Discussion in 'Games, Gaming & Game-demos' started by blesner, Aug 7, 2012.
Didn't Hilbert ask you stop the caps thing you've got going on?
he never does :bonk:
Why would the thread be closed when the title is a question?
Title: Will Next Gen Consoles be more powerful then PC on launch?
Answer: Well, that's what we're here to discuss. Though the short answer is "no." Still, this is the only thread I've seen to discuss next-gen gaming consoles. So... why close it?
This thread will not be closed because the majority of the replies are not going off the topic. In order for a thread to be closed it has to have alot of trolling or flamming posts and some of the replies have gone way off the topic. None have this has happened in this topic. Also prove that there is any fake information in this thread.
Thread will be closed because:
PC 2013* w/o monitor - $750 and PSU 550W
Next-gen consoles w/ 150W(?) - $500
* - i5-3570K, GTX 750 (~= GTX 480)...
That doesn't mean that this thread will be closed. All you did with this response is answer the question. There is no fake information in that. You just said no by your response.
They might be on par with what we have for pc right now (best looking games) because from what I know (and I don't know a lot) you don't need the exact same specs as pc on console to run the same game, different designs.
As long as the games are native 1080p it's fine with me...
PC with nowadays are equip with quad graphics card when next gen xbox or ps4 comes out it will be already behind interms of raw power. theres no way a ps4 and xbox 720 can beat a quad 7970 or better yet next year quad radeon 8000 series and gtx 7xx series or even gtx 8xx from nvidia series but in return u will have to dish out couple thousand of dollars. if ur budget limited dont care about graphics next gen console is a way to go its still provide awesome graphics but it u want horsepower just maxed out everything put some massive amount of AA and graphical mods then u will have to dish out money and go with the pc.
.......the sexiest one (consoles' graphics) you'll see today...will become the uglier later.....
walk with the game developers.....PC Gaming....... (no "forceful"ware...)
its illogical that next gen consoles will be more powerful than pc.. everyone who tells that should be ashamed of lies..
BUT i have to agree, games run better on consoles than on pc, on pc those games ALWAYS has much bigger requirements(thats because for those old consoles those games are really optimised)
What I came to realize is that its HorseDooDoo if a PC is 123456x times more powerful if the games are not optimised. I mean hell, we all know PC is new tech and its monster power compared to that what we get out of consoles but the finished product is ... THE SAME.
I mean dont get me wrong, PC gamer here but I do digg consoles if its solely for gaming. Do the math if you are a casual gamer, you pay 300euros (PS3, x360) and you game without any problems for the next four years. For a PC you pay cca. 1000euros and what you get is 3 shader effects more and the only big advantage of playing with a mouse and a keyboard. If next gen can pull off 1080p I see no reason for people to not buy consoles unless they want that keyboard & mouse feel.
PC is superior in every way possible but its totally hampered by bad optimization which means all that power goes for calculating useless stuff just to make it work like it works on consoles. Thats my opinion of it! That said, Im still rocking the PC although I miss the times when my old 8800GTX was top of the line
I just read all of this read and I'm suprised no-one has mentioned the difference between the ability of pc gamers and console users.
We might have better hardware but we most definitely have better skills. And we always will. A guru pc player I am and I always will be.
"Just Cause dev says PS4 will 'out-power most PCs for years to come" WTF
GTFO! Is this possible?
unless they start making pc games use more then 3gb of memory, which most games dont reach now.
the ps4 has all the room to play with texture wise.
it doesnt mention it much on review sites. but is the processor full 64bit to take advantage of the 8gb memory?
if it is. then when game ported over to pc will still remain 64bit?
Yes, Sony put 8GB of ram on a CPU that can only see 4GB.
Makes perfect sense.
But then said comment is aimed squarely at your typical home users prebuilt PC and not your average custom built PC right?
There are people out there that still see Xbox 360 etc as vastly superior to PC. Afterall, computer technology hasn't really evolved since the Xbox 360 was conceived, I know mobile phones certainly haven't . It sounds like this guy is either a complete idiot, or is talking directly to those that think consoles are vastly superior in every way. The same guys that buy a $400 laptop than b!tch that they can't play Crysis 3 on it. Actually it wouldn't matter if they bought a $1100 laptop, laptops despite what some people may argue on here (which they have with me before on this forum) are NOT gaming platforms, even the ones claiming they are. If you really want a gaming platform that sits on the desk 24/7 buy a proper computer, and then you can even get a mid priced laptop if you really need portability.
The issue with PC gaming is that developers re-use crappy textures instead of making ultra-HQ textures and downsampling them as necessary for Xbox/PS3 (which would actually result in better textures for them), whilst enabling PC users to have really HQ textures. Upsampling textures is just stupid, but it seems most HQ textures are upsampled. I won't even begin mentioning about RAGE, but at least disk space wasn't wasted on crappy upsampled textures, the crappy upsampling happened on the fly.
Textures aside, effects should only take place on things that are on-screen only, and the strength of the effects should diminish the further away from the viewer, and the smaller it is. For example, rain shouldn't be anti-aliased etc, and shouldn't really require any processing until it hits a surface. This isn't how PC graphics works though, like Crytek said with Crysis 3, it's about crippling high end PC's (oh exuse me, making use of the performance), graphics effects mean absolutely nothing if it isn't visible anyway!
Also, games should be 64-bit. Worried about 32-bit Windows? Face it, if you're trying to play Crysis 3, you should really have more than 2GB of RAM on an old PC running 32-bit Windows (regardless of whether it is XP, Vista, 7, or Windows 8). Game developers should drop 32-bit entirely. It would be like making a game for the Xbox Next, PS4, Xbox 360, PS3, there will likely be very few games supporting both the old and new platforms for consoles, and you can't run Xbox Next/PS4 games on the Xbox 360/PS3, so why should they support both 64-bit and 32-bit? - which would mean less attention spent on each 32/64 bit version.
Solution for PC therefore:
- 64-bit games only
- high resolution textures that are then downsampled for console use
- Directx 11.1. Windows 7 now essentially supports it. XP doesn't, but since games are 64-bit, there is no need for backwards compatibility with Directx 9. Directx 10 cards can simply not run the extra Directx 11/11.1 effects
- smart use of effects. Maybe use a distance/size multiplier quotient. So, for things in the foreground, effects at 1.0x, further in the distance, at 0.60x, and progressively lower further back you go. Also for size, large things, 1.0x, smaller things (scaled like the distance) 0.50x etc, then the effects applied to the object is the distance vs size multiplier, so using the above figures, 0.60*0.50 = 0.30, so the effect precision is 30 percent. If done right this would save a lot of processing power, and won't affect things visually.