Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Rikki Sals
State War Academy Caldari State
42
|
Posted - 2012.05.24 17:24:00 -
[31] - Quote
Consoles will always punch above their hardware weight due to the extra software love they get from huge install base and frozen specs. What will be interesting to see in this "next round" is to what degree that will continue, if indeed the PS4 is a similar platform to any typical x86 PC. One would suspect that the focused software love the PS4 gets from being a console will more easily carry over to most regular PCs than it ever has in the past, making the differences smaller. |
MotherMoon
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
723
|
Posted - 2012.05.24 18:05:00 -
[32] - Quote
Rikki Sals wrote:Consoles will always punch above their hardware weight due to the extra software love they get from huge install base and frozen specs. What will be interesting to see in this "next round" is to what degree that will continue, if indeed the PS4 is a similar platform to any typical x86 PC. One would suspect that the focused software love the PS4 gets from being a console will more easily carry over to most regular PCs than it ever has in the past, making the differences smaller.
sounds like fun to wait and see : )
and thanks for an intelligent reply. Why dust 514 is on Console and not PCBattle field 3 salesXbox 360: 2.2 millionPlayStation 3: 1.5 millionPC: 500,000 |
Mashie Saldana
Veto. Veto Corp
520
|
Posted - 2012.05.24 23:56:00 -
[33] - Quote
MotherMoon wrote:and I agree to most of what you're saying. But lets focus on the Xbox360.
It came out 6 years ago and it can run Battlefield 3. obviously not as well as a PC NOW, but, could your windows xp PC from back in 2007 run Battlefield 3 now?
simple yes no question Considering the extremely low settings the Console port of BF3 is running at, yes. Dominique Vasilkovsky Mashie Saldana Monica Foulkes |
Iambruce
ASMODEUS INFINITE F0RCEFUL ENTRY
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 06:05:00 -
[34] - Quote
BF3 was designed with the console in mind, yet its still a somewhat watered down version compared to the PC version. What I mean by watered down is that the console version can only support 24 player maps. Dice couldn't include 64 player maps on console because of the hardware restrictions they ran into. Increasing map size and player count on the console version was only possible by either giving graphic quality or vehicles. The console version had to compromise one or the other so they compromised the number of players per map. Now I will agree that graphically they are similar, and its a shame because the game is be restricted by the console market. |
Yelena Fedorova
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 06:07:00 -
[35] - Quote
so you are comparing a game made in 2007 to a game made in 2011 *sigh* |
Noah Wyse
Gravity Mining and Manufacturing Inc Damned Nation
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 06:51:00 -
[36] - Quote
Not exactly, he's comparing a 2007 game on top 2007 hardware with a 2011 game on 2006 console. It's a way to illustrate a point.
Perhaps a better one would be to find a game that came out on both platforms back in 2006/7 to compare them directly, but the above comparison is just to show what a console can do 6 years after the hardware came out, while the PCs of the time are obsolete. |
Iambruce
ASMODEUS INFINITE F0RCEFUL ENTRY
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 07:32:00 -
[37] - Quote
Crysis which came out in 2007, for the PC, and is now available for console. You can clearly see the difference between a dedicated pc platform from 2007 and how its has transitioned to the console market today.
http://www.gametrailers.com/user-movie/usermovies/360375
I'm still quite impressed with consoles tho, they have done well at keeping up, but they are still lagging far behind a dedicated pc gaming system, even one that could run this game in 2007. |
MotherMoon
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
724
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 07:46:00 -
[38] - Quote
Iambruce wrote: Crysis which came out in 2007, for the PC, and is now available for console. You can clearly see the difference between a dedicated pc platform from 2007 and how its has transitioned to the console market today. http://www.gametrailers.com/user-movie/usermovies/360375I'm still quite impressed with consoles tho, they have done well at keeping up, but they are still lagging far behind a dedicated pc gaming system, even one that could run this game in 2007.
