Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 17 to 27 of 27

Thread: PC graphics just not that much better

  1. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Cambridge
    Posts
    240
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked
    6 times in 6 posts
    • davesom555's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asrock B450M
      • CPU:
      • AMD 2600@4ghz
      • Memory:
      • 16GB Corsair 3000mhz
      • Storage:
      • 500gb Samsung 970 Evo NVME + multiple 2.5" SSDs
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire Vega 56 Pulse
      • PSU:
      • EVGA 700w
      • Case:
      • NZXT H400i mATX
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • Samsung 27" QHD 144mhz
      • Internet:
      • 200mb

    Re: PC graphics just not that much better

    They are probably in a lot of cases going to use shared graphics resources between pc and console.

    Check out stuff like Far Cry 3 on the pc (not sure if there's a console version) but that looks amazing to me, especially 1080p High settings! Also been playing planetside 2 on relatively high settings, the graphics there are nice, although you'd not be able to compare it to a console

  2. #18
    Seriously casual gamer KeyboardDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,013
    Thanks
    774
    Thanked
    280 times in 242 posts
    • KeyboardDemon's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Sabretooth Z77
      • CPU:
      • i7 3770k + Corsair H80 (Refurbed)
      • Memory:
      • 16gb (4x4gb) Corsair Vengence Red (1866mhz) - (Because it looks good in a black mobo)
      • Storage:
      • Crucial M550 SSD 1TB + 2x 500GB Seagate HDDs
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0 (Warranty replacement for 780Ti SC ACX)
      • PSU:
      • EVGA 750 watt SuperNova G2
      • Case:
      • Silverstone RV03
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro 64 Bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • Asus Swift PG278Q
      • Internet:
      • BT Infinity (40mbs dl/10mbs ul)
    Far Cry 3 is out on console but the PC version was made with some specific additional graphics settings for it, this article from http://m.hardocp.com/article/2012/12/17/far_cry_3_video_card_performance_iq_review#.UVdwV1AgGSM has all the details.

  3. #19
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    27
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts

    Re: PC graphics just not that much better

    what i think is best is the framerates. even if it looks the same quality wise, theres something about 60fps that is just awesome.
    Hope this is not Chris' blood?!

  4. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    189
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked
    3 times in 2 posts
    • Jingee's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte GA-Z77
      • CPU:
      • Intel i5 3570K @ 3.4Ghz
      • Memory:
      • 8GB DDR3 @ 1600Mhz
      • Storage:
      • 128Gb Sandisk Extreme + 64Gb Crucial C300 + 2.25tb HDD storage
      • Graphics card(s):
      • KFA2 nVidia GTX 670 EX OC
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair
      • Case:
      • Some cheap one, works well, surprisingly.
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Home 64 bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • 2x Hanns-G HS233H3B @ 120hz

    Re: PC graphics just not that much better

    I wouldn't say a GTX 680 is a waste at 1080p. I have an OC'd 670 that runs faster than a stock 680, and coupling that with a 120hz monitor means I get the ultra-smooth gameplay I crave.

  5. #21
    Senior Member Pob255's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    The land of Brum
    Posts
    10,143
    Thanks
    608
    Thanked
    1,226 times in 1,123 posts
    • Pob255's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus M5A99X EVO
      • CPU:
      • FX8350 & CM Hyper 212+
      • Memory:
      • 4 x 2gb Corsair Vengence 1600mhz cas9
      • Storage:
      • 512gb samsung SSD +1tb Samsung HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EGVA GTX970
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic GX 650W
      • Case:
      • HAF 912+
      • Operating System:
      • W7 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • iiyama XB3270QS-B1 32" IPS 1440p

    Re: PC graphics just not that much better

    One thing I often find funny is that if you watch "pro gamers" playing fps games they will generally have added graphical features turned off, they want high and Stable frame rates and minimal graphics "clutter" that detracts from spotting and reacting.

    One fallacy I'd like to clear up is "pc ports" very few are ports these days what is far more common is multi-platform development, designing and developing a game with the simple goal of minimal alteration to make it work across consoles and pc.
    That's not to say that games are not being held back by 5-6 year old console hardware because they are.

    One current thing you'll see with today's games is that pc versions will have higher resolution textures and will run at higher frame rates (remember most console games only run at 30fps)
    In part it's hardware but also console API, the 360 is only running a modified version of DX9 API (it's sort of half way betweendx9 and dx10) and the ps3 uses a modified version of opengl 2 (and I think the wii u api is also based on opengl2)
    The big difference between console and pc api's is that console api's are created for one specific set of hardware where the cpu + gpu + ram and more closely linked where as pc a[i's have to be a more broadly written set of instructions and the hardware has to conform to the api's
    What this broadly means is that most games are still basically DX9 with dx10/dx11 features tacked on, granted dx10 was dx9 with added features tacked on but dx11 does have thee capability of being solely dx11 api calls although we've yet to see anything other than tech demos written solely for dx11

  6. #22
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    33
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked
    2 times in 2 posts

    Re: PC graphics just not that much better

    anyone played tomb raider?

