Puscifer
Member
The Steam Deck CPU is not more powerful.
Losing me on the point again
I feel like you're at the "for the sake of argument" stage at this point, dude.
Last edited:
-
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.
Lamen here: Why do pc games simply do not blow out console games graphically?
- Thread starter Gamer79
- Start date
I feel like you're at the "for the sake of argument" stage at this point, dude.
Elysium44
Banned
LOL
Here is 4.9TF RDNA2 GPU - Series S has 4.0TF so this is stronger:
AMD Radeon RX 6500M Specs
AMD Navi 24, 2400 MHz, 1024 Cores, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, 4096 MB GDDR6, 2250 MHz, 64 bitwww.techpowerup.com
AFAIK the Series S GPU in practice performs around GTX 1070 / RTX 3050 level, regardless of its lower specs on paper. (By 'performs' I mean in real world game performance rather than theoretical benchmarks.)
Last edited:
Bojji
Member
Show some proof for that.
Gaiff
SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
The GBA is closer to an SNES and it loses in some cases. The N64 is a non-starter and closer to the DS. That troll is seriously smoking some good shit.
It doesn’t even have a Z-buffer.
Last edited:
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
Still nothing but repeated off point statements by the same circle jerk crew.
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
Is also more efficient with newer graphical features.
Right no actual benchmarks exist of any of these custom console GPU's even though they like to think they got em figured out.
Last edited:
Puscifer
Member
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
James Sawyer Ford
Gold Member
30 fps is a perfectly acceptable framerate if stable.
FF7:R plays incredibly smooth in this mode. It only takes a few minutes to adjust your brain and it's good after that.
It does not look weird or choppy at all. 30 fps used to be standard in gaming for decades, and getting a stable 30 was often something we'd never even get as many games would dip to low 20s or worse.
The 60 fps mode looks like crap - far less detailed, and it doesn't make a different for the gameplay.
Stuart360
Member
Problem is that game development today is so expensive that publishers have to release their AAA games on everything to have a chance of a decent profit, or even breaking even.
Back in the 90's when game development costs were waaay lower than today, PC had tons of exclusives, many that blew away console games to an extent that a port to console was often not possible, and when it was possible, the ports were always pale imitations of the PC versions.
Still even with multiplatform AAA games, you have a good enough PC and it blows away the console versions. Low bitrate Youtube vids are not the best way of compariosn. Thats why you see with the DF comparisons thta the console versions are often using a mixture of High, medium, with a few low and even very low graphical settings compared to the PC versions.
Back in the 90's when game development costs were waaay lower than today, PC had tons of exclusives, many that blew away console games to an extent that a port to console was often not possible, and when it was possible, the ports were always pale imitations of the PC versions.
Still even with multiplatform AAA games, you have a good enough PC and it blows away the console versions. Low bitrate Youtube vids are not the best way of compariosn. Thats why you see with the DF comparisons thta the console versions are often using a mixture of High, medium, with a few low and even very low graphical settings compared to the PC versions.
Senua
Gold Member
30 is the bare minimum, I really don't enjoy 30 as it looks so damn choppy in motion on my oled but I get how it's acceptable for most people. Always surprised at 30 is fine crew on an enthusiast forum tho, thought standards would be higher
rodrigolfp
Haptic Gamepads 4 Life
My laser mouse and my controllers with 0 dead zone say otherwise.
DirtyBast8rd
Member
I started playing The Witcher 3 on my pc with everything turned to max/ultra+ ray tracing on and it's unbelievable how good the game looks. Textures look so detailed. More green, more npc's (because pc options). No comparison to the PS5 updated version. Like some said before. Older games look like new games sometimes when you are used to the console versions.
Stick to consoles if you want to but you are missing out. Same with sticking to 1080p. If it suits you, great, but 4k on a big screen on a powerful pc with games on ultra or beyond are a different viewing experience. Textures come to life.
People forget that some pc games can give you more npc's in a world or more different npc variations (Cyberpunk 2077 comes to mind), more scenery details, that also enhance the believablity of the game world.
Stick to consoles if you want to but you are missing out. Same with sticking to 1080p. If it suits you, great, but 4k on a big screen on a powerful pc with games on ultra or beyond are a different viewing experience. Textures come to life.
People forget that some pc games can give you more npc's in a world or more different npc variations (Cyberpunk 2077 comes to mind), more scenery details, that also enhance the believablity of the game world.
Angry_Megalodon
Banned
Let's hear what actual developers of top-sellers have to say.
Gaiff
SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
I get what he’s saying but Xbox most certainly doesn’t sell more than PC at this point.
James Sawyer Ford
Gold Member
Xbox and PS5 are easier to optimize jointly given similar hardware specs
Guilty_AI
Member
I really don't wanna hear reasons like "team isn't big enough" and "not enough resources/money/manpower" from Rockstar.
Last edited:
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
It's true though especially with scaling for all types of setups.
They are more polished but mainly done with more care because they are more equipped for it, (maybe not microsoft anymore) while pc games push IQ, console exclusives push graphic features, which pc game has more realistic faces than TLOU? or which PC racing game is as photorealistic as GT7, theres ray tracing yes but that is more of a general evolution for every single game, Sony and MS have alot more money than any pc dedicated studio therefore studios have better means to do graphical research, development, etc and therefore they mainly use in house engines while PC games its mostly the sames like UE or unity, cryengine, etc .. the only "studio" I can see giving MS and SONY a run for its money its NVIDIA but they don't make games, you could say crytek but those basically dont exist anymore, Rockstar honestly seems to be more of a sony studio that went multiplatform but still prioritizes PS for being the least that can manage graphicly in terms of RAW power.
Idk
Last edited:
ClosBSAS
Member
Nah dont be mad I have money and i can spend it on anything i want. Whats the problem woth spending it on star citizen? Its a great game and it pushes my pc to the limit, something i enjoy
Guilty_AI
Member
All scaling work only involves adding a few graphical settings, this isn't exactly back-breaking labor. Most of the job is just the work of porting to a different platform.
And like i said, this is Rockstar. "Lack of resources" isn't a valid excuse for them. It's fairly obvious they just do this to maximize profits, releasing "slightly better" version of the game on PC an year later.
SF Kosmo
Al Jazeera Special Reporter
Because most PC gamers aren't actually running bleeding edge systems, they're clinging to 4 year old mid range cards and the like, and if you truly targeted high end hardware, the market would be too small. Just look at the Steam hardware surveys.
With path-tracing, we are seeing a few PC games push top end PCs to do things that completely blow away what we see on consoles, but those games still have to be made in a way that can scale down, and often aren't arted with the higher end spec first.
With path-tracing, we are seeing a few PC games push top end PCs to do things that completely blow away what we see on consoles, but those games still have to be made in a way that can scale down, and often aren't arted with the higher end spec first.