Differences between 480i - 1080P in various PS3/360 games

[sheath]

I never knew jerry was some sort of gay rights advocate. I still think "homophobe" is a funny little word.

Not as funny as homeowner. ... . uhh huh huhhuhuh.

[gamevet]

No I said it would run at 60 fps... then clarified that to me, 30-60 fps = saying a game is 60 fps capable. Apparently when you say 60 fps, you mean the game stays at 60 fps with no drops in frames EVER... is it safe to assume that is what you mean when YOU say 60 fps? You need to clarify that before you go any futher in regard to fps.

I've clearly pointed out with a hardware benchmark review, that not even the 8880 GTX could hit 60fps with 4xmsaa. You may think you have some kind of magical pc hardware, but it just isn't even remotely possible with your setup.

With that in mind, I said Dirt 2 would run at 60 fps (30-60 with nothing below 30), and it would in DX9. The engine hasn't changed at all in DX9. Let me state that again since you're having such a hard time understanding this. The engine hasn't changed at all in DX9. This is why the minimum requirement for 'both' games is identical.... So me running Dirt 1 in DX9 is the 'same' thing as running Dirt 2 in DX9. Comprende?

I said:

Do you think your pc could run Dirt 2 with those settings at 1200 x 1080 with 60 fps? The answer is a difinitive no.

No, you can't. You may think you can, but your setup won't do it. Seriously, play Dirt 1 with those settings and run a program called FRAPS. You'll see the real FPS your system is pulling.

As far as I know... W7 could suck in terms of optimization for Gaming. It's still a brand new OS so I don't know why you're touting it as a "bonus/plus" when XP32 is THE most stable Gaming OS of all time.[

64bit > 32bit

Here we go again with the "60 fps" rating. When someone says a game is 60 fps, I don't expect it to stay there at 60 NEVER to drop below that... ever. I expect when someone says a game is a 60 fps game for it to be steady from 30-60 fps 100% of the time.
So as far as a "list"... lol. The entire libraries of the PS3 and 360 are touted as "60 fps" games in my eyes. Are you trying to tell me they're classifying them as something else? Are they calling them 30 fps games? By all means: educate me.

Most games on the consoles are said to be 30fps. In your eyes is not the definitive factor.



If a game is said to run at 60fps, it's expected that it stays at that frame-rate 99% of the time. It's the same with PC benchmarks; they take the lowest framerate + the highest frame-rate and divide that number by 2 to get the FPS. The longer it stays on the high end, the larger the average.

How would I know... having a pair of eyeballs and the game seems to work for me.

Oh.. lol... so because I'm not playing the game in a resolution of 5500x2500 I don't truly know what the game looks like. You can take that argument and suck a hachi... seriously. That angle is weak. A game in 480i looks the exact same as it does in 1080P minus some pixels. Crispness isn't a substitute for "looking different/better", lol.

Haha... again with the lame resolution is king argument. My PC monitor supoorts up to 1440xsomething (hell, maybe it goes higher than that). I play it in it's native rez which is 1280x1024. 1080P is only wider, not taller =

Sigh... goddamn, you completely misunderstood what I said.

You are missing the point. You're bitching about a game not using 4xmsaa, yet you won't miss it anyways, since your current television isn't 1080p.

You're judging a game based on numbers, without actually playing it in said mode. The game looks beautiful the way it is. Like the PC, once you get into higher resolutions msaa becomes less of a factor. I've turned the shit on and off in PC games, while my settings were 1920 x 1080 and you really couldn't see a difference.

I said they did not use MULTI SAMPLING Anti-Aliasing in 1080P mode

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

the Frames Per Second would have been around 15-30 or worse... THAT is why they used the quincuxx AA instead.

And I said your PC couldn't do it either, and I proved it by showing a lesser game (Dirt 2)being benchmarked with a 8800 GTX card that is superior to the 8800 GTS you own.

To which I replied with,



You think they'd get a solid 30 fps in 1080P with 4xMSAA enabled to which I completely disagreed... in turn I feel the engine would chug in 1080P with REAL MSAA... which is why the Dev went with that BULLSHIT quincunxx garbage. Because it doesn't use the same huge amounts of resources (RAM I'm assuming) that MSAA does.

If their engine was strong enough... perhaps they could have done 2xMSAA at 1080P but as it stands.. they didn't... because their engine COULD NOT handle MSAA at 1080P.

How would you know?

Do you have some sort of PS3 test lab in your home?

[Guntz]

Herp, not as funny as homeowner. ... . derp.

No, homeowner is a legitimate word. Homophobe was created to make people feel bad...

[sheath]

No, homeowner is a legitimate word. Homophobe was created to make people feel bad...

Hmm, I'm pretty sure we're not on the same page here.



Starting at 3:19

[OldSchool]

Can you feel the ban coming on, again? Huh? It's in the air.... you can feel it.

Can you feel my foot up your ass?

I've clearly pointed out with a hardware benchmark review, that not even the 8880 GTX could hit 60fps with 4xmsaa. You may think you have some kind of magical pc hardware, but it just isn't even remotely possible with your setup.

