more powerful by default. but i don't see that difference in power in games at all. i don't own battlefield 3 on pc i have the 360 version so i can't comment on multplayer, but i was expecting a huge leap in singleplayer since itd be more focused on graphix over multplayer, but it looks the same.

Originally Posted by Andrew Lauritzen

Lol what? Look at picture 38 (among others)! And by the way that's depth of field you're seeing, not bloom.

in the video posted when geralt walks out the tent on the pc version it looks like a nuclear winter due to the bloom. i'm pretty sure the dof doesn't have anything to do with the game looking like batman painted it yellow to poke fun at green latern,

[Andrew Lauritzen]

Don't get me wrong, BF3 has a massive visual difference in single player too... if you don't own it on PC, I wouldn't even both disputing it. It's clear to anyone who has seen the two side by side. If you don't care and are happy with how it is on 360, fine, but that's different than your claim that it looks similar to high on PC. It does not.

Originally Posted by Solarus

in the video posted when geralt walks out the tent on the pc version it looks like a nuclear winter due to the bloom. i'm pretty sure the dof doesn't have anything to do with the game looking like batman painted it yellow to poke fun at green latern,

That's HDR exposure adjustment, and yeah, it's pretty clear in the screenshots that the 360 lacks proper tone mapping as well (the sky is washed out in a lot of shots for instance, like the one I referenced). Tone mapping and HDR are both realistic and desirable...

[metacore]

Originally Posted by TheWretched

.

There are deeps and freezes. C2 on console had deeps , but nowhere deep as on that pc, which I'd call "freezes".

One thing i realized , Cards with similar performamce, but newer (just like your 8800gts/5670) example tends to run new games a lot better, no wonder it is in interest of IHV and probably part of "TWIMTBP" optimisations.

I undrestand rest od your post. Personally i planned big upgrade in later part of generation but somehow lost interest.Itis just no incentive for me. If there was only half as good line up of technologicaly advanced pc games like in 2004/05 i'd jump in.

Originally Posted by Andrew Lauritzen

And lets not get off-topic into the typical "well consoles were cheaper/better when they came out" argument that never ends and quite frankly is pretty boring... it's more fun to talk about the claim that they are comparable to current, *high end* PCs as was made in the original post :P

So enough of this lame consoles vs core 2/8600 comparisons. Lets talk consoles vs i7/GTX 680. The claim is that the latter produce an equivalent experience

Answer is clear. Boring? I thought it's sometimes more interesting (especially for you ) to look at which hardware aged better, what caused it , what can good/lack of optimizations can do as well as big non fragmented user base. It all sometimes can be good indicators in future



[QUOTE=Andrew Lauritzen;1639750

Battlefield 3 high/ultra, especially multiplayer. Just disregard every other game and keep it simple. If you don't see the difference in that example then we're beyond the realm of talking sense, so let's just close the thread.[/QUOTE]

Well, to keep it simple as a control group we should add battlefield 2 at 1600/1200 and console version , how it was called? modern combat at 480/320(or somtehing like that). Comparison should end at this cause there is no contest in assets,shading, lightening, etc

Something is defintely wrong with fact that we even can compare it successor when gulf in hardware is even larger than last time.

[pjbliverpool]

Originally Posted by Gubbi

You are missing Joker's point.

The average Joe, personified here by Solarus, cannot see any difference. If they can't appreciate any difference, why should they sink more money into a new platform ?

It means two things:
1. New console needs to be cheap, if there is little perceived improvement in the gaming experience, there is little incentive to spend extra cash over a PS360.
2. The improvement in hardware needs to be substantial so that it becomes evident to the masses that the new gen is better.

Cheers

I completely agree with Jokers point. The difference between console and high end PC graphics can be considered subtle to the point where an untrained eye will see the same thing upon a cursory analysis. That doesn't mean that the differences aren't there, or even that they aren't significant, just that most people can't see them all that easily.

That said there does seem to be a lot of downloplaying of the significance of 1080p with high quality AA plus a fixed 60fps with no tearing. If I were to be cynical I might point out how significant such qualities are considered when comparing games between the major consoles...

Regardless though, it doesn't really matter to me if the differences are subtle. Near perfect image quality at near perfect framerate is enough motivation for me to choose the PC route. The fact that PC games have subtley better graphics on top of that (and not so subtle in some cases) is just icing on the cake.

For me personally PC gaming is more about customisability, options, and amazingly enough to some people I'm sure, convenience and cost. (but that's a different discussion).

As far as exlcusives go, there are certainly a few very worthwhile exclusives on consoles but they're diminishing with time. My answer to that is, I'll get a console to play the exclusives and play the mutilplatform games (of which there are more than enough these days to make exclusives largely irrelivant to me) on my PC. Best of all worlds.

