Printable View
No it doesn't. Killzone 4 looks about as good as the PC version of Crysis 2, before the D11 and hi-res texture pack were added. Just the smoke and particle effects in the PC version are way better than what I saw in the KZ demo.Quote:
Originally Posted by chinitosoccer
It pretty much looks like what you could accomplish with a HD 7770 card.
Sorry, my bad..I was talking about the the Killzone game for the PS4, Crysis 3, BF3 or any "maxed out" FPS for the PC looks better than any game for the PS3.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
My comment before was purely on memory bandwidth . . . in terms of real-world processing power, an Athlon 64 3200+ will beat a 3.2 GHz P4C or Presscott in almost every case due to the superior computational performance as well as reasonably competitive bandwidth. The Athlon XP itself would have kept up a lot better than it did if not for the crippling memory bandwidth issues, not just the single channel DDR-400 bus architecture limit, but the actual memory controller performance. (and VIA boards fare considerably worse still than Nforce ones . . . kind of makes me wonder if AMD could have come up with a faster Northbridge themselves if they'd kept pushing in-house chipsets beyond their early Socket A offerings and the dual-CPU server market -for which AMD was the only chipset supplier for Socket A)Quote:
Originally Posted by sheath
Well, there's the issue of SSE2 missing on the Athlon XP too, but memory bandwidth bottlenecks were a much more common problem back then, though games were using it more and more often. (in the last few years, SSE2 "lowest common denominator" requirements have killed the usefulness for old AthlonXP and Tulatin PIII systems for even moderate multimedia tasks . . . there was a gradual decline in "acceptable" performance of those old CPUs on part with that of similar performance P4s, but than a huge lurch about 2 years ago for several specific, common multimedia applications -including Silverlight- where non-SSE2 processors just got killed -Netflix became unusable even at low detail, for example)
With heavy use of video editing (with modern software with lots of multi-thread support), then the FX81xx does make a lot of sense. Any of those other uses and I'd have said go for the PhIIx4 and probably by a decent mobo with FX compatibility and later upgrade to Piledriver when the prices came down . . . or even wait for Steemroller. (multimedia editing aside, the only other applications doing much better on the 8 core than the 4 core phenoms are a smattering of new games from the last year or so . . . even then, the Phenom x6s are attractive for many of those, and better power consumption than BD too -Piledriver changed that though)Quote:
Yeah, that was a typo, I was looking at the Phenom II X4 Black Edition as I already had the X2 6400+. I think currently the Phenom II X4 Black would have been better, but the future of or multithreading and existing advantage tipped me to pay a little extra and get the octal core. Also, it's not really an HTPC exactly, it is my main server, audio/video editing, gaming, movie watching computer that happens to be hooked up to my home theater at the moment.
Those encoding/edditing applications may also be making use of the new extensions on the FX chips (and similar ones on newer Intel chips).
As to power consumption in general, the Cool and Quiet support (and other power saving features when not under load) make a huge different from some of the older Phenoms and Athlons. Under load there's not nearly as huge of a difference.
But as to FX and Phenom, even comparing the FX-4100, the power under load is very similar to the Phenom 955BE, and idle power isn't that much worse on the Phenom either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjvKgj3Kb3o
With decent cooling, C3 Phenom IIs will hit 4 GHz fairly often, and 3.6 GHz on stock cooling is pretty much a given on C3 955s. (granted, case ventilation and ambient temps matter too)Quote:
As far as power goes, this FX 8150 steps itself up and down, even into 4Ghz range under heavy load, really seamlessly. I have been impressed with that. With adequate cooling I have no doubt it could get to 4.2Ghz, I think I've seen the nutso overclocker sites talking about doing more than that. I honestly doubt at those speeds that the Phenom IIs would keep up. I have also been impressed that without hardware accelerated physx I have been able to turn that on and play at above 30FPS most of the time in Arkham City.
In general, the BD series FXs couldn't keep up with the array of game tests against Phenom x4s in late 2011 and a lot of stuff compared in 2012 too (with a few exceptions . . . for the same cases where the x6s showed major gains over the x4s).
