By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
fazz on 15 February 2010
Edit Thread
Slimebeast said:
fazz said:
Slimebeast said:
fazz said:
I think the three will achieve better graphics, even if it's just slightly better.

Why? Because the PC hardware needed to achieve that kind of visuals is (relatively) cheap by now. And it's even more feasible when you consider that all three consoles will be released in two years from now.

You think a $500 GPU is cheap? Because that's what's needed to run this quality with playable framerates.

Let's say we're aiming for 1920x1080 with 4xAA (I think 2xAA is enough at that res, but that's just me... I'm blind) and 30 frames (playable as long as it's stable). A $289 Radeon HD5850 can make it. I know the ideal is 60 fps, but most console gamers are ok with 30... and many say that they don't notice framerate drops or that they can't tell the difference between 30 and 60...

Also, I said relatively.

I agree it's relatively cheap, I was just playing with you a lil.

And I agree about 2xAA and 30fps being perfectly enough to run a game smoothly and look good enough.

But... a HD 5850 is not enough to run what I meant, namely a modded Crisis that makes it look as beautiful as the screens in the OP.

 

@Bolded: Me naive --->

And well yes, I agree that a modded Crysis would need more power... specially one that uses ultra high resolution textures (like those over 8000x8000 textures in Fallout 3). But if I remember correctly there were mods that gave a bump to visuals AND gave a bump to performance in the first Crysis (correct my if I'm wrong, it's been a long time)

Also, I remember that Warhead achieved better graphics with less power needed compared to stock Crysis. And that benchmark is Gamer/Enthusiast. Everything on Enthusiast makes it go at around 22 fps.