When did you first notice that grafix had diminishing returns?

[linkink]

curl-6 said:

linkink said:

I know ps3 was more difficult work, and took years to master, but PS4 games kept improving and looking better in big ways, developers really learned to take advantage of the weak CPU cores, something that has never been really used in gaming Pc's

Like I said that's very arguable I think battlefront looks vastly better, sometimes comes close to real life, and is at 60fps.  Yea it's 900p but has amazing AA solution, and looks cleaner then shadowfall.

When it comes to the PS4 graphical quality is dependent almost entirely on the GPU, which again was mature well documented part that was easy to max out from day 1.

PS3 was a different story as its design meant that getting optimum results required using the CPU's satellite processors to offload GPU tasks, which was a difficult feat for developers to master.

It is only logical that the system that was very difficult for developers to fully exploit will show far more graphical progress over its lifespan than a system using simple, straightforward hardware, and the games reflect this.

CPU plays a major role in maintaining  frame rate which is a huge part in making the graphics look better at 60fps or at 30fps, or game struggling to maintain 30fps. We don't know what tricks they are doing/learned over the years to offload cpu work to the GPU. better CPU= less work for the GPU in most cases. The stuff sony exclusives have pulled with ps4 hardware is just as amazing as they have with ps3, and it's a very popular opinion online. I'm always seeing how are they are getting ps4 to do this posts on message boards, and if last us 2 matches the E3 trailer well that's another mind blowing feat.

The games reflecting this is your opinion, and a very arguable one.

Last edited by linkink - on 07 May 2019