Next gen: 1080p or 60fps....but not both!

Dcully

Otacon wrote: »

You find it shocking and hilarious that developers are having trouble achieving 1080p@60FPS on brand new hardware, with brand new system software and continuously updating specifications?

TBH I'm amazed they are getting the results they are - which we may want to remember are still not finished products.

Considering ancient hardware can achieve this and has been for close to a decade if not more at a canter with all the overheads we have on a PC and next gen cant achieve it, Yes i find that both shocking and hilarious.

Expecting higher visual fidelity and larger player counts and maps on top of a more than double resolution boost AND doubling fps, all from a €400 piece of kit is borderline technological naivety.

You could build a PC on par with my sons 5 year old rig for €300 with change to spare with a tonne more HDD space.


Im sorry but you can dress it up what way you like lads but its just a laughable scenario.

K.O.Kiki

Dcully wrote: »

You could build a PC on par with my sons 5 year old rig for €300 with change to spare with a tonne more HDD space.

Including OS?

Go on then.
Prove it.

Cuddlesworth

Dcully wrote: »

[apart from the 14 year old quake engine used in COD] is laughable beyond belief

It was derived from the Quake Engine ten years ago. I doubt that even 1% of the code now is the same as the original Engine it was based on.

gizmo

Dcully wrote: »

Considering ancient hardware can achieve this and has been for close to a decade if not more at a canter with all the overheads we have on a PC and next gen cant achieve it, Yes i find that both shocking and hilarious.

But 1080p@60 means nothing without some context. Can the consoles do it? Yes, of course they can. Forza 5 is already confirmed as running at that with a bunch of other games targeting it also. Can they always do it even when you crank up the visual fidelity while increasing the draw distance to extremely far levels on larger maps which include environmental destruction and with even higher player counts? No and for the price of the unit it's ridiculous to think they can.

Dcully wrote: »

You could build a PC on par with my sons 5 year old rig for €300 with change to spare with a tonne more HDD space.

I would be happy to wager that you would not be able to build a PC with a similar form factor to a console, with all the necessary components including decent input devices and a Windows licence which is capable of running BF4 at 1080p@60 at the same detail levels present on the next-gen consoles for that price.

Dcully

Go check out the PC hardware and building forum and be surprised.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=842

tuxy

Dcully wrote: »

Go check out the PC hardware and building forum and be surprised.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=842

The windows licence is €85, are you sure it could be built for €215?

Cuddlesworth

gizmo wrote: »

I would be happy to wager that you would not be able to build a PC with a similar form factor to a console, with all the necessary components including decent input devices and a Windows licence which is capable of running BF4 at 1080p@60 at the same detail levels present on the next-gen consoles for that price.

Initially it would be about 550. But after two years, new graphics card and you have a much better machine.

Dcully

tuxy wrote: »

The windows licence is €85, are you sure it could be built for €215?

Spend €85 and still over €300 left if we are talking about the same price as these new consoles.
I meant to say 300-400 since €400 is the expected retails price.

gizmo

Dcully wrote: »

Go check out the PC hardware and building forum and be surprised.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=842

I've seen Bloodbath's most recent effort(s) for around €400 and while it's certainly impressive even he admits it wouldn't compete with the next gen consoles, especially those platform exclusives which can really push the hardware.

Retr0gamer

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Including OS?

Go on then.
Prove it.

An OS that doesn't swallow half the available memory for itself.

Cuddlesworth

Retr0gamer wrote: »

An OS that doesn't swallow half the available memory for itself.

Memory is cheap and there is a huge difference between a gaming specific OS and the wonders of the multi-functional OS(windows/OSX/Linux).

Haven't consoles spent the last generation trying to gain the functionality of PC's?

I honestly would not be surprised if we saw hardware revisions of the platforms in the next couple of years with video scaling to accommodate the differences in spec.

Rev A = 720p @ 30fps
Rev B = 720P @ 60fps or 1080P @ 30fps
Rev C= 1080p@ 60fps

Considering the x86 architecture and underlying OS I don't see why it can't be possible.

ShadowHearth

Maybe 400eu pc is not going to break world records, but you don't need 4 digit systems to wipe the flours with next gen if 720p in bf4 is the thing that we are promised.
Haven't built systems myself for some time, but with recent massive price drop in gpus I could see a full gaming pc with Windows for 700- 800eu make next gen look sad. Xbox + live = 550eu. Game prices so far look like double the price of pc games. That 700-800eu does not really look like a lot for what you get. Considering pc is more then just a gaming device and a box to put cable box in to, which is not supported in eu...