That's true, but to be fair back in 2007 was when that games had videos like "Triple 8800GTX SLI GPU running crisis at 26 fps! yeaaahhh!! woooo!!!
but yes you bring up a very good point. The monster PCs that cost 2-3 grand will always beat or match a same year released console. And if you put 3 grand into a computer it better be future proof for the next 6 years. Why dust 514 is on Console and not PCBattle field 3 salesXbox 360: 2.2 millionPlayStation 3: 1.5 millionPC: 500,000 |
MotherMoon
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
724
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 07:48:00 -
[39] - Quote
Yelena Fedorova wrote:so you are comparing a game made in 2007 to a game made in 2011 *sigh*
Way to miss the point? The hardware on the console can still run the game is the point, while the PC used to game in 2007 is crap now. Console hardware is much easier for us to develop on. You know that those 3 million players will all be running you're game on the same hardware, and it's made to suck every last drop out of those cores.
So when making a game on xbox or ps3 or wii, we get a lot ore flexibility. Oh the modern day tricks I wish I could tell you we use. but it'll all under NDA. you can find some of it spread around the internets. But trust me, knowing what hardware will run your title, allows you to optimise down a game in a controled setting, untill it runs smooth as butter.
Keep an eye out in racing games for shadows with missing trees, or another fun one, in MW3, the trees in one level, the shadow is an oak tree, but the tree is is a pine tree. And other tricks are used that are impossible to pull off on PC platform. edit:someone else pointed it out, thanks : ) Why dust 514 is on Console and not PCBattle field 3 salesXbox 360: 2.2 millionPlayStation 3: 1.5 millionPC: 500,000 |
Diesel74
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 10:04:00 -
[40] - Quote
MotherMoon wrote:Mashie Saldana wrote:MotherMoon wrote:The ps4 will blow modern PCs away. you have no idea how the hardware works do you.
You'll pay 300$ for a box that does what takes a 2000$ desktop. The PS4 is , spec for spec, 3 times faster than the ps3. It's got 4 times more ram, more cpus, and a 8 years newer GPU in it. OMG, it will have a whopping 1GB of RAM by the end of 2013. Will it also have 4 x more VRAM bringing it up to *drumroll* 1GB? I don't think you undersand what I'm talking about. Take the xbox 360. 7 year old GPU. 256Mb ram. 3 core 2.1 cpu. Yet graphics wise it can run the new unreal engine 4. If you want a desktop that can run xbox 360 graphics you need at least 4 gb of ram, about the same cpu, and at least a middle ground GPU from the last 3 years. Consoles only job is to render things, so it's cheaper for more power. The new PS4 and Xbox 720 could use the newer high end PC GPus, and thus blow the same cards on PC away, but then you're console would cost 600$, and we know how well that went over. They are releasing the new consoles with 2 year Gpus because they will comparable to a 800$ desktop in terms of rendering, while not being as expensive as the ps3 was on release. Honestly were at the peak. Seeing as even a 560m Can render 50million polys now, the new consoles and PC cards are going to peaking out what we can do visually with a game. It's going to be about upping the scale of games now, putting more and more pretty on screen at once with larger view distances. But I'm sure the PS4 and xbox720 have the hardwire to keep up with anything the PC puts out for at least 1-2 years, like normal. Then after that the PC will break away like nora and become the better option for pretty games. It's the cycle of life for Games graphics
Confirming this guy has no idea what hes talking about.
Edit: Keep it going though, I haven't had a good laugh for a while. |
|
Domer Pyle
Northwest Industries International Technical Exploration Conglomerate of Hemera
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 10:41:00 -
[41] - Quote
MotherMoon wrote:Iambruce wrote: Crysis which came out in 2007, for the PC, and is now available for console. You can clearly see the difference between a dedicated pc platform from 2007 and how its has transitioned to the console market today. http://www.gametrailers.com/user-movie/usermovies/360375I'm still quite impressed with consoles tho, they have done well at keeping up, but they are still lagging far behind a dedicated pc gaming system, even one that could run this game in 2007. That's true, but to be fair back in 2007 was when that games had videos like "Triple 8800GTX SLI GPU running crisis at 26 fps! yeaaahhh!! woooo!!! but yes you bring up a very good point. The monster PCs that cost 2-3 grand will always beat or match a same year released console. And if you put 3 grand into a computer it better be future proof for the next 6 years.
tbh, you don't need to spend 2-3 grand on a computer to get great performance. use newegg or somesuch and build one (or get someone to build one for you) for 1 grand or less. brand-name pcs are overrated. |
Gibbo3771
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
103
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 11:11:00 -
[42] - Quote
MotherMoon wrote:The ps4 will blow modern PCs away. you have no idea how the hardware works do you.