[metacore]

Since i Can't edit yet....
To put it simply consoles did very good job at staying in the game , especially with this long gen. On the other hand pc gaming , in much longer time did not manage( for obvious reasons, not hardware progress) to leap way beyond console like last time, maybe it is even one of the reasons for console manufactures to prolong this cycle.

[pjbliverpool]

Originally Posted by egoless

How many X should be removed from PC for the API overhead, inefficiency, and unoptimized references you mentioned?

All of those factors apply in different ways so you can't just add them up. API overhead would be fairly universal depending on which API you're using. Just a wild guess but maybe the PC loses ~30% performance on average thanks to the API. Possibly less with DX11.

Inefficiency and unoptimised are more or less the same thing. The level of optimisation that's performed for a particular hardware set determines how efficiently that hardware is used. If you want to add it all up then the highest estimate of relative console efficiency I've heard from a reliable source is 2x from Carmack. That no doubt takes into account the API obverhead as well as the massive performance gains you can achieve from optimising your code for a specific hardware set.

From personal experience i'd say 2x is about right for reasonable ports later in a consoles life. Obviously there will always be exceptions on both sides that break that ratio.

With said inefficiencies, unoptimization and overhead, shouldn't (the game you mentioned) crysis 2 run better on consoles considering crysis 2 sought to fix those problems from crysis 1, so both the PC and console don't have as much of those crisis 1 problems? With said problems you mentioned hindering PC performance, wouldn't that mean the console has the advantage compared to similar PC hardware since the console doesn't have those problems?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there but yes, Crysis 2, given that it's well optimised for modern consoles should be expected to achieve greater performance on consoles that equivilently performance PC hardware. Does Crysis 2 perform better on the consoles than it does on a PC powered by a 7800GTX or X1900 Pro? Yes, in all likelyhood it does. But does it perform better than a modern PC GPU that sports between 4 and 10x the power of current generation consoles? Clearly not.

[metacore]

Originally Posted by pjbliverpool

I completely agree with Jokers point. The difference between console and high end PC graphics can be considered subtle to the point where an untrained eye will see the same thing upon a cursory analysis. That doesn't mean that the differences aren't there, or even that they aren't significant, just that most people can't see them all that easily.

That said there does seem to be a lot of downloplaying of the significance of 1080p with high quality AA plus a fixed 60fps with no tearing. If I were to be cynical I might point out how significant such qualities are considered when comparing games between the major consoles...

Regardless though, it doesn't really matter to me if the differences are subtle. Near perfect image quality at near perfect framerate is enough motivation for me to choose the PC route. The fact that PC games have subtley better graphics on top of that (and not so subtle in some cases) is just icing on the cake.

As far as exlcusives go, there are certainly a few very worthwhile exclusives on consoles but they're diminishing with time. My answer to that is, I'll get a console to play the exclusives and play the mutilplatform games (of which there are more than enough these days to make exclusives largely irrelivant to me) on my PC. Best of all worlds.

As for image quality/framerate and resolution, last time the differences between pc and consoles in thise aspects were even larger than nowadays. I always wondered how the old guard from PCVC forums like You , stevie, chairman yang really see it. From overall technological perspective and real world examples , you guys have surely had a lot more arguments back in the day. I bet let's say in 2005 you imagined 2012 "a bit "different from situation and perspective then.

BTW If I would nitpick and calculate, the list of somehow visually interesting exclusives is getting longer not shorter But this may get little off topic.

[pjbliverpool]

Originally Posted by metacore

Just look at this video, for example
http://youtu.be/dSq_jTiHJ8k

I don't think Xbox can match this fluidity . But how could it, 9600gt is three years younger has 2.5 times texel rate, 50% more shaders, 256 bits , higher clocks and two times memory bandwidth.. oh wait

Well firstly the game is running at 1080p on that PC which is already going to require a lot more powerr to achieve a console framerate than what is available in a 9600GT and secondly, since when did BF3 Medium settings on the PC = consoles settings?

[almighty]

Console version looks nothing like that... that's no bullshot with a crap load of AA added that'll you'll never see, that all in-game..

I really don't see the point in this thread...

Consoles are WAY behind even a medium spec'd modern PC

Instead of comparing consoles to PC running console games why don't we compare consoles to PC running PC games?











http://static.skyrim.nexusmods.com/d...1334352572.jpg

Consoles were good in there day, but that day was ~5 years ago now.

[almighty]

I have a 9600Gt if anyone wants any tests running

[Solarus]

wow is that last game Skyrim? wow theres a difference I can clearly see. i want more games that visually better like that! also isnt that crysis shot from the tech demo video they showed? i dont recall the game looking like that.

[metacore]

Originally Posted by pjbliverpool

Well firstly the game is running at 1080p on that PC which is already going to require a lot more powerr to achieve a console framerate than what is available in a 9600GT and secondly, since when did BF3 Medium settings on the PC = consoles settings?

