[quote="Volnaiskra"][quote="zig11727"]Here is the kicker PS4 reviews of the game are stating the game runs at 1080P 60 frames with hardly any dips.[/quote]On its own, that sentence is worthy of fireworks and celebration, and should bring a smile to the face of anyone who cares about PC gaming, as it's what we've been desparately waiting for for years: the moment when consoles overtake PCs in power, thrusting game development into the future and forcing Nvidia, AMD and especially Intel to pull their fingers out so our PCs can re-overtake them and go to previously unseen heights.
It shouldn't be a surprise that a PS4 outperforms a PC. They say the PC's lack of close-to-metal development means our PCs are about half as powerful as they are on paper. That means that if you want a PC that compares to a PS4, you'll need to start with an 8 core CPU, DDR5 RAM, about 4GB VRAM, and then double the performance. Very few of us have PCs like that yet.
But I take your point that it was developed on last-gen consoles so isn't really a true next-gen game.
[/quote]
I cant stop laughing.
We can argue all the time about performance but people stop deny when they see the diference on the screens next to eachother (as i did with friends of mine).
So since we are nubs and we have no impact on the subject lets here from masters themselves.
Crytec, DICE, Epic, ID Software - they all said that they will have to go on compromise when developig game for a console. Thats why they all changed theirs developement aproach and start building up game on PC in first place and then downgrading for a console. I can give you a link to interview with all of them where thay admiting how big "let down" the new consloses are.
Good job anyway. You`ve just prove Valve that they are super stupid going for top end PC when developing theirs console. Brightest minds in these industry.
zig11727 said:Here is the kicker PS4 reviews of the game are stating the game runs at 1080P 60 frames with hardly any dips.
On its own, that sentence is worthy of fireworks and celebration, and should bring a smile to the face of anyone who cares about PC gaming, as it's what we've been desparately waiting for for years: the moment when consoles overtake PCs in power, thrusting game development into the future and forcing Nvidia, AMD and especially Intel to pull their fingers out so our PCs can re-overtake them and go to previously unseen heights.
It shouldn't be a surprise that a PS4 outperforms a PC. They say the PC's lack of close-to-metal development means our PCs are about half as powerful as they are on paper. That means that if you want a PC that compares to a PS4, you'll need to start with an 8 core CPU, DDR5 RAM, about 4GB VRAM, and then double the performance. Very few of us have PCs like that yet.
But I take your point that it was developed on last-gen consoles so isn't really a true next-gen game.
I cant stop laughing.
We can argue all the time about performance but people stop deny when they see the diference on the screens next to eachother (as i did with friends of mine).
So since we are nubs and we have no impact on the subject lets here from masters themselves.
Crytec, DICE, Epic, ID Software - they all said that they will have to go on compromise when developig game for a console. Thats why they all changed theirs developement aproach and start building up game on PC in first place and then downgrading for a console. I can give you a link to interview with all of them where thay admiting how big "let down" the new consloses are.
Good job anyway. You`ve just prove Valve that they are super stupid going for top end PC when developing theirs console. Brightest minds in these industry.
[quote="zig11727"]
Sam same TV Samsung 3d the textures on the PS4 are very blurry and have strange grainy look compare to the PC version which is crystal clear. Honestly it looks like dishonor on the xbox 360 blurry low-res textures. Lighting on the PS4 is like turning the pc options to low would be a good example.
Before I pass judgement I must take a look at KillZone.
But I'm not happy at all.[/quote]
Oh Oh. Thank you. Sounds quite sobering, disilluisioning for PS4. Though its a little OT, could you post your impressions when testet KZ SF?
Thanks;-)
Sam same TV Samsung 3d the textures on the PS4 are very blurry and have strange grainy look compare to the PC version which is crystal clear. Honestly it looks like dishonor on the xbox 360 blurry low-res textures. Lighting on the PS4 is like turning the pc options to low would be a good example.
Before I pass judgement I must take a look at KillZone.
But I'm not happy at all.
Oh Oh. Thank you. Sounds quite sobering, disilluisioning for PS4. Though its a little OT, could you post your impressions when testet KZ SF?
