3D Mark 11 DX11 benchmarch shows PC's potential
- Thread starter Tinman
- Start date
tehNihilist
New member
Upgrade! GAH!!
Time to sell that other kidney.
Time to sell that other kidney.
OmegaFenix
The Legendary Troll Hunter
I have a question.... in that piece its said that grpahics are no longer being pushed thanks to consoles... yet we will soon be graced by the Idtech4 engine which, in my opinion brings Brilliant graphics to all platforms. Also with Crysis 2 the consoles will also be showing off that it can keep up with their pc counter part. Is this more level playing field maybe not giving developers the chance to better code their engines?
Also isn't it better for the consumer (read PC gamer) that they no longer need to upgrade their GPU once a year to keep pumping out the best visuals?
Also isn't it better for the consumer (read PC gamer) that they no longer need to upgrade their GPU once a year to keep pumping out the best visuals?
to0kenZA
New member
You make a good point, although, don't you think it would have been better for the "consumers" if the developers started focusing on better coding anyway, regardless of the console restraints?
OmegaFenix
The Legendary Troll Hunter
Well think about it this way: Every GPU by say Nvidia has a similar but slightly differnt
Architecture, which is often while one game will run perfectly with (and this is just an example) a 9800GT but struggles with a 8900GTX. And then everytime a new GPU is released the devs need to work it into the game. Since all Xbox's and all PS3's have the exact same GPU with the same exact architecture the devs now dont need to worry about coding in 500 (Again just an example) differnt possible GPU and can instead focus on getting the best possible visuals out of that one specific gpu.
As a result of this many PC games no longer have the astromonical requirements thus opening up the market a little bit for people who do not have the cash to spend 2K on a GPU once a year.
By your argument I think that there are 2 major culprits for the issue PC gamers have:
1. Graphics card manufacturers who make new graphics cards the whole time whilst completely changing the architecture every time without coming up with something that is actually scalable. That forces consumers to upgrade the whole time, getting nearly the same levels of performance but in a "new" way. This also doesn't make life easier for game developers who can't stop to focus on a single architecture - but instead need to shift focus the whole time.
2. The game developers who support this operation by the card makers. They should simply stop entertaining these new cards and "pick" a card and develop the game as if everyone owns that specific nvidia or AMD card. Then people will get decent performance out of their cards - whilst the manufactures will have no more reason to bombard us with newer, more expensive cards the whole time.
Basically - turning the PC's hardware into a console equivalent.
The flip-side of this argument is that PC users are always at the forefront of gaming technology and if they somehow do standardize PC development for games you'll be screwing other PC gamers who bought new hardware.
Catch 28.
1. Graphics card manufacturers who make new graphics cards the whole time whilst completely changing the architecture every time without coming up with something that is actually scalable. That forces consumers to upgrade the whole time, getting nearly the same levels of performance but in a "new" way. This also doesn't make life easier for game developers who can't stop to focus on a single architecture - but instead need to shift focus the whole time.
2. The game developers who support this operation by the card makers. They should simply stop entertaining these new cards and "pick" a card and develop the game as if everyone owns that specific nvidia or AMD card. Then people will get decent performance out of their cards - whilst the manufactures will have no more reason to bombard us with newer, more expensive cards the whole time.
Basically - turning the PC's hardware into a console equivalent.
The flip-side of this argument is that PC users are always at the forefront of gaming technology and if they somehow do standardize PC development for games you'll be screwing other PC gamers who bought new hardware.
Catch 28.
czc
Thread Killer Mk VIII
There was an attempt to make a game (engine) that would utilise the full power of the PC once, IIRC.
EDIT:
DAMN, INTEL bought and scrapped it.
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/07/02/project-offset-team-disbanded-at-intel-offset-software-founders/
EDIT:
DAMN, INTEL bought and scrapped it.
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/07/02/project-offset-team-disbanded-at-intel-offset-software-founders/
Last edited:
OmegaFenix
The Legendary Troll Hunter
Agreed. The manufactures are welcome to make new cards as often as they want, if they dont what GPUs will the next generation of consoles use. Similarly Game developers can choose to develope Crysis type games specifically for PC that utilises this new tech.
PC Gamers are also free to upgrade 2 twice a year if they (and their wallets) so desire.
But then dont go out saying things along the lines of:
or
Casual gamers are causing the death of well made games with depth and graphics
or
I dunno where this dumbing down thing comes in but it makes me sick. For one Graphics does not = depth. Crysis is the best example of this, its a glorified tech demo which fails as a game. Similarly a deep and meaningful game does not have to have GPU roasting graphics. One of the best games ever made, Baldur's Gate 2, could run on a P2 with out a freaking GPU.
