Kenpachii
Member
Still doesn't change the fact that the GPU was a bottleneck straight from its release, much like its CPU.
Wonder why they only talking about there 8 gig of memory. Yea there you go.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
is PS5 GPU is slightly better than gtx 1080 thats pretty pathetic.
- Thread starter SlashBringingHasher
- Start date
Still doesn't change the fact that the GPU was a bottleneck straight from its release, much like its CPU.
Wonder why they only talking about there 8 gig of memory. Yea there you go.
DynamiteCop!
Banned
You're not getting 12 Teraflop anything, it will be closer to 9.
Last edited:
squarealex
Member
Another shitty thread from SlashBringingHasher
Omega Supreme Holopsicon
Member
half a Tflops would have done little difference. It'd have needed at least 50% or more performance to make a a meaningful difference, and that might have been cost prohibitive.
If there's some ray tracing h/w the ps5 could easily be over twice the performance of the 108o with ray tracing effects on.
Pimpbaa
Member
Gamers and developers have different priorities when it comes to graphic fidelity. There is absolutely nothing delusional about preferring better graphics over framerate. In a genre that does not need 60fps (and yes there is such thing), sacrificing graphics for framerate is not something I would ever prefer. I've done the PC thing, and having EVERY game at or near 60fps was great. But now I just don't care anymore and prefer to play games on consoles. Oh and motion blur can be awesome, even at 60fps (see Doom 2016).
vpance
Member
I was talking GCN TFs. 9TF Navi will be more than 12.
Generic
Member
Just because something is inevitable, it doesn't make it less disappointing.
I wouldn't mind a heavily-subsidized $600 console tho.
Riven326
Banned
I very much want that, yes.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Shit, only a fool wouldn’t want that.
V4skunk
Banned
60 fps is a design choice. You sacrifice increased graphical fidelity and complexity for improve frames per second.
Justin9mm
Member
Wow, all that qualification and you can't answer your own thread title question!?
Well I have a doctorate in playing games for the last 30+ years and a degree in common fucking sense so in my educated opinion, you are either a troll or have no idea what you are talking about! You certainly seem to lack any sort of business ethic.
synchronicity
Member
Personally, I buy consoles for the exclusives. I don't really care about incremental power differences.
Justin9mm
Member
I would imagine the same but with Native 4K, more in game memory/draw distance etc. Drastically reduced load times and a solid 60fps if the developer chooses.
Omega Supreme Holopsicon
Member
Wrong, more complex ai, physics, and interactions.
When you see some of today's character models, they don't need significantly higher resolution textures or geometry, just better lighting, shading, and physics.
Last edited:
alabtrosMyster
Banned
They sure can, just tweak your settings and they will, many of the options at "ultra" are a waste of resources.
Also, PC gamers expect to play at 60+ fps, many console games target 30, with lower than "Ultra" details, so for sure, the X will be on par.
Someone here shared a video comparing the X to a PC that had a 1060 in it on cross platform titles, the 1060 won on most tests once the image quality was matched on both platform.
its_justJEFF
Member
Haven't you played any new games lately?!? Red Dead Redemption 2, Spiderman, God of War, Assassin's Creed etc. Those are all good looking games, running on really old hardware.
Chairman Tickles
Banned
Your vintage PC could run morrowind, ps2 couldn't because its cpu was too weak and its gpu had too little ram. The xbox barely managed and only because it had a 733mhz cpu and 64mb of ram. Coupled with a geforce 3 your vintage pc would outperform even the xbox in gta3 for example.
Last edited:
Chozofication_
Banned
Morrowind is fucking hideous and looked so out of place on not only Xbox but among ps2 titles with any significant effort behind them.
Last edited:
Chairman Tickles
Banned
Morrowind had more depth and size to it than any other game at the time. Every object in the game you could pick up, every door you could open. 2,000 NPC's with persistent names and housing, etc. It was extremely cpu heavy for a reason. As hideous as it looks today, still looks better than gta 3, another open world game released a year later which had no persistent world.
Last edited:
Chozofication_
Banned
Ah yes Todd Howard's procedural magic turds lol and you've got it backwards, GTA 3 was 2001 morrowind was 2002.