You'll pay 300$ for a box that does what takes a 2000$ desktop. The PS4 is , spec for spec, 3 times faster than the ps3. It's got 4 times more ram, more cpus, and a 8 years newer GPU in it.
but yes the game will run on the ps4 since everything is digital now anyways. bt you have to understand all a console does is render. They have GPU that aren't utilized like a PC uses them. You get 2/3 times more our of the card. You know the ps3 only has 256mb of ram right? yet it can run mass effect 3, try doing that with your pc
LOL this entire post made me laugh the **** out loud.
You clearly have no idea how hardware works.
Its got 4x more ram than the ps3? REALLY? it finally has ONE WHOLE GIGABYTE.
What you need to understand is, a PS4 on launch date will cost you -ú500, thats almost $1000. It WILL outshine the current Mid end PC at the time of release (about a -ú700-1000 rig) It will not be better than a -ú2000 PC and after 3 month of the PS4 being on the market that mid range rig that cost 700-100 now cost you 300-500 yet a PS4 will still be costing you -ú500.
So its now been 6 month since you had your brand new 1gb uber PS4 and since then the GPU that is inside, the PC equal is now the last generation.
Also incase you do not know the PS3's GPU architecture is built on a 7800GT.
You might say stuff like "I can run mass effect 3 on my 256mb ram ps3" but there is one thing you cant do, upgrade the hardware. Infact the time the PS3 was released its hardware was behind a mid range pc within a week (nvidia released there highend 7xxx range)
While you are at it, do some more reading into your PS3 and you will realise that most of your games run at 29fps. Real smooth rate there. Everytime you dont like my comments/posts the terrorists win and your a disgrace to your country. |
Gibbo3771
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
103
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 12:02:00 -
[43] - Quote
MotherMoon wrote:and I agree to most of what you're saying. But lets focus on the Xbox360.
It came out 6 years ago and it can run Battlefield 3. obviously not as well as a PC NOW, but, could your windows xp PC from back in 2007 run Battlefield 3 now?
simple yes no question
does your bf3 run on a 52inch 3d t3 with all settings ate high with 60fps now?
nope, xbox dumbed down to med graphics, 720p...3d will never run and your fps is locked at 29 or less.
Everytime you dont like my comments/posts the terrorists win and your a disgrace to your country. |
Droodid
Antec Enterprises
3
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 15:05:00 -
[44] - Quote
Console gaming is holding back the development of proper PC gaming. That said, I have a PS3 and as a media center it's not half bad. |
Polly Oxford
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
38
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 15:21:00 -
[45] - Quote
BTW, a PC from 2007 can run Battlefield 3. Probably won't even look much worse than the Xbox. The hardware requirements of BF3 are really not that high. |
MotherMoon
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
729
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 20:58:00 -
[46] - Quote
Domer Pyle wrote:MotherMoon wrote:Iambruce wrote: Crysis which came out in 2007, for the PC, and is now available for console. You can clearly see the difference between a dedicated pc platform from 2007 and how its has transitioned to the console market today. http://www.gametrailers.com/user-movie/usermovies/360375I'm still quite impressed with consoles tho, they have done well at keeping up, but they are still lagging far behind a dedicated pc gaming system, even one that could run this game in 2007. That's true, but to be fair back in 2007 was when that games had videos like "Triple 8800GTX SLI GPU running crisis at 26 fps! yeaaahhh!! woooo!!! but yes you bring up a very good point. The monster PCs that cost 2-3 grand will always beat or match a same year released console. And if you put 3 grand into a computer it better be future proof for the next 6 years. tbh, you don't need to spend 2-3 grand on a computer to get great performance. use newegg or somesuch and build one (or get someone to build one for you) for 1 grand or less. brand-name pcs are overrated.
I'm talking about 2006. Building a computer in 2006 to run games NOW. Not a computer with 2006 specs.
If you wanted 4Gb ddr2 of ram back in 2006 it would cost you 600$. Do I need to go any farther? You people are crazy if you think that if you spent 1500$ on a PC in 2006 it would still be up the date enough to run battlefield 3.
The same will happen in 1-2 years with the new release. To build a PC to run the same games the PS4 will run in 2016, you better be ready to buy a GPU that costs more than a PS4.