Retr0gamer

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Memory is cheap and there is a huge difference between a gaming specific OS and the wonders of the multi-functional OS(windows/OSX/Linux).

You misunderstood me. The OS of both consoles is swallowing up nearly half the available memory pool. That will come down a lot with updates but it's still an insane amount.

K.O.Kiki

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Maybe 400eu pc is not going to break world records, but you don't need 4 digit systems to wipe the flours with next gen if 720p in bf4 is the thing that we are promised.
Haven't built systems myself for some time, but with recent massive price drop in gpus I could see a full gaming pc with Windows for 700- 800eu make next gen look sad. Xbox + live = 550eu. Game prices so far look like double the price of pc games. That 700-800eu does not really look like a lot for what you get. Considering pc is more then just a gaming device and a box to put cable box in to, which is not supported in eu...

Please stop talking like the Xbone matters.

Compare your PC to a PS4 with 1 year's PS+ if anything.

johnny_ultimate

I'm always genuinely baffled how, after all these years, this is still perceived as an either/or battle. That the revelation that a top-mid range PC is going to outperform consoles is viewed as some sort of minor outrage. That this is in any way, shape or form going to effect the market viability of the consoles. Not to say a console manufacturer shouldn't provide the best specs they can, but I'd be damned if that lower numbers and resolution made me enjoy Super Mario Galaxy any less.

Of course a well built PC is going to outperform a PS4 and Xbox One. It was the same with PS3, PS2, PS1 and back to the 16 and 32 bit generations. They're very different models of technology, affording developers very different opportunities. A PS4 will not be as technically ravishing when it comes to graphic intensive games like BF4, but nor has a PC ever hosted the vast amount of delightful exclusives from Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft consoles. They have instead existed in harmony, all boxes offering unique pleasures to those who choose to use them.

Again, it's not either/or, it never has been. And if anyone is really so concerned with sheer graphical oomph that they'd opt not to purchase a console, well that's their choice but frankly you're going to miss out on some amazing games.

Radiosonde

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'm always genuinely baffled how, after all these years, this is still perceived as an either/or battle. That the revelation that a top-mid range PC is going to outperform consoles is viewed as some sort of minor outrage. That this is in any way, shape or form going to effect the market viability of the consoles. Not to say a console manufacturer shouldn't provide the best specs they can, but I'd be damned if that lower numbers and resolution made me enjoy Super Mario Galaxy any less.
=

Ironically, SMG2 did run at 60fps IIRC, as did many top Wii titles, and Nintendo's own Wii U titles should also.

But yeah, if this bothers people so much get a pc. AND YOU CAN GET MODS THEN TOO!

ShadowHearth

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'm always genuinely baffled how, after all these years, this is still perceived as an either/or battle. That the revelation that a top-mid range PC is going to outperform consoles is viewed as some sort of minor outrage. That this is in any way, shape or form going to effect the market viability of the consoles. Not to say a console manufacturer shouldn't provide the best specs they can, but I'd be damned if that lower numbers and resolution made me enjoy Super Mario Galaxy any less.

Of course a well built PC is going to outperform a PS4 and Xbox One. It was the same with PS3, PS2, PS1 and back to the 16 and 32 bit generations. They're very different models of technology, affording developers very different opportunities. A PS4 will not be as technically ravishing when it comes to graphic intensive games like BF4, but nor has a PC ever hosted the vast amount of delightful exclusives from Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft consoles. They have instead existed in harmony, all boxes offering unique pleasures to those who choose to use them.

Again, it's not either/or, and if anyone is really so concerned with sheer graphical oomph that they'd opt not to purchase a console, well that's their choice but frankly you're going to miss out on some amazing games and I find that rather baffling.

Same way, how you can miss out on exclusive fantastic games on PC too. No matter which platform you will choose, you will miss out on something. Its like "no **** Shelock" at this stage. Not many people can afford all 3 platforms. If I could I would preorder both PS4 and XBOX ONE, add WII U to accompany my PC, 3DS and VITA, PS3 and enjoy all the "amazing" games.
Like it or not, but ownership costs of all 3 major platforms are getting very near and something like PC, which was always a bit of "unique" spot is now a lot more affordable and realistic option. PC is not just about performance ( which is awesome on its own ), but different experience and a huge catalog of games, that are not available on consoles. Same way next gen consoles will have their own unique games, that will not appear on PC. Its not about battle as you say, but about option people have these days. Next gen consoles not being able to deliver 1080p/60fps ( I would be happy enough with 1080p 30fps to be honest ) is a **** up already.

