Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Consle ports and their (often) ridiculous sys. requirements!

Last response: in Video Games
Share
January 7, 2009 12:45:34 PM

Wow. Console ports seem to be taking steroids recently!

Were the consoles upgraded with brand new hardware and I missed it? Because there's just no reason for this crap.

Take a look at the following MINIMUM system requirements from some console ports (released and still to come):

GTA IV, of course:

Processor: 1.8Ghz Intel Core 2 / or

AMD Athlon64 X2 equivalent

Display Card!: NVIDIA GeForce 7900 256MB /
ATI Radeon X1900 256MB

Memory: 1536MB


Saints Row 2:

Processor: 2Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo /
AMD Athlon64 X2

Display Card!: NVIDIA GeForce 7600 128MB /
ATI Radeon X1300 128MB

Memory: 1024MB


...and now take a look at this sh*t:

Lord of the Rings: Conquest

Processor: Core 2 Duo 2.4Ghz or equivalent /

Display Card!: NVIDIA GeForce 7800 Series /

Memory: 1024MB

WOW! It's the only thing I can say! These 3 YEAR OLD consoles must be real powerhouses, because their games require a PC that should just kick the console's hardware back to stone age, if these games were ported right.

The thing is, our computers ARE WAY MORE POWERFUL than these consoles.

________________________________________________________

Now let's take a look at some other games available on both the PC and the consoles. Again there are the minimum requirements.

LEFT 4 DEAD:

# CPU: 3.0GHz P4, Dual Core 2.0 or AMD64X2 (or higher)
# RAM: 1 GB for XP / 2 GB for Vista
# Disc Drive: DVD-ROM Drive
# Hard Drive: At least 7.5 GB of free space
# Video: DirectX 9 compatible video card (Video card must be 128 MB or more and should be a DirectX 9 compatible with support for pixel shader 2.0)

See, the thing is Valve codes primarily for the PC, and as you can see even an old Pentium 4 does the job. I can testify to that because I have an old P4 2.8ghz in my download rig, and installed L4D just to see how it runs, and surprinsingly it didn't run bad at all!
And if you play L4D, you'll know that this game also demands a lot from the CPU because of the IMMENSELY HUGE hordes of zombies the game's AI throws at you. Yet, even a lowly Pentium 4 is deemed sufficient for the job (and actually works and runs the game acceptably).

Prince of Persia (2008 Remake):

Processor: Intel Pentium D 2.6Ghz /
AMD Athlon64 X2 3800+

Display Card!: NVIDIA GeForce 6800 256MB /
ATI Radeon X1600 series 256MB

Memory: 1024MB

Another game that suprisingly is relatively low on the requirements. Especially because anything the runs on Pentium D, will for a fact run on a Pentium 4 (Hell, people were even able to max out Assassin's Creed with a P4, when the game "required" dual core).
I haven't played this game, but you can look on youtube for videos of this game with a P4 an still mustering 30+ FPS, which for a 5 year-old CPU is respectable at the very least. Again, a game by Ubisoft, which to the best of my knowledge, is still primarily a PC softwarehouse.


Far Cry 2:

* CPU: Athlon 64 3000+/Intel 2.8ghz
* Graphics: Nvidia 6600 or ATI X1600 - Shader Model 2.0
* RAM: 1GB

Again, a good optimized, scalable game by Ubisoft.


Call of Duty 5: WaW:

Processor: AMD 64 3200+/Intel Pentium 4 3.0GHz or better

Memory: 8 GB free hard-drive space, 512MB RAM (XP)/1GB RAM (Vista)

Graphics: Shader 3.0 or better, 256MB Nvidia GeForce 6600GT/ATI Radeon 1600XT or better

Need I say more? Call of Duty has always been a PC classic!

So... i'm not trying to "prove" anything with this, it's just highly suspicious that some games, all available on PC and consoles, share such different system requirements.

I would say this is due to bad ports, developer laziness and just pure comtempt for PC gamers and industry.

As you can see, some of the "faithful" PC developers never fail to make their cutting-edge games run on older hardware. When a game is coded for PC first or at least developed for PC at the same time as the console counterpart, we can clearly see that system requirements are more than acceptable.

