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

Next gen console graphics to look like current gen PC games

#21bluehat94Posted 2/8/2013 11:28:13 PM
SL68 posted...
95_Eclipse posted...
SL68 posted...

Those are just numbers. Unless you know programming and are a professional, you really can't tell much from numbers alone. Also, there's a lot more than just clock speed and RAM.

I judge by what the games look like on screen, and the first batch of Wii U games looked no better than 360 games. That's when people said it's a last gen console.

But what about if the first batch of 720 games look no better than current 360 games? Will people think it's a last gen console? No.

And that's because people are fanboys who have already made up their mind.

I think the graphical difference on screen between Wii U and 720, despite the huge difference on paper, will be like the difference between 3DS and Vita. Noticable in the biggest production games, but not in general. Most Vita games look like hi res 3DS titles, and Resident Evil Revelations looks about as good as the best looking Vita titles. And that's despite the huge difference between 3DS and Vita on paper.

For example, Vita has 512 MB of RAM, 3DS has 128 MB. Pretty big difference, no? But how much difference do you actually see on screen? Barely any.


So you're dismissing the stats that directly effect how the console can run games, and you're calling other people fanboys? o.o

Lol... Just accept it, Nintendo is not even in the same ball game as Sony and Microsoft. This was Nintendo's choice though, they have apparently decided they cannot compete head to head.

Edit : By the way, I have no issue with the Wii U, I'll probably eventually own one, just because.


Yes I'm dismissing stats because I judge games based on how they look on screen. Please explain the relatively small difference between 3DS and Vita despite the huge difference on paper between the consoles.

Numbers make fanboys go blind.


Honestly, the only fanboy I see here is you.
---
"So my lunch today involved both a noodle packet and a sauce packet....so yeah, things are going pretty well for me."
#22MK_GodPosted 2/9/2013 12:16:32 AM
My two cents, who cares? games are games.
---
watch HodgeTwins aka Lord Keith and Lord Kevin aka Mr. Striations & Mr. Feathers aka Twin Muscle Workout aka Fasting Twins
#23JenniferTatePosted 2/9/2013 12:19:45 AM
Awesome, top end PC games like Metro and Crysis and Skyrim modded out look amazing when running at their most extreme. An usually at 60fps.

If we can have that on consoles I will be thrilled.
---
I'm takin' no direction and I walk-a real slow
For the words of oppression are go, go, go
#24The DevourerPosted 2/9/2013 12:36:55 AM(edited)
95_Eclipse posted...
SL68 posted...

Those are just numbers. Unless you know programming and are a professional, you really can't tell much from numbers alone. Also, there's a lot more than just clock speed and RAM.

I judge by what the games look like on screen, and the first batch of Wii U games looked no better than 360 games. That's when people said it's a last gen console.

But what about if the first batch of 720 games look no better than current 360 games? Will people think it's a last gen console? No.

And that's because people are fanboys who have already made up their mind.

I think the graphical difference on screen between Wii U and 720, despite the huge difference on paper, will be like the difference between 3DS and Vita. Noticable in the biggest production games, but not in general. Most Vita games look like hi res 3DS titles, and Resident Evil Revelations looks about as good as the best looking Vita titles. And that's despite the huge difference between 3DS and Vita on paper.

For example, Vita has 512 MB of RAM, 3DS has 128 MB. Pretty big difference, no? But how much difference do you actually see on screen? Barely any.


So you're dismissing the stats that directly effect how the console can run games, and you're calling other people fanboys? o.o

Lol... Just accept it, Nintendo is not even in the same ball game as Sony and Microsoft. This was Nintendo's choice though, they have apparently decided they cannot compete head to head.

Edit : By the way, I have no issue with the Wii U, I'll probably eventually own one, just because.


Clock speeds alone mean nothing. Seriously. GPUs have shaders, bandwidth, all kinds of cores and processors on them basically that clock speed means little. Look at nVidia vs AMD cards. Clock speeds are almost never the same but slower ones can outperform faster ones simply because they are more capable.

