By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - The Digital Foundry Face-off we've all been waiting for his here

lucidium on 24 April 2014
curl-6 said:
lucidium said:

curl-6 said:
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:

Now we can welcome everyone to the GLORIOUS PC MASTER RACE of 10 years ago :D.

How many people were gaming at 1080p in early 2004?

A lot of gamers were running 1600x1200 on CRT at the time, which is virtually the same number of pixels just at 4:3 aspect ratio.

I didn't know that.

Was it native though? Even if the monitors existed to support it, could GPUs of the time handle that amount of pixels? In a high end game, anyway?

Depending on the graphics card yeah, native.
I was playing Quake 2 on my pc at 1600x1200 at 85hz way back in 1997 on my pc running two voodoo 2's in sli, so im pretty sure pretty much all cards by 2004 were capable of both displaying and playing games of the day at 1600x1200

Hell one of my best buddies used to play Kingpin on his single geforce2 mx around about 2001 ish, at 1600x1200, and it was silky smooth.



Around the Network
Nintentacle on 24 April 2014
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
ganoncrotch said:
Nintentacle said:
ganoncrotch said:
Nintentacle said:
There's no point in comparing the PS4 and Xbox One versions when they're pretty much the exact same thing.

Digital foundry points out how "pretty much" some games are not the same thing. While obviously games like this lego thing don't mean anything in terms of the game at hand, if you watch some of their side by side videos from cutscenes in some games you can see where the different systems excel in different areas. Seeing fps dips on 1 system for heavy particle effects, heavy shadow/lighting effects or Moving quickly through detailed cities etc, like I said tho while it means that 1 version of.. lego hobbit is going to be less cool it would give you an idea as to which system would handle something like GTA5 better or up close and flashy fireball filled things like Street fighter 4 Next Gen editions.

-If the devs give the ports the proper time they deserve ofc!

Well I mean that none of these comparisons matter overall. But nothing realting to video games matter is the grand scheme of everything, so...


In terms of the planet you will live for approx 1/17millionth of the earths life if you live to a ripe old age of 100 ... so yeah play video games or be the next shakespear/Einstein in the grand scheme of things human life even in it's entirety would not add up to a a tiny fraction of a % of the life of our planet.... and I mean all human life from finding fire from the skies outside our caves to when we rain fire down on all the nations of the world and end everything that has happened in our reign on the planet.

That being said! 1080p on both consoles! woohoo.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Earth's_Location_in_the_Universe_SMALLER_(JPEG).jpg

Now we can welcome everyone to the GLORIOUS PC MASTER RACE of 10 years ago :D.

But even that is useless when you take into account the entire, endless universe.



curl-6 on 24 April 2014
lucidium said:

Depending on the graphics card yeah, native.
I was playing Quake 2 on my pc at 1600x1200 at 85hz way back in 1997 on my pc running two voodoo 2's in sli, so im pretty sure pretty much all cards by 2004 were capable of both displaying and playing games of the day at 1600x1200

Hell one of my best buddies used to play Kingpin on his single geforce2 mx around about 2001 ish, at 1600x1200, and it was silky smooth.

But nobody in 2004 would have been playing, say, Doom 3 in 1200x1600/1080p, would they?



lucidium on 24 April 2014
curl-6 said:
lucidium said:

Depending on the graphics card yeah, native.
I was playing Quake 2 on my pc at 1600x1200 at 85hz way back in 1997 on my pc running two voodoo 2's in sli, so im pretty sure pretty much all cards by 2004 were capable of both displaying and playing games of the day at 1600x1200

Hell one of my best buddies used to play Kingpin on his single geforce2 mx around about 2001 ish, at 1600x1200, and it was silky smooth.

But nobody in 2004 would have been playing, say, Doom 3 in 1200x1600/1080p, would they?

