Why to be excited and buy the new Generation Video Cards?

[Ferrari_pro]

And 1080i is 1080x1920

 

[Ferrari_pro]

Can you edit posts on this forum?

My first comment about 720p was meant to say 720x1280 (to conform with standard format) and 1080i is 1080x1920 interlaced

 

[Cartoon Corpse]

well it's about time to build my next rig, so im getting up on what's going on.

i was, however, expecting a 'quantum leap' out of ati this time around. im kinda disappointed by that.

so now im weighing what i want to do next. but my old rig is getting longer in the tooth everyday.

 

[Sandwich]

Yes you can edit your posts here.

720p is more pixels (than 1024x768), but it is a widescreen resolution, so that's still lower fidelity. I prefer a smaller 4:3 screen and the extra lines.
Then I'd still rather have 720p than 1080i. 1080i means tearing every odd line on the screen at 60 fps+. That really stinks and I'm not content with gaming at 30 fps or lower.

 

[Albuquerque]

Yes you can edit your posts here.

720p is more pixels (than 1024x768), but it is a widescreen resolution, so that's still lower fidelity. I prefer a smaller 4:3 screen and the extra lines.
Then I'd still rather have 720p than 1080i. 1080i means tearing every odd line on the screen at 60 fps+. That really stinks and I'm not content with gaming at 30 fps or lower.

Actually, resolution (in the way you are describing it) has nothing to do with fideilty of the image. There is more display information at 16:9 720p (921kpx) than at 4:3 768p (786kpx) . In fact, there is more display informatoin at 16:9 1080i (1.03mpx) than at any of the other two. So in terms of raw graphical output, there are noteable differences.

I think most of what you're trying to describe is field-of-view issues with the widescreen format; many games do not take widescreen into account when calculating FOV. I'm willing to bet a free cup of coffee that XBOX 360 console developers will be taking this into strong consideration when building their games.

 

[Tahir2]

No offence but some people simply don't like the fact that they pay for a game to work and then immediately need to patch it and then when that is done their saved games dont work and then when they are told they need to upgrade their sound drivers to get EAX and video drivers to get DX9 HDR, they then have to reinstall Windows cos now the PC simply won't boot.

Phew... but yea PC's have their places too.

 

[swaaye]

Well I'll just say that not playing consoles is seriously limiting your enjoyment of gaming. There are so many fantastic console titles. And, yes, as was said earlier, most console games have a far more polished feeling than the majority of PC games.

Considering my fav genres on PC are sort of dieing, I'm losing a lot of upgrade motivation. The titles I'm looking forward to on PC right now are Oblivion, Empire at War, and Supreme Commander. Though I guess if you're some crazed FPS or MMORPG maniac things are looking up. I wonder if MMORPG addicts are more susceptible to narcotics lol, and well all those CS people

If a game is available on PC & Xbox360 I think buying it on Xbox360 would be stupid honestly. You buy it for PC and you can watch it improve through mods and your hardware upgrades over time. The best example is Morriwnd Xbox, where you're stuck with the plain original on the Box, on the PC you can turn it into a whole new game with thousands of mods out there. Not to mention the huge view distance improvement and speed from new hardware.

 

[Albuquerque]

No offence but some people simply don't like the fact that they pay for a game to work and then immediately need to patch it and then when that is done their saved games dont work and then when they are told they need to upgrade their sound drivers to get EAX and video drivers to get DX9 HDR, they then have to reinstall Windows cos now the PC simply won't boot.

Phew... but yea PC's have their places too.

I could also say "at least you HAVE those options on a PC..." Just as swaaye mentioned above, what you get on your console is forever what you keep. There is no possibility for upgrades to the graphics, there is no hope for fixing a sound or graphics glitch if one exists, nada.