[quote="zig11727"]I currently own a PS4 and AC4 I can tell you AC4 looks very grainy compare to the PC version and to top it off there is NO 3d support at all on the PS4 version.
Another Note: The PS4 is far from a PC Killer, I will check out Kill Zone later today which is a PS4 exclusive
JnLoader is right this is the first time I can remember a consoles release is weaker then an average PC.[/quote]
Cool, so you are a lucky American I guess as here in Sweden PS4 will launch on the 29 November.
Nice to hear about the PS4 over here a real user and not to read like the gazilion prev/reviews over the net :)
To bad that AC4 looks like that on a new console but what I have read atleast Killzone looks very good, only game that looks better they say are Crysis 3 on Ultra setting Pc so there sounds like there is some hope for the PS4.
But I was expecting way more for a new console but when they start talking about the spec in Februari I just know we are in for a big dissapointment as far as power/performance goes alas if you are a Pc Gamer.
But I will absolutely get a PS4 down the road as I just have to play some of Sonys great exclusives, to bad that the graphics are s letdown but hey we cant have all so it is what it is.
Annyway congrats to your new console man and thanks for your input :)
zig11727 said:I currently own a PS4 and AC4 I can tell you AC4 looks very grainy compare to the PC version and to top it off there is NO 3d support at all on the PS4 version.
Another Note: The PS4 is far from a PC Killer, I will check out Kill Zone later today which is a PS4 exclusive
JnLoader is right this is the first time I can remember a consoles release is weaker then an average PC.
Cool, so you are a lucky American I guess as here in Sweden PS4 will launch on the 29 November.
Nice to hear about the PS4 over here a real user and not to read like the gazilion prev/reviews over the net :)
To bad that AC4 looks like that on a new console but what I have read atleast Killzone looks very good, only game that looks better they say are Crysis 3 on Ultra setting Pc so there sounds like there is some hope for the PS4.
But I was expecting way more for a new console but when they start talking about the spec in Februari I just know we are in for a big dissapointment as far as power/performance goes alas if you are a Pc Gamer.
But I will absolutely get a PS4 down the road as I just have to play some of Sonys great exclusives, to bad that the graphics are s letdown but hey we cant have all so it is what it is.
Annyway congrats to your new console man and thanks for your input :)
Update on AC4 for the PS4 I was going through 3d convertor box when the PS4 was directly connected to my 3d TV the textures clear up but still doesn't compare to PC version.
Update on AC4 for the PS4 I was going through 3d convertor box when the PS4 was directly connected to my 3d TV the textures clear up but still doesn't compare to PC version.
Gigabyte Z370 Gaming 7 32GB Ram i9-9900K GigaByte Aorus Extreme Gaming 2080TI (single) Game Blaster Z Windows 10 X64 build #17763.195 Define R6 Blackout Case Corsair H110i GTX Sandisk 1TB (OS) SanDisk 2TB SSD (Games) Seagate EXOs 8 and 12 TB drives Samsung UN46c7000 HD TV Samsung UN55HU9000 UHD TVCurrently using ACER PASSIVE EDID override on 3D TVs LG 55
[quote="zig11727"]I currently own a PS4 and AC4 I can tell you AC4 looks very grainy compare to the PC version and to top it off there is NO 3d support at all on the PS4 version. PC.[/quote]
I have a PS3 and have considered purchasing a PS4 just to gain access to the exclusive titles however with no 3D option I have no interest in getting one.
While AMD likes to claim 'close to metal' as their current buzz word the reality is that there is no studies available which can show performance differences due strictly to the API's used.
The consoles are a FIXED platform and as such can be very heavily optimized for. The PC on the other hand might have low end HD/AMD/Nvidia hardware or top of the line and as such is more of a open crap shoot. Titles are developed to run on a wide range of hardware which in turn limits the performance.
I liked the idea of the 'steam box' having fairly 'high end' specifications as it would set the bar for development higher than the 'minimum PC' that we are currently stuck with.