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/2004-27gpu2_3.html#sect0

Check out the third graph, yes, yes they were.



curl-6 on 24 April 2014
lucidium said:
curl-6 said:
lucidium said:

Depending on the graphics card yeah, native.
I was playing Quake 2 on my pc at 1600x1200 at 85hz way back in 1997 on my pc running two voodoo 2's in sli, so im pretty sure pretty much all cards by 2004 were capable of both displaying and playing games of the day at 1600x1200

Hell one of my best buddies used to play Kingpin on his single geforce2 mx around about 2001 ish, at 1600x1200, and it was silky smooth.

But nobody in 2004 would have been playing, say, Doom 3 in 1200x1600/1080p, would they?

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/2004-27gpu2_3.html#sect0

Check out the third graph, yes, yes they were.

Far out.

I suppose it's still technically not 1080p, but still, pretty cool.



Around the Network
lucidium on 24 April 2014
curl-6 said:

Far out.

I suppose it's still technically not 1080p, but still, pretty cool.

Was basically as close as you could get back in the day with 4:3 ratio

Even still, the difference between 1080p and 1600x1200 is 153,600, difference between 720p and 1080p is 1,152,000

To be exact and it works out nicely in the process, 1920x1080 - 1080p, if you stretched out 1600x1200 to widescreen, it would be 1920x1000, so really only loosing 80 pixels across the horizontal.

thanks to dell and a few others releasing cheaper 4k displays, 4k pc gaming is getting more popular lately too.

On a last, interesting note, the average recommended resolution for a 11-15" crt monitor back in the day was 1280x1020, most beyond 17" could handle 1600x1200 or even higher.



walsufnir on 24 April 2014
ctalkeb said:
ganoncrotch said:

That being said! 1080p on both consoles! woohoo.


But the joke of this thread is that it isn't - the PS4 is downsampling from a higher resolution to improve AA.


I don't see better AA in the close-ups.



curl-6 on 24 April 2014
lucidium said:
curl-6 said:

Far out.

I suppose it's still technically not 1080p, but still, pretty cool.

Was basically as close as you could get back in the day with 4:3 ratio

Even still, the difference between 1080p and 1600x1200 is 153,600, difference between 720p and 1080p is 1,152,000

To be exact and it works out nicely in the process, 1920x1080 - 1080p, if you stretched out 1600x1200 to widescreen, it would be 1920x1000, so really only loosing 80 pixels across the horizontal.

thanks to dell and a few others releasing cheaper 4k displays, 4k pc gaming is getting more popular lately too.

On a last, interesting note, the average recommended resolution for a 11-15" crt monitor back in the day was 1280x1020, most beyond 17" could handle 1600x1200 or even higher.

Around when did monitors go widescreen and PC gaming shift to literal 1080p?



lucidium on 24 April 2014
curl-6 said:
lucidium said:
curl-6 said:

Far out.

I suppose it's still technically not 1080p, but still, pretty cool.

Was basically as close as you could get back in the day with 4:3 ratio

Even still, the difference between 1080p and 1600x1200 is 153,600, difference between 720p and 1080p is 1,152,000

To be exact and it works out nicely in the process, 1920x1080 - 1080p, if you stretched out 1600x1200 to widescreen, it would be 1920x1000, so really only loosing 80 pixels across the horizontal.

thanks to dell and a few others releasing cheaper 4k displays, 4k pc gaming is getting more popular lately too.

On a last, interesting note, the average recommended resolution for a 11-15" crt monitor back in the day was 1280x1020, most beyond 17" could handle 1600x1200 or even higher.

Around when did monitors go widescreen and PC gaming shift to literal 1080p?

Mid 2002 was when the first 1080p monitors using LCD appeared, there were a couple widescreen CRT monstrosities, but in general people stuck with CRTs until the price of LCD monitors started to fall around 2004, 4:3 was still the norm for LCD up until late 2005 with higher end displays sporting 16:9, wasnt until late 2006 that people started to adopt 1080p lcd in larger numbers because at that point they were just starting to shift in to affordability.



celador on 24 April 2014

'The Digital Foundry Face-Off we've all been waiting for is here'

"It's going to be a joke about Lego Hobbit isn't it"

Click

"Yep"