  7. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    145
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked
    5 times in 3 posts
    • Preacher's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASRock z77 Pro4m
      • CPU:
      • i7 3770k
      • Memory:
      • 8GB GSkill 1600Mhz
      • Storage:
      • Samsung 500GB 840, 6TB of Seagate in JBOD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • MSI 7950 Twin Frozr
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic X660
      • Case:
      • Antec P180
      • Operating System:
      • Win 8 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Two old ones from work
      • Internet:
      • Virgin 60mb

    Re: PC graphics just not that much better

    Quote Originally Posted by Gremlin_FLG View Post
    anyone played tomb raider?
    Yeah, had it on the ps1. Great game!

  8. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    1,041
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked
    8 times in 8 posts
    • oralpain's system
      • Motherboard:
      • DFI "Blood Iron" P35-T2RL
      • CPU:
      • Intel Pentium E2140 @ 400x8 (3.2GHz), 1.375v
      • Memory:
      • Crucial Ballistix DDR2 800 CL4 @ 500MHz (DDR 1000), 4-4-4-12-T2, 2.3v
      • Storage:
      • 2x Seagate ST3250410AS
      • Graphics card(s):
      • NVIDIA 8800GTS (G92) 512 @ 783MHz core, 1836MHz shader, 1053Mhz memory, stock cooling 70% fan speed
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic SS-500GB
      • Case:
      • Antec P182, with some small modifications
      • Monitor(s):
      • ASUS VW222U
      • Internet:
      • Time Warner "Road Runner" Cable - 16 megabit downstream, 1 megabit upstream

    Re: PC graphics just not that much better

    It's also worth mentioning that many PC games simply do not have good stock presets and require tweaking or modding to achieve an optimal performance/IQ balance.

  9. #25
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    33
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked
    2 times in 2 posts

    Re: PC graphics just not that much better

    What i was referring to graphics on tomb raider was to the graphics.. Heck even the crysis 3 single player graphics are good.. So I am sorry dont agree with the OP post about PC graphics not that much better...

    With a PC, you need a good graphics card with a decent cpu to help you out.. If you dont sorry it will not run good..

  10. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Kingdom of Fife (Scotland)
    Posts
    4,991
    Thanks
    393
    Thanked
    220 times in 190 posts
    • crossy's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASUS Sabertooth X99
      • CPU:
      • Intel 5830k / Noctua NH-D15
      • Memory:
      • 32GB Crucial Ballistix DDR4
      • Storage:
      • 500GB Samsung 850Pro NVMe, 1TB Samsung 850EVO SSD, 1TB Seagate SSHD, 2TB WD Green, 8TB Seagate
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix GTX970OC
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX750 (modular)
      • Case:
      • Coolermaster HAF932 (with wheels)
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro 64bit, Ubuntu 16.04LTS
      • Monitor(s):
      • LG Flattron W2361V
      • Internet:
      • VirginMedia 200Mb

    Re: PC graphics just not that much better

    Quote Originally Posted by oralpain View Post
    It's also worth mentioning that many PC games simply do not have good stock presets and require tweaking or modding to achieve an optimal performance/IQ balance.
    Totally agree - and worse still (sometimes) are the ones that have an "optimal" setting. Most usually I use that as a starting point and then tweak onwards. Saints Row 3 and Just Cause 2 are two particularly bad (or should that be good?) examples - I managed to dramatically improve the frame rate on these by some reasoned fiddling with the settings.
    What I'd like to see is some game that actually allowed you to select an "optimal" setting that was smart enough to benchmark it's settings and retweak - so if you were getting less than 25fps then it could dial the graphics back. JC2's "optimal" settings gave me minimums of 6fps - which is utterly unplayable - last time I bench'd it I got 6x that (and without dropping resolution).
    Quote Originally Posted by Gremlin_FLG View Post
    With a PC, you need a good graphics card with a decent cpu to help you out.. If you dont sorry it will not run good..
    But as noted above, you can also get games which run better on a particular graphics card family or particular cpu. For example, I've got a (old) hexacore PhenomII - some games really work well with this, other seem to prefer the improved single thread performance of Intel's cpu's. And I'm sure we've all seen comment on Hexus reviews about titles that prefer Geforce over Radion (or vice-versa). I'm not disagreeing with what you said, merely pointing out that there's more complexity.

    And I suppose therein lies the attraction for some people - being able to tweak and tune your rig to extract every last fps from your favourite titles.

    Career status: still enjoying my new career in DevOps, but it's keeping me busy...

  11. #27
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    11
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts

    Re: PC graphics just not that much better

    Well multi platform games often are not be much better on PC, usually it's just higher resolution and Anti Aliasing which sharpens stuff up. But there are exceptions like Battlefield 3 and Crysis etc, or quite a big improvement if they put the effort in. But there is also quite a lot of stuff which really pushes a PC and shows off the power, you just have to wade through all the stuff that doesn't. The first thing that comes to mind is Arma3 which not only looks great, but it achieves that while being a huge open world with no loading and lots of other stuff happening at the same time (very complex AI etc). Games like that couldn't run on consoles, perhaps even the next generation consoles due this year. It's just such a big and demanding game.

    But also, check out the screenshots of Skyrim with "100 mods". It looks incredible and I assumed it would be unplayable, but I can actually play it like that, and I don't even have top end gear. Here's the link:
    http://kotaku.com/5961994/what-skyri...0-mods-at-once

    I only average about 30fps but that's enough for me, it's an RPG after all, and I'm just glad it can be playable while looking that good.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •