NFS On PC Will Look "As Good" As On Next-Gen Consoles

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Did this guy actually just say this? Developers are now bragging that PC games will look just "as good" as next-gen console versions? Ugh.

Need for Speed Rivals – the franchise's first turn into the new world of next-gen consoles – is also coming to the PC. In crafting the PC version, Ghost Games executive producer Marcus Nilsson promises "Need for Speed Rivals will look easily as good on PC as next-generation consoles."
Click to expand...
 
Sorry moved on to real sim racing since Need For Speed Underground, but with the next gen consoles basically being PC's (and out of date compared to what PC's have in terms of hardware by then), you would think, and hope the developers will polish the tur...product for PC gaming platforms.
 
I stuck on NFS for a while...

I was thinking Network File System, but that wasn't right, then I read the summary.

Don't care.

I have a real car. I don't need a simulator. :p
 
Just wait, there still may be a day when PC versions will be downgraded on purpose to drive people to consoles.
 
That being said, one thing that was raised in a different thread in regards to the Titan vs. 780 was this:

mgulbran said:
Don't worry about it. Everything pointed towards nothing worthwhile and new for at least a year. As long as you keep it as long as you can before you upgrade you'll get your $$ worth out of it. If you were planning of keeping it for awhile you MAY get better use out of if with some upcoming PS4 ports over the 780.
Click to expand...

Theory is that since next gen consoles will have 8GB unified system and graphics RAM, what if developers choose to use a - for PC's - unusually large amount of that available ram for what PC's with discrete video cards put in video RAM?

It is conceivable that even today's 3GB GTX780 may perform poorly despite being much more powerful, due to not being able to fit all that data in video RAM.

Really just speculation - of course, but still an interesting thought.

Of course, by then PC's will have unified RAM, but it is unclear to me whether systems with discrete GPU's will be able to take advantage of the feature at all, as it would seem unified RAM would be awfully slow if it needs to traverse the PCI express bus, even over 16x PCIe 3.0 channels.
 
Lol...as if the PC version of any cross-platform game ever created doesn't look "as good" as the console version?

lolwutpear.jpg
 
I wonder if the next gen consoles will be able to handle more then a few people on each team. I was always stunned at how deserted multiplayer maps are on a console.
 
Why not just say "We're going to work hard on making the PC version look as crappy as the console version" or "We're just going to do a port and plug in the same graphics because we're lazy".

Damn spin doctors. :D
 
Zarathustra[H];1039904475 said:
That being said, one thing that was raised in a different thread in regards to the Titan vs. 780 was this:



Theory is that since next gen consoles will have 8GB unified system and graphics RAM, what if developers choose to use a - for PC's - unusually large amount of that available ram for what PC's with discrete video cards put in video RAM?

It is conceivable that even today's 3GB GTX780 may perform poorly despite being much more powerful, due to not being able to fit all that data in video RAM.

Really just speculation - of course, but still an interesting thought.

Of course, by then PC's will have unified RAM, but it is unclear to me whether systems with discrete GPU's will be able to take advantage of the feature at all, as it would seem unified RAM would be awfully slow if it needs to traverse the PCI express bus, even over 16x PCIe 3.0 channels.
Click to expand...

No, it is not conceivable...(fortunately)...;) Your reasoning is correct otherwise, though. Shared ram is simply not as fast as the separate pools of ram in computers with discrete 3d cards. More importantly, the gpus in the consoles (PS4 is about 33% stronger than xb1 in terms of shader and compute unit resources), are no match at all for the higher end gpus like those found in the HD 7970 or the GTX780! It's not even close in the gpu department.

Also, it is fairly difficult to make use of 2GB-3GB frame buffers (even @ 2560x1600 8xFSAA, etc.--a resolution on which the consoles will choke and sputter--do the math), and the dedicated ram on the discrete 3d cards is faster than it will be in the PS4, and the PS4 is faster still than the xb1, which uses DDR3 instead of GDDR5. And of course, consoles won't be doing EyeFinity or SLI, either (which helps to actually use that 2GB-3GB frame-buffer ram when running in certain very high resolutions.)

