Anyone else feel resolution is overrated?

[Mr Puggsly]

curl-6 said:

Mr Puggsly said:

The 360 had a memory advantage, it was often lead platform, it was easier to develop for, it could stream data off a disc faster, the general consensus is it had a GPU edge, etc. The 360 had numerous advantages before we focus on memory. However, the PS3 did have very impressive 1st party games, more polished looking 1st party games and performed better with Frostbite games like Battlefield (seemingly games that demand heavy use of memory).

Far Cry 3 ran terrible on 7th gen consoles. The frame rate struggled with little happening and also aggressive screen tear. I'm saying its a rock solid 30 fps on Xbox BC because the bottleneck was on GPU. Little proof the game struggled because of memory limitations.

Your picture comparison is silly. 360 and PS3 didn't have the GPU power to push high quality graphics of the time at 1080p. They more often went below 720p versus achieving 1080p. Your argument could be made about modern consoles as well. They often sacrifice performance and graphics settings to achieve a higher resolutions. It one of my current gripes with the mid gen upgrades.

RAM limitations become CPU limitations, because it's the CPU that has to manage the aggressive streaming and decompression of data that a tiny amount of RAM necessitates. Ask any dev who worked on PS3/360 whether RAM or GPU was the bigger bottleneck, they will all tell you it was RAM.

As for the last paragraph: that's my point.

I just remembered the 360 and PS3 had some 60 fps open world games. Burnout Paradise, Rage and Driver SF. Strange the tiny memory available didn't obliterate the performance of these games.

Again, you keep blaming RAM limitations but the bigger issue was often GPU limitations and optimization.