Better next generation hardware being more like a low end PC hopefully will make scaling titles to the PC easier and better for the PC release. (if they don't happen to use the PC as the 'lead' development platform in the 1st place, which I think a few studios have mentioned that they will)
zig11727 said:I currently own a PS4 and AC4 I can tell you AC4 looks very grainy compare to the PC version and to top it off there is NO 3d support at all on the PS4 version. PC.
I have a PS3 and have considered purchasing a PS4 just to gain access to the exclusive titles however with no 3D option I have no interest in getting one.
While AMD likes to claim 'close to metal' as their current buzz word the reality is that there is no studies available which can show performance differences due strictly to the API's used.
The consoles are a FIXED platform and as such can be very heavily optimized for. The PC on the other hand might have low end HD/AMD/Nvidia hardware or top of the line and as such is more of a open crap shoot. Titles are developed to run on a wide range of hardware which in turn limits the performance.
I liked the idea of the 'steam box' having fairly 'high end' specifications as it would set the bar for development higher than the 'minimum PC' that we are currently stuck with.
Better next generation hardware being more like a low end PC hopefully will make scaling titles to the PC easier and better for the PC release. (if they don't happen to use the PC as the 'lead' development platform in the 1st place, which I think a few studios have mentioned that they will)
[quote="zig11727"]I currently own a PS4 and AC4 I can tell you AC4 looks very grainy compare to the PC version and to top it off there is NO 3d support at all on the PS4 version.
Another Note: The PS4 is far from a PC Killer, I will check out Kill Zone later today which is a PS4 exclusive
JnLoader is right this is the first time I can remember a consoles release is weaker then an average PC.[/quote]
Ok. That's genuinely sad.
But the most important comparison is not between PS4 and PC. It's between PS4 and PS3 - and the former is 5 times more powerful than the latter. For years now, most of our games have been hamstrung by old consoles. Now, they will at least be hamstrung by something that is 5 times more powerful.
[quote="SKAUT"]Crytec, DICE, Epic, ID Software - they all said that they will have to go on compromise when developig game for a console. Thats why they all changed theirs developement aproach and start building up game on PC in first place and then downgrading for a console. [/quote]Great news, but I think you're being a bit inaccurate there, since Crytek, and probably DICE, surely already worked like that.
But it's great news that other companies have done the same. id's Rage was disappointing, and Epic's games rarely even made it to PC. So that's a really nice change.
[quote="mbloof"]
While AMD likes to claim 'close to metal' as their current buzz word the reality is that there is no studies available which can show performance differences due strictly to the API's used.
The consoles are a FIXED platform and as such can be very heavily optimized for. The PC on the other hand might have low end HD/AMD/Nvidia hardware or top of the line and as such is more of a open crap shoot. Titles are developed to run on a wide range of hardware which in turn limits the performance.
[/quote]I don't know how the API differences look, but I recently read [url=http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-inside-metro-last-light]some[/url] [url="http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-tech-interview-metro-2033"]interviews [/url]interviews with the chief technical officer of 4A games, that had nothing to do with AMD's recent Mantle PR. He suggested that the performance difference is about a 2:1 ratio in favour of the console APIs.
And also just anecdotally, most games on PS3 look better than their specs on paper would suggest (or is it that ours look worse than our specs would suggest?)
The PS3 has an ancient CPU, 256mb RAM, a GPU with 0.176 TerraFLOPS and 256mb VRAM. On paper, that's roughly 10 times less powerful than a decent mid-range PC. Yet I don't think most PS3 games actually look 10 times worse than their PC counterparts.
Yet if a PC gamer tried playing any modern games with 256mb RAM, an 8600 GT video card and an AMD Athlon CPU, it'd probably look much worse than on PS3, even it even ran at all.
[quote]I liked the idea of the 'steam box' having fairly 'high end' specifications as it would set the bar for development higher than the 'minimum PC' that we are currently stuck with.[/quote]I don't think they're going to all be so high-end. They've currently revealed the Nvidia-based ones only, but there will also be AMD-based ones and, worryingly, Intel-based (ie. integrated GPU) ones.