My box at home has 8GB system ram and 1 GB GDDR5 on my 3d card (for a total of 9GB.) When playing 3d games, textures are often first loaded to system ram and then to vram as required by the game--so to some extent the ram is already "shared" in that sense (although literally the two pools of ram are distinct and joined only through the PCIex16 bus, as you mentioned.)

I think that the 8GB of ram on both consoles will be great however in stimulating game developers to use a lot more ram in their games! Adding ram to the fastest PCs today is dirt cheap--as you can add 8GB of DDR3 1866+ for ~$50. And most people who buy and play games on PCs already meet or exceed that requirement. Filling up just 2 or 3 GBs of frame-buffer ram is decently difficult to do, so I don't think that will be a problem as you won't see console game developers doing that as these consoles will remain relatively low-res game boxes, though higher-res devices than the 8-year-old consoles they replace.

I was kind of surprised by that: I would have thought the *minimum* average game resolution these consoles would run would be 1920x1080x32 x4FSAA, 16xAF @ 60fps. But, it isn't clear to me that *either* the PS4 or the xb1 will be able to reliably do that and that somewhat lower resolutions will be targeted. Perhaps like 1280x800 (8:5), or so. PCs, though, should be able to take those games and scale the resolutions right on up!
 
Beside the technical aspect it is a developer problem when a console game outperforms a PC version. Usually the console engine version has less features. Easiest example is Anti-Alias the options for PC are always better due to different system having better performance to allow this.

We have yet to see the PS4/Xbox1 usage of textures if it is the same source material or again some kind of scaled textures trick that was needed due to bandwidth limit problem of the last generation.
 
Im not surprised. Consoles, even if they're on paper not as impressive as desktop computers, are usually able to be utilized better than a general purpose computer some goofy person tried to turn into a poor replacement for a console. Until PC technology moves forward at least a couple generations, it's going to take a lot of fooling around to get equal-to-console graphics.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Im not surprised. Consoles, even if they're on paper not as impressive as desktop computers, are usually able to be utilized better than a general purpose computer some goofy person tried to turn into a poor replacement for a console. Until PC technology moves forward at least a couple generations, it's going to take a lot of fooling around to get equal-to-console graphics.
Click to expand...

lol wut?

Everyone here is making fun of the guy for being an idiot then you say something like that?
 
robble said:
lol wut?

Everyone here is making fun of the guy for being an idiot then you say something like that?
Click to expand...

Well it did take a while for the PC to catch up to the last generation of console systems. The HD3000 was the tipping point for the "average" PC to really match something like an Xbox360.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Im not surprised. Consoles, even if they're on paper not as impressive as desktop computers, are usually able to be utilized better than a general purpose computer some goofy person tried to turn into a poor replacement for a console. Until PC technology moves forward at least a couple generations, it's going to take a lot of fooling around to get equal-to-console graphics.
Click to expand...

Im so sick of this. Consoles are not hyper-optimized compared to PCs and any optimizations they do get are outclassed by brute force on PC. Further, this generation of consoles taught devs how to scale up and down pretty easily. Your argument made sense 8 years ago, it is no longer the case.
 
The NFS franchise sucked balls after the original Most Wanted (with Carbon and Shift being alright as a sim). All the other later NFS's released has been major ported clusterfucks with gimped down support for hardware and exhibiting glitchiness.

I for one, downvote NFS and upvote Race Driver Grid 2.
 
Matthew Kane said:
The NFS franchise sucked balls after the original Most Wanted (with Carbon and Shift being alright as a sim). All the other later NFS's released has been major ported clusterfucks with gimped down support for hardware and exhibiting glitchiness.

I for one, downvote NFS and upvote Race Driver Grid 2.
Click to expand...

I picked up NFS Shift 2 for $5 on steam the other day. It had the worst handling i have seen in a race in a long time. Add to that Most Wanted's weirdness and im done with NFS.
 
Spire3660 said:
I picked up NFS Shift 2 for $5 on steam the other day. It had the worst handling i have seen in a race in a long time. Add to that Most Wanted's weirdness and im done with NFS.
Click to expand...

Because shift 2 isn't an arcade type racing game. Have you ever played a simulator or better yet driven a real car?
 
