Erm, most emulators are capable of it. DEMUL, PCSX2, Dolphin, Project64, ePSXe etc etc.....
I showed you two games that emulate at higher frame rates than on their native platforms. One is enough to prove the point. Pick either. Find videos of the other ten thousand yourself, it is not difficult.
It's a fact and you really don't know anything about emulation if you think that you cannot emulate console games to run faster! That's patently not ...
Emulation is not illegal. This shouldn't have to be pointed out here, it should be common knowledge even to knuckle dragging mouth breathers.
"Ain't happening. You'll get 1080P but the frame rate won't run at 60 fps. Emulators don't work that way"
WRONGGGGG!!!!
@ MarioJP87 Lol sorry but go back to your console, you know nothing about PC emulation. I have run countless console titles that originally ran at 30FPS on PC emulators with a full fat 60FPS refresh. Countless! I suggest you google for Zelda BOTW emulation, where it's easy to have 50FPS+ for a game usually r...
Not the point. I for one want Metal Gear Solid 4 in minimum native 1080p and 60FPS. On PS3 it ran 1024 x 768 and about 25FPS.
So the only way that ever looks like happening is via emulation. Good work is being done on RPCS3.
I suggest you go back and play those games you mention, they all looked better than Halo 3.
Most of the Unreal Engine 3 games looked better, that engine was extremely well optimised for X360. It was basically built for it, since Epic's main project at the time was Gears of War.
So Bioshock was gorgeous, Gears of War was amazing and Mass Effect stunning. COD4 ran 600p, BUT it had 2x MSAA and some texture filtering. It ended up looking better.
...
I felt it looked pretty poor. 2007 had some great looking games, and Halo 3's engine focused on the lighting at the detriment of pretty much all else.
It had nice art, but the image quality meant the screen was filled with aliasing. It only ran 640p with zero anti aliasing and no anisotropic filtering. Jaggies everywhere, smeary flat textures.
The MCC version goes to 1080p native and adds some FXAA which helps a lot, but doesn't add AF. It's m...
There is no way this is the PC version or at least no way anyone would play it like this on PC. This is on console for sure, 30FPS target, and the frame rate is TERRIBLE!
Luckily it's a long time til launch and they can work on it.
Oh wait, it's only a month away. Uh oh....
This game is not yet out on any platform so it is not possible to show you this game.
However I can show you a host of games on both Xbox One X and a great PC where the PC easily beats what Xbox One X can do by a large margin.
Therefore as long as Xbox One X can do just 1440p on this game, PC could do native 4K because top end PC is a lot more powerful. More than twice as powerful.
Just the other day on Horizon 4 benchmarks it was very ...
Everyone relax. Xbox One X is more powerful than PS4 Pro.
Few people seemingly care as everyone still buys PS4 and PS4 Pro more.
Both are facts and people should chill about them. In another 18 months everything could change once again and the comments will reflect that then. Cycle of life.
Of course it could. Xbox One X is no faster than a GTX1060 6GB. PC has GPUs out there 3 times as fast as that.
Not that hard. Xbox 360 is 13 years old this November.
Something like a mid range Snapdragon 660 powered phone with the Adreno 512 GPU has at least as much raw GPU performance, but far more advanced rendering pipeline and OpenGL API, more available memory etc
Let alone several generation old Snapdragon 820 phones from 2015 with Adreno 530 GPUs. Far more powerful than 360/PS3.
Ultimate edition on PC the 28th of September 4K 60FPS here we come!
Kornholic your fake news. The video I provided in my first post is rock solid proof that you are incorrect and the beta ran very very nicely on PC.
It's a piece of cake for a mid range PC with a GTX1060 to easily match and surpass Xbox One X on this game, because it's so heavily CPU limited and console CPUs are so weak.
Definitely CPU limited. Console CPUs badly holding this game back.
PC batters through this game on equivalent console settings (medium-high) it is easy to spend most of the time above 70FPS @ 2560 x 1440 on just an Intel i5/midrange Ryzen and GTX1060 which is roughly equivalent resolution to Xbox One X.
On very high settings which none of the consoles manage, GTX1060 does 50-60FPS in gameplay @ 1440p. 2680d ago 5 agree11 disagreeView comment
RTX2080ti is by far the most powerful graphics card anyone can buy. It's extremely expensive but at least they can claim there is simply no better than this available, and they would be right.
It's a monster of a card that will run any game you name maxed or virtually maxed in full native 4K at high frame rates and thus fine by me if they claim it's the first true 4K 60FPS card.
Meh. GTA5 is 130GB on PC. Come at me bro.
Had the odd crash when changing settings but restarted and thereafter the game ran fine, very well in fact. Try changing settings before entering a game and then restarting it before deploying. The performance has been one of the pleasant surprises for me, it runs very very well.
All things considering this is a beta with a month to tweak it with launch day updates and have some new drivers released. It is looking very nice indeed.
Read the recent news where Apple removed movies that people had BOUGHT from the Canadian Itunes store and therefore the people could no longer access them. At all. They were offered a few token rentals as compensation. No refunds. Total power over what you have paid for.
Then you'll continue to go out buying physical copies of games.
4K and 60FPS.
PC can do it no problem. Shame you have to choose resolution or frames on console.
Of course he doesn't care, he isn't 12 years old