Computer hardware, is vastly superior to console hardware (hey, Apple turned down X360's CPU for their Macs because it was sh*t slow! Apple went with C2D, so that hould tel you smoething).

This is outrageous and revolting! PC games are suffeing because developers can't even be bothered to ACTUALLY PORT a game!

Running your code through a meat grinder does not make a good port!
January 7, 2009 12:49:37 PM

PS: For some stupid reason you can't edit your posts around here, but the main focus of this thread is the CPU requirements. GPU requirements are not surprising at all. a game requireing a 7800GTX or something. But... that's also suspicious because that's exactely what the consoles use: a spin-off of the 7800 / X1900 GPU families.

Which makes it even more blatant that these ports are NOT EVEN OPTIMIZED for PC.
January 7, 2009 12:55:18 PM

Interesting post, but in the real world do you expect it to be different?
I dont have an figures to hand but im confident in saying the console market is bigger than the PC gamer market, therefore you would expect a company who spreads resources across both to allocate no more than they have to into the smaller market.

Either way, its something i admit ive never noticed before - good observation.
January 7, 2009 1:05:55 PM

pr2thej said:
I dont have an figures to hand but im confident in saying the console market is bigger than the PC gamer market, therefore you would expect a company who spreads resources across both to allocate no more than they have to into the smaller market.


As far as I'm aware, total game revenue on the PC is still well above revenue on consoles; but individual games may well sell less on PCs. Of course so long as they continue with annoying DRM and excessive requirements from cheap ports, their sales figures are hardly likely to improve.

GTA3 performance, for example, was crippled primarily by some bad assumptions in the rendering engine, which just happened to work OK on Nvidia card but chugged on most others; it could easily have been made to run faster on pretty much every system if they'd bothered to spend a few hours figuring out the problem.
January 7, 2009 1:12:34 PM

The bit that annoys me most is the "Minimum / Recommended" hardware configurations often quoted on PC software and games.

FSX is a classic example of "Recommended" hardware being nowhere near good enough for the game to run everything at decent levels of detail etc.
January 7, 2009 1:28:30 PM

Take the example of Lord of the Rings: Conquest given in my first post.

Do you even realise how much technically and technologically superior a game would have to be (assuming it was made from the ground up for PC solely) to require a 2.4ghz C2D as MINIMUM specs?

Just so you can compare, games made primarily for PC (check the examples above) still requise a measly P4! and Fallout 3 is another example. Bethesda is a PC developer by default, so we should expect nithing else other than acceptable requirements for their games (it only asks for 2.4ghz P4). So think about that.
January 7, 2009 2:59:50 PM

as a pc gamer for like 8 years already i never trusted any of those requirements may it be recommended/minimum.

current gen game = current gen hardware.

most demanding pc games looks better as time goes by btw (doom3,farcry,crysis).

anyway, ive been there done that, so its not shocking to me if a game happens to be too demanding may it be a console port or a pc exclusive title.

some developers play it safe thats why they add a little more juice with the min requirements.

i had a similar argument with somebody here. The engines powering L4D/Fallout3 have been out for quite sometime already so expect the software/hardware for it to be optimized (none of these 2 games gave me a wow factor though, it just always made me say "meh, ive seen that before").

and assuming you did meet the min req of a game, however profoundly coded that game be, you'll be missing 90% of the experience as you'll be gaming on low res/detail. play it on a console instead (case in point: farcry2 on that min req hardware). definitely not my cup of tea.
January 7, 2009 4:32:35 PM

A) None of those specs are "ridiculous". C2D/A64X2 CPUs and 7000/1000 series GPUs are 3 generation old technologies. A moderate gaming PC from 3 years ago would meet those requirements.

B) Do a little research and understand why a game developed for a console requires much more power when ported to the PC. It's really not a difficult thing to understand if you do a little research.

C.) Console revenues dwarf PC gaming revenues. There's no argument about it.
January 7, 2009 4:54:14 PM

Wondered where you got to Purplerat ^^

The comparison was with that 3 generation old tech Vs the power of a console i believe which off the top of my head (xbox specs anyone?) is quite a gap. Its justifiable to an extent.
January 7, 2009 5:51:34 PM

purplerat said:
A) None of those specs are "ridiculous". C2D/A64X2 CPUs and 7000/1000 series GPUs are 3 generation old technologies. A moderate gaming PC from 3 years ago would meet those requirements.

