This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

An (somewhat long-term) experiment I would like to do...

#11BuburibonPosted 9/19/2013 3:32:09 PM
robat223 posted...
I believe that no one could have built a 2006 PC for < $600 (in 2006 dollars) that currently produces graphics at the quality of The Last of Us. But I'm not able to prove this as I don't have price listings for 2006. So this is getting out in front trying to reduce ex post facto arguing.


TC, The Last Of Us is a fantastic game, but I can't see why you'd consider it to be a benchmark in terms of graphics. I mean, it renders in sub-HD, runs somewhere in between 20-30fps, relies heavily on pre-computed assets (lighting, shadows, others), makes use of low resolution textures, etc.

I can agree The Last Of Us often "paints a pretty picture", but when so much is pre-rendered (a.k.a. console optimization), how do you aim to compare it to the PC, where most of the time the intent is to achieve the best results possible while rendering everything in real time? It's apples to oranges, really.
---
3770K @ 4.5Ghz | 16GB | TITAN
Steam | PSN | XBL: GVAmson23
#12robat223(Topic Creator)Posted 9/19/2013 3:46:55 PM
JKatarn posted...
Don't have anything else to do with your free time? You might want to try an interesting hobby (no, posting pointless troll threads on GameFAQs doesn't count).


Trying to obtain facts and resolve a long-standing dispute with actual numbers is now trolling? I have a hypothesis that I'm trying to test rather than just sticking to without evidence. I think that's pretty much the opposite of trolling.
---
Gamertag= Robat93
PSN= thegreatusurper
#13KillerTrufflePosted 9/19/2013 3:51:27 PM
robat223 posted...
JKatarn posted...
Don't have anything else to do with your free time? You might want to try an interesting hobby (no, posting pointless troll threads on GameFAQs doesn't count).


Trying to obtain facts and resolve a long-standing dispute with actual numbers is now trolling? I have a hypothesis that I'm trying to test rather than just sticking to without evidence. I think that's pretty much the opposite of trolling.


Except that the way you're going about it, you will resolve nothing, for the reasons I pointed out above.

The PS3 has been a stagnant platform for the past 7 years, which has allowed developers to squeeze every last bit of juice out of it. PC has continually improved, and developers have kept pace, allowing PC to outpace PS3 all along in terms of graphics quality, options, etc., but at the cost of mediocre older rigs not being able to keep up at the same level. However, money saved on game purchases for PC vs. PS3 is more than enough to update a GPU and allow it to keep pace.
---
"How do I get rid of a Trojan Horse?" -Sailor_Kakashi
"Leave it outside the gates of Troy overnight." -Davel23
#14TheFeshPincePosted 9/19/2013 3:52:48 PM
Even with old tech, you can still play those games on low settings and they still look better than PS3. I don't get the argument, here.
---
http://i.imgur.com/J0lvB6S.jpg | http://i.imgur.com/DoHj9yA.jpg | http://youtu.be/YXkx-PSwbG4
#15robat223(Topic Creator)Posted 9/19/2013 3:56:26 PM(edited)
KillerTruffle posted...
robat223 posted...
JKatarn posted...
Don't have anything else to do with your free time? You might want to try an interesting hobby (no, posting pointless troll threads on GameFAQs doesn't count).


Trying to obtain facts and resolve a long-standing dispute with actual numbers is now trolling? I have a hypothesis that I'm trying to test rather than just sticking to without evidence. I think that's pretty much the opposite of trolling.


Except that the way you're going about it, you will resolve nothing, for the reasons I pointed out above.

The PS3 has been a stagnant platform for the past 7 years, which has allowed developers to squeeze every last bit of juice out of it. PC has continually improved, and developers have kept pace, allowing PC to outpace PS3 all along in terms of graphics quality, options, etc., but at the cost of mediocre older rigs not being able to keep up at the same level. However, money saved on game purchases for PC vs. PS3 is more than enough to update a GPU and allow it to keep pace.


You only have to update a GPU to allow it to keep pace? Also I guess I never realized that PC games were that much cheaper than their console equivalents. Especially at launch.

TheFeshPince posted...
Even with old tech, you can still play those games on low settings and they still look better than PS3. I don't get the argument, here.


Well for me I had an 8800 and the BF3 beta was clocking in at 15 fps. It ran better on the PS3.

---
Gamertag= Robat93
PSN= thegreatusurper
#16TimePharaohPosted 9/19/2013 3:57:07 PM
robat223 posted...
You only have to update a GPU to allow it to keep pace? Also I guess I never realized that PC games were that much cheaper than their console equivalents. Especially at launch.


$10 cheaper minimum with guaranteed any new release being even cheaper on some site.

Anyway, this topic reeks of peasant. lol at hardware somehow degrading over time
---
"HE are genius, firstly." - ASlaveObeys
http://i.imgur.com/SQAc17B.png
#17robat223(Topic Creator)Posted 9/19/2013 3:59:12 PM
TimePharaoh posted...
robat223 posted...
You only have to update a GPU to allow it to keep pace? Also I guess I never realized that PC games were that much cheaper than their console equivalents. Especially at launch.


$10 cheaper minimum with guaranteed any new release being even cheaper on some site.

Anyway, this topic reeks of peasant. lol at hardware somehow degrading over time


Hardware doesn't degrade over time, but developers dedication to optimization does. "Oh 5 year old graphics card, time for them to upgrade anyway." This isn't just running a for loop on a processor. Pure numbers don't always equate to the quality of what shows up on the screen.
---
Gamertag= Robat93
PSN= thegreatusurper
#18KillerTrufflePosted 9/19/2013 4:00:20 PM
robat223 posted...
KillerTruffle posted...
robat223 posted...
JKatarn posted...
Don't have anything else to do with your free time? You might want to try an interesting hobby (no, posting pointless troll threads on GameFAQs doesn't count).


Trying to obtain facts and resolve a long-standing dispute with actual numbers is now trolling? I have a hypothesis that I'm trying to test rather than just sticking to without evidence. I think that's pretty much the opposite of trolling.


Except that the way you're going about it, you will resolve nothing, for the reasons I pointed out above.

The PS3 has been a stagnant platform for the past 7 years, which has allowed developers to squeeze every last bit of juice out of it. PC has continually improved, and developers have kept pace, allowing PC to outpace PS3 all along in terms of graphics quality, options, etc., but at the cost of mediocre older rigs not being able to keep up at the same level. However, money saved on game purchases for PC vs. PS3 is more than enough to update a GPU and allow it to keep pace.


You only have to update a GPU to allow it to keep pace? Also I guess I never realized that PC games were that much cheaper than their console equivalents. Especially at launch.


If you buy games at launch, you fail at PC gaming. :P With maybe one or two exceptions, virtually every PS3 game I've bought has been on sale. The majority of those have been $20-30, with several at $40, and maybe a couple at $15.

On the other hand, waiting approximately the same amount of time for PC game sales as I do with PS3, the majority of PC games I've purchased have also been on sale, with the majority of those running $10 or less, loads of multi-game bundles for less than $5, and a small handful for anywhere from $15-30. So yes, PC games are substantially cheaper than console games. Console almost NEVER sees game sales on the level PC does. If you've seen otherwise, fill me in, because I don't mind boosting my PS3 library some more.
---
"How do I get rid of a Trojan Horse?" -Sailor_Kakashi
"Leave it outside the gates of Troy overnight." -Davel23