By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Dark_Feanor on 16 October 2014
Edit Thread
Teeqoz said:
Dark_Feanor said:
Teeqoz said:
Sharpryno said:

CPU is a bottleneck, thats how.  Lighting physics takes more than just gpu. 


GPGPU?


The engine has to be toiled to work that way. And you will only get marginal better, just look at all the 1080 vs 900p games we have for the last year.

IT DOESN`T MAKE THAT MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE!


Ubisoft themselves recently published a test to show just how much you can actually get out of GPGPU, and it was a lot more than you can get out of the CPU.

 

If you check my posts in this thread, you'll se that it's not the fact that it's 900p that bothers me, it's just that they (if this in fact is a Ubisoft dev) come up with this lame excuse. We know that the PS4 could do this in 1080p if they optimised it for GPGPU. I'm not even saying that they have to do that, but instead of this excuse, they should just say it's too much of a hassle, and you only get marginal differences. Now that explanation would've been way better.


Well, you said it itself.

It was a test. The game ships in the next 3 weeks, it´s probably finished main coding in the last 2 months.

So, should Ub delay the game util those tecnics are finished? May be they could recall Watchdogs and try again to reach 1080p. Let´s also ask EA to do same with Battlefield 4.

Because, you know. Reaching 1080p is much more important than any other aspect of the game.

You are not Ubisoft shareholder. No one here is in the position of "demanding" how they voice their design decisions. Either you buy the game in a given platform your you don´t.

This whole discusion is diminishing what gaming is about. We reached a crazy standard where the number of pixels outputed by the GPU is more what matter the most.