I'm ranting but people usually pick the ugliest games when praising Xbox hardware like doom 3 with its poly counts that make dreamcast blush at 30fps or some other crap. Halo 1 is stupidly low poly, halo 2 isn't much better
Never panzer dragoon, rallisport challenge 2, sometimes ninja gaiden is mentioned
Romulus
Member
Or the game in my avatar, Battle Engine Aquila. Not exclusive to Xbox, but significantly better looking on that platform with hundreds of AIs onscreen. You can literally sit back and watch as two massive armies go to war on some maps. Considering the scale of the game, complete with destruction, it's the best looking game on the platform imo.
Last edited:
Bolivar687
Banned
Graphics have moved pretty slowly since the 1080. I was regularly trading up GPUs until the 1080, now the value just isn't there.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
He is an anti Sony troll. Hence why he earned his tag.
He does a post like this at least once a month.
Last edited:
Omega Supreme Holopsicon
Member
A lot can be done with small memory if you're good at optimizing.
Final fantasy xi runs on ps2, and that's another open world game, an mmorpg even.
looks like fog city
Xbox had a better gpu than the 256mx if I'm not mistaken, and it drops below 30fps even with tons of fog and low resolution. In combat with a single enemy, even drops below 17fps it seems.
A game utilizing fog that is probably the best looking ps2 game is silent hill 3
IT seems even geforce 4 drops below 30fps at 480p on morrowind.
Last edited:
Chozofication_
Banned
I will say I checked it out and does look pretty fun. Certainly looks better than morrowind with waaay better draw distance
Shangounchained
Banned
Here we go again there will be no improvement in terms of graphics with a 1080 card nobody will see any improvement infact Xbox one X has similar performance to 1070 so what's the difference it's pathetic, dillusiinal a ps5 should be a ps5 Nd we need a next gen console not a fancy tweaked ps4
Omega Supreme Holopsicon
Member
we are going from a base of about 1tflops for xbox one to likely over 10tflops. That is if microsoft doesn't release a low budget console.
Practically no one is developing with xbox one x as base. And you have to remember xbox one x released not so long ago, it takes time for significantly large leaps. Even though it released recently, the xbox one x will likely be thoroughly trounced once ray tracing performance is taken into account.
Silent Viper
Banned
Well keep dreaming
Chairman Tickles
Banned
For reference, in case anybody is confused, the xbox one X is OUTPERFORMED by a PC with a 1060Ti @ 4k 30fps equivalent settings. Let that sink in.
Can't expect much from consoles, they're just toys.
Can't expect much from consoles, they're just toys.
Last edited:
bhunachicken
Member
Well put, Tickles! So, so true.
I'm just putting together a new gaming PC with 32GB RAM, an 8TB SSD, Intel i9, and an nVidia 2080.
Bloodborne, Until Dawn, Uncharted 4, Spider-Man, Horizon: Zero Dawn, God of War, and The Last of Us, Part 2 are going to be amazing on that setup.
Knightime_X
Member
I'm under the impression that newer hardware to consoles is a much larger jump than pc.
For instance a developer can get more out of a GTX 1080 on console than an actual pc due to being able to code "down to the metal".
Mileage goes a bit further so to speak.
For instance a developer can get more out of a GTX 1080 on console than an actual pc due to being able to code "down to the metal".
Mileage goes a bit further so to speak.
metareferential
Member
Preference is another thing entirely.
I sometimes too sacrifice framerate for eyecandy, that's the beauty of pc.
But in an ideal scenario, every game developer would choose graphics and framerate.
And every and any game would benefit from a framerate boost, no exceptions.
Last edited:
Shmunter
Member
Sins of the past will be forgiven and wrongs put right with the next gen. Current gen is so unbalanced it’s almost unforgivable. The X being the worst offender.For reference, in case anybody is confused, the xbox one X is OUTPERFORMED by a PC with a 1060Ti @ 4k 30fps equivalent settings. Let that sink in.
Can't expect much from consoles, they're just toys.
Luckily despite all this we’ve seen some awesome games this gen. Next gen will be a revelation.
One mans opinion.