B) Do a little research and understand why a game developed for a console requires much more power when ported to the PC. It's really not a difficult thing to understand if you do a little research.

C.) Console revenues dwarf PC gaming revenues. There's no argument about it.



So, Core 2 Duo is old technology, hun? And according to you, 3 generations old. Let me see... Starting with the pentium 4, then we had Pentium D, then we had Core 2 Duo/Quad in 2006, and now we have i7. Is that 3 generations old to you? Since you're so sure about what you're saying, I'm probably wrong, right? Oh wait... I'm not.

if you did a little research yourself, or even from playing PC games from your personal experience, you'd see that "next-gen" games would run perfectly with old hardware. Don't think so? Let's see then:

Doom 3, Far Cry and HL2 were the hottest next-gen shooters of 2004 (Q4) . Lets take a look at their system requirements:

Doom 3: CPU: Pentium 4 @ 1.5ghz (they were out in 2000/2001) / GPU: Lowest supported GPU was a Geforce 4 MX (worse than Geforce 3). Which also came out in 2001.

HL2: CPU: 1.2 GHz Processor
GPU: DirectX 7 capable graphics card

Far Cry: Processor: AMD Athlon / 1 GHz or Pentium® III 1 GHz (also out in early 2000)
Video Card: 64 MB DirectX® 9.0b-compatible graphics card

Not bad for next-gen titles, hun?

And before you start rambling: I played all of these games back then with my P4 @ 1.4ghz and a Geforce FX 5700. And yes, they ran absolutely fine.


So now, comes the expert and tells me that "core 2 duo is old technology". Wow. Apparently you don't know that C2D/Quad is still considered current gen, do you?

And if you do a little research again, you'll see what kind of GPUs those consoles have: Oh yeah! they have 7800 / X1900 GPUs! So tell me: Why are the CPU requirements so high, and the GPU requirements stay the same?

Does not make much sense, does it?
January 7, 2009 6:09:43 PM

Besides the slip up on the processor generation front, I'm with Purple here...
January 7, 2009 6:54:18 PM

I would have thought the inflated system specs would be an excuse to keep upgrading our computers :D 

But on a serious note it does suck how under optimised some pc games are compared to the console versions, I wonder if windows has any input to this (bloated over the top operating system getting in the way of our premium gaming hardware)
January 7, 2009 7:51:48 PM

ssj_curly said:
I would have thought the inflated system specs would be an excuse to keep upgrading our computers :D 

But on a serious note it does suck how under optimised some pc games are compared to the console versions, I wonder if windows has any input to this (bloated over the top operating system getting in the way of our premium gaming hardware)



How would you like to spend 1500+$ on an i7 now only to see it as minimum requirement in games in a year from now? It's all a bit ridiculous you know.

You people are missing the point. You can argue thata console is a dedicated gaming platform, that's true. But so is your PC if you want it to be!

Of course that with the minimum requirements in most games today, if you play with that hardware, you will get a bit limited in gameplay, but the important thing is: It runs.. Regardless of graphic detail or resolution, some people are happy just by being able to play the game.

And are you seriously sane when you say that it is normal for a ported game to ask for a CPU that is multiple times more powerful than the console's CPU?

In that case, why does Fallout 3, COD 5, Dead Space, Oblivion, and some others require MUCH LESS CPU power than other titles? You wanna knw why? Because they weren't ported! They were made from scratch for PC and consoles respectively.

Do you even know how much powerful a C2D is, compared to the CPU in Xbox360, for example? Do you? and yet they show up as MINIMUM? ****. Plain and simple.
January 7, 2009 7:54:04 PM

If you consider Core i7 first(current) generation hardware, and then see Core 2 Quad as second(previous) generation. It only follows that Core 2 Duo would be third generation(garbage) at this point.

Edit: I can't read
Real Quad core processors didn't come about for Intel until the end of 2007.


