• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

F.E.A.R. pc vs ps3

T

trick0502

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 17, 2006
Messages
5,610
my friend just picked up fear for his ps3 and i couldnt beleive how bas the graphics are!!! when i first played fear on a 3200+ 754 1gb and a 9800 it looked better than the ps3 version. when i look at the ps3 version it looks like a great xbox1 game!! !is this just a bad port or is the ps3 the weak??
 
Any game that was originally built for their original platform in mind is going to run the best and look the best on that platform like the pc. Ports usually suck but sometimes theres some good ones but most of the time, ports of pc games are dumbed down abit.
 
yea, the FEAR games were notorious was their horrendous port graphics.
 
tricky0502 said:
my friend just picked up fear for his ps3 and i couldnt beleive how bas the graphics are!!! when i first played fear on a 3200+ 754 1gb and a 9800 it looked better than the ps3 version. when i look at the ps3 version it looks like a great xbox1 game!! !is this just a bad port or is the ps3 the weak??
Click to expand...

Bad Port ;)
 
its one of those games that was actually optimized for the pc, its just the opposite of most shitty ports, its pc->console not console->pc
 
PC will always look better. This is for a few reasons, but I will list the most important ones below:

1.) resolution - hence, you can do what ever res you want. You also have the option of enabling AA and AF, and all kind of driver tweaks. 1900x1200 on a 24 inch LCD, will look way better then 1280x720 on a 52 inch TV :)

2.) texture details - On the PC, your not limited by your hardware, hence every PS3 and 360 will run the game exactly the same, and because of this, they program the games to run the best on the hard ware. Run the best, doesnt mean look the prettiest, but more or less find some middle ground.

On the PC, if you have high end equipment (quad core CPU w/ dual 8800 Ultra's) you have the option to go above the normal settings. This would give you higher shadows, reflections, resolution, textures etc. Hence it will look better then a console counterpart.



However, you have to consider the fact that you can buy a 360 for 300 bucks, where that dual 8800 ULTRA system I mentioned would cost you a minimum of 2000 dollars :D So bang for the buck the consoles got it.


I heard the X360 version of fear looked WAYYYY better then the PS3 version. I think the PS3 uses RISC processing/programing, which makes it much more difficult to bring ports over to the console. The 360 is technically a computer.

3 core processor
Ati videocard somewhere between X1900-HD2900
512 MB of ram

so porting a game from the PC to 360 is much more streamlined, where the PS3 needs a lot of code to be re-writen.
 
Not quite. :) The 360's 3 cores are not comparable to modern x86 PC processors -- the Xenon cores lack heavy-duty branch prediction and OOO-execution. Each of the three cores is essentially a stripped-down version of a IBM PowerPC RISC-architecture processor. Each core in the 360 is very similar to the PPU in the PS3 (like each of the Xenon cores, the PPU is also a specially modified PowerPC design).

That said, the only major separation point between the Cell and the Xenon is that the Xenon relies on something like Altivec (analogous to SSE) to do most of the heavy floating-point processing, while Cell relies on offloading the floating-point work to actual specialized vector processing cores (the SPUs).

The SPUs are where the developers are getting stuck... not because of anything stemming from CISC/RISC differences. The kind of multicore heterogeneity approach to microprocessor architecture that Cell represents is something that all the major players in the hardware industry are moving towards, but not everyone has a product to show for it... yet. AMD made the ATI acquisition recently, and so their plans to move in this direction are clear. Intel has already shown their 80-core processor lab design. It's clear that these heterogeneous multicore processors are the future. IBM's Cell is really just the first one out of the gate.

When the SPUs are efficiently utilized, we get excellent performance. When they're not, well... what's it like to walk on one leg? ;) When the SPU's are running flat-out at peak potential... well, who knows. Developers have only just scratched the surface. :eek:
 
I thought it looked like crap on the 360 too, so no minus points for PS3 there. I think the porting team dropped the ball on both sides.

The controls were what made me put it down though, usually I can do pretty good with the pad, but I just thought all the mapping options sucked.

Graphics were passable, but still not great.
 
Kahnvex said:
The controls were what made me put it down though, usually I can do pretty good with the pad, but I just thought all the mapping options sucked.
Click to expand...

yeah how many time did you hit r1 to shoot?? i cant think of one game that uses r2 to shoot. thats ass backwards!!!
 
Q. How will Unreal Tournament 3 use multiple cores on a CPU? Does it take advantage of Quad Core CPU's? If so, how/what task is assigned to each core?

A. Unreal Engine 3 is a transitional multithreaded architecture. It runs two heavyweight threads, and a pool of helper threads.

The primary thread is responsible for running UnrealScript AI and gameplay logic and networking. The secondary thread is responsible for all rendering work. The pool of helper threads accelerate additional modular tasks such as physics, data decompression, and streaming.

Thus UE3 runs significantly faster on CPUs which support two or more high-performance threads. This includes dual-core Intel and AMD PC CPUs, the Xbox 360 (which sports 3 CPU cores and 2 hardware threads per core), and PlayStation 3 (with 1 CPU core running 2 high-performance hardware threads per core.)

Beyond two cores or hardware threads, UE3 performance continues to scale up, as the additional threads accelerate physics and decompression work. However, not all scenes are performance-bound by such things, so there are diminishing returns as you go beyond 4 cores. By the time CPUs with large numbers of cores are available – thinking 16-core and beyond – we’ll be on the start of a new engine generation, with some significant changes in software architecture to enable greater scaling.
Click to expand...

Maker of UT3 said the above, I find the comment in red interesting....
 
Xenozx said:
PC will always look better. This is for a few reasons, but I will list the most important ones below:

1.) resolution - hence, you can do what ever res you want. You also have the option of enabling AA and AF, and all kind of driver tweaks. 1900x1200 on a 24 inch LCD, will look way better then 1280x720 on a 52 inch TV :)
Click to expand...

What about 1920x1080 on a 52" TV?:D
 
It looks horrid in 1080p, too. The 360 versions a little better than the PS3's, but not much. I'm not that big of a fan of the PC version, but it's worlds better than either lousy console port. Both have muddy textures and jaggies for every edge.
I would say it was a rushed port, but considering how long it took, I think "phoned in" might be better.
 
tricky0502 said:
my friend just picked up fear for his ps3 and i couldnt beleive how bas the graphics are!!! when i first played fear on a 3200+ 754 1gb and a 9800 it looked better than the ps3 version. when i look at the ps3 version it looks like a great xbox1 game!! !is this just a bad port or is the ps3 the weak??
Click to expand...

A decent PC will always outshine consoles, thats just how it is. Computer hardware is advancing very quickly these days, and by the time the consoles hit the market there ''Top of the line'' hardware is almost outdated. (Not that you can really compare PC vs PS3 hardware accurately)

If I'm correct the most gamers use a higher resolution than the PS3 right? Could also be your friend's TV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top