| DraconianAC said: Think of all the games that look better on Nvidia cards compared to the AMD cards; then find out if Nvidia worked closely with the game developers to optimize the code for their hardware. I will bet a pretty penny that they did, Its gonna take a few years, and a much more powerful AMD card to run the same FPS and it still won't look as good as how an Nvidia card will perform. Here is another example: PS2 emulation: It still hard to emulate some of the PS2 games on high end computers even though that is 10+ old tech. There is a community trying to optimize the code for PC so that we don't have a stutters or glitches here or there. but I still can't play a PS2 Saint Seiya game on my PC at 60FPS. ARGGGG!!! |
Prove that nVidia games look better on nVidia cards compared to AMD. - (I.E. It simply isn't true.)
That has been debunked so many times it's not funny in the PC space.
Every now and then AMD might have better texture filtering and nVidia might get better Anti-Aliasing, but the difference is never "clear as day" and they catch up to each other eventually even without upgrading your hardware.
Sure, you get PhysX with nVidia cards, but you can also run that with AMD cards if you used hacked drivers and a secondary low-end nVidia GPU.
I am also yet to find a game I can't run on a single monitor with max graphics, triple monitor is a different story... But hell. It's allot of god damn pixels to render and nVidia would fold too.
Also, the reason why a super powerfull PC can't emulate a PS2 100% perfectly is simple. - It's not a PS2.
Emulation works on the basis that instead of modifying the game code to run optimised natively on x86 architectures, the PC uses software middle layers to "emulate" a PS2 environment where instructions are intercepted then the JIT compiler re-compiles the instructions to run in x86.
It's hardly an efficient process at any rate, the upside is compatability and potentially superior image quality, the disadvantage is of course performance.
Look at any exclusive PC game, it surely doesn't look like a PS2 game at any rate because it can take advantage of the hardware and doesn't need anything to translate the instructions.
Now, take a 5 year old PC, something along the lines of a Core 2 Quad Q6600 and drop in something like a Geforce 8800GT and a few gigabytes of ram. - You would be hard pressed not to run most games at console levels of image quality settings at 720P@30fps, provided it was a decent console port to begin with. (I.E. Not GTA IV.)
Heck, you could run Crysis on that with at-least 25-30fps. ;)
To put the Radeon 6670 in perspective for some though...
A Radeon 6670/7670 has about 3x more compute power than the Xbox or PS3's graphics chips, but does feature some image-quality enhancing features such as Tessellation and all the other pretties/optimisations that we got with the move to Direct X 10/10.1 and 11.
The other thing to remember is that Sony and Microsoft wouldn't be using the slow and bog standard for low-end cards, GDDR3 memory either and probably opt for memory with vastly more bandwidth, so it would still beat a cheap desktop Radeon 6670/7670 at any rate.
Also worthy to note is that Integrated graphics have reached a point of almost being at parity of a Radeon 6670/7670 both from Intel and AMD. A few more years and they will probably eclipse it.
But with that said, I highly doubt Sony or Microsoft would choose such chips, especially aging ones based on the VLIW5 architecture.
www.youtube.com/@Pemalite