I said:

No, you can't. You may think you can, but your setup won't do it. Seriously, play Dirt 1 with those settings and run a program called FRAPS. You'll see the real FPS your system is pulling.

64bit > 32bit

Most games on the consoles are said to be 30fps. In your eyes is not the definitive factor.



If a game is said to run at 60fps, it's expected that it stays at that frame-rate 99% of the time. It's the same with PC benchmarks; they take the lowest framerate + the highest frame-rate and divide that number by 2 to get the FPS. The longer it stays on the high end, the larger the average.

You are missing the point. You're bitching about a game not using 4xmsaa, yet you won't miss it anyways, since your current television isn't 1080p.

You're judging a game based on numbers, without actually playing it in said mode. The game looks beautiful the way it is. Like the PC, once you get into higher resolutions msaa becomes less of a factor. I've turned the shit on and off in PC games, while my settings were 1920 x 1080 and you really couldn't see a difference.

And I said your PC couldn't do it either, and I proved it by showing a lesser game (Dirt 2)being benchmarked with a 8800 GTX card that is superior to the 8800 GTS you own.


How would you know?

Do you have some sort of PS3 test lab in your home?

I'm looking at the numbers right now for this "test" you've linked me to. The 88GT is doing 44 fps in DX9 with 4xAA in 1280x1024... guess what, dumbass... they've got AF at 16x which is silly!!! Theres no reason to play with AF set that high... because it doesn't yield anything past 8 and it runs like shit past 8. No wonder they're not getting a higher steady framerate. In any case... they're getting 44 fps which tells me that's the 'slowest' frame recorded.. which means it's going between 44 and 60.... once again going right along with what I said. My gear will do the game just fine in 1280x1024 w/4xAA at a steady 30-60 fps.

Look, I clarified that "60fps" = 30-60 fps for me. I don't care if 60fps="a solid 60 fps with no drops" for you... I'd be willing to bet money that every game that's touted as a 60 fps game (with your silly definion being used) does not ever not go below 60, so saying 60 with nothing below 60 is silly because it doesn't happen.

The numbers in the test for Dirt 2 clearly show that my 88GT can do 30-60 fps in DX9... therefore, there is ZERO reason part 1 wouldn't do the same.

Windows 7 is windows 7. It hasn't been around long enough to be as stable as XP... and there are hardly 'any' games that utilize 64bit OS versus 32. I bet the way XP handles DX9 is superior to W7.


"If a game is said to run at 60fps, it's expected that it stays at that frame-rate 99% of the time. It's the same with PC benchmarks; they take the lowest framerate + the highest frame-rate and divide that number by 2 to get the FPS. The longer it stays on the high end, the larger the average." (BS)

So "most games on the consoles are said to be 30"... guess what... I don't care where you pulled that from, your ass perhaps. But everything I've played on my PS3 in 480i was NOT locked to 30 fps, lol. They all fluctuate between 30-60 which perfectly goes along with how I describe them... which is - they're all 60 fps games which means they're capable of 30-60 stable.


I plan on getting an HDTV, fyi.

"You're judging a game based on numbers, without actually playing it in said mode. The game looks beautiful the way it is. Like the PC, once you get into higher resolutions msaa becomes less of a factor. I've turned the shit on and off in PC games, while my settings were 1920 x 1080 and you really couldn't see a difference."

AA at resolutions that high is much less of a factor because the resolution is so high. The moon comes out at night. The sun comes out in the day. Anything else you wanna "tell me" that I already know? Too bad your example doesn't have ANYthing to do with Dirt 2 in 1080P... you know why.. because Dirt 2 in 1080P is only 1280x1080, not 1900x1080.

I don't own a GTS... I've got the GT which beats the GTS and GTX in a couple departments and cost waaay less.


How would I know? Practical sense... it doesn't take a genius to know what happens when you go from a steady 30-60 w/4xAA in 1280x1024 to a higher resolution with the same AA. The fps are going to come down.



Please don't talk computers anymore... I'm tired of correcting you and this "60 fps = nothing but 60 fps" argument of yours is a joke. Go stand in the corner for wasting my time.

[MrMatthews]

Can you feel my foot up your ass?

that's a silly question. Of course he can't.

He's right, though. You'll almost certainly be banned (once again) after this and that other thread.

[OldSchool]

that's a silly question. Of course he can't.

He's right, though. You'll almost certainly be banned (once again) after this and that other thread.

Lol... why would it be me? The first page is full of people who came into the thread with no intention other than to antagonize me. You wanna ban someone... ban them.

I didn't ask those idots to come in and talk shit... they did that on their own.

[doomguy]

I hope its not a long ban he provides some serious entertainment, besides every forum has at least loud fool its how the internet works. Why fight with tradition? I say no ban!

[The Jackal]

If you're going to post pics of women... make sure you don't turn this into a Toothpick/Manbutt thread similar to the "girl thread" in Off Topic.

So you have a prob with gays and you don't like looking at women...What the hell are you into then?

[Guntz]

I say no ban either. The only people he hurts are the ones who participates in his own threads. Since he doesn't invade other people's threads, he's OK in my opinion.

[Joe Redifer]

Eff this thread. Oldschool has a vacation. I will determine if it is a permanent one or not soon.