I just really hope that 720p thing is just temporary early state, where devs dont have skills to work on new systems. If it will stick, then feck that, might as well keep ps3/360 for another few years ( yes yes, I know new consoles will use power for other game aspects then graphics bla bla bla). I know for sure, that I am not getting BF4 for ps4 now. Only PC version. Looks like it will be a new cod for PS4 just for ****s and giggles when buddy comes over or misses wants to play a bit.

johnny_ultimate

Radiosonde wrote: »

Ironically, SMG2 did run at 60fps IIRC, as did many top Wii titles, and Nintendo's own Wii U titles should also.

There's an interesting subtext to that comment, which is that when we're talking about '1080p at 60 FPS' we're really talking about AAA releases at top graphical settings. Stylised games or ones that cut corners to get to where they want to go? Much less of an issue. I played MGS: Revengeance recently that 98% of the time ran at a pretty silky smooth 60FPS (some drops during particularly madcap bits), but they clearly had to cut a few graphical shortcuts in terms of texture, detail etc... Did I mind? Not at all, it played near perfectly. These things can be achieved, and honestly I typically find myself considerably less interested in the hyper-realistic games as they often exist in genres like the FPS that I have very minimal interest in.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Same way, how you can miss out on exclusive fantastic games on PC too. No matter which platform you will choose, you will miss out on something. Its like "no **** Shelock" at this stage. Not many people can afford all 3 platforms. If I could I would preorder both PS4 and XBOX ONE, add WII U to accompany my PC, 3DS and VITA, PS3 and enjoy all the "amazing" games.

You don't need to talk to me about not being able to afford gaming devices I do not have a PC capable of running anything of any significant oomph, and will not to do for some time (much more out of financial restrictions). I am instead relegated to whatever kind indie developers release games my aging laptop can handle. This situation would be rectified significantly if I had the money to do so. And I'd love a WiiU to play Wonderful 101, a Vita to play Gravity Rush etc... I genuinely wish. Hell, I only have a 3DS because I won the damn thing! Even then, I concede I'm in a much more privileged position than many people will be, and I would never take that for granted. There'll always be gamers struggling to afford one gaming device, let alone multiple. There it all just boils down to personal preference.

But really I don't think financial restrictions are as major an issue when it comes to people cancelling preorders or vowing off a console because it can't manage 60 fps. I still think for anyone who comfortably has the finances to own a good PC and a console or two would be a tad misguided to limit themselves to just one or the other. You're dead right, plenty of PC exclusives and a huge back catalogue, and it's going to be a while before any of the new consoles are 'must owns'. But there's still always going to be exciting console only releases. Shooting yourself in the foot over minor technical quibbles isn't, IMO, worth it! Definitely sounds like its going to be worth sticking with PC for BF4 if you're lucky enough to have the choice, but then again for a while at least there's only going to be one place to play Everyone's Gone to the Rapture which, for this gamer, is a much more exciting prospect than any military shooter sequel.

In a rambling sort of way, my main hypothesis boils down to: being technically inferior to PCs has never being a major handicap for consoles before, and I don't see the paradigm shifting too radically as we enter the next generation.

Richard Dower

cerny talks future proofing http://www.polygon.com/2013/8/27/4663442/cerny-ps4-devs-will-get-more-out-of-the-hardware-in-year-three-or-four[/url

bf4 not as good on next gen as pc http://www.videogamer.com/ps4/battlefield_4/news/battlefield_4_on_ps4_and_xbox_one_we_need_to_compromise_in_some_places_says_dice.html

PickledLime

Dcully wrote: »

Next gen my arse, so called next gen unable to run @ 1080 @ 60 fps [apart from the 14 year old quake engine used in COD] is laughable beyond belief.
FFS im playing games @ 60fps + @1080 + for over 8 years now without any hassle.

My sons 5 year old PC can run BF3 @ 1080 and 60+ fps at medium gfx settings, drop gfx down to low ie on par with current consoles gfx settings in BF3 and we are looking at close to 90fps on a 5 year old PC.

Im sorry but i find it both shocking and hilarious.

Not sure ill bother with my planned PS4 now.

Yawn and yawn again.

No one in their right mind buys a console for bleeding edge graphics. Big whoop that you can push BF3 at high framerates, resolution on PC. It's not like the PS4/X1 are gonna be pushing out Atari 2600 levels of performance. Creative art design will always trump raw grunt.

For me it comes down to games and convenience. I buy a console, plonk it under the TV, 6 or 7 years and hundreds of fun games (remember why we buy games in the first place) later I buy a new one.