The problem with PCs is that the hardware varies greatly from platform to platform.
January 7, 2009 7:57:13 PM

My point is that I bought a new PC back in October 2008, with an E8400, ASUS P5Q Pro and a GTX 260.

You have no idea of HOW SO MUCH MORE POWERFUL this computer is when compared to a console. Yet, I risk seeing my CPU as a minimum requirement by the end of this year?

I find that unacceptable. A fast Dual Core is (or at least SHOULD BE) a very viable gaming platform for at least another 2 years.

I'm confident that will happen, my CPU will still be kicking by 2011 or so; apparently I just have to stay away from piece of sh*t ports.
January 7, 2009 7:58:44 PM

squatchman said:
If you consider Core i7 first(current) generation hardware, and then see Core 2 Quad as second(previous) generation. It only follows that Core 2 Duo would be third generation(garbage) at this point.

Edit: I can't read
Real Quad core processors didn't come about for Intel until the end of 2007.


The problem with PCs is that the hardware varies greatly from platform to platform.



Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad ARE from the same generation. They are just different models. You do know that, right?
January 7, 2009 7:58:51 PM

This must have been your first computer.

Computer Hardware is obsolete even before you have bought it.
January 7, 2009 8:03:47 PM

squatchman said:
This must have been your first computer.

Computer Hardware is obsolete even before you have bought it.


It's ridiculous to say that Core 2 Duo is obsolete when even Pentium 4's and Pentium D's aren't even phased out from gaming yet.

And Core 2 architecture mops the floor with Pentium 4' and Pentium D's with it's arms and legs tied.
January 7, 2009 8:12:54 PM

Core i7 does the same with Core 2, and just wait for the 8 core i7's to drop to see all the early adopters whining.

You chose to buy hardware based on years old tech. HPSMP is the future.
January 7, 2009 8:18:31 PM

squatchman said:
This must have been your first computer.

Computer Hardware is obsolete even before you have bought it.



Which is why it's pretty much pointless to try and stay on the "cutting edge" of PC hardware. Unless you like burning money and bragging rights. I'll be happy upgrading to a C2Q and 4870, and milking them until a good while after the next "Crysis" comes out.
January 7, 2009 8:18:41 PM

squatchman said:
If you consider Core i7 first(current) generation hardware, and then see Core 2 Quad as second(previous) generation. It only follows that Core 2 Duo would be third generation(garbage) at this point.

Edit: I can't read
Real Quad core processors didn't come about for Intel until the end of 2007.


The problem with PCs is that the hardware varies greatly from platform to platform.

Yes that is roughly what I meant but I was speaking in more general terms.
Conroe (1), Wolfdale(2), i7(3). But those specs also say AMD X2 equivalent, so you could even push some of those processors back another generation to the pre C2D Athlons which are still pretty good for gaming. Point is that 2005/2006 decent dual core CPUs are plenty for those specs. Some goes for the video cards and the RAM specs are laughably low for any modern system.

Truth is that fully priced out a system that far surpasses those specs cost about $500.
January 7, 2009 8:22:10 PM

squatchman said:
Core i7 does the same with Core 2, and just wait for the 8 core i7's to drop to see all the early adopters whining.

You chose to buy hardware based on years old tech. HPSMP is the future.


I'm not asking hardware to stop. And Core 2 technology is just over 2 years old. I know it's not "brand new" but you have to admit that C2D and C2Q still have the power to be decent performers for another 2 or so years.

I don't see it as old tech, I see it as mature tech. There's a difference. And most dual core and quad core CPUs will be enough to last through the i7 generation. It has happened in the past and will happen again.

Look at this: When Core 2 was introduced back in mid-2006, Pentium 4 was still more than acceptable and adequate to play any game you wanted. Hell, it still plays most games.

A CPU generation usually lives through the generation of it's successor. Pentium 4 / Pentium D were viable gaming CPUs throughout all of the Core 2 generation.

It is only natural that Core 2 will live and maintain its usefulness through the i7 generation.
January 7, 2009 8:26:13 PM

Quote:
You have no idea of HOW SO MUCH MORE POWERFUL this computer is when compared to a console. Yet, I risk seeing my CPU as a minimum requirement by the end of this year?