[quote="sammy123"]
Actually black flag runs 900p at 30fps out of the box. Later down the road Ubi is going to release 1080p patch. Here's a quote from ubisoft blog:
[quote]
But why ship at 900p in the first place? To meet an essential goal: deliver a visually brilliant game at a steady 30 frames per second (the industry gold standard for open-world games). [/quote]
[/quote]lol. That explains a lot. The consoles' gold standard" is most PC gamers' "unplayable".
zig11727 said:I currently own a PS4 and AC4 I can tell you AC4 looks very grainy compare to the PC version and to top it off there is NO 3d support at all on the PS4 version.
Another Note: The PS4 is far from a PC Killer, I will check out Kill Zone later today which is a PS4 exclusive
JnLoader is right this is the first time I can remember a consoles release is weaker then an average PC.
Ok. That's genuinely sad.
But the most important comparison is not between PS4 and PC. It's between PS4 and PS3 - and the former is 5 times more powerful than the latter. For years now, most of our games have been hamstrung by old consoles. Now, they will at least be hamstrung by something that is 5 times more powerful.
SKAUT said:Crytec, DICE, Epic, ID Software - they all said that they will have to go on compromise when developig game for a console. Thats why they all changed theirs developement aproach and start building up game on PC in first place and then downgrading for a console.
Great news, but I think you're being a bit inaccurate there, since Crytek, and probably DICE, surely already worked like that.
But it's great news that other companies have done the same. id's Rage was disappointing, and Epic's games rarely even made it to PC. So that's a really nice change.
mbloof said:
While AMD likes to claim 'close to metal' as their current buzz word the reality is that there is no studies available which can show performance differences due strictly to the API's used.
The consoles are a FIXED platform and as such can be very heavily optimized for. The PC on the other hand might have low end HD/AMD/Nvidia hardware or top of the line and as such is more of a open crap shoot. Titles are developed to run on a wide range of hardware which in turn limits the performance.
I don't know how the API differences look, but I recently read someinterviews interviews with the chief technical officer of 4A games, that had nothing to do with AMD's recent Mantle PR. He suggested that the performance difference is about a 2:1 ratio in favour of the console APIs.
And also just anecdotally, most games on PS3 look better than their specs on paper would suggest (or is it that ours look worse than our specs would suggest?)
The PS3 has an ancient CPU, 256mb RAM, a GPU with 0.176 TerraFLOPS and 256mb VRAM. On paper, that's roughly 10 times less powerful than a decent mid-range PC. Yet I don't think most PS3 games actually look 10 times worse than their PC counterparts.
Yet if a PC gamer tried playing any modern games with 256mb RAM, an 8600 GT video card and an AMD Athlon CPU, it'd probably look much worse than on PS3, even it even ran at all.
I liked the idea of the 'steam box' having fairly 'high end' specifications as it would set the bar for development higher than the 'minimum PC' that we are currently stuck with.
I don't think they're going to all be so high-end. They've currently revealed the Nvidia-based ones only, but there will also be AMD-based ones and, worryingly, Intel-based (ie. integrated GPU) ones.
sammy123 said:
Actually black flag runs 900p at 30fps out of the box. Later down the road Ubi is going to release 1080p patch. Here's a quote from ubisoft blog:
But why ship at 900p in the first place? To meet an essential goal: deliver a visually brilliant game at a steady 30 frames per second (the industry gold standard for open-world games).
lol. That explains a lot. The consoles' gold standard" is most PC gamers' "unplayable".
well yeah 60fps on a consoles are blazing fast, it was surprisingly fluid when rage ran at 60fps on ps3. I'm completely fine with 900p as I tend to play at 1600x900 on the PC instead of 1080p gives me some frames and blurs the screen a bit so it doesnt have that plastic look when in 1920 (I suppose its a matter of preference).
so I suppose if somebody will not fix AC4 its going to be messed up in 3d. I'll wait until its on sale than as I'm in no rush to play this game in 2d.