Do I care if the guy down the street has a higher framerate and an FOV slider? Unless the game is completely crippled (Bayonetta on PS3 - boo!) then not one bit. Most of my favourite games this gen were exclusive to console, so saying something like "but wouldn't you prefer to play the version with superior graphics?" is moot.


Some people play games to enjoy the games, others play them to count pixels and get excited over that. Each to their own, but I'm usually far too busy doing the former to pass too much heed of the latter.

nesf

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'm always genuinely baffled how, after all these years, this is still perceived as an either/or battle. That the revelation that a top-mid range PC is going to outperform consoles is viewed as some sort of minor outrage. That this is in any way, shape or form going to effect the market viability of the consoles. Not to say a console manufacturer shouldn't provide the best specs they can, but I'd be damned if that lower numbers and resolution made me enjoy Super Mario Galaxy any less.

Of course a well built PC is going to outperform a PS4 and Xbox One. It was the same with PS3, PS2, PS1 and back to the 16 and 32 bit generations. They're very different models of technology, affording developers very different opportunities. A PS4 will not be as technically ravishing when it comes to graphic intensive games like BF4, but nor has a PC ever hosted the vast amount of delightful exclusives from Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft consoles. They have instead existed in harmony, all boxes offering unique pleasures to those who choose to use them.

Again, it's not either/or, it never has been. And if anyone is really so concerned with sheer graphical oomph that they'd opt not to purchase a console, well that's their choice but frankly you're going to miss out on some amazing games.

This, a thousand times this. Consoles are not meant to be top end machines. Why? Because people won't shell out over a grand on a console, so they can't put good enough tech in to do it. High end components are very much not an option for any company putting together a console for the masses, just wait for the Steam Box, 2 x 7790s in Crossfire it will not have. Top end machines are top end because only a small percentage of people will pay the large premium for great performance. Most people are perfectly content to use good performance cards for 1-2 years back for instance and really who could blame them?

The thing is, this is fine. Really, it's fine. For 500 quid you can't expect bleeding edge technology of this complexity (yet) so really I cannot see what people are complaining about. Christ, 500 quid wouldn't even cover the GPUs of a really high end PC.

Dcully

Yawn and yawn again.

Id get some sleep if i were you

Big whoop that you can push BF3 at high framerates, resolution on PC

My point is its a 5 year old PC that looks as if it will outperform this so called next gen, thats just hilarious to me.

For me it comes down to games and convenience. I buy a console, plonk it under the TV, 6 or 7 years and hundreds of fun games (remember why we buy games in the first place) later I buy a new one.

Totally agree.

Some people play games to enjoy the games, others play them to count pixels and get excited over that.

Its not about getting excited, trust me its pretty hard to get excited with something one is used to every day for a decade now in this case that being 1080+ @ 60fps+ .

FYI my games collection is full of indie titles not just graphically shiney ones so yeah i play games to enjoy them, gameplay before everything else imo.

Hand on heart guys, honest question , do you people planning to buy a console not feel any disappointment that this coming gen may not achieve 60 fps or 1080?

Granted certain genres dont need 60 fps but even still the experience is all the better when that fps is reached in any game.
Some genres i wouldnt touch with a barge pole unless they atleast approached 60 fps [miltiplayer fps,rts,mobas etc,racing sims in particular]

I blame the fact im used to silky smooth gaming for far too many years,yes i always have a very high spec PC but personally i hoped 1080 @ 60 would be just standard procedure,probably my naivety but in 2013 i just expected more.

Despite all ive said and hoped for, once i can sit on the couch and play Fifa or PES at a smooth framerate i will probably end up buying a PS4 purely for the craic we have here playing fifa ad pes

gizmo

Dcully wrote: »

My point is its a 5 year old PC that looks as if it will outperform this so called next gen, thats just hilarious to me.

What specs are this five year old PC as a matter of interest? My Q9550-based machine was built in early 2009 but has seen two GPU upgrades since, calling that a four and a half year old machine in this context would be entirely disingenuous for instance.

Dcully wrote: »

Hand on heart guys, honest question , do you people planning to buy a console not feel any disappointment that this coming gen may not achieve 60 fps or 1080?

Of course, who wouldn't like their favourite games to run smoother and at a higher resolution? A more appropriate question is whether or not my level of enjoyment of my current library of console games was diminished because of the lack of it. The answer to that? Nope.

Then again, like you I also try to play certain genres on my PC where I can experience the game in a manner which I prefer whether it's for a higher framerate or to have mouse and keyboard support, so I certainly see where you're coming from there.

