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

Why do people keep considering the Xbox One X to be equal to modern PC gaming

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. PC
  3. Why do people keep considering the Xbox One X to be equal to modern PC gaming

User Info: godplaysSNES

godplaysSNES
3 months ago#61
AsucaHayashi posted...
godplaysSNES posted...
I always ask the guys claiming consoles are holding PC back to provide examples of impressive PC exclusives.


you know there's truth in it when the actual guys responsible for making games to begin with are providing the argument:
https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/916373-pc/75489740



And yet they're still making the game for consoles instead of going PC only.
What he so nicely "forgot" to say is that if it weren't for consoles, they'd have to target playable performance on Intel IGPs instead, in order to target a bigger userbase.
Super Mario Kart is the single best Mario Kart ever!

User Info: godplaysSNES

godplaysSNES
3 months ago#62
DarkZV2Beta posted...
Connora711 posted...
I like it how people seem to forget that games are way better optimized for console's. I'm not picking side's here or anything because I have both a PC and a Xbox one. I'm just pointing out the facts that even if a PC had better hardware than the Xbox one x the Xbox one x can and sometimes WILL perform the equivalent to an PC SOLELY because developers can squeeze every inch of power out of it to use it.

But the thing is, that hasn't been practical for a studio to do for over a decade now, which is why, time and again, consoles fail to outperform even weaker PC GPUs in many cases.
You can boast about the possibilities of optimization, but in the face of the raw data that is benchmarking, things don't really seem to follow your ideals.


I'd guess Nintendo and Sony's own studios are still doing low-level optimizations
Super Mario Kart is the single best Mario Kart ever!

User Info: Silvererazor

Silvererazor
3 months ago#63
godplaysSNES posted...
JKatarn posted...
Shinobi120 posted...
Hence why most 3rd party publishers stick to the lowest common denominator of specs when porting their games to PC, because the market for people in which they have high-end PC's with beastly specs aren't there.


Yep, and yet you still have morons claiming the consoles are "holding PC gaming back" - no, the performance of commodity integrated graphics chipsets/entry level/mainstream GPUs are if anything.


Exactly. Even the OS is holding PC back. Back during the 360 era, even PC exclusives targeted DX9 only, because of XP, despite requiring Geforce 8 series. Now, games are still targeting DX11 only because of Windows 7's huge userbase.

I always ask the guys claiming consoles are holding PC back to provide examples of impressive PC exclusives.
PC exclusives are typically always bad in some regard, often using old APIs and/or poor multicore support.


It's not only about the graphics. It's about complexety, gameplay and the gameworld. Especially in the 360-time a lot of the worldbuilding was limited, because consoles couldn't hack it to load a bigger world. So adjustments, like smaller towns, more loadingzones etc. had to be made.
Then there is the fluidity of the gameplay. Over the last few years the controls were optimized for controllers, so that KB+M were an afterthought...if at all.

As for the hardware...well it kinda was limited by consoles as well. Take CPUs for examples. Due to teh corecount of the consoles, most developers didn't even bother to optimize games to use more than 4 cores. So for a long time 4 cores were the goto corecount. So Intel didn't even bother to release mainstream-CPUs with more than 4 cores for over a decade! This also means, that the vast majority of gamers have a 4-core CPU. Only in this consolegen the games start utilize more than 4 cores...and again thats mainly due to the consoles using more than 4 cores.

Similar story with the GPUs. Why bother developing GPU-technology, if you can sell refreshes with incremental upgrades, since developers won't bother to make the graphics, which can use the GPU-power. I mean if you were Nvidia or AMD, would you develop a graphicscard, which would make upgrading every 3 years for the average consumer and yearly upgrade for the enthusiasts, obsolete (like in the CPU-market)?

User Info: JKatarn

JKatarn
3 months ago#64
AsucaHayashi posted...
godplaysSNES posted...
I always ask the guys claiming consoles are holding PC back to provide examples of impressive PC exclusives.


you know there's truth in it when the actual guys responsible for making games to begin with are providing the argument:
https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/916373-pc/75489740


Yes, except he's conveniently forgetting the price aspect. If consoles were as powerful as a modern mid to high-end gaming PC they would be significantly more expensive to manufacture, and MS/Sony etc. would have the choice of either bleeding money on each console sold like most of last generation, or selling a $850+ console nobody would buy. $300-500 MAYBE $600 (if the console has amazing secondary features) is the absolute top-end price the market will bear for a game console - and they also want to profit on each console sold.
Asus P8Z68-V LE | Core i7 2600K | 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3 | EVGA GeForce GTX 1060 6GB
PS3 | PS2 | PSP| Wii-U | 3DS | DS | X-Box 360 | X-Box | NES

User Info: AsucaHayashi

AsucaHayashi
3 months ago#65
godplaysSNES posted...
And yet they're still making the game for consoles instead of going PC only.
What he so nicely "forgot" to say is that if it weren't for consoles, they'd have to target playable performance on Intel IGPs instead, in order to target a bigger userbase.


JKatarn posted...