Droodid wrote:Console gaming is holding back the development of proper PC gaming. That said, I have a PS3 and as a media center it's not half bad. This guy gets it. Why dust 514 is on Console and not PCBattle field 3 salesXbox 360: 2.2 millionPlayStation 3: 1.5 millionPC: 500,000 |
MotherMoon
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
729
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 21:03:00 -
[47] - Quote
Gibbo3771 wrote:MotherMoon wrote:and I agree to most of what you're saying. But lets focus on the Xbox360.
It came out 6 years ago and it can run Battlefield 3. obviously not as well as a PC NOW, but, could your windows xp PC from back in 2007 run Battlefield 3 now?
simple yes no question does your bf3 run on a 52inch 3d t3 with all settings ate high with 60fps now? nope, xbox dumbed down to med graphics, 720p...3d will never run and your fps is locked at 29 or less.
My 800$ desktop wouldn't be able to run that either. Sorry if I don't want to spend 2000$ bucks on a tower to play a game more advanced than a system i could pick up for 200$ OH NO NOT 720p! Not 29 fps! what will do without my 150 fps!
And you people wonder why in todays age PC sales only make up 20% of all video game sales. The cost of high performance parts needs to crash. I don't want to pay 400$ for a GPU. That's stupid. It'll just be 100$ in a year or two anyways. Why dust 514 is on Console and not PCBattle field 3 salesXbox 360: 2.2 millionPlayStation 3: 1.5 millionPC: 500,000 |
Domer Pyle
Northwest Industries International Technical Exploration Conglomerate of Hemera
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 23:19:00 -
[48] - Quote
MotherMoon wrote:Gibbo3771 wrote:MotherMoon wrote:and I agree to most of what you're saying. But lets focus on the Xbox360.
It came out 6 years ago and it can run Battlefield 3. obviously not as well as a PC NOW, but, could your windows xp PC from back in 2007 run Battlefield 3 now?
simple yes no question does your bf3 run on a 52inch 3d t3 with all settings ate high with 60fps now? nope, xbox dumbed down to med graphics, 720p...3d will never run and your fps is locked at 29 or less. My 800$ desktop wouldn't be able to run that either. Sorry if I don't want to spend 2000$ bucks on a tower to play a game more advanced than a system i could pick up for 200$ OH NO NOT 720p! Not 29 fps! what will do without my 150 fps! And you people wonder why in todays age PC sales only make up 20% of all video game sales. The cost of high performance parts needs to crash. I don't want to pay 400$ for a GPU. That's stupid. It'll just be 100$ in a year or two anyways. you buy something for 300$ and you're set playing all of the newest games for the next 6 years. And considering that you're trying to compared a modern 1500$ 2012 PC to a piece of hardware made in 2006 released at 350$, is kinda sad.
only morons/rich people buy first generation hardware. smart people get 2nd gen stuff, because it's vastly cheaper and has most of the bugs worked out. i have dual 460s, an i5, 16gb ddr3, and 4 TB HD space and it only cost me around $1100, about a year or so ago (could be as far back as summer '10, but i don't really remember). and i rarely experience performance issues. in any game. AND it can upgrade as needed. QED. |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
979
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 23:30:00 -
[49] - Quote
All these 'PC4LYF!' people need to get over it already.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
MotherMoon
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
733
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 23:34:00 -
[50] - Quote
Domer Pyle wrote:MotherMoon wrote:Gibbo3771 wrote:MotherMoon wrote:and I agree to most of what you're saying. But lets focus on the Xbox360.
It came out 6 years ago and it can run Battlefield 3. obviously not as well as a PC NOW, but, could your windows xp PC from back in 2007 run Battlefield 3 now?
simple yes no question does your bf3 run on a 52inch 3d t3 with all settings ate high with 60fps now? nope, xbox dumbed down to med graphics, 720p...3d will never run and your fps is locked at 29 or less. My 800$ desktop wouldn't be able to run that either. Sorry if I don't want to spend 2000$ bucks on a tower to play a game more advanced than a system i could pick up for 200$ OH NO NOT 720p! Not 29 fps! what will do without my 150 fps! And you people wonder why in todays age PC sales only make up 20% of all video game sales. The cost of high performance parts needs to crash. I don't want to pay 400$ for a GPU. That's stupid. It'll just be 100$ in a year or two anyways. you buy something for 300$ and you're set playing all of the newest games for the next 6 years. And considering that you're trying to compared a modern 1500$ 2012 PC to a piece of hardware made in 2006 released at 350$, is kinda sad. only morons/rich people buy first generation hardware. smart people get 2nd gen stuff, because it's vastly cheaper and has most of the bugs worked out. i have dual 460s, an i5, 16gb ddr3, and 4 TB HD space and it only cost me around $1100, about a year or so ago (could be as far back as summer '10, but i don't really remember). and i rarely experience performance issues. in any game. AND it can upgrade as needed. QED.
exactly. So when the PS4 comes out, most people will wait 1-2 years, and then buy the same parts even at 1/4 the price.
So unless you chunk in a ton of money your PC at the time of the PS4 release won't be as good. that's not a bad thing it's just the nature of hardware. Why dust 514 is on Console and not PCBattle field 3 salesXbox 360: 2.2 millionPlayStation 3: 1.5 millionPC: 500,000 |
|
Mashie Saldana
Veto. Veto Corp
521
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 00:10:00 -
[51] - Quote
MotherMoon wrote:exactly. So when the PS4 comes out, most people will wait 1-2 years, and then buy the same parts even at 1/4 the price.
So unless you chunk in a ton of money your PC at the time of the PS4 release won't be as good. that's not a bad thing it's just the nature of hardware.
I hate to say it, because I love my beast PC used for video editing and such. but people are more inclined nowadays to get a tablet or laptop. Then a console as a gaming machine. becuase you can buy one and never have to worry about upgrading it, or parts working slow. You get the same experince as everyone.
Then 3 years into a console life, PC becomes more attractive with falling prices and better faster parts. I would be surprised if they put anything but a midrange GPU in the PS4, after all adding a $600 graphics chip in a $300 console is silly.
Also the PS4 isn't expected to do nVsurround or Eyefinity so high end cards are simply not needed for low resolution (1080p) gaming. Dominique Vasilkovsky Mashie Saldana Monica Foulkes |
Cyrina Manto
Masons of New Eden The Laughing Men
11
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 09:23:00 -
[52] - Quote
PS4 is going to be based on a customized Llano style chip. Which means GPU and CPU in the same chip. There have been unconfirmed rumors of a powerful integrated GPU along with a lower mid-range discrete GPU.
Even Llano benefits from faster memory now, cant wait to see what Sony does for the memory subsystem. Anything is better than the PS3's horrible memory layout.
Oh, and to all the Nvidia fanboys talking about NV console graphics... EVERY console in the next gen is confirmed to be using AMD graphics. Most seemingly based on mid-range HD7000 architecture chips. (maybe a gen or two older for Nintendo) |
Snow Burst
RED.OverLord
7
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 13:36:00 -
[53] - Quote
kosswomen Mckay wrote:As the title says really.
From researching around the net Cnet and ZDnet in particular it looks like the new Sony Playstation will be based on AMD processors with ATI graphics cards, ie a PC. The rumours also suggest a 2013 release date although the hardware will be even older if that is true. What is for sure is that the PS4 will not be as powerful as the latest PC.
So what impact do you think this will have on the development of Dust. Surely Sony and CCP will want Dust to be on the new platform.
I am not a programmer so do not know how difficult it is to port over games written on PS3 to x86 machines if even there is a difficulty. Also a lot of the assets in Dust are taken directly from Eve so it sounds even more simple to start to have a Dust that runs on both platforms.
Any thoughts on this? dude no console will EVER compare to a pc pc's are way more powerfull and forever will be. Emulation for those of you who will inevitably bring it up is hard because the pc has to eumlate the console AND run the pc at the same time AND run games There Is A 90% Chance All Of What You Just Read Is Wrong, Inaccurate Or Just Me Being Controversial In Some Way.-áOr By Some Chance It's Completely Right In Every Way... At Least To Me :3 |
Mars Theran
EVE Rogues EVE Rogues Alliance
238
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 14:33:00 -
[54] - Quote
Grohl Dovah wrote:Mars Theran wrote:The PS4 won't blow away a PC by any means unless it happens to be a Compaq or stock and trade Dell or Hewlett Packard. No Console can even come close to a decent PC and never has.