Wher he said is is running on 1080? i don see it, even if is why should't (especialy on 1 gigversions). The settlings probably are not on medium, just look at shadows... even if they were, what exactly is making differences t medium settings to bring that card to knees? maybe only nvidia profiling. On the other hand i bet console settings are mix of low and medium. and card with that spec should not have any a problem
I could link another video but instead i will just quote comments:

"On same configuration with my core 2 duo OC to 3.0 , on medium I get 17-22 fps, it¨s not very playable"

"HOW THE? I've got Core 2 Duo 2.80GHz E7400, 9600GT 1GB 128bit, 2GB 800mhz ram but i can't get more than 25 fps on 800x600 low O.O"

"that card sucks very hard in bf3... in low the average of this card is 20fps or less"

"9600gt in medium? bullshit.."

"why LOLI GOT amd 455 3.10 xfx 9600 gt 4gb ram ddr3 and in low at 1024x768 i got like 30 and less...last drivers"

[pjbliverpool]

Originally Posted by metacore

Wher he said is is running on 1080? i don see it,

This was a bit of a dead giveaway:

"22" HP Monitor with HDMI connected @ 1080p Resolution"

even if is why should't (especialy on 1 gigversions).

Because 1080p is 2.25x more resolution than 720p which means it takes 2.25x more power to achieve the same framerate. And that's assuming the console version is running at 720p which it probbaly isn't.

The settlings probably are not on medium, just look at shadows... even if they were, what exactly is making differences t medium settings to bring that card to knees?

You mean apart from the 2.25x (bare minimum) resolution increase?

I could link another video but instead i will just quote comments:


"On same configuration with my core 2 duo OC to 3.0 , on medium I get 17-22 fps, it¨s not very playable"

"HOW THE? I've got Core 2 Duo 2.80GHz E7400, 9600GT 1GB 128bit, 2GB 800mhz ram but i can't get more than 25 fps on 800x600 low O.O"

"that card sucks very hard in bf3... in low the average of this card is 20fps or less"

"9600gt in medium? bullshit.."

"why LOLI GOT amd 455 3.10 xfx 9600 gt 4gb ram ddr3 and in low at 1024x768 i got like 30 and less...last drivers"

Ah youtube comments, the font of all knowledge lol. Have you even considered how inconsistent those comment are with each other? Let alone freely available evidence from review sites.

[swaaye]

Originally Posted by Solarus

wow is that last game Skyrim? wow theres a difference I can clearly see. i want more games that visually better like that!

There are some very nice mods indeed. The best part of PC for me is the modding community for the games that can be modded, and that there are some genres that are much better on PC. And I'm not solely referring to graphics whoring here, but to any sort of modding.

Want to visit Elsweyr? You can on PC.

[metacore]

Originally Posted by almighty

Console version looks nothing like that... that's no bullshot with a crap load of AA added that'll you'll never see, that all in-game..

I really don't see the point in this thread...

Consoles are WAY behind even a medium spec'd modern PC

Instead of comparing consoles to PC running console games why don't we compare consoles to PC running PC games?

Consoles were good in there day, but that day was ~5 years ago now.

Of course they are, but there are very little examples of pc superiority which masses can appreciate. And majority of this few are reached with mods. On the other hand stock pc games are still lacking for budget reasons, for example I bet if gt5 was a pc game, pc gamers would say that cars and lightening looks so good because it is running on pc hardware, but it is not, and still there is no replacement . PC budgets can't generally sustain development which leeds to overall production values like from last of us trailer which Joe see in gamestop. Even now pc version of wicher 2 despite having quite high sysreq dos not have : water/sand/snow technology,animations, models and even textures quality of uncharted and not because pc can't.... Last gen it was different and i fell even screenshot from mods( which may or may not come/are even more unoptimized/and for really good few there is years of waiting ) are not doing much in this discussion.

As for screens; Skyrim screen is good, but video would be better And this(or even better) is how all vanilla pcgames in 2012 should look). For others i would get inside Joe and commencing nitpicking
-battlefield not much difference, i thought the bushes would be much better in pc version.
-stalker/metro; good shots but thes games have few good effects, and very uneven/bad : textures, models,animations.
- crysis is not from game
- wicher screen is nothing special

In 2012 there should be much more examples(even better). Nobaody argues moores low but it, would be nothing wrong if diffrences in 2012 would like my Medal of honor or FEAR vs timespliters and above.


I'm done ( gmt+2)

[almighty]

Originally Posted by metacore

.
-stalker/metro; good shots but thes games have few good effects, and very uneven/bad : textures, models,animations

- crysis is not from game

- wicher screen is nothing special

Have you even played them?

STALKER games look down right amazing at times, near CGI, the textures are awesome and some of the texture packs for it are ridiculous.

Same with Metro 2033, looks CGI in places on PC with 4xMSAA enabled.

Crysis looks better then that screen with mods, especially as now all PC cards can actually apply transparency anti-aliasing to all the foliage

As for Whicher, I doubt they'll be a console game next generation with such high IQ