You'll pay more now to get top end visuals on a PC, but that is the point made. You can have them. Now. As long as you wanna pay.
But also as pointed out above, the hardware gets cheaper for the same performance over time. It will certainly be cheaper by the time PS4 arrives to get the visuals seen.
Titan costs stupid amount now but in a year that kind of performance chances are will be half that cost. The cards a bit slower than it half their costs as we...
Citing all this memory for PS4 is interesting, then talking about PC overheads as if none exist on console and PC is this awful ancient badly optimised mess, when it isn't.
So.
You think that automatic recording of gameplay is free? The compression is free? Even with some extra dedicated hardware it costs memory and CPU/GPU cycles. The dedicated hardware eases up on processing time, but doesn't suddenly make all that HD video evaporate into thin air. ...
Who smeared the console screens with lube
You do realise that until 5970 arrived a single card couldn't genuinely do 1080/60FPS maxed on the original Crysis/Warhead that launched some 2 years prior?
The 5970 can't even do that with any AA either.
You still need a frickin 6990 or better to do 1920 x 1080 Enthusiast + 4x AA on the likes of Warhead and maintain 60FPS+ average.
On this basis Titan aint doing too bad in Crysis 3, besides the fact it is a single GPU card as well an...
What about a Titan heavily overclocked :/
The point with ultra high end single GPU cards is that they always come with a big premium, price exponentially increases with such limited run cards. Nvidia will sell all of them, as enthusiasts know this is as good as it gets right now and will pay through the nose for that.
7970 gigahertz is like 25 percent slower on average according to Nvidia's benches anyway and that is at 1920 x 1080, you would expect the g...
Wii U is the best looking console version, but you can do better with a modest PC. Radeon 7770 would have no trouble matching Wii U's settings, but at higher resolution.
Radeon 7850 easily maxes it 1080p.
The gamepad options seems a bit meh to me to be honest, rather just have the game straight up.
Orbis will win performance wise, if the specs are right. Really it is that simple.
If the design for Durango meant they could afford a bigger die and more transistors then they would certainly be dedicated to increasing the programmable resources that they have. But the fact they have gone on to design a few fixed function units suggests they are on a tight transistor budget.
While possibly a better solution than just having it all devoted to various programm...
I would be so fast Ju.
Mainly because the 'secret sauce' of Durango hardware is a myth and exaggerated horribly. Go somewhere else to understand what so called 'move' engines are trying to be, they are not some exciting thing we haven't seen before. You won't just flick a switch and make them work either. They can be advantageous sure, but not game changing literally.
They are just basic fixed function hardware additional to the machin...
Yes, good news for PC. Your own reply makes little sense.
"If the consoles reach capability of matching current PC game then who will go and buy another 600$ vga card to upgrade every 2 years?"
People who will want the hardware as devs push beyond console yet again....
You also said 'match', not beat. If they match....so what???
If the consoles arrive and will be slower than countless PC gamers setups, then ...
She really should, Debbie is a bit thick sometimes.
"PlayStation 4 is sporting a slightly better graphics core"
IF the specs are to believed, IF, then it isn't just slightly better. Xenos is slightly better than RSX. Wii U's GPU is slightly better than Xenos.
Orbis would wipe the floor with Durango in terms of GPU performance and fillrates. We are talking potentially 50 percent more raw GPU performance, and trust me, that is a gap more RAM ain't gonna make up. You can have more high res t...
Entirely possible. If Orbis is the fastest and these specs are accurate, a big if, then the consoles will lose to any good gaming PC and they aren't even here yet.
What new consoles will mean is a higher quality of games for PC and better ports closer to PC capabilities. Good news for PC all round.
To be honest most console games have pretty low quality anti aliasing, if they have any at all. If you run at 720p or less to get effective AA you generally need it to be very high quality and the current consoles can't, or more accurately afford to do it. Even the best looking console games this gen suffer from more aliasing than a half decent PC game running 4x MSAA effectively.
However if the next consoles can actually manage to get closer to 1080p native resolution, y...
The engine doesn't half toss some polygons about. Wheels look like.....round :o even up close.
Shadows look like...shadows. Not crawling low res blocks.
The closest racer to photorealism. It does show diminishing returns though, much more power and then photorealism will be possible in racing games at least. We are very close now. I can't see it being more than another 3-4 years before we see a racer indistinguisable from real life in screens.
@ThaBlackBaron
It doesn't actually matter hugely which it is based off, my point was only revolving around its die size and process technology as we know.
The Radeon 5550 is in many ways 'based' off the previous Radeon 4k series architecture, the stream cores are virtually the same- 5 way VLIW architecture. Evergreen was an evolution of the previous R700 design, not some quantum shift (unlike the 'Cayman' 69xx series). It is well known tha...
Its not stupidity. It is pure logic. I had it worked out as soon as the TDP was confirmed and the size of the die/process technology was known.
I pointed out the GPU logic itself couldn't be very big (i.e fast) because and I quite clearly said before that 32mb of eDRAM on the same die as the GPU will take up a huge amount of die space, leaving not that much for a particularly fast GPU.
If you look at the shot of the die 4880d ago 32 agree12 disagreeView comment
Well....can't say I didn't always say so lol. I said for a long time even before the launch clearly it is not very much faster than 360 and PS3, and after made it very clear that the GPU was only slightly quicker AT BEST than Xenos in Xbox 360.
It is almost certainly slower than a desktop Radeon 4650 because of having half the TMU's and reduced clockspeeds as well as seemingly less usable memory bandwidth.
I banged on about the TDP of the machine ...
I'll say it time and again, if it really is that big a deal for you, you should keep the original machine you played them on- because it is the best machine for the job....What if it breaks later you might say? It'll be easy to get another even in 10 years. How easy is it to buy a SNES or Megadrive over 15 years since they died? Very, and they didn't even sell nearly as well as PS3/X360.
It just isn't a critical feature of a new console.
Fact ...
What are you on with dude.
"A PC *requires* a GPU at least 2x that of its console counterparts, and arguably looks the same or worse, with said GPU. You made my point for me."
Battlefield 3 running on an 8800 looks better than it does on console and it does at least employ DX10, a more advanced rendering mode not possible on 360/PS3. Your point is boned in that particular case. Yes we know consoles can be optimised, yes we know PCs need more raw per...
It's going to be like a Radeon 7850. Just under 2 teraflops combined system performance. 7850 is 1.76 teraflops. 7870 by itself is 2.5 teraflops. The CPU we can assume Is the touted Jaguar cores simply because it was also called an APU and the CPU and GPU are on the same die. So it isn't gonna be a big CPU.
Being x86 architecture it will be directly comparable with desktop pc parts. If it is the 8 core 1.6ghz Jaguar based design then it's about as fast as your ave...