As for selection of games, I think it could be argued either way. There are tons of FPS, tons of RTS, tons of racing, flying, sports games on both systems. I love my PS2 console for titles such as the NFS,GT and GTA games, but I can't stand playing FPS or RTS games on it because I cannot stand the controls. Vice-versa, I like my PC for FPS titles and the few RTS's that I own, but the racing games just don't feel the same to me on a keyboard.

That doesn't mean you have to share my opinion, but that's how I see it. I'm sure I will forever own at least one console, just as I will surely forever own at least one gaming PC.

 

[Sandwich]

Actually, resolution (in the way you are describing it) has nothing to do with fideilty of the image. There is more display information at 16:9 720p (921kpx) than at 4:3 768p (786kpx) . In fact, there is more display informatoin at 16:9 1080i (1.03mpx) than at any of the other two. So in terms of raw graphical output, there are noteable differences.

Bigger just isn't better IMO. I consider W-XGA(1366x768) has the same image quality as 1024x768(4:3). You simply pay more for the extra bits on the sides.
720p just doesn't cut it for me. My TV is W-XGA btw .

 

[Albuquerque]

Bigger just isn't better IMO. I consider W-XGA(1366x768) has the same image quality as 1024x768(4:3). You simply pay more for the extra bits on the sides.
720p just doesn't cut it for me. My TV is W-XGA btw .

I'm not sure what you're talking about? Size has nothing to do with aspect ratio or pixels, it has to do with pixels-per-inch if anything. You're complaining about 16:9 720p but you're talking up 16:9 768? They're the exact same thing, did you not realize this?

You're equating "image quality" to total lines of vertical resolution; it doesn't work that way. To your own admission and exact point - bigger is not better. Image quality has nothing to do with total pixels, it is the art assets and the render method and the AA and AF quality and the color saturation -- it's how those pixels are ASSEMBLED that affect image quality.

And nearly all RPLCD TV's use WXGA panels FYI. The Hitachi I'm on uses three 10-bit grayscale ones: one for each primary color. The result is a true 30-bit color output that can make individual color adjustements per-primary color. Works wonders on "image quality" and has jack to do with the resolution you're using.

 

[Tahir2]

I could also say "at least you HAVE those options on a PC..." Just as swaaye mentioned above, what you get on your console is forever what you keep. There is no possibility for upgrades to the graphics, there is no hope for fixing a sound or graphics glitch if one exists, nada.

As for selection of games, I think it could be argued either way. There are tons of FPS, tons of RTS, tons of racing, flying, sports games on both systems. I love my PS2 console for titles such as the NFS,GT and GTA games, but I can't stand playing FPS or RTS games on it because I cannot stand the controls. Vice-versa, I like my PC for FPS titles and the few RTS's that I own, but the racing games just don't feel the same to me on a keyboard.

That doesn't mean you have to share my opinion, but that's how I see it. I'm sure I will forever own at least one console, just as I will surely forever own at least one gaming PC.

Upgrades = more cost and that is an important factor to some people. As to what a games console does it does it extremely well (play games). A gaming PC can play PC games well too and at times better than a console could (depending on genre and developer etc etc) but in most cases this is not the case.

Everything has its place and if consoles were really that bad (not saying you are saying that they are bad) they would not sell in the millions.

You get a console to play Mario, or Gran Tourismo or Ninja Gaiden. You also dont need any technical knowledge apart from knowing how to connect a console to a TV and powering it on to start playing.

As to patching console games, I can see it happening in the future more and more but at this time console games usually have better QA than PC games because of the audience and strict guidelines of MS, Nintendo, Sony and the old Sega/SNK/NEC/ATARI/Commodore et al.

 

[Albuquerque]

I generally agree with Tahir2, except for a small point on the following:

As to patching console games, I can see it happening in the future more and more but at this time console games usually have better QA than PC games because of the audience and strict guidelines of MS, Nintendo, Sony and the old Sega/SNK/NEC/ATARI/Commodore et al.