I don't know about CPUs right now but in the past a slower AMD CPU could perform on par with a faster Intel CPU and it's all because of the architecture and how they handle the data processing. Clock speeds alone are absolutely no way to judge something with architectures that vary so greatly.

For example:
Core Clock 1033MHz
Core Clock 915MHz

Which one of those would make a better video card?
---
FX6100, HD7970, 8G DDR3 1600, 750G/400/1T SATA2/3, 700W, Logitech G5/G510, Win7
XPS16 - i7 720QM, 6G DDR3@1333, 500G SATA, HD4670 1G, Win7
#25temgunPosted 2/9/2013 12:55:11 AM
All that for $400? Not gonna happen.
---
BROCCOLI COCONUT HOT DOG
#26SL68(Topic Creator)Posted 2/9/2013 12:56:56 AM
bluehat94 posted...
Honestly, the only fanboy I see here is you.


Because you have no arguments left? :-)
#27Foxx3kPosted 2/9/2013 2:54:40 AM
It's not like launch Xbox360 games looked any better than PC games at the time.

And launch Xbox360 games didn't look *substantially* better than top graphics Xbox games. I mean compare Chronicles of Riddick (Xbox) to some launch 360 games like Perfect Dark Zero or King Kong. The 360 games were a little crisper and clearer, but it's not an earth shattering difference like some people make it out to be...
---
[LanParty nF4 Ultra-D] [AMD64 3700+ San Diego] [2x 1gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8] [2x 250gb Barracuda] [Soundblaster Audigy 2 ZS] [X850XTPE]
#28bluehat94Posted 2/9/2013 8:55:37 AM
SL68 posted...
bluehat94 posted...
Honestly, the only fanboy I see here is you.


Because you have no arguments left? :-)


I was never arguing to begin with, it was entirely one sided on your end, I said a fact and you tried to turn it into a fanboy topic about the WiiU and 3DS.
---
"So my lunch today involved both a noodle packet and a sauce packet....so yeah, things are going pretty well for me."
#29triple sPosted 2/9/2013 9:03:50 AM
SL68 posted...
95_Eclipse posted...
SL68 posted...

Those are just numbers. Unless you know programming and are a professional, you really can't tell much from numbers alone. Also, there's a lot more than just clock speed and RAM.

I judge by what the games look like on screen, and the first batch of Wii U games looked no better than 360 games. That's when people said it's a last gen console.

But what about if the first batch of 720 games look no better than current 360 games? Will people think it's a last gen console? No.

And that's because people are fanboys who have already made up their mind.

I think the graphical difference on screen between Wii U and 720, despite the huge difference on paper, will be like the difference between 3DS and Vita. Noticable in the biggest production games, but not in general. Most Vita games look like hi res 3DS titles, and Resident Evil Revelations looks about as good as the best looking Vita titles. And that's despite the huge difference between 3DS and Vita on paper.

For example, Vita has 512 MB of RAM, 3DS has 128 MB. Pretty big difference, no? But how much difference do you actually see on screen? Barely any.


So you're dismissing the stats that directly effect how the console can run games, and you're calling other people fanboys? o.o

Lol... Just accept it, Nintendo is not even in the same ball game as Sony and Microsoft. This was Nintendo's choice though, they have apparently decided they cannot compete head to head.

Edit : By the way, I have no issue with the Wii U, I'll probably eventually own one, just because.


Yes I'm dismissing stats because I judge games based on how they look on screen. Please explain the relatively small difference between 3DS and Vita despite the huge difference on paper between the consoles.

Numbers make fanboys go blind.



Actually, it's a much bigger difference than what you are making it out to be. My daughter has a 3DS and my son has a Vita. Vita games are noticeably better looking than the 3DS games.
---
GT:Triple S 06
Steam ID:triples22
#30SL68(Topic Creator)Posted 2/9/2013 9:26:43 AM
Somehow I don't believe you.