The whole next-gen is just rushed. There are no next-gen games yet, all we have now are imitations. Next gen will start in like April 2014 with Infamous, Titan Fall, etc. I think that the next uncharted will be great and I suppose I'm going to get both consoles after the price cut. I dont sympathize with neither of the brands I just like to play their exclusives.
well yeah 60fps on a consoles are blazing fast, it was surprisingly fluid when rage ran at 60fps on ps3. I'm completely fine with 900p as I tend to play at 1600x900 on the PC instead of 1080p gives me some frames and blurs the screen a bit so it doesnt have that plastic look when in 1920 (I suppose its a matter of preference).
so I suppose if somebody will not fix AC4 its going to be messed up in 3d. I'll wait until its on sale than as I'm in no rush to play this game in 2d.
The whole next-gen is just rushed. There are no next-gen games yet, all we have now are imitations. Next gen will start in like April 2014 with Infamous, Titan Fall, etc. I think that the next uncharted will be great and I suppose I'm going to get both consoles after the price cut. I dont sympathize with neither of the brands I just like to play their exclusives.
I'm hoping Tridef comes out with a decent profile. Gonna try Ghosts on my brand spanking new Epson 6030 with Tridef profile ASAP.
You have to wait for some exclusive stuff before you can judge overall graphic fidelity of the PS4 and Xbone. Look at Last of Us and Beyond Two Souls. Those games if they ran at 1080p and 60fps would blow away most PC games BTW. Beyond Two Souls had almost photorealistic graphics in some parts. (if you squint your eyes a bit) Mostly the indoor sections looked AMAZING. The outdoor stuff, especially the desert scenes, looked horrible by comparison.
I'm hoping Tridef comes out with a decent profile. Gonna try Ghosts on my brand spanking new Epson 6030 with Tridef profile ASAP.
You have to wait for some exclusive stuff before you can judge overall graphic fidelity of the PS4 and Xbone. Look at Last of Us and Beyond Two Souls. Those games if they ran at 1080p and 60fps would blow away most PC games BTW. Beyond Two Souls had almost photorealistic graphics in some parts. (if you squint your eyes a bit) Mostly the indoor sections looked AMAZING. The outdoor stuff, especially the desert scenes, looked horrible by comparison.
[quote="Conan481"]I'm hoping Tridef comes out with a decent profile. Gonna try Ghosts on my brand spanking new Epson 6030 with Tridef profile ASAP.
You have to wait for some exclusive stuff before you can judge overall graphic fidelity of the PS4 and Xbone. Look at Last of Us and Beyond Two Souls. Those games if they ran at 1080p and 60fps would blow away most PC games BTW. Beyond Two Souls had almost photorealistic graphics in some parts. (if you squint your eyes a bit) Mostly the indoor sections looked AMAZING. The outdoor stuff, especially the desert scenes, looked horrible by comparison.[/quote]
Let me know how tridef does for you and performance wise. I may try it later as well.
Thanks!
Conan481 said:I'm hoping Tridef comes out with a decent profile. Gonna try Ghosts on my brand spanking new Epson 6030 with Tridef profile ASAP.
You have to wait for some exclusive stuff before you can judge overall graphic fidelity of the PS4 and Xbone. Look at Last of Us and Beyond Two Souls. Those games if they ran at 1080p and 60fps would blow away most PC games BTW. Beyond Two Souls had almost photorealistic graphics in some parts. (if you squint your eyes a bit) Mostly the indoor sections looked AMAZING. The outdoor stuff, especially the desert scenes, looked horrible by comparison.
Let me know how tridef does for you and performance wise. I may try it later as well.