I'm sorry but why you got be spreading crap like this? Now, consoles are like mini computers and yet they wont step up against a i7 or something of that caliber i can assure you that the PS3 is more efficient than most standard dells and hps. I will always love consoles. Something about them. I just wish people would stop whining about Dust being on PS3 only right now. DO you really have nothing better to do?
I wasn't whining about the PS3 or Dust being on it; I'm all for the idea because of PC hacking and how it impacts gameplay and fairplay. I can deal with hackers wrecking games like BF or something, (even if I don't like it and it quite often ruins game experience for everyone else), but Dust is not BF or CoD, or even TF2 and it's connected to EVE and supposedly will have an impact on that as well.
I don't want hackers determining the fate of Null Alliance control of territories even if I think Dust will not be a primary deciding factor in Sov. For this reason I support CCPs decision to make Dust PS3 exclusive and I will continue to do so. I'd like to see it on PC someday, but I'd want CCP to make absolutely certain it is secure when/if that happens.
As for the PS3, I'm calling it what it is. It's much better than a baseline PCfor graphics and gaming, but anyone who puts some effort into building a PC for gaming is going to get much higher performance and capability. This is why PC games are much higher quality rendering and graphics provided you bump the settings up to that level. The right PC can handle it. It's also why console ports to PC typically have lower quality raphics than standard PC games, or have to be upgraded by the Devs to meet PC standards.
It's just a fact. I don't expect PS4 to be any different.
That being said, with regards to PS4 having an AMD chip and ATi GPU most of us are just going on Sonys release statement to the gaming news press regarfding the upcoming platform. It was linked on these forums some time ago and I think most of us interested read it, or at least skimmed through the content.
I'm hoping that it will change and actually hoping Sony is paying some degree of attention to us out here. I don't mind paying a little extra for a PS4 when it comes if they find they can't improve upon PS3 with their current agenda. On the other hand, they said it was an AMD x86 chip, but not which chip or whether it was one of the current line ups. Maybe they're working on something new or making an existing architecture better. Who knows.
I have no problem with ATi GPUs either. They're perfectly suited for that platform and the latest offerings from ATi have been lower power, cooler running GPUs that are quite effective. The whole game between ATi and Nvidia actually seems to bounce back and forth quite a bit with only a few exceptions in terms of capability. ATi is better at somethings, (Multi-Monitor support for example), and Nvidia is better at others, (i.e: Hardware Physics).
Either is good in their own right and both drop substandard products on the market here and there. AMD is also perfectly capable of making a good processor, and probably more so capable of making a good processor for a console like PS4 than for the mainstream PC market. At least when they are making a processor for console, they know exactly what it is going to be doing and need to be capable of, as well as how it is going to be integrated into the hardware, barring certain revisions, no exceptions.
I think it will be good for them. What bugs me is that Sony might just buy a bunch of chips and fit them all together in a PS4. Sure they can, and they may well do, but the resultant product, (despite optimizations and relatively good to excellent integration), isn't going to be as good as if they do it the other way. It's the difference between a potentially good product and a well made product that lasts for years while doing exactly what you intended it to do better. Auction - EVE Rogues Alliance [ROGUE]: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1215438#post1215438-á-á~ Latest bid: 40 million ISK. |
Hicksimus
Slaxtopia Reverberation Project
115
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 16:20:00 -
[55] - Quote
Surfin's PlunderBunny wrote:Then again, at $300 a unit that's $528,000 which could get you an alienware
They were cool before Dell used them as a way to boost sales of their workstations by putting acceptable graphics cards in them, calling them alienware and charging double the money.
Things I have realized from the EvE forums: Many people beleive cost means money and only money |
Vicky Somers
Rusty Anchor
25
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 19:05:00 -
[56] - Quote
MotherMoon wrote:and I agree to most of what you're saying. But lets focus on the Xbox360.
It came out 6 years ago and it can run Battlefield 3. obviously not as well as a PC NOW, but, could your windows xp PC from back in 2007 run Battlefield 3 now?
simple yes no question
At the resolution & graphical quality of the 360 version? Yes, with ease. |
Cyrina Manto
Masons of New Eden The Laughing Men
11
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 07:33:00 -
[57] - Quote
The only console that surpassed PC's of the same era was N64 (on its launch).
