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

Forums - Gaming - Visceral re-affirms Battlefield Hardline as 900p on PS4, 720p on XB1

Locknuts on 09 March 2015
fatslob-:O said:
Locknuts said:

But now you can buy a single card that smokes my two old cards for far less money and with 4 x the Vram. For example an R9 290:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&Description=r9+290&N=-1&isNodeId=1

With one of those you could definitely build a PC for the prices you mentioned. The 360 could be bought for as little as $299 back in 2007 and would smoke a $1500 PC. It was a true beast. I remeber because I built a PC back in 2007 for that price and my friends 360 absolutely owned it. I subsequently bought a 360 and only used my PC for RTS games until my upgrade in 2011.

The 360 was a real alternative to a gaming PC. These new consoles are very disappointing by comparison.

Umm, AMD won't live very long if they keep cutting their margins like this ... 

And also the 360 would get smoked by the GeForce 8800 Ultra around the same point in time so the 360 was a pretty far away alternative to PC gaming ... 

The new consoles are far from disappointing all things considered. It's because of the PS4 and X1 we were able to usher in the age of physically based shading with games like Killzone: Shadow Fall or Ryse: Son of Rome. These games also make the most graphically advanced games on the PS3 and 360 look like turds in comparsion ... 

8800 Ultra was an $830 card. With inflation that's  probably closer to Titan prices. I'm saying that just over 1 year after launch (same as 360 was in 2007), these consoles are getting not just beaten, but absolutely destroyed by a $270 card. This card can run the same games as the consoles at 1080p/60fps at ultra settings where the consoles are not even managing 1080p/60fps at lower settings:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2013/11/27/battlefield-4-performance-analysis/3

Hell, looking at that page, even the aging 7970 (280x these days) is almost averaging 60fps at ultra settings.

If they'd just put $100-$150 more into the hardware and just absorbed it themselves, I'm sure we could have seen some truly impressive machines.



Around the Network
curl-6 on 09 March 2015
Wright said:
curl-6 said:

Also, I'm 95% sure Wright was being sarcastic.


Well, I'm glad to hear you can never be 100% certain with me!

I can never be 100% with anyone, I'm awful at detecting sarcasm. XD



fatslob-:O on 10 March 2015
Locknuts said:

8800 Ultra was an $830 card. With inflation that's  probably closer to Titan prices. I'm saying that just over 1 year after launch (same as 360 was in 2007), these consoles are getting not just beaten, but absolutely destroyed by a $270 card. This card can run the same games as the consoles at 1080p/60fps at ultra settings where the consoles are not even managing 1080p/60fps at lower settings:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2013/11/27/battlefield-4-performance-analysis/3

Hell, looking at that page, even the aging 7970 (280x these days) is almost averaging 60fps at ultra settings.

If they'd just put $100-$150 more into the hardware and just absorbed it themselves, I'm sure we could have seen some truly impressive machines.

The GeForce 8800 Ultra wasn't the only thing available that year. There was also the GeForce 8800 GTS which could also crumple the Xbox 360 at a price of $250. When you put things in perspective the neither of the last gen consoles were all that impressive ... 

The video card isn't the only thing you need. I'm pretty sure you needed an Intel core i5 to drive that GPU to it's highest performance which will also run you about $250. That doesn't even include other components which would raise the initial investment price even more ... 

Microsoft and Sony can add as much hardware as they want to their consoles but those craving for more power will never be satisfied because the next thing they do is ask for more power instead of appreciating the gains. The only sensible thing left to do was to settle for $400 ...



Locknuts on 10 March 2015
fatslob-:O said:
Locknuts said:

8800 Ultra was an $830 card. With inflation that's  probably closer to Titan prices. I'm saying that just over 1 year after launch (same as 360 was in 2007), these consoles are getting not just beaten, but absolutely destroyed by a $270 card. This card can run the same games as the consoles at 1080p/60fps at ultra settings where the consoles are not even managing 1080p/60fps at lower settings:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2013/11/27/battlefield-4-performance-analysis/3

Hell, looking at that page, even the aging 7970 (280x these days) is almost averaging 60fps at ultra settings.

If they'd just put $100-$150 more into the hardware and just absorbed it themselves, I'm sure we could have seen some truly impressive machines.

The GeForce 8800 Ultra wasn't the only thing available that year. There was also the GeForce 8800 GTS which could also crumple the Xbox 360 at a price of $250. When you put things in perspective the neither of the last gen consoles were all that impressive ... 

The video card isn't the only thing you need. I'm pretty sure you needed an Intel core i5 to drive that GPU to it's highest performance which will also run you about $250. That doesn't even include other components which would raise the initial investment price even more ... 