PocoJoe
Banned
Do you not know what bottleneck means?
Add 2080ti to Pentium 4 system, that is a bottleneck (cpu)
Kind of impossible to have cpu AND gpu as bottleneck, as one affects the another. Either cpu bottlenecks gpu, or gpu bottlenecks graphical output of the system(compared what that cpu could feed)
Weak jaguar cpu were the bottleneck, gpu were just fine and what could even replace that on 2013 system without adding Epic costs?
Shangounchained
Banned
Pcs almost always need 2 times the resources to run similar games as consoles I mean ps2 had 32mb of ram and ran god of war at 60fps and I remember need for speed underground smoothly but on pc I had a pentium 4 with 256mb of ram and it was still hard to outperform ps2 quality
Armorian
Banned
Were you running it below 480p? PS2 games usualy were rendering in 512x480 resolution.
This 2x times resources claim is bullshit, games with good optimizations runs pretty much like they should on hardware similar to what is inside the console (it's hard to match shit cpu).
Last edited:
Shangounchained
Banned
I managed to run it at 800x 600 and thats with 256mb now imagine a pc with 32mb like the ps2 will never run nfs underground
pawel86ck
Banned
In the past xbox 1 or xbox360 were using high end GPU's, but now consoles always get midrange technology at best.
Xbox x 3 had geforce 3 (plus additional vertex shader and 200MHz core like in geforce 4), and xbox360 had unified shaders (back then it was like 2x 6800Ultra performance! Just imagine next gen console that would match 2080ti in SLI).
Now consoles not longer use high end GPU's and I think it's because of TDP. Modern GPU's are too hot and too power hungry. Personaly I think 1080ti level of performance will be great in next gen consoles, Gonzalo 3dmark score is already above GTX 1080 score, and if we keep in mind Gonzalo was running windows OS and using unoptimized drivers then in console space it should easily match 1080ti.
Last edited:
Armorian
Banned
PS2 version is 512x480 or lower, gfx quality is worse compared to pc (lowest texture quality or worse) and framerate is 30 fps locked.
Last edited:
thelastword
Banned
Chairman Tickles
Banned
The N64 was a BEAST. Just to match it in 1996 you had to have a PC with a new fangled 3d graphics accelerator card. It could do hardware anti aliasing and hardware tansforms/lighting 2 years before pc cards. Guess what couldn't do hardware anti aliasing? Yep the Ps2.
Lone Wolf
Member
One of my favorite games. Was hoping it made the backward compatible list, but looks like we will never get it.
PhilipDoesMatter
Member
I don't care about which GPU is in the thing as long as we can easily pull 4k/60fps for the vast majority of games.
Ellery
Member
So would the other 20 enthusiasts that heavily discuss video games on forums and know what hardware is in those consoles.
But Sony and Microsoft like the millions of people more that buy Fifa, Madden, Call of Duty, Destiny every year, have Playstation Plus subscription year round and spend a lot of money in the PS Store.
And those people prefer a low cost console and not a 600$ behemoth.
The best the enthusiasts can hope for is a $499 console where Sony takes a loss so they can bring out a 10TFLOPs console with hardware raytracing, nvme SSD and good CPU.
Anyone hoping Sony is going to release anything close to 14 TFLOPs or a $600 console will be severly disappointed.
Journey
Banned
For that generation, anyone would agree that the OG Xbox was the beast. If these developers put the same effort into that console, it would be miles and miles ahead of anything the PS2 could muster, and of course we know it came out a year later, but so did the PS3 over 360 and games were pretty much on par.
When I look at that screenshot, I can't help but to praise the effort achieved by the developers whom people seem to forget, the result is attributed to them and not the PS2 hardware which was the weakest that generation.
grfunkulus
Banned
Zing. Also, Xbox one x can be had for $250 or less on sale so it's a far better value proposition than a low-mid end gaming pc (or, at the very least, a far lower barrier to entry)
Chozofication_
Banned
GameCube was the best technically. While Xbox had faster clocks and more ram, it was bottlenecked by a slow front side bus and low memory bandwidth. Had Xbox been given eDRAM and a faster bus it would have been no contest.