Spire3660 said:
Im so sick of this. Consoles are not hyper-optimized compared to PCs and any optimizations they do get are outclassed by brute force on PC. Further, this generation of consoles taught devs how to scale up and down pretty easily. Your argument made sense 8 years ago, it is no longer the case.
Click to expand...

Quoted for truth.
 
Zarathustra[H];1039904475 said:
That being said, one thing that was raised in a different thread in regards to the Titan vs. 780 was this:



Theory is that since next gen consoles will have 8GB unified system and graphics RAM, what if developers choose to use a - for PC's - unusually large amount of that available ram for what PC's with discrete video cards put in video RAM?

It is conceivable that even today's 3GB GTX780 may perform poorly despite being much more powerful, due to not being able to fit all that data in video RAM.

Really just speculation - of course, but still an interesting thought.

Of course, by then PC's will have unified RAM, but it is unclear to me whether systems with discrete GPU's will be able to take advantage of the feature at all, as it would seem unified RAM would be awfully slow if it needs to traverse the PCI express bus, even over 16x PCIe 3.0 channels.
Click to expand...

WaltC said:
No, it is not conceivable...(fortunately)...;) Your reasoning is correct otherwise, though. Shared ram is simply not as fast as the separate pools of ram in computers with discrete 3d cards. More importantly, the gpus in the consoles (PS4 is about 33% stronger than xb1 in terms of shader and compute unit resources), are no match at all for the higher end gpus like those found in the HD 7970 or the GTX780! It's not even close in the gpu department.

Also, it is fairly difficult to make use of 2GB-3GB frame buffers (even @ 2560x1600 8xFSAA, etc.--a resolution on which the consoles will choke and sputter--do the math), and the dedicated ram on the discrete 3d cards is faster than it will be in the PS4, and the PS4 is faster still than the xb1, which uses DDR3 instead of GDDR5. And of course, consoles won't be doing EyeFinity or SLI, either (which helps to actually use that 2GB-3GB frame-buffer ram when running in certain very high resolutions.)

My box at home has 8GB system ram and 1 GB GDDR5 on my 3d card (for a total of 9GB.) When playing 3d games, textures are often first loaded to system ram and then to vram as required by the game--so to some extent the ram is already "shared" in that sense (although literally the two pools of ram are distinct and joined only through the PCIex16 bus, as you mentioned.)

I think that the 8GB of ram on both consoles will be great however in stimulating game developers to use a lot more ram in their games! Adding ram to the fastest PCs today is dirt cheap--as you can add 8GB of DDR3 1866+ for ~$50. And most people who buy and play games on PCs already meet or exceed that requirement. Filling up just 2 or 3 GBs of frame-buffer ram is decently difficult to do, so I don't think that will be a problem as you won't see console game developers doing that as these consoles will remain relatively low-res game boxes, though higher-res devices than the 8-year-old consoles they replace.

I was kind of surprised by that: I would have thought the *minimum* average game resolution these consoles would run would be 1920x1080x32 x4FSAA, 16xAF @ 60fps. But, it isn't clear to me that *either* the PS4 or the xb1 will be able to reliably do that and that somewhat lower resolutions will be targeted. Perhaps like 1280x800 (8:5), or so. PCs, though, should be able to take those games and scale the resolutions right on up!
Click to expand...

I was actually thinking along those lines. This is such a major jump in hw for consoles that I thought maybe that the whole "unified hw" thing would actually have an edge compared to the current gen cards. Yes our pc's can ramp up the resolution but I was under the impression this guy was talking about in game graphics like texture and filtering & shading options.
 
I was just wondering today if there isn't a very large desire amoungst certain bastards to kill PC gaming and in particular Steam.
Fourtunately my current backlog of steam games means I will not finish all of them before I go to see the choir invisible, but still...
 
Awesome! Low frame rates, less lighting, shorter view distances, and lower texture resolutions for all!
 
Woah!!!

So I'll be able to play this game at a whopping 1080p like the next-gen consoles are supposed to finally be able to accomplish? That is going to look so killer on my 2560x1600 monitor. I hope my solid state drive, 4.2Ghz quad core, and dual GPUs can keep up.
 
