| Soundwave said: That's hard to get to again though because PC resolution has sort of hit a brick wall at 1080P. A 4K monitor costs as much as a car. So if you want to pay $20,000 for a monitor -- go right ahead, lol.
|
What?
My monitors run at 2560x1440, and I got those 3 years ago. I didn't seem to run into this so-called "brick wall" of resolution.
| Soundwave said: If you want the best looking games and probably all the major third party support, wait for a PS4/720. If you want Nintendo franchises buy a Wii U. If you want both and can afford both, get a PS4/720 + a Wii U. Simple. Video games are serious business I guess. |
lol Quoted for the truth
Ram is no big deal. To be honest, increasing the speed of your desktop ram does very little for game performance. People just like to toss numbers around like they know what they're talking about.
| errorpwns said: Ram is no big deal. To be honest, increasing the speed of your desktop ram does very little for game performance. People just like to toss numbers around like they know what they're talking about. |
Mostly true - when it comes to dedicated graphics cards. Not so much with integrated GPUs:
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/46073-amd-a10-5800k-trinity-needs-faster-ram/?page=3
HoloDust said:
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/46073-amd-a10-5800k-trinity-needs-faster-ram/?page=3 |
Well ill be damned. I didn't even realize that it made such a difference for APUs. Thanks for that article.
errorpwns said:
|
Yeah, they seem to be quite sensitive when it comes to speed. Even more so to single vs dual channel configurations:
Well uh. Hm. I don't know much about the technical things that go with graphics, but all I know is that this Pikmin 3 demo looks baus.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ioO6xRAa_c
| Soundwave said: One big reason PC versions look better is because there's an easy way to boost performance -- raise the resolution. PC games can run in 1080p, which results in a better image quality. That's hard to get to again though because PC resolution has sort of hit a brick wall at 1080P. A 4K monitor costs as much as a car. So if you want to pay $20,000 for a monitor -- go right ahead, lol. |
Actually, IF Sharp is to be believed, in February 2013 a 32" 4K monitor will cost $5,500.
So maybe by 2015 as you said, they will start to enter into the realm of the "possible to buy" and leave the realm of "when I win the lotto".
Please excuse my bad English.
Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070
Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.
My problem with the OP is that it paints an air of positivity where it isn't deserved. The specs speak for themselves and so do the ports, currently it looks bad, very bad.
Time will tell but posts like the OP are neither convincing, nor based on any evidence except anecdotal viewpoint. The people painting the negative view are basing it on evidence, which is the known specification. There are parts that aren't known, that is true, but it's wrong to assume those parts are going to be better than the baseline negative overall spec, and correct from past history and common sense to assume it will be generally negative spec.
Therefore OP is fail post.
It's quite simple.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