I don't think it has anything to do with "better QA" than PC games, I think it has much more to do with the fact that a console is a preset combination of components that never changes. Ever. You need ONLY to validate it against one video card, one processor, one "media" drive (CD, HDDVD, Bluray, whatever), one sound card, one network card, one harddrive, and a standard controller. All those components are standardized and fully documented by a single team and are guaranteed never to change.

In the PC space you have to validate it against dozens of video cards, nic cards, sound cards, processors and controllers built by dozens of various companies spanning years of development time. And then with those four hundred pieces of hardware, you have to then validate it against hundreds of driver revisions and five different OS'es. That's just if you want to stay within the WIndows realm; you need even more if you're gonna port to *nix or Mac.

In that respect, I think there is FAR more QA time spent on the PC world than on the console. It simply couldn't be any other way.

 

[Sandwich]

You're complaining about 16:9 720p but you're talking up 16:9 768? They're the exact same thing, did you not realize this?

No. How is 1280x720 the exact same thing as 1366x768?

You're equating "image quality" to total lines of vertical resolution; it doesn't work that way. To your own admission and exact point - bigger is not better. Image quality has nothing to do with total pixels, it is the art assets and the render method and the AA and AF quality and the color saturation -- it's how those pixels are ASSEMBLED that affect image quality.

I do believe in "more is better" though. AA and AF do help, but so does a higher resolution.

 

[Albuquerque]

No. How is 1280x720 the exact same thing as 1366x768?

You said that you didn't care about "more", so in all other basic measurements that you've been griping about (aspect ratio, your warped view of image quality or equally warped view of image fidelity, et al) the two are identical.

Questions?

 

[Sxotty]

No offence but some people simply don't like the fact that they pay for a game to work and then immediately need to patch it and then when that is done their saved games dont work and then when they are told they need to upgrade their sound drivers to get EAX and video drivers to get DX9 HDR, they then have to reinstall Windows cos now the PC simply won't boot.

Phew... but yea PC's have their places too.

I think you are in for a surprise.

IT seems to me console games are getting buggier, and with internet connectivity on all of them now it seems likely you will be getting patches and the like.

 

[Sandwich]

You said that you didn't care about "more", so in all other basic measurements that you've been griping about (aspect ratio, your warped view of image quality or equally warped view of image fidelity, et al) the two are identical.

LOL You are crazy.

 

[Albuquerque]

LOL You are crazy.

You gave no other reasoning, so what am I supposed to say?

What's funnier is, my quote you chose to put in your signature exactly makes that point. Good for you

 

[wireframe]

IT seems to me console games are getting buggier, and with internet connectivity on all of them now it seems likely you will be getting patches and the like.

There is no good excuse for console games getting buggier and in no way should they ever become as buggy as those for PCs. The difference is simple: consoles are closed systems and one of the biggest problems with PC games has got to be catering for all the possible hardware combinations out there. I think the Internet has saved PC gaming in many ways. If they were unable to reach customers with patches games would take too long to develop and test. It's an unfortunate situation, but it looks like it is the best possible scenario.

Console game developers may be tempted to use the growing network connectivity of consoles to allow them to reduce development time (or increase development content, however you wish to look at it), but I don't think any developer is so lax that they do not at least attempt to make a bug free game. On the PC this is so near impossible for many that taking on the challenge is futile. It is likely that console games will see add ons (free or not) that can be downloaded, just like for PCs.

End result: console games will still be more "polished" than PC games.

 

[Albuquerque]

Yup, I fully agree. There should be absolutely no reason for console games to go "downhill" simply because of their broadband and persistant storage support. I think the console development teams owe no less to the general console-owning populace. If any one console starts getting plagued by such errors, I think the console owners (MS or Sony) should take action to pull their licensing rights.

It doesn't just make the developer look bad, it makes the console look bad.

 

[Sxotty]

Oh I agreee they will be more polished, but I also think they are getting buggier precisely for the reason the mentioned. (develop for a bunch of different platforms at once).