XamediX said:
I was actually thinking along those lines. This is such a major jump in hw for consoles that I thought maybe that the whole "unified hw" thing would actually have an edge compared to the current gen cards. Yes our pc's can ramp up the resolution but I was under the impression this guy was talking about in game graphics like texture and filtering & shading options.
Click to expand...

Consoles always have an "edge" versus a PC with comparable hardware, due to the unified hardware nature. But next-gen consoles never have top-edge PC hardware, so generally you never seen console games looking better than what the PC is capable of.
 
The fact is that after optimized for the leveraged discrepancies when you take into account the identical individual parts that are identical to each interchangable part of a PC, that consoles are more powerful for games.
 
XamediX said:
I was actually thinking along those lines. This is such a major jump in hw for consoles that I thought maybe that the whole "unified hw" thing would actually have an edge compared to the current gen cards. Yes our pc's can ramp up the resolution but I was under the impression this guy was talking about in game graphics like texture and filtering & shading options.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong.

PC's will always have the edge, due to the life cycle problem of consoles. Even at launch, the console hardware will be behind, due to development time, and not using top end hardware.

My comments, based on mgulbran's theory were simply based on the potential for future console engines to be highly optimized for the unified memory of those consoles, in a way that could possibly sabotage performance on a discrete GPU system.
 
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e85/cole18117/hilarious/Not_This_Shit_Again.jpg[\img]

Does the fucking optimization argument have to pop up every time?
 
Drheadbang said:
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e85/cole18117/hilarious/Not_This_Shit_Again.jpg[\img]

Does the fucking optimization argument have to pop up every time?[/QUOTE]

I'm not talking about the the traditional optimization argument, which goes sotof like:

"Consoles can perform better because identical hardware allows for more optimization, so they get more out of their hardware even if its not as powerful".

That is certainly true to a certain extent, but not enough to make a huge amount of difference.

The optimization discussion I am having is very different, and goes sortof like "optimization leads to hyper-specialization for unified memory designs lending themselves poorly to PC ports where most gaming systems will have discrete graphics".

This is a very different argument.

Not that it really matters anyway. All games (probably with the exception of the Fallout series) ported from consoles tend to suck anyway.
Click to expand...
 
The only optimizing that occurs on consoles is when the:

view distance lowered, textures lowered and compressed, difficulty lowered, save system removed, checkpoint system added, auto-aim added...etc.
 
Zarathustra[H];1039906767 said:
Don't get me wrong.

PC's will always have the edge, due to the life cycle problem of consoles. Even at launch, the console hardware will be behind, due to development time, and not using top end hardware.

My comments, based on mgulbran's theory were simply based on the potential for future console engines to be highly optimized for the unified memory of those consoles, in a way that could possibly sabotage performance on a discrete GPU system.
Click to expand...

MavericK96 said:
Consoles always have an "edge" versus a PC with comparable hardware, due to the unified hardware nature. But next-gen consoles never have top-edge PC hardware, so generally you never seen console games looking better than what the PC is capable of.
Click to expand...

I am on the same line of thinking as you guys. The "Unified H/W" theory never really sat well with me given the stats of previous consoles, but with H/W stats like this, maybe that concept has some legs. I would love to hear some AAA and Indie devs talk about this from their experience though. That would be awesome.
 
XBOX ONE
CPU - 1.6 GHz AMD 'Jaguar', 8 core 64-bit processor
GPU - 800 MHz graphics processor capable of 1.23 TeraFLOPS/ 768 graphics cores
Memory - 8 GB of 2,133 MHz DDR3 RAM

PLAYSTATION 4
CPU - 1.6 GHz AMD 'Jaguar', 8 core 64-bit processor
GPU - AMD Radeon capable of 1.84 TeraFLOPS/ 1,152 graphics cores
Memory - 8 GB of 5,500 MHz GDDR5 RAM


Both of these consoles are the equivalent to mid/low-end PCs, at absolute best, mid-end for 2013.
Oh yeah, I really see these out-doing high-end systems.

Fucking dolts @ Sony and Microsoft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top