Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Combatus, 17 Mar 2015.
Yeah... "identical" doesn't spring to mind.
But for all the right reasons
25 fps is still 2500% better than the bag of coffee.
The PC is rendering it at a slightly higher resolution, but otherwise it's pratically pixel for pixel. It's a bit alarming that a PC which cost £1000 six months ago produces a game that looks effectively the same as a ten year old games console.
Again, I have to wonder what the PC could really do if someone let it take the gloves off.
Edit - OK, on closer inspection, the PC version is doing some volumetric lighting tricks that the console seems to skip entirely. But sheesh, is that it?!
The old console vs pc discussion, on a PC forum your never going to win this argument. Your also comparing games orginally made for consoles then ported to PCs.
Compare orginal pc games ported to consoles. Diablo 3 and its expansion is the best example of it done correct. And it bearly maintains 50fps let alone the 60+ it requires to do the higher rift levels. And blizzard knows this so have done things to help the player.
Uncharted 3 on PS3 is still one of the best looking games I've played in recent years. The final fantasy 15 demo shows what is ahead and it does truly look breathtaking. Star citizen on PC also looks breathtaking.
Comparing PC to console costs is a bit nuts as you can play console ports on a low end machine with similar settings.
Indeed, Alien Isolation isn't exactly the best example seeing as it's system requirements are a 7 year old Core 2 Duo and a 5 year old 1GB GT 430, even the recommended system requirements are a lowly 7 year old Core 2 Quad and a 3 year old 2GB GTX 660.
Presumably you can tell me what I'm missing, then?
I don't need to. Just run that vid at 1080p res and full screen.
Apart from the achingly obvious difference in detail, particle effects are used much more heavily, as is volumetric lighting and soft shadow effects - all of which can exact a pretty hefty toll on a GPU.
Another comparison: Xbone vs PC in Titanfall. Not quite so blindingly obvious as the X Box 360 vs PC video but, still the PC delivers the superior result. (Original website hosting the video: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-titanfall-next-gen-face-off)
By looking very carefully and squinting very hard, I have noticed a couple of instances where the xbox is using slightly lower resolution textures, but then if it's rendering the scene at a lower resolution, that's entirely reasonable. There is one instance of a floor being missing a bump mapped barley tread texture, but I think that's more a bug than a performance tweak. Mainly it's about a few fairly rare and insignificant volumetric effects.
Otherwise, I'm not trying to be difficult, but I'm really not seeing a night-and-day difference. It's practically identical. I'm still disappointed the player character doesn't have a shadow in the PC version, especially in a game where casting a shadow over something could give the player away.
So, while we're being snippy, yes, you do need to.
Naw, you're not being snippy, you're just being obtuse.
If you are being even remotely serious then, all joking aside, you really need to go to the opticians.
Maybe Phil needs to read something like the face-off eurogamer.net done on Alien: Isolation with the PS4, Xbox One, PC, 360 and PS3 in a five-way battle.
Or a similar article published by thegamescouts.com where they explain the PC Advantage.
Perhaps Phil is watching these videos at 144p on a dialup connection? Has nobody stopped to consider the ramifications of not being able to get WiFi up and running on Linux?
It's like looking at a talented 16 year old's copy of a famous painting from art class then claiming that the two works are indistinguishable. Admitedly the gap has been closed by the latest consoles but it'll be wide open again before long.
Not to derail the thread further, but I'm also firmly in the PC version is noticeably better camp.
OT: Really looking forward to seeing what the Titan X is capable of with the unlocked BIOS - if the 50% clockspeed increase equates to a 50% performance boost - I really won't have any argument not to buy one.
Wouldn't you be better off getting 2x980GTX ?
Isn't the easiest way simply to campare a very heavily modded Skyrim to the 360 version? After all, modding is a major feature of the PC version, so it's completely fair game.
That would cost more and need a much bigger PSU. The main reason I don't like 2 cards though is that support is patchy. If the game you like doesn't have sli support you are screwed :/
I've tried that and I was disappointed with software that don't support SLI, like most Oculus DK2 compatible software and X-PLANE 10. Also, some games already make use of up to 6GB of VRAM. Hence, I think the 980 Ti is a better choice than an SLI solution.
Not sure if the 12GB VRAM of the Titan makes sense in practice. Does it? Where is that really useful?
Separate names with a comma.