As for the chip in the PS4 it is supposed to be similar to Trinity. Which points to Piledriver CPU cores and HD 7000 based shader clusters (it may have more shaders than standard parts to give it as long a life-span as possible.).
Performance on highly optimized software is extremely fast on AMD's current hardware, It just lacks performance in unoptimized (I.E. legacy or old) code. So it should shine brightly in a closed platform where code will be optimized to its fullest.
More on topic... I think having the game on a closed (mostly) secure platform will help tremendously in curbing the amount of hacking and auto-aiming losers. |
RavenTesio
Liandri Corporation
30
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 08:37:00 -
[58] - Quote
MotherMoon wrote:The ps4 will blow 1500-2000$ modern PCs away. you have no idea how the hardware works do you. Edit*obviously not the power 3-4 grand builds, duh*
You'll pay 300$ for a box that does what takes a 2000$ desktop. The PS4 is , spec for spec, 3 times faster than the ps3. It's got 4 times more ram, more cpus, and a 8 years newer GPU in it.
but yes the game will run on the ps4 since everything is digital now anyways. bt you have to understand all a console does is render. They have GPU that aren't utilized like a PC uses them. You get 2/3 times more our of the card. You know the ps3 only has 256mb of ram right? yet it can run mass effect 3, try doing that with your pc
With the specifications currently floating around, the performance of the PlayStation 4 isn't exactly a step forward... but more a step to the side with new features.
The reason I say this is because at-the-metal level, the PlayStation 3 has an incredible amount of raw potencial. What actually holds it back are some very poor decisions either due to costs or the fact that Sony have been adament since the PS2 to create a Home Console that can replace your Desktop Computer.
One of the biggest issues that Sony have is their use of Linux as the basic Operating System utilised. Now this isn't to say that Linux is particularly bad at being an OS, it is an incredible piece of software engineering from an educational and those who enjoy heavily modifying their environment stand-point ... but what it is not great at is performance, or development accessibility.
Atleast not without a very comprehensive supportive package from the manufacturer. We see this every day, where PlayStation 3 developers have commented time and time again about how difficult it is to develop products without a middleware engine (i.e. Unreal / Source / CryTek / Frostbite Engine) where-as on the Xbox 360 and Wii, while developers prefer to use the middleware engines to improve development time; those who do use custom engine solutions find doing so a very straight forward process.
Now Sony believe simply by moving to x86 Hardware (basically a HTPC in a box) that this will solve the developer issues that have plagued them and caused so many 3rd party developers to leave them. Yet this won't change a thing unless Sony get their act together and produce a comprehensive platform with a single standardisation that all developers use.
This is why Xbox Live is a far superior platform for online games, because while custom solutions will work side-by-side with the system developers get a system that actually is very well developed and integrated seemlessly with good tools to access it.
As far as the main question goes though of will the PS4 change anything about Dust 514? No, it wont' change a thing. This is partly why developers will now use a Middileware Engine like Unreal 3 Engine (as CCP are doing) ... because while custom solutions (i.e. Network Systems) must be changed to support the new platform, the rest of the game simply needs to be recooked and QA done to make sure it runs consistantly.
Realistically, DUST could probably even be put on the iPad if CCP wanted to with very little real work. It what makes it without a doubt the No. 1 Middleware engine in the industry today. With UDK being free, in-fact anyone here if they chose to could develop a game on Windows; while at the same time outputting and testing it on damn near every gaming platform they have to hand. It is just a remarkable peice of software that takes a large portion of the hardwork out of making multi-platform titles... one team instead of one-per-platform can see the development all the way to the end. |
Meolyne
los tabarnakos
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 11:16:00 -
[59] - Quote
Droodid wrote:Console gaming is holding back the development of proper PC gaming. That said, I have a PS3 and as a media center it's not half bad. True
Domer Pyle wrote:
only morons/rich people buy first generation hardware. smart people get 2nd gen stuff, because it's vastly cheaper and has most of the bugs worked out.
What a nice piece of **** So I'm a Rich MoronGäó because i've bought the first Intel MacPro (v1.1) @2200$ mid 2006 No bugs, still outperform most market. Now if you only look at your wallet, sure you will make wrong choices. I play on it I work on it i earn money with it. I upgrade it when it needs And i can open it without looking for the nearest "please contact your SONY retail center, 100km away" just to hear there is dust on the blu-ray Lens, therefore not in warranty. Oh, and it's quiet.