Hm. I was planning an upgrade to GTX 780Ti. If newer games only work with tridef in 3D -and 3D Vision is dead as it seams actually- I am thinking about an AMD 290 which has nearly same speed at half the price... 3D Vision was the reason, and the only reason for me, to spent a lot of money for Nvidia hardware since Fermi. If 3D Vision is dead, im gonna switch. Its a shame how Nvidia deals with this greatest improvement in gaming experience since 3DFX. Unbelievable:-(
Hm. I was planning an upgrade to GTX 780Ti. If newer games only work with tridef in 3D -and 3D Vision is dead as it seams actually- I am thinking about an AMD 290 which has nearly same speed at half the price... 3D Vision was the reason, and the only reason for me, to spent a lot of money for Nvidia hardware since Fermi. If 3D Vision is dead, im gonna switch. Its a shame how Nvidia deals with this greatest improvement in gaming experience since 3DFX. Unbelievable:-(
[quote="SamLombardo"]Hm. I was planning an upgrade to GTX 780Ti. If newer games only work with tridef in 3D -and 3D Vision is dead as it seams actually- I am thinking about an AMD 290 which has nearly same speed at half the price... 3D Vision was the reason, and the only reason for me, to spent a lot of money for Nvidia hardware since Fermi. If 3D Vision is dead, im gonna switch. Its a shame how Nvidia deals with this greatest improvement in gaming experience since 3DFX. Unbelievable:-([/quote]
Actually I was thinking about this. I'll keep my current rig that can do fine with the huge backlog of old games I have for 3d vision, but since Tridef is apparently the only way to go on dx11 and Oculus is card agnostic, I may go for a cheaper ATI card for the first time in years.
SamLombardo said:Hm. I was planning an upgrade to GTX 780Ti. If newer games only work with tridef in 3D -and 3D Vision is dead as it seams actually- I am thinking about an AMD 290 which has nearly same speed at half the price... 3D Vision was the reason, and the only reason for me, to spent a lot of money for Nvidia hardware since Fermi. If 3D Vision is dead, im gonna switch. Its a shame how Nvidia deals with this greatest improvement in gaming experience since 3DFX. Unbelievable:-(
Actually I was thinking about this. I'll keep my current rig that can do fine with the huge backlog of old games I have for 3d vision, but since Tridef is apparently the only way to go on dx11 and Oculus is card agnostic, I may go for a cheaper ATI card for the first time in years.
All hail 3d modders DHR, MasterOtaku, Losti, Necropants, Helifax, bo3b, mike_ar69, Flugan, DarkStarSword, 4everAwake, 3d4dd and so many more helping to keep the 3d dream alive, find their 3d fixes at http://helixmod.blogspot.com/ Also check my site for spanish VR and mobile gaming news: www.gamermovil.com
[quote="birthright"][quote="SamLombardo"]Hm. I was planning an upgrade to GTX 780Ti. If newer games only work with tridef in 3D -and 3D Vision is dead as it seams actually- I am thinking about an AMD 290 which has nearly same speed at half the price... 3D Vision was the reason, and the only reason for me, to spent a lot of money for Nvidia hardware since Fermi. If 3D Vision is dead, im gonna switch. Its a shame how Nvidia deals with this greatest improvement in gaming experience since 3DFX. Unbelievable:-([/quote]
Actually I was thinking about this. I'll keep my current rig that can do fine with the huge backlog of old games I have for 3d vision, but since Tridef is apparently the only way to go on dx11 and Oculus is card agnostic, I may go for a cheaper ATI card for the first time in years.[/quote]
Yeah I thinking the same but will lay low for a while and see how the upcoming Maxwell cards perform and cost next year and looking forward to hear about nvidias 3DV going forward as some moderator say we soon will hear more about it, thats refreshing so just hold on a little while longer :)
SamLombardo said:Hm. I was planning an upgrade to GTX 780Ti. If newer games only work with tridef in 3D -and 3D Vision is dead as it seams actually- I am thinking about an AMD 290 which has nearly same speed at half the price... 3D Vision was the reason, and the only reason for me, to spent a lot of money for Nvidia hardware since Fermi. If 3D Vision is dead, im gonna switch. Its a shame how Nvidia deals with this greatest improvement in gaming experience since 3DFX. Unbelievable:-(
Actually I was thinking about this. I'll keep my current rig that can do fine with the huge backlog of old games I have for 3d vision, but since Tridef is apparently the only way to go on dx11 and Oculus is card agnostic, I may go for a cheaper ATI card for the first time in years.
