BY2K said:
If Nintendo really can pull off a console which can run games at 1080p (native) and have a constant 60FPS, then...
Console of the forever.
Pc's were accomplishing this over 10 years ago... (well not 1080p but 1600x1200 which is about the same amount of pixels so it's the same thing)
It 's nothing special if you don't have to deal with ram bottlenecks and terrible fillrates.
I'm sure someone here can explain how the 10MB edram framebuffer on the 360 makes 1080p with msaa not an option (at least not without using the unified ram instead and sacrificing the amazing bandwidth they get out of using edram).
As long as devs keep sacrificing framerate and resolution for more complex graphics it doesn't matter what kind of hardware you use though.
I too would pick framerate over resolution (to an extent).
60 fps 720p 2x msaa > 20-30fps 1080p simply because 20-30 fps simply isn't very playable at all and brings along a whole other host of issues like screen tearing and a double amount of input lag.
I play certain games on my pc at 1280x1024 (yay for CRT monitors, no headaches with having to play in native resolution or seeing your IQ go down the drain) to keep my framerate from dipping under 40 when I don't want to lower any graphical settings.
AndyMoogle said:
These "techies" are in the vast minority, that's for sure. I bet that most people on these forums don't know the difference between upscaled and native resolution for example. Just look at how many posts there are in these kind of topics about how cheap DDR3 RAM is and how stupid it would be to not have at least 4GB of it in next gen consoles.
You don't have to understand how things work to recognise the difference in resolution, or notice screen tearing or a choppy framerate or blurryness.
Not as long as you have a working pair of eyes at least.
Just like a sports jock doesn't have to understand the physics behind a curve ball to be able to throw one.
There is nothing wrong with the DDR3 argument , you seem to assume that those people are suggesting unified ram like in the xbox360. (talking about using ddr3, not needing 4 GB of it)
I thought it would go without explaining that they mean system ram.
As long as you have enough fast gddr5 vram for the gpu to back it up it's all good.
Anyone who has been working with a pc for more than a few years knows more than well enough how much need a gpu has for fast ram, it's why integrated gpu's always were and always will be trash, because they don't have their own gddr pool and have to use the slower ddr ram in your pc.
Anyone who had a pc before 1-4 GB of system ram became the standard is also more than familiar with how bad a lack of memory bandwidth can choke performance.
The words page file and file swapping still send chills down the spine of many a pc user.
The thing is, DDR3 ram still makes a much better and exponentially much faster buffer for data that needs to be fed to the vram of your gpu when it needs it than a hard disc or DVD.
Streaming textures and maps off the disc does not work for shit as this generation has aptly proven. (at least not at the resolution we play at now, it was fine in the xbox1 days for a game like halo CE)
Being able to preload (before or while playing) an entire level or set of levels into the pool of ddr3 ram (and cache them for future loads when done with them) makes for short load times and the ability to create larger maps.
It's also the cheapest way to get enough memory for multitasking.
What sony tried with ps3 would have been awesome (super high bandwidth xdr ram for the gpu backed up by a pool of ddr ram) if they had actually put enough of it in the box...
Having another gen of consoles with tiny amounts of ram would lead to another gen of staring at long loading screens as the hard drive or disc struggles to load data into the vram one small batch at a time.
And we 'd get the same limited size environments, texture pop , lack of texture variation etc.
The supposed lack of HDD in the cafe will only add insult to injury because a disc drive is even slower at streaming data than a HDD.
edit: which is a good reason to assume they will include a decent size ram pool.
The whole business end arguments of it all are so tiresome to read, leave the number crunching to the engineers will ya.
I've seen great arguments against a wide memory bus to drive down cost for example, but the return gained from the small investment in ram chips with more capacity seems to more than justify the cost.
Trying to cram when considering a budget based on some arbitrary number (to reach some stupid MSRP and profit number without budging an inch from it regardless of the benifits) is backwards and probably already made many an engineer cry salty tears.
Hell it made even Epic cry when the suits from microsoft thought it would be a good idea to only equip the 360 with 265 MB of unified ram.
Do you really think the desicion of what hardware to put into a system is always optimal?
As if there weren't a bunch of microsoft engineers pleaing to their bosses to give them some headroom within the brutal constraints set upon them before the development process even begun.
They probably have a little shrine up at home where they offer daily tribute to Epic for talking sense into their bosses' bosses.
I doubt most engineers are crazy scientists who want to build insane contraptions ignoring all common sense and reason (the way they usually get caricaturised) , rather than grounded people who would really wish the guys upstairs would give them the freedom to add a safety to the trigger of their new gun design, or stop using 5 cent / metric tonne cheaper lead based paint in their baby toys.