On Ps3, apart being a paid alpha tester... with 2 big thumbs.
now what can you do with a console? play DonkeyKong Forever maybe ?
Cyrina Manto wrote: I think having the game on a closed (mostly) secure platform will help tremendously in curbing the amount of hacking and auto-aiming losers.
With a sony store like itunes, don't blame CCP if they earn more money with in game transactions for Aurum than Eve online playerbase.
Yes, i'm a console hater since i left school. Computer is versatile. not console. |
Cyrina Manto
Masons of New Eden The Laughing Men
11
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 20:45:00 -
[60] - Quote
RavenTesio wrote:MotherMoon wrote:The ps4 will blow 1500-2000$ modern PCs away. you have no idea how the hardware works do you. Edit*obviously not the power 3-4 grand builds, duh*
You'll pay 300$ for a box that does what takes a 2000$ desktop. The PS4 is , spec for spec, 3 times faster than the ps3. It's got 4 times more ram, more cpus, and a 8 years newer GPU in it.
but yes the game will run on the ps4 since everything is digital now anyways. bt you have to understand all a console does is render. They have GPU that aren't utilized like a PC uses them. You get 2/3 times more our of the card. You know the ps3 only has 256mb of ram right? yet it can run mass effect 3, try doing that with your pc With the specifications currently floating around, the performance of the PlayStation 4 isn't exactly a step forward... but more a step to the side with new features. The reason I say this is because at-the-metal level, the PlayStation 3 has an incredible amount of raw potencial. What actually holds it back are some very poor decisions either due to costs or the fact that Sony have been adament since the PS2 to create a Home Console that can replace your Desktop Computer. One of the biggest issues that Sony have is their use of Linux as the basic Operating System utilised. Now this isn't to say that Linux is particularly bad at being an OS, it is an incredible piece of software engineering from an educational and those who enjoy heavily modifying their environment stand-point ... but what it is not great at is performance, or development accessibility. Atleast not without a very comprehensive supportive package from the manufacturer. We see this every day, where PlayStation 3 developers have commented time and time again about how difficult it is to develop products without a middleware engine (i.e. Unreal / Source / CryTek / Frostbite Engine) where-as on the Xbox 360 and Wii, while developers prefer to use the middleware engines to improve development time; those who do use custom engine solutions find doing so a very straight forward process. Now Sony believe simply by moving to x86 Hardware (basically a HTPC in a box) that this will solve the developer issues that have plagued them and caused so many 3rd party developers to leave them. Yet this won't change a thing unless Sony get their act together and produce a comprehensive platform with a single standardisation that all developers use. This is why Xbox Live is a far superior platform for online games, because while custom solutions will work side-by-side with the system developers get a system that actually is very well developed and integrated seemlessly with good tools to access it. As far as the main question goes though of will the PS4 change anything about Dust 514? No, it wont' change a thing. This is partly why developers will now use a Middileware Engine like Unreal 3 Engine (as CCP are doing) ... because while custom solutions (i.e. Network Systems) must be changed to support the new platform, the rest of the game simply needs to be recooked and QA done to make sure it runs consistantly. Realistically, DUST could probably even be put on the iPad if CCP wanted to with very little real work. It what makes it without a doubt the No. 1 Middleware engine in the industry today. With UDK being free, in-fact anyone here if they chose to could develop a game on Windows; while at the same time outputting and testing it on damn near every gaming platform they have to hand. It is just a remarkable peice of software that takes a large portion of the hardwork out of making multi-platform titles... one team instead of one-per-platform can see the development all the way to the end.
So much fail...
Sony's firmware and GameOS are miles away from linux... They just supported users putting linux on the devices to play with programming.
PS3 is terrible as far as compute power is concerned because of CELL B.E. Its a pain to program.
The memory layout is also terrible, 256mb for textures and geometry... Unless you are a coding genius and can get DMA transfers to work well enough.
Also, Sony is probably moving to the x86 side of things because they want to make a ROI. Dev costs for CELL were stupidly high, and they cut into margins. Its not about architecture, its about the bottom line and money. Licensing is far cheaper than in house R&D. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |