Xenobot said:
Say WHAAAAAAT? |
I did study in electrical engineering, taught myself various programming languages starting with Beginners All-pupose Symbolic Instruction Code on the commodore 64, then moved to more "full featured" languages over the years, these days I mostly deal with objective C.
However, my argument is sound and is logical and I shall expand on my reasoning for why.
Is a console running a full featured, multi-tasking OS that has dozens of services running in the background and taskbar?
Are their games graphically at the same or better level as PC games?
If you answered "No" to both of those questions, then you are correct.
Yes a console can pull off better pictures with the hardware it has, only because it does less of everything, resolution, framerates, textures, lighting, shadows, Anti-Aliasing, Texture filtering, A.I and character counts, geometry, OS, API's, Drivers, various services like Steam... etc'.
Over time console developers sacrifice one thing in their game to bolster another.
Lets take the jump from Halo 3 to Halo Reach, which was a fairly dramatic graphics difference really.
Bungie removed: Tessellation on the water, triple buffering and introduced a few new tricks like impostering and texture streaming, the end result is, despite some relatively drastic reductions in potential image quality, Halo: Reach graphically looks better, why?
Because with the newly freed up resources from the removal of the older techniques and additions of new techniques they increased the poly counts of characters, increased the draw distance (Thanks to impostering), used used better lighting and textures.
The console isn't "doing more" the load is still relatively the same between Halo 3 and Halo: Reach from a hardware perspective, but with Reach the developers just allocated resources better so that they were in places where you get the most bang-for-your-buck.
On the PC, you get "The lot". - No cutbacks, just the improvements, which is why in general PC games demand higher requirements than the console equivalent.
Actuall Efficiency only gets you so far anyway, prime example is "Mantle". - I get no performance boosts despite the API's low-level console-like optimisations, low-end PC's can see massive increases.
| Intrinsic said: Wait a min... are you trying to argue this point too? Do you just try and dispute and argue about everything? Its a FACT that consoles are more efficient than PCs. Thats simply what a console is all about. A console can do more with the hardware that it is. |
Pot calling the kettle black.
I could have probably explained my reasoning somewhat better, so see above, but do try and stress less, you will go grey earlier in life otherwise.
| ICStats said: Consoles also get software and SDK updates that improve what developers can do, but ofcourse games don't usually get performance updates. Anyhow an 8% exta overclock on your $600 CPU is not so big difference, and doesn't apply to most folks. If someone was trying to get even close to console pricing, they'd be dealing with El Cheapo motherboards, locked CPUs, cheap cooling, and PSUs rated just enough. Enthusiast parts come at a premium as I'm sure you know. |
The point is, PC's get performance increases as they get older.
Look at the increase Dirt 3 got over time.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6393/amds-holiday-plans-cat1211-new-bundle
| TheJimbo1234 said: It is common due to bad setups. They need to be tied in with the cpu thus the address should be 2^n (base 2). Laptops just throw in more becauase bigger numbers sell to consumers who don't know much. |
Not just bad set-up's, but triple-channel DDR configurations aswell, which was fairly common for X58 users, it made sense to get 3x4Gb kits or 3x2Gb kits for those systems.
www.youtube.com/@Pemalite
