BillSpencer
Regular
did any of you even play the game lol?
Yes getting to 10fps and even halting, at lower then low settings, a lower resolution and reduced player/map size, with a 30fps cap is something else.
Going from that mess to a 60fps cap with less serious dips at Ultra settings, 64 players instead of 24, yeah, i'd call that a large leap actually. Its even more impressive considering 64 player matches take a much heavier CPU toll then 24 does.
Im not talking about Valhalla, thats a SP game. When they compare BFV, they would/will compare MP performance. Aside from that, its the MP that plays to the strengths of the systems. Besides battlefield being a you know, MP centric game.
You really need to calm down man. If mods dont take action il start bad mouthing too.
To an extend, settings can have a heavier impact on performance then resolution does. Thing is, BF4 PS4 is actually increasing the settings from low to ultra, doubling the framerate AND increasing the resolution. Seems like a bigger gap to me.
Yes, i still do actually (PC now). The battlefield series is my favourite MP game. I also like to compare between platforms (usually playstations and pcs). He choose the wrong title for this one. I can assure you, the PS3 version was crap, the system couldnt really handle it, aside from it not being what i call a real battlefield game. 24 player matches isnt battlefield. Ask any battlefielder
BillSpencer
Regular
Yes getting to 10fps and even halting, at lower then low settings, a lower resolution and reduced player/map size, with a 30fps cap is something else.
Going from that mess to a 60fps cap with less serious dips at Ultra settings, 64 players instead of 24, yeah, i'd call that a large leap actually. Its even more impressive considering 64 player matches take a much heavier CPU toll then 24 does.
Im not talking about Valhalla, thats a SP game. When they compare BFV, they would/will compare MP performance. Aside from that, its the MP that plays to the strengths of the systems. Besides battlefield being a you know, MP centric game.
You really need to calm down man. If mods dont take action il start bad mouthing too.
To an extend, settings can have a heavier impact on performance then resolution does. Thing is, BF4 PS4 is actually increasing the settings from low to ultra, doubling the framerate AND increasing the resolution. Seems like a bigger gap to me.
Yes, i still do actually (PC now). The battlefield series is my favourite MP game. I also like to compare between platforms (usually playstations and pcs). He choose the wrong title for this one. I can assure you, the PS3 version was crap, the system couldnt really handle it, aside from it not being what i call a real battlefield game. 24 player matches isnt battlefield. Ask any battlefielder
edit: I learn something new everyday
Last edited:
Yes getting to 10fps and even halting, at lower then low settings, a lower resolution and reduced player/map size, with a 30fps cap is something else.
Going from that mess to a 60fps cap with less serious dips at Ultra settings, 64 players instead of 24, yeah, i'd call that a large leap actually. Its even more impressive considering 64 player matches take a much heavier CPU toll then 24 does.
Im not talking about Valhalla, thats a SP game. When they compare BFV, they would/will compare MP performance. Aside from that, its the MP that plays to the strengths of the systems. Besides battlefield being a you know, MP centric game.
You really need to calm down man. If mods dont take action il start bad mouthing too.
To an extend, settings can have a heavier impact on performance then resolution does. Thing is, BF4 PS4 is actually increasing the settings from low to ultra, doubling the framerate AND increasing the resolution. Seems like a bigger gap to me.
Yes, i still do actually (PC now). The battlefield series is my favourite MP game. I also like to compare between platforms (usually playstations and pcs). He choose the wrong title for this one. I can assure you, the PS3 version was crap, the system couldnt really handle it, aside from it not being what i call a real battlefield game. 24 player matches isnt battlefield. Ask any battlefielder
Again I don't care about MP performance when you compare two games you do it on the same workload like digitalfoundry do it on BF4 on PS3 and PS4. This is how a benchmark is done. You won't compare two GPUs using different CPUs, you use the same one, this is exactly the same principle.
Being a battlefielder is not the subject and you would have a 0 on 20 points notation in french with the professor saying out of subject.
But you can bad mouthing you are on ignore list of the majority of the forum because you are a troll. This is better than being dumb and don't understand some basic principles you learn at 11 or 12 years old maybe before.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 86764
Guest
@chris1515, I think you may be the only person that doesn't have him on ignore. I can only see your messages and I know exactly who you're replying to.
I don't think it's worth the effort.
I don't think it's worth the effort.
Even in SP performance, your looking at 30fps vs 60, low vs Ultra and a resolution increase while on it. The MP stresses CPUs like nothing else, the more players, the more the CPU has to work.
Yeah, group up with your fellow playstation fans. You have shown your ability to bad mouth, insert GIFs and the inability to make yourself clear in a proper way. Being on the forums for so long, there should have been some improvements. Atleast, your attitude explains the ban at resetera. Here your getting away with it, but you wont elsewhere.
Claiming anyone can be bad mouthed without action isnt that high leveled either.
Again on same on destiny 2 with a bigger leap in resolution but a smaller leap in settings because PS5 version is improved PS4 Pro version. For me and reasonable people, this is comparable because BF4 on PS4 is not a fully ultra settings and PS5 is high settings and the gap in resolution is huge on Destiny 2 PS5, it runs between 5 to 8 time more pixel much bigger than the one between PS3 and PS4.
PS3 version actually is unplayable in MP, and that with lowest settings possible. At 30fps, with not even half the players and a reduced frame rate. To me, that seems like a bigger gap. The PS4 version is actually quite playable (look it up), that with maxed settings, higher res, and a doubled framerate. I have not played destiny 2, but i doubt its missing as many features as PS3 BF4 does, neither that it is basically unplayable.
