Arkaign said:
Of course I believe it. It's been true for 20+ years of PC gaming. Take any CPU-bound game, and as long as you have spare GPU power, you can keep raising the resolution until you reach the limit of your display, or the GPU bottleneck exceeds the CPU bottleneck. Conversely, lowering the resolution in a CPU bound scenario yields zero increase in FPS. There are heaps of examples of this. Take Civ 5 on an Athlon II X3, or Diablo 3 on a Pentium D, then put a solid GPU in the mix. Boom, you can run crazy resolutions to pathetic ones, and the FPS always is pegged low by the CPU.
The ironic thing about your post is that in console situations the absolutely minute influence CPU performance has on limiting graphics performance (draw calls via API), are even less of a factor.
If anyone wants to test, all they have to do is underclock their CPU to a low level, then run a CPU intensive game, and even a moderate GPU will max out at the same CPU-limited FPS at all, or nearly all available resolutions. The CPU single-threaded performance in the PS4 and XB1 is quite terrible honestly. So it's not surprising that something with a lot of AI is CPU limited, but it's ludicrously, absolutely, 110% jack shit to do with resolution.
I've worked for Microsoft, EDS, TI, Raytheon, etc/infinity since before you were probably in diapers anyway. I learned COBOL in the mid 1980s, and that was my third language.
Let me guess, you learned Visual Basic or Java, and think you know programming? :) What a thing to brag about or insult someone over anyway, it's just us nerds, who gives a shit.
|