Yeah I thinking the same but will lay low for a while and see how the upcoming Maxwell cards perform and cost next year and looking forward to hear about nvidias 3DV going forward as some moderator say we soon will hear more about it, thats refreshing so just hold on a little while longer :)
[quote="SamLombardo"]Hm. I was planning an upgrade to GTX 780Ti. If newer games only work with tridef in 3D -and 3D Vision is dead as it seams actually- I am thinking about an AMD 290 which has nearly same speed at half the price...[/quote]And only twice the power consumption, three times the throttling, and five times the noise! What a bargain! :P
But seriously, I'd wait to see how the dx11 helixmod pans out. That will likely be the best indication of whether 3Dvision is worth sticking with or not.
SamLombardo said:Hm. I was planning an upgrade to GTX 780Ti. If newer games only work with tridef in 3D -and 3D Vision is dead as it seams actually- I am thinking about an AMD 290 which has nearly same speed at half the price...
And only twice the power consumption, three times the throttling, and five times the noise! What a bargain! :P
But seriously, I'd wait to see how the dx11 helixmod pans out. That will likely be the best indication of whether 3Dvision is worth sticking with or not.
I cant stop laughing.
We can argue all the time about performance but people stop deny when they see the diference on the screens next to eachother (as i did with friends of mine).
So since we are nubs and we have no impact on the subject lets here from masters themselves.
Crytec, DICE, Epic, ID Software - they all said that they will have to go on compromise when developig game for a console. Thats why they all changed theirs developement aproach and start building up game on PC in first place and then downgrading for a console. I can give you a link to interview with all of them where thay admiting how big "let down" the new consloses are.
Good job anyway. You`ve just prove Valve that they are super stupid going for top end PC when developing theirs console. Brightest minds in these industry.
https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198014296177/
Oh Oh. Thank you. Sounds quite sobering, disilluisioning for PS4. Though its a little OT, could you post your impressions when testet KZ SF?
Thanks;-)
Cool, so you are a lucky American I guess as here in Sweden PS4 will launch on the 29 November.
Nice to hear about the PS4 over here a real user and not to read like the gazilion prev/reviews over the net :)
To bad that AC4 looks like that on a new console but what I have read atleast Killzone looks very good, only game that looks better they say are Crysis 3 on Ultra setting Pc so there sounds like there is some hope for the PS4.
But I was expecting way more for a new console but when they start talking about the spec in Februari I just know we are in for a big dissapointment as far as power/performance goes alas if you are a Pc Gamer.
But I will absolutely get a PS4 down the road as I just have to play some of Sonys great exclusives, to bad that the graphics are s letdown but hey we cant have all so it is what it is.
Annyway congrats to your new console man and thanks for your input :)
Gigabyte Z370 Gaming 7 32GB Ram i9-9900K GigaByte Aorus Extreme Gaming 2080TI (single) Game Blaster Z Windows 10 X64 build #17763.195 Define R6 Blackout Case Corsair H110i GTX Sandisk 1TB (OS) SanDisk 2TB SSD (Games) Seagate EXOs 8 and 12 TB drives Samsung UN46c7000 HD TV Samsung UN55HU9000 UHD TVCurrently using ACER PASSIVE EDID override on 3D TVs LG 55
I have a PS3 and have considered purchasing a PS4 just to gain access to the exclusive titles however with no 3D option I have no interest in getting one.
While AMD likes to claim 'close to metal' as their current buzz word the reality is that there is no studies available which can show performance differences due strictly to the API's used.
The consoles are a FIXED platform and as such can be very heavily optimized for. The PC on the other hand might have low end HD/AMD/Nvidia hardware or top of the line and as such is more of a open crap shoot. Titles are developed to run on a wide range of hardware which in turn limits the performance.
I liked the idea of the 'steam box' having fairly 'high end' specifications as it would set the bar for development higher than the 'minimum PC' that we are currently stuck with.