You're being a drama queen. As I said before none of the requirements you listed before couldn't have been had in a PC 3 years ago.
You also seem to miss that the CPU requirements are somewhat inflated while the GPU requirements are somewhat underestimated. That's because these specs are meant for the average non-gamer who might pick up a game to play on a PC which isn't a dedicated gaming rig. Who's going to have a gaming rig with a 2.4Ghz C2D but only a 7800 (which btw is a 4 year old GPU)? Personally I have a secondary gaming rig with a 8800GTS 320 which more than makes up for the Pentium D POS CPU for gaming (but it really sucks for Blu-ray playback).

I know people who are still gaming with good single core AMDs (4000+) and as long as they have a decent GPU it's not all that bad. The only people who are really going to be suffering from CPU performance for current games are people using P4s, older AMDs or business class CPUs.
January 7, 2009 8:34:26 PM

Quote:
A CPU generation usually lives through the generation of it's successor. Pentium 4 / Pentium D were viable gaming CPUs throughout all of the Core 2 generation.

Sorry but P4 and PD were never really viable gaming CPUs, at least not for anybody serious about building a gaming PC. Like I mentioned above you can over compensate with a good GPU and lots of RAM, but there was never a time when those CPUs were considered "good gaming CPUs". It was all AMD until 2006 which is why the:
or
AMD Athlon64 X2 equivalent


part of those requirements makes them completely acceptable.
January 7, 2009 8:37:42 PM

purplerat said:
Quote:
A CPU generation usually lives through the generation of it's successor. Pentium 4 / Pentium D were viable gaming CPUs throughout all of the Core 2 generation.

Sorry but P4 and PD were never really viable gaming CPUs, at least not for anybody serious about building a gaming PC. Like I mentioned above you can over compensate with a good GPU and lots of RAM, but there was never a time when those CPUs were considered "good gaming CPUs". It was all AMD until 2006 which is why the:
or
AMD Athlon64 X2 equivalent


part of those requirements makes them completely acceptable.


By "viable" I meant that they ran games fine. You can't say they didn't. I know they weren't powerhouses to begin with, but they never fell horribly behind in gaming to point of making them "not viable" for games.
January 7, 2009 8:45:19 PM

umm, I don't get the post... All the three games you posted give a spec of a PC that is very similar in power to the current consoles, so you're moaning that games ported from consoles need a similar spec PC in order to play them??
January 7, 2009 8:48:50 PM

PS remember consoles have an OS that uses about 10MB memory, and no background tasks, AV, ect... The Xbox 360 CPU is easily a match for a 2GHz C2D, and the GPU is x1900 generation... so, hmm...
January 7, 2009 8:51:12 PM

jamesgoddard said:
umm, I don't get the post... All the three games you posted give a spec of a PC that is very similar in power to the current consoles, so you're moaning that games ported from consoles need a similar spec PC in order to play them??


Don't mean to flame, but you're wrong. Don't let numbers fool you.

Xbox may run on a 3-core 3.2ghz CPU, but it just lags behind when compared with a even a low-end Core 2 Duo for example.

I read somewhere (might have been here on tomshardware) that each Xbox CPU core was about as powerful as an AMD Athlon 64 3000+.

Now you know why I am "complaining".

For example: a 2ghz modern dual core, slaughters XBOX's CPU in raw perfomance.
January 8, 2009 12:37:33 AM

nightsilencer said:
Don't mean to flame, but you're wrong. Don't let numbers fool you.

Xbox may run on a 3-core 3.2ghz CPU, but it just lags behind when compared with a even a low-end Core 2 Duo for example.

I read somewhere (might have been here on tomshardware) that each Xbox CPU core was about as powerful as an AMD Athlon 64 3000+.

Now you know why I am "complaining".

For example: a 2ghz modern dual core, slaughters XBOX's CPU in raw perfomance.

Please do some research before you continue to speak as if you know what you are talking about.

The reason consoles can seemingly do more with less is because they are universal platforms. There is basically one setup for each console as compaired to thousands of variations for gaming PCs. It's a lot easier to code more efficiently if you know exactly what type of hardware you are coding for. Having to code for thousands of variants means having to add more overhead.