Skyrim was one of the absolute worst cases . . . a 4-threaded engine with severe bottlenecks on 2 of those threads (at least it did with the initial engine -not sure if recent patches have helped with multithreading distribution), hence why quads didn't have a huge advantage over similar dual cores and basically dead even with similar triple cores. (Athlon x3s were pretty much dead-on with x4s at the same clock)
OTOH, one other issue with some of the earlier benchmarks (for 6-8 core FXs especially) is with the CPU schedulers not allotting 1 core per module before loading up the second (so 4-thread tasks will do no better on the 8150 than the 4170 at same clock). I'm pretty sure this is totally fixed now though (for Win7 and 8 at least), so lightly threaded applications fare a good deal better (still a big drop in IPC over Phenom II per core) though single thread performance is identical since loading 1 core avoids that problem anyway. (that scheduling problem had similar hits to multithreaded intel CPUs . . . ) Another option with BD and HT Intel chips was to disable 1 core per module in BIOS or overclock utility or to disable hyperthreading.
Then there's the separate issue of the instruction extensions added to the FX chips. (that would be a much bigger issue for software taking heavy advantage of it)
For physics, I was thinking more in terms of jumping, falling, object/projectile movement and interaction than body/limb movement character/animal/etc kind of stuff (that's got another set of problems, including the uncanny valley ;)).Quote:
I also much prefer the advancements in AI, which was incredibly stupid especially on Playstation consoles, in the HD generation. Physics I haven't been so impressed with, the whole ragdoll thing just looks broken to me and I haven't seen any improvements in environment interaction or physical movement physics. It's all still just dumbed down video game stuff.
Among others, Valve has continued to do some interesting interactive environment and physics related game elements. (the puzzles in Portal immediately come to mind)
I just called it Killzone 4. I am talking about the PS4 demo of Killzone.Quote:
Originally Posted by chinitosoccer
Crysis 2 maxed out on PC does much more than what was shown in that PS4 demo.
I find it funny how so many people get their jimmies in a rustle at mrsega's comments on this board calling for his ban lol.
Buying a ps4 or any other new system for me means a massive investment of time money and space,ive still hardly played much of my ps2/3 let alone all my other systems im still enjoying so im not too interested,im glad they didnt go full retard like nintendo with the wii-u though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAKG-kbKeIoQuote:
Originally Posted by Murphy245
Yeah...I thought Killzone 4 was for PS3 and that the new KZ for the PS4 was still named just "Killzone", anyways, current PC graphics are nothing special because of the PC game library being flooded with ports from consoles, on top of that, almost all PC exclusive games suck so all that power is being used just to add more lines of resolution, AA and few effects here and there and that's it;Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
Given the PS4 specs, it will do current PC graphics easily, can't wait to see what a closed platform with real-proffesional developers can do with that power... a new Tekken, Gran Turismo...and Metal Gear Ground Zero
Guess I better brace for more PC is dying again.....
Also, in the year 2013 I would hope that it would be known about the different power requirements for rendering a largely static, and (at least from the demo)unexplorable backgrounds vs an actively dynamic explorable background. I also think you're also discounting the rendering of vegetation way too easily. Nevermind other features such as tessellation.
I think you are giving Crysis 2 way too much credit. I've played it through maxed out on my PC and it definitely doesn't look anywhere near as good as that Killzone trailer @ 1080p, especially in regards to scale.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
In saying that Crysis 3 has just come out so that would make for a much better comparison.
Nah, but when the new MS/Sony consoles are out, it will increase the quality of PC games as a side effect over time. They won't have to worry about making sure the game works with the anemic xbox 360/ps3 specs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Occutell
I'm sure it won't be instant, but in a year or two of the consoles release, PC games should start to show much more of what they can do as they add in more features/detail that the new consoles cannot handle.
Aye, that is the best news of it.
Luckily this time we have known examples coming a bit earlier than usual, Ergo ARMA 3 and Star Citizen. :D
There are some pretty cool PC exclusives like Starcraft II, Jane's Advanced Strike Fighter, Diablo 3, Torchlight 2, Metro 2033, Far Cry 3 (FC3 and Metro were ported to the consoles), Crysis 3 and The Witcher 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by chinitosoccer
There's a world of difference in how a game appears on PC, over console. Bulletstorm may be a console port, but it just looks amazing in 1080p, with high resolution textures and 60 fps. I used to think Mass Effect looked pretty sweet on the console, when it first came out, but after seeing the ME3 demo on PC, there's no contest. The console version of Mass Effect has poor shadowing (expecially on the face close ups) and a sloppy frame-rate.