If anything the PC guys should be saying "Thank You Console guyz" since the advent of the original Xbox and PS2 brought gaming into clear daylight and is one of the biggest reason the industry is what it is today and not still 3 guyz in their mother's "carage house" coding pac man or something.
Ok Im getting of the topic here.
/Moves quietly along.
jasong
New member
You cannot blame the GPU manufacturers for the decline of PC graphics. They all operate within a constrained API - DX9, DX10, DX11 - which is driven by the need to upgrade standards. The cards themselves don't require any real changes by the developers - you can't expect technology to stand still and ignore market pressures. They just push whatever they can.
And you know what I actually LIKE really nice graphics. I don't care if it doesn't really affect the gameplay, it does affect the atmosphere and the art direction and your enjoyment of the whole experience.
And you know what I actually LIKE really nice graphics. I don't care if it doesn't really affect the gameplay, it does affect the atmosphere and the art direction and your enjoyment of the whole experience.
Last edited:
to0kenZA
New member
I have to agree with you there dude.
Fenix, I understand what you mean by your whole "dumbing down' argument, and I agree what a game is not all about graphics. Some people might think so, but for most people that is not the case. Why not have a good game that looks good, a good game with overall good standards. I think what the people mean by dumbing down is, why do they need to stop advancing the global standards of gaming just because of the console's limited power resources?
OmegaFenix
The Legendary Troll Hunter
Where or when did they stop advancing the global standards of gaming? Every year we are bombarded with game that pushing visuals and gameplay further. Compare a game like Burnout Revenge which we got at the start of The xboxs life cycle and compare it to something like GRID which came out later during the life cycle. Look at the differnce between Uncharted 1 & 2 or Halo 3 & Reach.... same console, same specs better visuals.
And as for Graphics to push atmosphere, one of the most atmospheric games ever (Silent Hill 2) looked like shit. Similarly BioShock has piles of atmosphere running Unreal 3 engine.... So no I dont think u need fancy graphics to add atmosphere. does it help yeah, but a good dev will work around that.
Last edited:
jasong
New member
Ok here's your challenge for the weekend: Buy Metro for your xbox360 and for your PC. Play it on max settings on your pc and play it on your 360. Can't you see the difference? Ok yes you can advance a console's abilities but there is a limit on how far you can go. This dx11 vid should show you something.
OmegaFenix
The Legendary Troll Hunter
I have metro for Xbox, I reviewed it for MyGaming have no desire to play it ever again.
jasong
New member
....so...what's your point here?
i'm just saying that no matter how 'optimized' an xbox360 game gets, it will never, ever, ever be able to reach even close to the potential graphical output of a PC game. Metro is perfect evidence of that. And no, it isn't a weakness that PC gamers 'have to' keep buying new hardware - most PC gamers enjoy upgrading. And even if they don't, a card can still perform very well for a fairly long period of time, even if it can't max out games any longer. And if you do happen to like eye candy, it does kind of suck that you're being held back on what devs COULD do because they're constrained to a 5-year old console that was already outdated when it debuted.
And btw since we're on the point exactly which games performed well on a 9800gt but struggled on a 9800gtx? Apart from perhaps the occasional manufacturing flaw, that just isn't how graphics cards work.
i'm just saying that no matter how 'optimized' an xbox360 game gets, it will never, ever, ever be able to reach even close to the potential graphical output of a PC game. Metro is perfect evidence of that. And no, it isn't a weakness that PC gamers 'have to' keep buying new hardware - most PC gamers enjoy upgrading. And even if they don't, a card can still perform very well for a fairly long period of time, even if it can't max out games any longer. And if you do happen to like eye candy, it does kind of suck that you're being held back on what devs COULD do because they're constrained to a 5-year old console that was already outdated when it debuted.
And btw since we're on the point exactly which games performed well on a 9800gt but struggled on a 9800gtx? Apart from perhaps the occasional manufacturing flaw, that just isn't how graphics cards work.
Last edited:
OmegaFenix
The Legendary Troll Hunter
But you just used the example of Metro 2033, a game that is not even a year old, released on all 3 platforms, which you just said looks better on pc. So how exactly are the devs keeping your experience back?
If you paid attention i said the following:
I know of cases where a program will perform one way with card A and another way with card B.
jasong
New member
I used an example where graphics did make a difference to the game experience; since you played it and obviously didn't like it too much as a console experience, whereas it's quite redeemed on the PC because the graphics are top notch dx11. I suppose you're right though that the console doesn't really hold it back. But in the case of Crysis 2 (and your dismissal of the first Crysis as a glorified tech demo kind of shows your bias) there is a restriction on the gameplay, according to the devs.
You could perhaps supply an example, since I've never heard of that. Unless you mean an ATI vs an Nvidia card which would come down to driver implementation. But that hasn't been a problem in the past few years now afaik.