Where PS4 dipped was metro 64 matches when teams clash in TDM. But even my pc could show signs back in the day in the same event (OC 920).
This is not the subjet, compare what is comparable the campaign. And being sub 30 fps is not the problem. the difference between a 20 fps game and a 40 fps game is the same than a game at 30 and 60 fps.
This is a benchmark and how it is done.
Even if someone would want to exclude MP totally, your still left with low vs Ultra in settings, half the framerate and a reduced resolution. Nevermind the MP since thats basically unplayable due to the hardware.
the problem is as the numbers get bigger, the mutiplier goes down, but does not mean the jump is lower, because when you get a jump of ten times in GPU from PS3 to PS4, by TF numbers, it's still a lower jump than from PS4 to PS5. so if a jump of 1,5 TF was big at the time from PS3 to 4, i can't see how a jump of more than 8TF could be less.
At least if devs are not targetting and waste ressources on native 4K, we should expect a great leap in overall fidelity in games.
And even then; R&C targets native 4K and still has a big bump in fidelity in its graphics
that shot almost look like the difference between realtime cutscenes to CGI ones on the PS4 version.
here is a shot of the movie model
At least if devs are not targetting and waste ressources on native 4K, we should expect a great leap in overall fidelity in games.
And even then; R&C targets native 4K and still has a big bump in fidelity in its graphics
that shot almost look like the difference between realtime cutscenes to CGI ones on the PS4 version.
here is a shot of the movie model
Last edited:
@chris1515, I think you may be the only person that doesn't have him on ignore. I can only see your messages and I know exactly who you're replying to.
I don't think it's worth the effort.
I have done the best thing put him on ignore. This is some lost time. He will talk to himself.
the problem is as the numbers get bigger, the mutiplier goes down, but does not mean the jump is lower, because when you get a jump of ten times in GPU from PS3 to PS4, by TF numbers, it's still a lower jump than from PS4 to PS5. so if a jump of 1,5 TF was big at the time from PS3 to 4, i can't see how a jump of more than 8TF could be less.
At least if devs are not targetting and waste ressources on native 4K, we should expect a great leap in overall fidelity in games.
And even then; R&C targets native 4K and still has a big bump in fidelity in the grapics
that shot almost look like the difference between realtime cutscenes to CGI ones on the PS4 version.
here is a shot of the movie model
720p t0 1080p is only a 2.25 increase of resolution. Go to native 4k is a 4 times increase in resolution. I think native 4k wil not be a long term solution, 1440p or a bit more is more resonnable.
snc
Veteran
Dont know avarage resolution in ps5 Valhalla but is quite sharp and going above is waste of resources (also MM rt 60fps mode which is 1440p is still sharp), so some studios know how to interpolate resolution, cyberpunk ps5 is like playing vr game on old low resolution helmet but its around 1200p
snc
Veteran
yeah still blurry
the problem is as the numbers get bigger, the mutiplier goes down, but does not mean the jump is lower, because when you get a jump of ten times in GPU from PS3 to PS4, by TF numbers, it's still a lower jump than from PS4 to PS5. so if a jump of 1,5 TF was big at the time from PS3 to 4, i can't see how a jump of more than 8TF could be less.
At least if devs are not targetting and waste ressources on native 4K, we should expect a great leap in overall fidelity in games.
And even then; R&C targets native 4K and still has a big bump in fidelity in its graphics
that shot almost look like the difference between realtime cutscenes to CGI ones on the PS4 version.
here is a shot of the movie model
My observation with the new one is that it has way more npcs on screen running around. So the assets look better and there are more of it.
I really hope they'd compromise at 1920x2160 max for native res "real 2". I'd love to see better everything else than extra sharpness. Leave that to midgen or even PC.
Battlefield 6 if we are lucky end of 2021 but reading the first news during a shareholder/investor conference call 2022 is a more realistic release windows. I hope early 2022 but fall 2022 is probably more realistic.
But 2022/2023 is when the consoles, allTuring, Ampere, RDNA 2 PC GPUs will begin to shine.
https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/battlefield-6-release-date-ps5-xbox-series-x-next-gen/
https://www.techradar.com/news/batt...t-and-ps5-but-only-when-theyre-popular-enough
Last edited:
Personally I do not think it is a good idea to expect any of these things universally. AI? This is game Design more than computational complexity - Fear and halo 1 are ancient yet most fps still uses call of duty AI types that have very low dynamism and little to no systemic behaviours. That is unless you just mean the shere amount of npcs on screen or in memory. Regarding the rest of all the features, no game need to use them all at once - as project Design makes that a complete waste. Not every game Design needs constant streaming, mesh shaders, or etc. To me what makes a next gen game is doing just one aspect important to the game's existence that is not feasible in a real time manner or at playable quality on a previous Generation of technology.
Last edited:
Doubt it works that way. Going by that logic, hardware leaps would have been increasing since the very first console, which isnt the case.
I have never seen it being said that way. Hell, MS and Sony could have used that logic instead of 'twice the OneX in power' (6 to 12TF).
Someone with more knowledge could jump in on this one.
Thing is, it was a discussion between you and me, you think the leap is as big or bigger, i dont. Its clearly something you and your playstation fans dont like. But thanks, one less, was hard to read for the most anyway.
I absolutely think the jump is still big (enough to warrant a new generation), what i do not think it is a bigger jump then last time. It perhaps doesnt have to be either, but its a common thing known by basically everyone, leaps in graphics hardware is getting smaller, not only on consoles but also pc.