Now a game built for the PC from the ground up can more easily be coded to take those variants into account and achieve a higher performance/quality ratio. The problem with a port is that it was originally coded for one specific set of hardware but has to be made to work on many-many more. The easiest and usually cheapest way to do this is through a sort of emulation. In case you didn't know emulation == huge performance drops.

Now obviously some developers work harder at porting games than others and thus get better results. The ultimate "working harder" is to actually build the game from the ground up for the PC. But working harder means more costs which at some point a decision has to be made whether it's worth it to build a port a game, build it from the ground up or just not release it at all on the PC.

That's a very brief explanation of why PC games in general require more power, and specifically why ports require even more power. If you're really interested in the question you posed in the title of your thread then I suggest you look around and read up on game development and coding.
January 8, 2009 12:43:13 AM

nightsilencer said:
By "viable" I meant that they ran games fine. You can't say they didn't. I know they weren't powerhouses to begin with, but they never fell horribly behind in gaming to point of making them "not viable" for games.

Well then what is your point? What decent CPU sold in the last couple of years is not viable for gaming or should not be expected to be in the next cycle or two? I think you're reading way too much into numbers printed on the back of game boxes which have a long and steady history of being sketchy at best.
January 8, 2009 12:57:45 AM

purplerat said:
Well then what is your point? What decent CPU sold in the last couple of years is not viable for gaming or should not be expected to be in the next cycle or two? I think you're reading way too much into numbers printed on the back of game boxes which have a long and steady history of being sketchy at best.


The point is that, using the case of Pentium D, it became technologically obsolete (obsolence is a hard thing for me to define in the hardware world) when Core 2 came along. But technologicaly obsolete doesn't mean "usage obsolete". By technologicaly obsolete I mean only the time when their manufacture is ceased in favor of a newer technology. Hope you get my point.

Basically, what I mean is that, even though Netburst (pentium 4 and Pentium D) is dead and buried since 2006 (technologically obsolete), it still hasn't lost it usefulness in playing games. Granted, they won't give you exciting FPS, but the thing is, that if you own a Pentium D and want to play games on it, you can.

This example could be adapted to any CPU technology, of course.

And I agree with you, no CPU made in the last 2 years will be bad for gaming in the next couple of years.
But that's exactly the point f this whole thread: bad ports may make gamers think otherwise.
January 8, 2009 4:00:22 AM

Quote:

And I agree with you, no CPU made in the last 2 years will be bad for gaming in the next couple of years.
But that's exactly the point f this whole thread: bad ports may make gamers think otherwise.

PC gamers don't go by on the box specs to determine if their computer can handle a game. If you haven't figured that out yet then you must be pretty new to the game.
Thinking you need a top of the line CPU for gaming is just as foolish as thinking that a 7600GS or 1GB RAM are respectable gaming specs today.
If your point is that the printed specs on PC game boxes are ridiculous (as opposed to actual specs) then yes you are correct. But you're hardly making a point that hasn't been well known for as long as they printed those damn specs.
January 8, 2009 4:13:56 AM

nightsilencer said:


And before you start rambling: I played all of these games back then with my P4 @ 1.4ghz and a Geforce FX 5700. And yes, they ran absolutely fine.



funny because i played those games on an athlonxp 2400+ / 5700 like yours. and its not fine. i missed the uber bump mapping of Doom3 & missed how green the world could be in farcry. sure they are playable (@ a bearable framerate and a mix of low/medium settings) but "we" missed some of the experience.

2 years later i put a 7600gs on top of the 2400+, vast improvement but it didnt maxed it out at a stable framerate that im looking.

3 years later when i got my athlonx2+8600gt these 2 games looked absolutely phenomenal.



For example: a 2ghz modern dual core, slaughters XBOX's CPU in raw perfomance.

said:


For example: a 2ghz modern dual core, slaughters XBOX's CPU in raw perfomance.



you have to clear your mind though, a console was designed for gaming and gaming alone. where as the pc runs an awful amount of bloatware (non-gaming related software) in the background.

i dont understand why you're comparing 2 entirely different processors, one is x86, the other isnt. if in raw performance they used an x86 app as a yard stick then that isnt raw performance at all. one is RISC the other CISC.



