Pemalite said:
zeldaring said:
Almost everyone agrees gtav was one of the most technically impressive games of 7th gen what they did was miracle on 360/ps3 considering a few developers said making a living breathing city was the most technically demanding thing in gaming. Sorry after saying that you completely lost any credibility for me.
Are you a developer or something? Considering many people at beyond3d which is a TECH board say comparing totally different games is meaningless to Guage hardware power but you seem to know it all just by looking at a game. Like saying silly things like gtav is not a show case on 360/ps3 is insane to me.
As Microsoft developers just look at Xbox one vs ps4. It makes ps4 look it's 2x Xbox one.
|
Crysis 3 shits all over GTA5 on Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 from a technical standpoint.
curl-6 said:
If I recall, Xbox One actually has a slight CPU advantage over PS4; both use an 8-core Jaguar CPU, but PS4 is clocked at 1.6GHz while Xbox One runs slightly faster at 1.75GHz.
PS4 is still the more powerful console overall due to a beefier GPU and higher memory bandwidth, but unless I'm remembering wrong it's one of those things where it's not better in every metric, kinda like how PS3 beat the 360 in terms of CPU power but the 360 had advantages in bandwidth and memory allocation.
|
Xbox One did indeed run at 1.75Ghz verses the Playstation 4's 1.6Ghz.
The Playstation 4 also required additional DDR3 Ram and ARM CPU-Cores to do what the Xbox One did on the Jaguar cores for OS/System stuff, Microsoft's OS know-how really came to the surface this gen.
The Xbox One also had DDR3 Ram which was lower latency and could also use the 32MB eSRAM as a L3, so for latency sensitive CPU transactions that weren't in cache, the Xbox One had a sizable advantage, more than the clockspeed differentials would otherwise imply.
zeldaring said:
Almost everyone agrees gtav was one of the most technically impressive games of 7th gen what they did was miracle on 360/ps3 considering a few developers said making a living breathing city was the most technically demanding thing in gaming. Sorry after saying that you completely lost any credibility for me.
|
Only person saying anything about GTA5 is literally you. Thus "everyone" is a stretch, thought about running a Poll?
Considering how commonplace open world games were like GTA4, Oblivion, Skyrim, FarCry, Fallout, Borderlands and more... GTA5 didn't bring forth anything new in that aspect.
NPC density? You do know Dead Rising was a thing on Xbox, right?
Technically Red-Dead Redemption poops all over GTA5... And so do many other games.
zeldaring said:
Are you a developer or something? Considering many people at beyond3d which is a TECH board say comparing totally different games is meaningless to Guage hardware power but you seem to know it all just by looking at a game. Like saying silly things like gtav is not a show case on 360/ps3 is insane to me. Looking at post from DF the most techically demanding game on 360/ps3 is the Crysis games, but according to you it's not subjective you are the all seeing eye.
|
Are you a developer? Pretty loaded question that I could throw right back at you... And can have a very wide application in terms of it's definition.
A developer could be someone making a simple ASCII based text game... Or be part of a 500~ person team building Call of Duty... It could be someone doing programming on A.I routines or someone making a picture in photo-shop to go on an in-game billboard.
But yes, I have developed some small games over the years using objective C... But even further back on the Commodore 64 using beginners all-purpose symbolic instruction code... Or BASIC for short.
I have also worked in teams to build pixel and vertex shader programs in order to get demanding video games to run on GPU's they were never designed to run on. I.E. Direct X9 SM3.0 games on Direct X 8.1 SM1.4 hardware.
But my real passion has always been hardware and rendering technology, I actually wanted to become a microprocessor engineer, but the training/education opportunities weren't available here in the 90's at a university level... But I did design some rudimentary 8-bit microprocessors, micro-controllers and more in order to power robotics in the 90's.
So don't take me for someone who doesn't know anything.
Leynos said:
Yeah. PS4 just had faster RAM with GDDR5 vs the XBO DDR3.
|
Higher latency though in terms of latency per cycle. - So if there was ever a mispredict or the data wasn't in the CPU's local cache, the Playstation 4 would get penalized more than the Xbox One.
The Playstation 4 however having vastly more GPU resources could do more work on the GPU, that would normally be done on the CPU... Side-stepping the CPU issues, so it was a net-win either way.
Sony made all the right choices that generation.
|
You saying red dead poops on GTAV really shows how subjective this is. I'm not talking about here but EVERY forum i visit like resetera, neogaf, and beyond3d all have GTAV at the highest technical achievment on 7th gen consoles, and Like i said no one can look at a game and really tell how technically demanding it is, that why it's better to use multiplatform games in a large number to compare consoles, same method used for PC'S. Did you even know GTAV uses PBR? with scale it has is insane.
scale and sadboxy-ness impose a lot more performance costs and complications, so it makes every achievemnts much more impressive. But it trully is hard to weight scope vs. detail.
If you were to put games in distinct categories though (like weight classes in combat sports) we could divide them in order of technical complexity created by scope/scale/freedom like this:
-2D games (mostly hand-crafted art);
-Fighting games;
-2.5D platformers and top down games (3d graphis with very constrained/predictable cameras);
-Free roam linear 3D games and racers;
-Open World games;
-Free roam Space Sims;
-Roy (full simulation of the universe in VR)
In GTAV's category, it pulls no punches in terms of ambition while still having asset detail at least in the same league if not better than many games that are trying to do less.
GTA has fully explorable world, no well masked invisible walls, seamless interior/exterior integration, full dynamic ToD and weather with realistic sun shadow tragectories, and it lets you both walk at a slow pace throught that world right close to everything but also fly through it at speed (real strain on streaming).
While on foot the world is highly interactive: many NPCs with high quality animations and physics (for the time) and many physically simulated 3D objects, tons of traffic, and you can also fly high enough that you can see the entire map on screen at once, and fall back down at reasonable speed without a hitch from the game and relatively discrete LOD transitions.
It tacled both Interior and exterior Urban environments, Forests, Farms, Deserts, Mountains, Rivers, Under Water etc... It does all of them very servicibly, and no city that gen looks as plausible and rich in its execution as Los Santos (no building fucking repeats ever)
I have deep respects for Rockstars achievements there, and many feel the same. It also doesn't take a genuis to tell which is one is techically more demanding in this case.
Last edited by zeldaring - on 28 July 2024