Yeah, it'll be interesting to see what companies like Naughty Dog can do with the hardware. It's just as much about the graphic artistry, as it is about the power of the hardware.Quote:
Given the PS4 specs, it will do current PC graphics easily, can't wait to see what a closed platform with real-proffesional developers can do with that power... a new Tekken, Gran Turismo...and Metal Gear Ground Zero
You should go back and look at the Killzone trailer again.Quote:
Originally Posted by shrap
- The buildings show jaggies
- The flames are pre-animated, without any sort of physics.
- The game uses tricks like going from video to in-game graphics.
- The enemy blood splurts look pre-animated as well.
While Crysis 2 may be a shared port with the consoles, it did additional features not available on the console, like the high-res texture pack, DX11 patch and the available adjustment of particle physics. Where the game really shows it's strenths over the console version is in the smoke and flame animations that are created using particle physics. It's much more impressive than the smoke and flames that were in the Killzone demo.
It has been a couple of years since I looked at these chips in depth but I do remember trying to figure out if the Athlon 64's HyperTransport could overcome the P4's HyperThreading, and in Mame especially it seemed like the 64 was just a touch less capable. I chocked that up to Mame programmers favoring Intel though. I wasn't able to personally benchmark which chip had greater sustained memory bandwidth though.Quote:
Originally Posted by kool kitty89
That is what I thought the specs and benchmarks indicated. At the time nobody was testing the chips the way I wanted them to so I could only guess that double the cores and higher stock and overclock speeds would eventually be better by default. I've been bitten before by hoping for future software support that wasn't initially available, that kind of support is typically utterly dependent how well the chip/product sells. So I'm not counting on FX specific code to give it a significant and consistent advantage in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by kool kitty89
Gads, I wish people would just post the results as a text document in the description. Yeah, I don't see a significant difference between the quad core Phenom and FX chips. The FX's 35nm process ought to make them cooler on average, but anyway. The FX automatically clocking down into the 800Mhz range while idle has to do something good for overall power consumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by kool kitty89
Interestingly, Tomshardware lists the Phenom II X4 Black edition and the FX 8150 in the same class for gaming purposes.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ck,3106-5.html
For my needs, the FX 8150 is consistently cooler than my X2 6400+ is at idle or full load. It is a night and day difference between those two, so for my upgrade path it the FX is more than solid especially since I keep my HTPC in a closed cabinet most of the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by kool kitty89
Yeah, I do think support for octal cores is being fixed in Windows 7 for sure. I pretty much expected that, just like Dual Cores versus Single Cores, or Quad versus Dual when the newer ones launched that applications would run mostly like the previous generation chips until they were replaced or updated. That isn't exactly a bad thing, and having Windows manage resources like it does in 7 means I can even be compressing videos and watching them at the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by kool kitty89
I haven't seen much improvement in jumping/falling/rolling physics at all since the Dreamcast days honestly. I haven't played much Portal or Mirrors Edge, but I don't see anything like them being more complex than the Arkham games, which pretty much script all of the movement into a series of combos that feel seemless but arent as interactive as they might have been. It's basically just a progression of what we saw in Legacy of Kain Soul Reaver with a fancier fighting engine, more moves and more ways to clear a jump.Quote:
Originally Posted by kool kitty89
One point that hasn't been addressed is the Japanese gaming industry, or what's left of it. Sony aren't the "bad guys" anymore but their home turf is no longer a contender in software development. Sony's first-party titles that carried the PS3 were mostly western developed. There's no turning back for Japan.. Perhaps if they'd used another title for Team Ico's oft-delayed game it would have come out already ufff.
Playing a game of Yakuza 3 vs Sleeping Dogs told me different.. I find it frustrating that developers are scaling back on deformable environments despite having enormous processing power, even for client-side segments of the gameplay.Quote:
Originally Posted by sheath