Consoles have fixed hardware. They have fixed settings. They have fixed OSes. They have fixed background applications. Developers code games specifically for each platform. What a developer does on a PS4 will not translate to a Xbox1, and what a developer does on a Xbox1 will not translate to PC. They also need to start improving power consumption. Even if it was multithreaded, it would take 5-6 cores of the FX-3850 to match or beat the i5-2400. Realistically, in a gaming environment, it's going to be quite a while before we see full 8-core utilization surpassing the performance of a quad core, much less hex core, CPU. You don't want to go into the 120hz "nonesense" because you've never experienced a 120hz monitor.
that was the case, it is the case no longer. Both major consoles have now moved to X86-64, spesifically some varient on AMD's Jaguar APU. You could (prehaps with difficulty in the case of the GDDR5 ram) build the similar spec bar motherboard as the new xbox and PS4. Meh. The heats a pain i'll grant you that. Where are you drawing that conclusion from? Its nonsense because most of the nervous system can't work at 120hz. Most of of the routing through the thalamus to the visual cortex doesn't for example. Infact half that would be speedy. I cannot say for certain whats going on with them, why some people get nausea at thouse hz for example. However, I think theres a lot of sales b.s and placebo effect in play.
So you're saying that consoles can be upgraded? That we can change their OS? That we can install applications that consume resources in the background of the game? That a game developed for the PS4 will run without flaw on PC without making any changes? Referencing benchmarks and doing some math is a good start Then you have never played on a 120hz monitor.
Why would people use the argument that the human eye can only see 24 FPS when people can clearly distinguish 30 FPS from 60 FPS? The same goes for 60 FPS to 120 FPS. You might not see the difference; that's not the point. Its the fluidity in which you turn; especially in first person shooters.
You're repeating what I said, I was replying to people not knowing how to configure their PC, but I went back and looked at the posts again and you were replying to the comment about bad i5/i7's when I thought it was about bad AMD's so I must've been doing some misreading.
wtf, I leave the thread for 8 hours, and it turns into a ******* battleground while im gone. After reading through all your posts, I don't know exactly what you are agueing any more. Your saying you shouldn't have to upgrade for a single game? right? Thats kinda what Im getting. If your already upgrading and want to spend a bit more for an intel then why not? its not as if intel are ridiculously more expensive then amd. It shouldn't matter for most games since most games stress the GPU more. I agree theres not a huge reason to not buy md on desktops. Laptops on the other hand, avoid amd at all costs, but thats not the point. I just having trouble following this arguement here. Its not really a secret that in pure power intel wins, but were not talking about pure power when were talking about gaming. Anyways, with all 3 new consoles running amd jaguar core and using PC architecture, its very likely that amd CPUs may get better optimized. Also, amd will probably be making a killing off of them, giving them some revenue to hopefully improve their CPU designs, but thats just specualation. It seems to me that your aguement is based on the fact that no other games stress the CPU so much, and because of that its not worth upgrading. This is an entirely different arguement that people have had for awhile. Should you upgrade your PC if its only for a few games that you want to play? I mean, nearly every game can be run well on a Core2Duo with something like a gtx 9800, so why do people even have high end PCs? This is an entire other discussion though. EDIT: Just too add since I forgot, why you going after appl3? I mean, he seems to be supporting you? I dont get it?
Well there is a difference between 30 and 60 and your right its allmost entirely in the fluidity of how you can interact with it. I'm just very very skeptical that human neurology is capable of keeping up with 120hz when most of the neurons individually involved in the visual system can't cycle that fast. No that consoles are now x86-64 which is massive change, and that they are going to have to make use of 8 core processors. Ok care to share your workings? No but I do have 2 years of cognitive science under my belt. Personal reports of how 'awesome' it may be aside, theres a fundamental limit to how fast your nervous system can operate. It is, in large part under 60hz. So whatevers going on there, i'm skeptical of the story advanced by the people selling these things. fair enough.
Consoles - yes. PCs - left to debate Gather the constants. Multiply them by X. Figure optimal number. Etc. You're assuming that we're referencing a person's ability to distinguish between 60 and 120 FPS, which is an incorrect assumption to be making. There's more to 120hz monitors than just displaying 120 frames per second.
Huh I half read what you guys said.. .. Chances are Intel CPUs have better designs but I picked an AMD CPU because, according to my research, their price/performance ratio was better in the ranges I was aiming for... And I'm running the game fine (according to my standards) at max settings.. My cpu cost me about 130 from what I remember. And from what I remember, my bottleneck is my GPU
Part of the problem is AMD CPU's are worse than intel atm and the other part is that the game makes poor use of multicores, but with ps2 coming to the PS4 you can assume that it will run alot better on PC especially AMD systems as they will have to make use of as many cores as possible
I don't buy the line that PS2 will get optimized once it's out for PS4. PS2 for the PS4 is going to be a much different PS2. PS2 on PC is far too complicated for a 17 button controller.
AMD CPUs... BWAAGGGHH!!! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!! Sorry. In all seriousness AMD CPUs are not good for gaming. I like AMD GPUs (note my Radeons below) but you won't ever see me use another AMD CPU... ever again. I run this game almost flawlessly (30 FPS in huge fights with shadows on HIGH), save one glaring bug. After GU11 rendered cockpits and certain weapons (Lancer for example) cause my frame rate to drop by a factor of 50%. Not sure why. I fix this issue by using Radeon PRO and forcing alternate frame rendering, and I still have to reconstruct my useroptions.ini file on every execution.
