Which is my point, Crysis 3 looks better than Crysis 2 and it runs on the same hardware, surely there must've been some work in the name of optimisation to make that happen or did the hardware somehow get better?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Digital Foundry - Metro Redux (Console Analysis)
- Thread starter stryke
- Start date
Of course consoles rely on drivers. How exactly do you think console games are coded?Except consoles don't rely on drivers. floating point operations = floating point operations.
The differences are less pronounced so far. Last gen there were massive resolution differences(usually going far below 720P), entire effects removed, and on top of that the PS3 versions ran worse as well. It improved as it went along but it was rough at first. The Fear release on PS3 is a good example. That's still the case at times with the PS4 and One, but it's not as bad as that example, the Darkness, or many others.
I wouldn't call 720p/900p vs 1080p less pronounced.
Even games where the 360 only had a small advantage were praised over the PS3. It's obvious the story has changed this generation.
Summer Haze
Banned
The differences are less pronounced so far. Last gen there were massive resolution differences(usually going far below 720P), entire effects removed, and on top of that the PS3 versions ran worse as well. It improved as it went along but it was rough at first. The Fear release on PS3 is a good example. That's still the case at times with the PS4 and One, but it's not as bad as that example, the Darkness, or many others.
The differences in res this-gen are much bigger than they were last gen. 720p/792p/900p vs mostly 1080p with a couple of 900p titles on PS4 is a wider gap than anything that was on last-gen, I believe. We also have much bigger framerate differences than we had last-gen (BF4, Tomb Raider, Sniper Elite immediately come to mind), and some X1 multiplats are missing effects like AO, have worse shadows and have more screen tearing.
I don't know how you can say it's not as bad as it was last-gen. The differences have been much more prominent this-gen, so far.
Chance Hale
Member
The differences in res this-gen are much bigger than they were last gen. 720p/792p/900p vs mostly 1080p with a couple of 900p titles on PS4 is a wider gap than anything that was on last-gen, I believe. We also have much bigger framerate differences than we had last-gen (BF4, Tomb Raider, Sniper Elite immediately come to mind), and some X1 multiplats are missing effects like AO, have worse shadows and have more screen tearing.
I don't know how you can say it's not as bad as it was last-gen. The differences have been much more prominent this-gen, so far.
Go through the old digital foundry face offs, the feature has just become a lot more prominent in recent years. Early PS3 ports were abysmal, and barely acceptable.
If you find acceptable play game at 720p in a next generation console, that's ok.Go through the old digital foundry face offs, the feature has just become a lot more prominent in recent years. Early PS3 ports were abysmal, and barely acceptable.
Dictator93
Member
Which is my point, Crysis 3 looks better than Crysis 2 and it runs on the same hardware, surely there must've been some work in the name of optimisation to make that happen or did the hardware somehow get better?
They changed how some things are rendered (G-buffer is completely different), yes... but this just does not apply to consoles... It applies to every spec.
The "optimizations" were not just console specific. In fact, some of these "optimizations" developers make, make games look arguably worse just to make sure it even runs. For example, the HDR range in BF3 or Crysis 2 is lessened on the 360 due to edRAM limitations.
Please allow the strawmen and ad homs, it doesn't do this discussion any favours. That was one game off the top of my head, but another I can think of is Alan Wake. If you follow DF then they regularly say console settings tend to be a bit higher than Low or at last on par.
And using your own Crysis 2 example, Crysis 3 runs and looks better on console invalidating your own point. I can assure you that nothing I say in this thread is meant to be taken personally (or against PC gaming generally).
Which means it was based on architecture that's a year newer which was fully DX10 compliant. Then we factor in that its a conservative 2x more powerful (the difference in the numbers is even bigger) you're looking at a chip that's simply in another league.
See the reason a lot of 2005-2006 GPUs weren't able to play games a lot of games from 2011 onwards was because of their archaic architecture and the advancements that were made in rendering technology. The GPU on 360 had an architecture that was almost similar to the ones that were seen in Dx10 era without actually being Dx10, with the PS3 you had the Cell. But when it came to the older Dx9 only GPUs their architecture prevented them from properly running newer engines.
This probably won't happen this gen considering the architecture we have right now is here to stay for a while. Then there's the fact that the GPUs in next gen consoles are mid to high end and there were already enthusiast level PC cards superior to them even before they came out. When you take all this into consideration you can make an educated guess which tells you that something like a 780 will keep running circles around the consoles until the end of this gen.
GPUs in next gen consoles are mid to high end
They have nothing high-end actually, are you referring to the onboard memory ?
They're mid-range and this is sufficient for a proper generationnal leap.
A 680 will too. But those are more expensive pieces of gear for a reason.something like a 780 will keep running circles around the consoles until the end of this gen.
Of course consoles rely on drivers. How exactly do you think console games are coded?
Sorry, I meant PC drivers. Allowing discussion to return to normal here tho.
I think they are high end (ie. a 7870 atleast the one in Xbone is mid end for sure), cards like 780 and such would be enthusiast level.They have nothing high-end actually, are you referring to the onboard memory ?
They're mid-range and this is sufficient for a proper generationnal leap.
A 680 is not by any means capable of running circles around a PS4, it is better for sure but not by a margin like 780.
I think they are high end (ie. a 7870), cards like 780 and such would be enthusiast level.
I disagree. 7850/7870 are mid-range in my book, R9 280 is what you'd call "mid to high end" and 290/290X are enthusiast level. Same goes for Nvidia, 760 = mid-range, 770 mid to high end and 780 and above are undoubtedly high-end.
Keep in mind that Nvidia and AMD won't sit idle this year. New GPUs are coming and more powerful mid-range options will be made available.
Interesting times ahead for sure.
A 680 is not by any means capable of running circles around a PS4, it is better for sure but not by a margin like 780.
Running circles would be running games at higher than 1080P at higher settings (when available) and still have higher framerate..which the 780 can very well do.
Our definition differs. A 680 will consistently beat the PS4 at 1080p (more FX, more FPS) this generation I'll bet on it. To me this is running circles. Maybe you should look at the specs of this little beast.
1.84TF GPU ( 18 CUs) for games
1152 Shaders
72 Texture units
32 ROPS
25.6 Gpixel/s
57.6 Gtexel/s
8 ACE/64 queues
176GB/S
680 :
1536 Shaders
128 TMUs
32 ROPS
32 Gpixels
128.8 Gtexels
192GB/S
The 780 is in a completely different league and so will the 880.
Dictator93
Member
I think they are high end (ie. a 7870 atleast the one in Xbone is mid end for sure), cards like 780 and such would be enthusiast level.
A 680 is not by any means capable of running circles around a PS4, it is better for sure but not by a margin like 780.
A 7870 according to AMD is mid end.
7870 - 7970 - 290X
Mid - High - Enthusiast
A 680 resides at similar power as a 7970 (almost 2X a 7870). so yeah, I would consider it quite powerful.
I disagree. 7850/7870 are mid-range in my book, R9 280 is what you'd call "mid to high end" and 290/290X are enthusiast level. Same goes for Nvidia, 760 = mid-range, 770 mid to high end and 780 and above are undoubtedly high-end.
Keep in mind that Nvidia and AMD won't sit idle this year. New GPUs are coming and more powerful mid-range options will be made available.
Interesting times ahead for sure.
Our definition differs. A 680 will consistently beat the PS4 at 1080p (more FX, more FPS) this generation I'll bet on it. To me this running circles.
The 780 is in a completely different league and so will the 880.
Imo the difference between a 770 and 780 is not wide enough to call one "mid to high" while the other enthusiast. You are practically cramming three separate categories within a performance gap of 20%
And like I said I agree that a 680 will beat the PS4 until the end as well but I believe it won't be by much.
Imo the difference between a 770 and 780 is not wide enough to call one "mid to high" while the other enthusiast. You are practically cramming three separate categories within a performance gap of 20%
The delta is bound to widen in games designed around a higher common denominator. The 770 is nice (I have one) but it won't hold a candle to a 780 once compute kicks in.
The benchmarks available right now for the most part are not representative of the gap existing between the 770 and the 780.
I respect your opinion. You could be right after all but keep in mind that there is no objective metric to help us assess what "running circles" truly mean. It's subjective.And like I said I agree that a 680 will beat the PS4 until the end as well but I believe it won't be by much.
Dictator93
Member
Allowing discussion to return to normal here tho.
Speaking of normal... how about some webms?!
http://a.pomf.se/qrjnrr.webm
http://a.pomf.se/mkkuxk.webm
The delta is bound to widen in games designed around a higher common denominator. The 770 is nice (I have one) but it won't hold a candle to a 780 once compute kicks in.
The benchmarks available right now for the most part are not representative of the gap existing between the 770 and the 780.
That is true, but going back to the discussion about PS4.
Wouldn't it positively affect the PS4 as well? As in the PS4 has pretty interesting compute possibilities as well.
That is true, but going back to the discussion about PS4.
Wouldn't it positively affect the PS4 as well? As in the PS4 has pretty interesting compute possibilities as well.
Absolutely, the PS4 is by no means weak in compute. And this will necessarily affect PC multiplats because consoles are the lead platforms in 9 cases out of 10.
Which is the reason why a 770 will not be able to run future heavy hitters at maximum settings.
I need to upgrade.
GhostTrick
Banned
Doesn't the 780Ti cost ~2x PS4 and is only like ~2x the power?
Doesn't matter anyway, price/performance wise nothing can beat the PS4. They explicitly chose to go down this route. Last gen they went for power and costs spiraled out of control. Not to mention, the shiny advanced PS360 were outdated within 2 years after release and the only thing MS/Sony got was expensive consoles not selling well, heating issues thanks to those exotic parts that led to broken consoles. It all led to last gen being longer than usual because platform holders needed longer times to get their investment back.
This gen we have a 200 dollar cheaper console that's selling extremely well, will get cheaper faster because of its components and is extremely dev friendly.
A R9 290 is like nearly 3 times more powerful. And that's a GPU I paid 230.