Mario Kart 8 confirmed for 720p

#131Lefty128kPosted 5/16/2014 10:58:46 AM
GreatEclipse posted...
Also, just for the purpose of clarification, resolution can only be traded for FPS if the GPU is the bottleneck in the system. Here is a good piece on the subject:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-in-theory-1080p30-or-720p60

Trying to argue that the PS4 is "_ times more powerful" than the Wii U or any other system is silly, since a computer can only go as fast as it's slowest component, and some games, or sections of them, tax certain components more than others.


Why don't you actually demonstrate which PS4 component is the bottleneck?
#132DaLaggaPosted 5/16/2014 11:01:35 AM
Lefty128k posted...
GreatEclipse posted...
Also, just for the purpose of clarification, resolution can only be traded for FPS if the GPU is the bottleneck in the system. Here is a good piece on the subject:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-in-theory-1080p30-or-720p60

Trying to argue that the PS4 is "_ times more powerful" than the Wii U or any other system is silly, since a computer can only go as fast as it's slowest component, and some games, or sections of them, tax certain components more than others.


Why don't you actually demonstrate which PS4 component is the bottleneck?


The PS4 has a mediocre GPU and a low end netbook CPU. So I'd say the CPU is going to hold the system back in the future. That being said, the whole system is very disappointing and it easily represents the weakest a top performing console has ever been in the past 30 years. It is, however, still a generational leap beyond the Wii U.
#133Lefty128kPosted 5/16/2014 11:04:50 AM
Cubfan082 posted...
RobJ24 posted...
"p" and "fps" are things only elitists care about, the new courses look beautiful already. The only thing that matters anyways is gameplay which not a single person is complaining about.


no.

if your fps is sub 30 you can expect things like screen tearing and chop, and that is bad for your game expeirence.

720p should be what is expected of all Nintendo titles since they specced the system to generate 720p because that is still currently the most commonly purchased television resolution.


No, 1080p is the most commonly purchased HDTV resolution now.
#134GreatEclipsePosted 5/16/2014 11:08:19 AM
Cubfan082 posted...
RobJ24 posted...
"p" and "fps" are things only elitists care about, the new courses look beautiful already. The only thing that matters anyways is gameplay which not a single person is complaining about.


no.

if your fps is sub 30 you can expect things like screen tearing and chop, and that is bad for your game expeirence.

720p should be what is expected of all Nintendo titles since they specced the system to generate 720p because that is still currently the most commonly purchased television resolution.


These kind of discussions have always been divorced from the real world, many people (including me) were playing their PS3 in SD during the early years of that console generation. Many older/cheaper HDTVs still cap at 720p, and smaller ones in 1080 don't even see a huge improvement. It's just that the people with the giant plasmas have a massive credit card bill at Best Buy to justify to themselves, and throw a fit when something doesn't take advantage of it.
#135Lefty128kPosted 5/16/2014 11:08:51 AM
DaLagga posted...
Lefty128k posted...
GreatEclipse posted...
Also, just for the purpose of clarification, resolution can only be traded for FPS if the GPU is the bottleneck in the system. Here is a good piece on the subject:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-in-theory-1080p30-or-720p60

Trying to argue that the PS4 is "_ times more powerful" than the Wii U or any other system is silly, since a computer can only go as fast as it's slowest component, and some games, or sections of them, tax certain components more than others.


Why don't you actually demonstrate which PS4 component is the bottleneck?


The PS4 has a mediocre GPU and a low end netbook CPU. So I'd say the CPU is going to hold the system back in the future. That being said, the whole system is very disappointing and it easily represents the weakest a top performing console has ever been in the past 30 years. It is, however, still a generational leap beyond the Wii U.


What a great explanation.....

I especially liked how you actually named the specific components and listed their specs, instead of just flippantly calling them by thoughtless descriptors like "mediocre" and "low-end".....

Oh, wait.......
#136GreatEclipsePosted 5/16/2014 11:31:03 AM(edited)
DaLagga posted...
Lefty128k posted...
GreatEclipse posted...
Also, just for the purpose of clarification, resolution can only be traded for FPS if the GPU is the bottleneck in the system. Here is a good piece on the subject:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-in-theory-1080p30-or-720p60

Trying to argue that the PS4 is "_ times more powerful" than the Wii U or any other system is silly, since a computer can only go as fast as it's slowest component, and some games, or sections of them, tax certain components more than others.


Why don't you actually demonstrate which PS4 component is the bottleneck?


The PS4 has a mediocre GPU and a low end netbook CPU. So I'd say the CPU is going to hold the system back in the future. That being said, the whole system is very disappointing and it easily represents the weakest a top performing console has ever been in the past 30 years. It is, however, still a generational leap beyond the Wii U.


The PS4 GPU is between a 7850-70 in power, plus it has all the benefits that come from being in a closed system. I wouldn't call that mediocre, certainly not for a $400 machine. The CPU is disappointing, I agree, but the GPU has been customized heavily for compute operations (an often overlooked advantage it has over the XB1), it's just that IIRC the tools aren't there to support it yet.

I'm not trying to pick sides here guys, I just want people to have some perspective on these issues. Like I said, game graphics have gotten to a point where you think people would be satisfied, but no, they seem to care a lot more now than they did in the PS1 or PS2 ear, when improvements were far more meaningful.
#137SaltyBotzPosted 5/16/2014 11:33:01 AM
EastCoastKody posted...
on ps4 it would be 900p 25fps


More like 1080p & 120fps.
#138HayashiTakaraPosted 5/16/2014 11:35:12 AM
SaltyBotz posted...
EastCoastKody posted...
on ps4 it would be 900p 25fps


More like 1080p & 120fps.


Yeah just like how it did with last gen ports right? oh wait..
#139GrizzmeisterPosted 5/16/2014 11:36:59 AM
All the reviews I've read say Mario Kart 8 is drop-dead gorgeous. I can't wait to get my own copy so I can see for myself.
---
Speaking on condition of anonymity.
#140DaLaggaPosted 5/16/2014 11:37:27 AM
Lefty128k posted...
What a great explanation.....

I especially liked how you actually named the specific components and listed their specs, instead of just flippantly calling them by thoughtless descriptors like "mediocre" and "low-end".....

Oh, wait.......


The GPU is basically a slightly beefier AMD 7850 which is indeed very mediocre and easily outperformed by GPU's released 3 years before the PS4 came out. The CPU is indeed based on a netbook processor (Jaguar) with 8 cores clocked very low at 1.6ghz and two of those cores are reserved for the OS. So yes, long story short, PC CPU's from 5+ years ago would easily outperform the PS4's CPU and PC GPU's more than 3 years old would outperform its GPU.

And that's not even taking overclocking or SLI/Crossfire configurations into account. The PS4 really is woefully underpowered for a modern console and it's facepalm worthy if Sony thinks this thing is going to last 6 to 8 years. It's already struggling to handle modern games with Watch Dogs seeing massive downgrades on the system, BF4 dropping down to 900p with massive framerate issues in larger games, and The Witcher 3 rumored to run at minimum settings on the PS4 compared to PC.