Yes, except he's conveniently forgetting the price aspect. If consoles were as powerful as a modern mid to high-end gaming PC they would be significantly more expensive to manufacture, and MS/Sony etc. would have the choice of either bleeding money on each console sold like most of last generation, or selling a $850+ console nobody would buy.


yes, both true.

doesn't change the argument that consoles are still underpowered devices that hold back progress of gaming.

the fact that they would then have to target IGP/appeal to as large an userbase as possible/consider economic consequences etc. doesn't really defeat the argument but just adds to it.

hell, i'd argue that targeting IGP and PCs overall is far more preferable than the closed eco system of consoles and their tendency to cut ties with older software as soon as they move on to next gen.
Not being able to land shoryuken consistently on one method of input as opposed to another is a matter of preference - zedzilla
http://i.imgur.com/9Yv0R2Z.jpg

User Info: Otimus

Otimus
3 months ago#66
Short answer: They don't know any better.

Long answer: They gotta believe.
Now Playing
Zelda BOTW Master Mode (Switch), Tales of Berseria (PC), Witcher 3 (PC)

User Info: ArkonBlade

ArkonBlade
3 months ago#67
People who obviously know nothing about how CPU's work.

That crap CPU the XOX has is going to be nothing but a bottleneck.
YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/user/ArkonBlade/videos
PSN - ArkonBlade XBL - The Wolf Shadow STEAM - ArkonBlade

User Info: DarkZV2Beta

DarkZV2Beta
3 months ago#68
godplaysSNES posted...
DarkZV2Beta posted...
Connora711 posted...
I like it how people seem to forget that games are way better optimized for console's. I'm not picking side's here or anything because I have both a PC and a Xbox one. I'm just pointing out the facts that even if a PC had better hardware than the Xbox one x the Xbox one x can and sometimes WILL perform the equivalent to an PC SOLELY because developers can squeeze every inch of power out of it to use it.

But the thing is, that hasn't been practical for a studio to do for over a decade now, which is why, time and again, consoles fail to outperform even weaker PC GPUs in many cases.
You can boast about the possibilities of optimization, but in the face of the raw data that is benchmarking, things don't really seem to follow your ideals.


I'd guess Nintendo and Sony's own studios are still doing low-level optimizations

TBH, I wouldn't be so sure of Sony's studios. I don't think they'd want to waste time on that. Thhey probably have the driver team make special case optimizations for their games, but I think Nintendo is the only one really pushing low level optimization, and don't think they'll keep at it for Switch, given how tedious WiiU development was.

godplaysSNES posted...
AsucaHayashi posted...
godplaysSNES posted...
I always ask the guys claiming consoles are holding PC back to provide examples of impressive PC exclusives.


you know there's truth in it when the actual guys responsible for making games to begin with are providing the argument:
https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/916373-pc/75489740



And yet they're still making the game for consoles instead of going PC only.
What he so nicely "forgot" to say is that if it weren't for consoles, they'd have to target playable performance on Intel IGPs instead, in order to target a bigger userbase.


Honestly, I don't think teh graffix is really the issue. It's more the weak CPUs limiting mechanical freedom, and making development harder than it needs to be.
You can always cut down a game's resolution or scale it to lower hardware by removing effects. Making the changes to improve CPU performance, though, often impacts the playability of a game, and can even fundamentally make it a very different experience. For example, with Crysis, it meant cutting out physics/environmental destruction on lower settings, or lowering the draw distance, affecting visibility. If you look at Crysis 2, built for consoles, the environments are much less interactive, much smaller, and the AI is less dynamic, relying more on cooked pathing and scripted animations.
Even if you look at games like Battlefield 3, the physics aren't interactive anymore, and just clip through things before bouncing out, because low latency, precise physics doesn't thread well.

If consoles actually had capable CPUs, even with the API overhead of DirectX or OpenGL, we would still likely see a very different landscape for the gaming market, where logic cycles aren't so precious, because most of the frame time will be spent on draw calls anyway.
a quad core i7 was just a rebranded celeron -Pengu1n
Anything that has 3p fps or better is fine with me -mucloud

User Info: godplaysSNES

godplaysSNES
3 months ago#69
Since you mentioned Crysis, you should check out the 360 version. It's a pity we never got a PC version of the 360 port-_-

But when it comes to CPUs, would we be so much better off without consoles? We'd probably be looking at older i3 CPUs being the target, low clock speeds as well due to the laptops.
Super Mario Kart is the single best Mario Kart ever!

User Info: DarkZV2Beta

DarkZV2Beta
3 months ago#70
In terms of raw calculations, those old laptop i3s still kick consoles around in terms of single threaded performance, which matters a lot when you're writing code that needs to be interactive and responsive.
If not for consoles, we'd basically have AMD's FX series as the lowest common denominator here, and that's still a good... ~6x faster or so? Given the Jaguar cores are more in line with K8, and Piledriver is closer to K10/K10.5, plus the more than doubled clockspeeds. And then there's the fact that, though CPU technology has slowed considerably because of AMD's stagnation, Sandy is still six years old, and a large enough portion of the market is running a Sandy i5 or better that developers could expect that kind of processor as a baseline for good performance.
a quad core i7 was just a rebranded celeron -Pengu1n
Anything that has 3p fps or better is fine with me -mucloud
  1. Boards
  2. PC
  3. Why do people keep considering the Xbox One X to be equal to modern PC gaming

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived