Hi all,
I'm raising this discussion because:
1: I keep seeing console owners saying, "Why do we have the same game as the PC owners, when we have older tech?".
2: I keep seeing PC owners saying, "We all have different PC setups so the developers can't optimise for us".
We've all seen the kind of remarks across the net.
There are the exceptions to the rule, but mostly I think the games are optimised to the same degree.
I've got an old PC with a e6300 and a ATI x1950pro in it. It plays L4D2, FEAR 2, Portal 2, Bioshock 1 and 2, Unreal Tounament 3, Oblivion, Dead Space 2 and a few others with performance mostly between 30-60 fps at max settings (or near) at 720p. The consoles get around 30fps at mostly 720p (not quite so good in all games). I tried the resolution at 1680X1050 and the card could still handle most things at 30fps, which is of course a better resolution and probably higher IQ settings.
In June I bought a budget laptop with a AMD 3500M with a 6620g (APU). This, is definately weaker than the x1950pro. This can play games well at 1366X768 (native to laptop). I've been playing Gears of War at around 3/4 settings at mostly 60fps, and the same with UT3, LFD2, Portal 2. I tried Crysis 2 on the laptop and it could just manage a resolution of 1024X768 at the lowest in game settings (High) and get 15-35fps. It looked awful, but that is what it's like on the PS3 (same settings and bad frame rate). But this laptop has a weaker GPU than in the xbox or PS3.
The x1950pro and the 6620g are not any more powerful than the consoles' GPUs but seem to perform at least as well if I lower some settings and play at about 720p, in some cases much better as I get 60fps.
There is the question of high amounts of RAM. I only have 2gb in my XP PC running the x1950pro and the e6300, this is of course lots more than the consoles have, but RAM would not be the limiting factor in building a PC as it is quite cheap. What matters more is of course the GPU and CPU.
My laptop GPU is weaker, but the CPU element is probably stronger and seems to perform better than it should.
The x1950pro is similar to the x1800xt, which is similar to the xbox GPU, and this performs in a similar way to the consoles, sometimes better.
Now, some will say "who cares"? But, lots of PC owners seem to think that games are optimised to run better on the consoles, and I wanted to say what my experience of this is.
Also, I know the x1950pro isn't going the run BF3 well at all, but neither do the consoles!
Anyone else got the same experience of running old hardware and getting similar results as the consoles?
Thanks, John.
I'm raising this discussion because:
1: I keep seeing console owners saying, "Why do we have the same game as the PC owners, when we have older tech?".
2: I keep seeing PC owners saying, "We all have different PC setups so the developers can't optimise for us".
We've all seen the kind of remarks across the net.
There are the exceptions to the rule, but mostly I think the games are optimised to the same degree.
I've got an old PC with a e6300 and a ATI x1950pro in it. It plays L4D2, FEAR 2, Portal 2, Bioshock 1 and 2, Unreal Tounament 3, Oblivion, Dead Space 2 and a few others with performance mostly between 30-60 fps at max settings (or near) at 720p. The consoles get around 30fps at mostly 720p (not quite so good in all games). I tried the resolution at 1680X1050 and the card could still handle most things at 30fps, which is of course a better resolution and probably higher IQ settings.
In June I bought a budget laptop with a AMD 3500M with a 6620g (APU). This, is definately weaker than the x1950pro. This can play games well at 1366X768 (native to laptop). I've been playing Gears of War at around 3/4 settings at mostly 60fps, and the same with UT3, LFD2, Portal 2. I tried Crysis 2 on the laptop and it could just manage a resolution of 1024X768 at the lowest in game settings (High) and get 15-35fps. It looked awful, but that is what it's like on the PS3 (same settings and bad frame rate). But this laptop has a weaker GPU than in the xbox or PS3.
The x1950pro and the 6620g are not any more powerful than the consoles' GPUs but seem to perform at least as well if I lower some settings and play at about 720p, in some cases much better as I get 60fps.
There is the question of high amounts of RAM. I only have 2gb in my XP PC running the x1950pro and the e6300, this is of course lots more than the consoles have, but RAM would not be the limiting factor in building a PC as it is quite cheap. What matters more is of course the GPU and CPU.
My laptop GPU is weaker, but the CPU element is probably stronger and seems to perform better than it should.
The x1950pro is similar to the x1800xt, which is similar to the xbox GPU, and this performs in a similar way to the consoles, sometimes better.
Now, some will say "who cares"? But, lots of PC owners seem to think that games are optimised to run better on the consoles, and I wanted to say what my experience of this is.
Also, I know the x1950pro isn't going the run BF3 well at all, but neither do the consoles!
Anyone else got the same experience of running old hardware and getting similar results as the consoles?
Thanks, John.