Better next generation hardware being more like a low end PC hopefully will make scaling titles to the PC easier and better for the PC release. (if they don't happen to use the PC as the 'lead' development platform in the 1st place, which I think a few studios have mentioned that they will)
i7-2600K-4.5Ghz/Corsair H100i/8GB/GTX780SC-SLI/Win7-64/1200W-PSU/Samsung 840-500GB SSD/Coolermaster-Tower/Benq 1080ST @ 100"
Ok. That's genuinely sad.
But the most important comparison is not between PS4 and PC. It's between PS4 and PS3 - and the former is 5 times more powerful than the latter. For years now, most of our games have been hamstrung by old consoles. Now, they will at least be hamstrung by something that is 5 times more powerful.
Great news, but I think you're being a bit inaccurate there, since Crytek, and probably DICE, surely already worked like that.
But it's great news that other companies have done the same. id's Rage was disappointing, and Epic's games rarely even made it to PC. So that's a really nice change.
I don't know how the API differences look, but I recently read some interviews interviews with the chief technical officer of 4A games, that had nothing to do with AMD's recent Mantle PR. He suggested that the performance difference is about a 2:1 ratio in favour of the console APIs.
And also just anecdotally, most games on PS3 look better than their specs on paper would suggest (or is it that ours look worse than our specs would suggest?)
The PS3 has an ancient CPU, 256mb RAM, a GPU with 0.176 TerraFLOPS and 256mb VRAM. On paper, that's roughly 10 times less powerful than a decent mid-range PC. Yet I don't think most PS3 games actually look 10 times worse than their PC counterparts.
Yet if a PC gamer tried playing any modern games with 256mb RAM, an 8600 GT video card and an AMD Athlon CPU, it'd probably look much worse than on PS3, even it even ran at all.
I don't think they're going to all be so high-end. They've currently revealed the Nvidia-based ones only, but there will also be AMD-based ones and, worryingly, Intel-based (ie. integrated GPU) ones.
lol. That explains a lot. The consoles' gold standard" is most PC gamers' "unplayable".
so I suppose if somebody will not fix AC4 its going to be messed up in 3d. I'll wait until its on sale than as I'm in no rush to play this game in 2d.
The whole next-gen is just rushed. There are no next-gen games yet, all we have now are imitations. Next gen will start in like April 2014 with Infamous, Titan Fall, etc. I think that the next uncharted will be great and I suppose I'm going to get both consoles after the price cut. I dont sympathize with neither of the brands I just like to play their exclusives.
Acer H5360 / BenQ XL2420T + 3D Vision 2 Kit - EVGA GTX 980TI 6GB - i7-3930K@4.0GHz - DX79SI- 16GB RAM@2133 - Win10x64 Home - HTC VIVE
You have to wait for some exclusive stuff before you can judge overall graphic fidelity of the PS4 and Xbone. Look at Last of Us and Beyond Two Souls. Those games if they ran at 1080p and 60fps would blow away most PC games BTW. Beyond Two Souls had almost photorealistic graphics in some parts. (if you squint your eyes a bit) Mostly the indoor sections looked AMAZING. The outdoor stuff, especially the desert scenes, looked horrible by comparison.
Let me know how tridef does for you and performance wise. I may try it later as well.
Thanks!
Actually I was thinking about this. I'll keep my current rig that can do fine with the huge backlog of old games I have for 3d vision, but since Tridef is apparently the only way to go on dx11 and Oculus is card agnostic, I may go for a cheaper ATI card for the first time in years.
All hail 3d modders DHR, MasterOtaku, Losti, Necropants, Helifax, bo3b, mike_ar69, Flugan, DarkStarSword, 4everAwake, 3d4dd and so many more helping to keep the 3d dream alive, find their 3d fixes at http://helixmod.blogspot.com/ Also check my site for spanish VR and mobile gaming news: www.gamermovil.com
Yeah I thinking the same but will lay low for a while and see how the upcoming Maxwell cards perform and cost next year and looking forward to hear about nvidias 3DV going forward as some moderator say we soon will hear more about it, thats refreshing so just hold on a little while longer :)
But seriously, I'd wait to see how the dx11 helixmod pans out. That will likely be the best indication of whether 3Dvision is worth sticking with or not.