Pemalite said:
Chrkeller said:
I fully understand and I think we are saying the same thing. My point was the 2070 super isn't a weak gpu. It is quite strong, even today. Some seem to take an issue saying the 2070 super and the ps5 are comparable.... they are comparable. Fair enough it isn't the best comparison but they are in the same league. That was my point. And RT is terrible on the ps5. Edit And I get the impression some are making the mistake of assuming a 3000 card is better than a 2000 card... which isn't the case. |
The 2070 super is a Geforce card.
Playstation 5 is AMD. - The most comparable GPU is the Radeon 6700/6700XT.
And the 6700XT is often 20-30% faster than a Geforce 2070 Super... And sometimes will even outbench the 2080.
https://www.techspot.com/review/2216-amd-radeon-6700-xt/
The 2070 Super is not a bad car per-say. But it's not what is in the Playstation 5.
And yes. RT is terrible on all the consoles, but that is a walled garden developers need to work in and optimize for.
And even Digital foundry agees with my assessment with a video that dropped today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9ixOe2MtJs
3000 cards tend to be better than the 2000 series in a like-for-like comparison.
I.E. 3060 vs 2060.
But a 2060 super is a far better option than a 3050. Radek said:
The point is Switch can't get a native port of a game like RDR2 unless it runs at 480p using lowest preset
Meanwhile base PS4 is 1080p native 30 fps. I still wonder how Hogwarts Legacy will look on the Switch, they have not shown a thing and it's supposed to release in 2 months from now. That game is already 720p on base Xbox One. |
False.
If Rockstar wanted to (And they have the money), they could remove the dynamic shadowing and lighting and bake those into the assets, removing a massive amount of required rendering resources.
And I assume this is the path they are going down with hogwarts, otherwise it will look like an elvens arse. zeldaring said:
I don't take it personally we are just discussing graphics and performance. I just don't get how someone is so into discussing and making topics about them, yet doest care to about actually playing games with descent hardware and performance sorry it's doesn't make sense to me. what annoyed about Chrkeller is he came into making into ps5 vs switch, with the switch has better games which is just preference and depending if a person owns a PC cause if you don't own PC and only have switch then ps5 is leagues ahead in terms of games i enjoy but as i said before that just a preference issue. |
Appreciating amazing visuals is one thing.
Playing a game that is enjoyable is another.
I for instance love Starfield, Hogwarts and Baldurs Gate 3.
They look and play incredible.
But I will happily go back and play Super Metroid from the SNES or Master of Orion 2 on PC... Because I also enjoy those games.
You can do both.
zeldaring said:
Thats's what i find laughable if you feel graphics and performance don't hurt the experience i don't know whats the point of even discussing this stuff when it doesn't matter to you lol. |
Graphics/Visuals only hurt the experience if a developer is going for hyper-realism, games that chase that tend to "visually age" far more significantly than more stylized approaches.
And lets be honest, if graphics was the single most important factor with games, then consoles wouldn't and shouldn't exist, they are only mid-range platforms at best. |
Yea i was talking about ps4 ports like doom, witcher 3, doom eternal dark souls. Those games look and run like shit on switch but he rather just play them on switch to support Nintendo or apparently sub 30fps sub hd doesn't effect the gaming experience.