Microsoft and Sony can add as much hardware as they want to their consoles but those craving for more power will never be satisfied because the next thing they do is ask for more power instead of appreciating the gains. The only sensible thing left to do was to settle for $400 ...

The 320MB 8800GTS launched at $300. With inflation that's roughly equivalent to the cost of a GTX 970 now but was really not that much more capable than a 360 when paired with a decent CPU (could run games like GTA IV at proper 720/30fps). Whereas a 970 could take a game that runs at 1080p/30fps on PS4 and run it at 4k/30fps (shadow of mordor for example). The gap is far wider now than it was then, plus I don't see a lot of optimisation happening and Hardline is proof of that. I really think the new consoles X86 architecture ensured that they were pretty much maxed out right from the start. I'm not a dev, but I'm just going on what I've seen.

I was personally satisfied with the 360. So much so that it kept me off the PC for the most part. And I agree, $400 is the right price. I would have preferred they just took a bit of a hit and gave them a much better CPU and a slightly better GPU (7970 equiv. instead of 7850/70). Then maybe I would be satisfied with my Xbox One instead of thinking of selling it for a new GPU.



SjOne on 10 March 2015

Last gen people complained that PS3 was too expensive. Now they complain that PS4 is too underpowered. Sony can't win either way with these kind of people.



Around the Network
Kowan on 10 March 2015

The trailers have not shown anything great graphically(BF4 look worlds better) and the beta looked like an HD ps2 game at best so this is pretty much bad optimization. They probably focused on the PC version and just half-assed the porting to the consoles.



HollyGamer on 10 March 2015

i blame Visceral for this, they said they could have optimize Battlefield 4 on PS4 to 1080p if they had a chance or time to optimize because they said battlefield 4 was rushed. now they have time developing game with the same engine, but the result is still the same.



curl-6 on 10 March 2015
HollyGamer said:
i blame Visceral for this, they said they could have optimize Battlefield 4 on PS4 to 1080p if they had a chance or time to optimize because they said battlefield 4 was rushed.

Where did they say that?



curl-6 on 10 March 2015
Kowan said:
The trailers have not shown anything great graphically(BF4 look worlds better) and the beta looked like an HD ps2 game at best so this is pretty much bad optimization. They probably focused on the PC version and just half-assed the porting to the consoles.

?





fatslob-:O on 10 March 2015
Locknuts said:

The 320MB 8800GTS launched at $300. With inflation that's roughly equivalent to the cost of a GTX 970 now but was really not that much more capable than a 360 when paired with a decent CPU (could run games like GTA IV at proper 720/30fps). Whereas a 970 could take a game that runs at 1080p/30fps on PS4 and run it at 4k/30fps (shadow of mordor for example). The gap is far wider now than it was then, plus I don't see a lot of optimisation happening and Hardline is proof of that. I really think the new consoles X86 architecture ensured that they were pretty much maxed out right from the start. I'm not a dev, but I'm just going on what I've seen.

I was personally satisfied with the 360. So much so that it kept me off the PC for the most part. And I agree, $400 is the right price. I would have preferred they just took a bit of a hit and gave them a much better CPU and a slightly better GPU (7970 equiv. instead of 7850/70). Then maybe I would be satisfied with my Xbox One instead of thinking of selling it for a new GPU.

I'm surprised you were satisfied with the 360 but I'm also surprised about what you remembered. You were right about the 320MB GeForce 8800 GTS launching at $300 but there was also another good option such as the 512MB GeForce 8800 GT for $200! Compared to the gap between the 970 and PS4, that GeForce 8800 GT straight up ran circles around the last gen HD twins just for $200 ... LOL 

Bioshock ran at 720p30FPS on the Xbox 360 whereas the GeForce 8800 GT did at a comparable resolution to 1080p@70FPS! That comes to a 4.8x increase in performance! 

COD 4 on the Xbox 360 ran at a sub-HD resolution of 1024x600! That's an 3.1x increase in performance in favour of the GeForce 8800 GT!

Half Life: Episode 2 on the Xbox 360 ran at 720p30FPS when The 8800GT can rip through this game at 135FPS at 1600x1200! That's over an 8x increase in performance! 

Most of the time a GTX 970 would only outperforms the the PS4 by 2-2.5x so all things considered the gap is about the same ... 

Optimizations will come in time. It's the GPU that you want to focus on, not the CPU so whether the consoles have x86 processors or not is irrelevant since the bulk of the pixel pushing power comes from the GPU!

A 7970 is NOT slightly better than what's in the PS4. That thing is 70% faster and it's sold at a premium for a reason ...