Dcully wrote: »

I blame the fact im used to silky smooth gaming for far too many years,yes i always have a very high spec PC but personally i hoped 1080 @ 60 would be just standard procedure,probably my naivety but in 2013 i just expected more.

This is the thing though, you are getting more, you're just expecting too much more from the new platforms. For instance, I'm quite sure they could run current gen games at higher detail levels at 1080p@60 but with doubling of resolution and frame rates on top of the rather large leap in graphical fidelity we're seeing from some of the new titles, it's just too much to expect from them for every game.

NTMK

Dcully wrote: »

Hand on heart guys, honest question , do you people planning to buy a console not feel any disappointment that this coming gen may not achieve 60 fps or 1080?

the consoles running at 720p60 or 1080p30 is fine imo but 4-5years down the line what will they be running and how long is this gen expected to last are the big worries for me. Development will be optimised very quickly compared to the Ps3 so they will hit their peak far quicker imo

Im hoping they use the extra cpu power of these consoles to impliment better physics and AI into games as i knew graphically the consoles werent going to set the world alight

SeantheMan

It's about the games and software, not the graphical fidelity

PickledLime

Dcully wrote: »

My point is its a 5 year old PC that looks as if it will outperform this so called next gen, thats just hilarious to me.

You seem to be equating specs on paper (for the consoles) = specs for the PC.

I think everyone is getting ahead of themselves in regards to what the PS4/X1 will be capable of. People are writing the things off and we're still months from launch! I'm not gonna judge either of them until I see what talented studios are doing with them in and around Easter 2015.

One of the perks of the static hardware environment of a console is the software will eventually be optimised to within an inch of its life.

Could you imagine something looking as good as God Of War Ascension or The Last Of Us running on similar spec PC hardware in late 2006, because I certainly couldn't.

Anyway, the whole 60 vs 30fps debate, 30fps is fine for me for most genres as long as it's locked with no screen tearing. A well implemented motion blur can add to the look in a big way too. The only genre of games that I'd refuse to play at anything below 60fps are fighting games and bullethell/2D space shooters. Even racers, Wipeout 2048, GRID, NFS: MW, all great at 30fps.

Azza

Very few games on console give a constant 30fps experience though.
Even on PC its difficult to get a constant 60fps. Alot of people don't realise the effect v-sync has on frame rate and the input lag it causes as well.

People often say well I'm getting a constant 50-55fps on my PC games but with normal v-sync on there really only getting 30fps.


John Carmack said a while back that you get 2x performance from a console that you do from a PC of the same spec due to the optimizations you can preform.

stevenmu

I find a lot of this talk about 1080p 60fps to be a bit pointless.

I can remember in the 90s being disappointed if I had to drop my resolution to 1600x1200 to get something to run well. But I learnt pretty quickly that it didn't really matter too much, games looked pretty much as good in the lower resolutions. If it came to a choice between lowering the resolution or dropping some other graphical details, I lowered the resolution straight away.

I'd be perfectly happy with games running at 720p, but with lots of detail and effects, and most importantly, good design.

ShadowHearth

stevenmu wrote: »

I find a lot of this talk about 1080p 60fps to be a bit pointless.

I can remember in the 90s being disappointed if I had to drop my resolution to 1600x1200 to get something to run well. But I learnt pretty quickly that it didn't really matter too much, games looked pretty much as good in the lower resolutions. If it came to a choice between lowering the resolution or dropping some other graphical details, I lowered the resolution straight away.

I'd be perfectly happy with games running at 720p, but with lots of detail and effects, and most importantly, good design.

At 90s, most likely you had a non LCD monitor, which could do more resolution "Good", then just native. These days anything that is not native resolution on modern monitors look like ass. Games on 40inch++ TVs at 720p look like ass too.
I am lucky enough to be able to play PC 1080p on 42inch TV and 1080p makes everything look a lot damn better. I even had my console gamer friend to try out BF3 on 1080p PC and ps3 version on same TV. Needless to say I ruined his ability to play BF3 on Xbox at home for weeks.

cursai

My 50inch panasonic tv only blows up to 720p with a 200mhz rate what will it matter to someone like me. Nothing. No need for these higher resolutions unless im sitting within 2metres of the tv. And I won't have to hope the game runs before crashing or windows errors. And can trade in the old games in gamestop unlike pc games. Have a nice wireless controller with no need for a lead or configuring a driver to make it compatible. It'll just work.

cheap, cheerful and more than adequate fun.