January 8, 2009 6:25:38 AM

nightsilencer said:
Wow. Console ports seem to be taking steroids recently!

Were the consoles upgraded with brand new hardware and I missed it? Because there's just no reason for this crap.

Take a look at the following MINIMUM system requirements from some console ports (released and still to come):

...

SNIP

...

Computer hardware, is vastly superior to console hardware (hey, Apple turned down X360's CPU for their Macs because it was sh*t slow! Apple went with C2D, so that hould tel you smoething).

This is outrageous and revolting! PC games are suffeing because developers can't even be bothered to ACTUALLY PORT a game!

Running your code through a meat grinder does not make a good port!


You aren't comparing apples with apples though. Lets take GTA. Certainly GTA III, San Andreas and IV were heavily upgraded to take advantage of the PC's greater power, so it maximises the specs required. Have you played the PS2 version of SA vs the PC version? I play SA at 1920x1200 on my PC, no wonder it takes just a teensy weensy bit more power to run than a TV low-def PS2 version. IV is the same - 32 player multiplayer mode vs 16, much higher res capabilities (I was extremely dissapointed by the PS3 version I've put about 50 hours into and I have the PC version at about the same time invested), traffic density options that can work the PC much harder than the PS3.

Personally - at least with Rock* as they are the only company that I have extensively played PC and console titles - I think the designers are taking advantage of the PCs greater flexibility to enhance their games, not just a simple cut n' shut to a different platform.

Kyz
January 8, 2009 11:22:12 AM

wh3resmycar said:
funny because i played those games on an athlonxp 2400+ / 5700 like yours. and its not fine. i missed the uber bump mapping of Doom3 & missed how green the world could be in farcry. sure they are playable (@ a bearable framerate and a mix of low/medium settings) but "we" missed some of the experience.

2 years later i put a 7600gs on top of the 2400+, vast improvement but it didnt maxed it out at a stable framerate that im looking.

3 years later when i got my athlonx2+8600gt these 2 games looked absolutely phenomenal.



you have to clear your mind though, a console was designed for gaming and gaming alone. where as the pc runs an awful amount of bloatware (non-gaming related software) in the background.

i dont understand why you're comparing 2 entirely different processors, one is x86, the other isnt. if in raw performance they used an x86 app as a yard stick then that isnt raw performance at all. one is RISC the other CISC.



I don't know if you're a performance freak that is only happy when everything runs @ insane framerates. But whether you believe or not, I did run those games @ the specs I mentioned (P4 @ 1.4ghz + FX 5700) and they ran fine. Perhaps the problem here is the definition of "fine". I didn't say I could max them out, did I? Well, actually I could nearly do it (I remember the only thing I couldn't turn up was the texture "quality" settings in Doom 3, because it was reserved for 512mb GPUs).
I remember in Far Cry I had a mix of Medium and High settings, and the game still looked awesome.
As far as HL2 is concerned, it ran well, even though you must remember that FX GPUs would be reset to use pixel shader 1.1 because that GPU family was ultra-shi*ty at Pixel shader 2.0. But other than that, I could pretty much max it out.

Now if you ask me "Did those games run @ 60+ FPS with those specs?" I will tell you "I don't know, most likely they didn't, but they did run fine for sure. I never noticed any major slowdown that would make me cringe.".
But they weren't meant to run at insane FPS, after all when these games came out I had a nearly 4-yr-old CPU and 1+ yr-old mid-range GPU that was quite good, in spite of sucking @ dealing with PS 2.0.
January 8, 2009 12:29:30 PM

im not looking @ insane fps, im looking for "smooth" fps. my experience wasnt that smooth with those games. i tried maxing it out sans ultra quality (yep they're reserved for those 512mb cards) with doom3 in the final boss encounter. no luck there, i ended up with a powerpoint presentation rather than playing a game. so medium low was the way to go.

well anyway i was young back then, and when daddy will only give just enough money to cringe and cry for more, it was hopeless. a game or a new piece of hardware?

but we did missed a lot of eyecandy there.

but im with you that those fx5700 sucked.
!