This whole 30FPS BS

[3sixty]

Baryonyx said:

PC gamers will just have to get on with getting on. PC gaming does not command the market share or the sheer number econonic grunt to make it a serious primary development platform without paying mind to the home consoles where the real money is.

Funniest post I've read on here for a while. I am guessing you are from same school of thought that Fallout is a console original and Jagged Alliance was a TV show.

[The Beaver King]

anarki said:

Just to add my humble opinion on this subject.

I own a PS4 a Vita and I'm just setting up my living room/htpc, so I feel I have an unbiased opinion but...

Personally I've always preferred PC gaming, regretted getting rid of my old gaming PC, so I've lumped together a system for under £400 by using some 2nd parts which will enable me to play a ridiculously huge amount of games at a resolution/detail/fps that I tweak them to. I reckon I'll end up selling the ps4 soon - If these next gen consoles are already making compromises in resolution and fps limits then just think what it'll be like in a couple of years.

I'd rather have medium/high settings at 1080p at 60fps instead of a 30fps minimum/cap. I notice the difference between 30fps and 60fps and I'd rather have slightly lower visuals to maintain that 60fps feel.

My 400 quid pc:

Thermaltake mini ITX case with 220W PSU
Asrock H67M mini ITX motherboard
i5 2500 CPU
8GB hyper x RAM
Nvidia GTX 750 Ti
120GB SSD
1.5TB HDD
Windows 8.1
Xbox 360 controller

Pretty much the same, except I had both previous gen consoles and opted to build a new rig instead of getting either of the next gen consoles.

I had forgotten how liberating PC gaming can be, almost like the switch from Apple to Android.

Quick question Anarki; is that PSU going to be able to cope with that setup? 220w sounds low for considering the GPU...

I'm running a 650w, which is bare minimum for my R9 290X.

[Rick_1138]

That PSU does sound too light for that system, the GTX card alone I thought would require something in the region of 500w. You never want to be skimping on power.

[anarki]

The gtx 750 ti is on nvidias New architecture, Maxwell, that gpu only draws 60W max and doesn't require any pcie power connectors as the pcie slot itself powers it

[anarki]

Well 68W max if you love stress testing GPU's constantly, which I don't!

It's a great graphics card for the cost/performance/power consumption ratio.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-75...

[anarki]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I totally agree and I would of loved to pop in a 400w + psu - but because of the case the psu I have is proprietary and non upgradeable

[Steven_RW]

Pause for a second here chaps...

To quote Carmack (again..) they hadn't even got the most out of the ps3 capability before the ps4 came along. SO... rather than writing it off on the basis of what they can achieve in the first year with the current "next gen" hardware, why not have a look at an early ps3 game and the last and best of the ps3 games (suggest maybe GTA5, Skyrim etc.) The development with the same hardware was insane.

I think they may manage to deliver some very good games in the future at solid playable frames per second with the "next gen" consoles.

I personally like the simplicity of the ps4 and the fact it works. I have ps3, ps4 and Wii U in my living room. I am also building an ultra steam machine for those very heavy workload games. A bit of everything suits me fine.

PS - Scorp: Sounds like you are very knowledgeable on all this. What did you program back in the day? Carmack mentions the points u make about interlacing.

Cheers
Steven_RW

[Steven_RW]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I hear what you are saying.

IMO it depends if the level of "heavyness" of gfx workload in a game stays flat to make 1080p, the team will find smarter ways of using the PC tech and we will see more FPS.

IF the heavyness of the gfx becomes more so, with more complex textures that require more processing power then 1080p may see FPS reduction or no step forward.

I guess we need to ask someone in the industry who has no vested interest. I am confident new ways are found to use existing tech more effectively if required. With set hardware, as in a console, new ways are required. In the PC world you just keep telling the end user to buy better tech. I also get what you are saying by the fact the consoles now are basically small well packaged PCs that they are not "new" in any way so we may not see the steps n bounds I am suggesting.

Either way, I believe in having all bases covered. As a hobby compared to playing with cars, it's (compartively) cheap to have all the consoles including a powerful steam machine.

I'm excited about the new tech and Oculus Rift when it's in a reasonable state.

Thanks
Steven_RW

[Bullett]

I don't really buy the excuses as I understood this generation is essentially a PC in a box and PC's have been throwing 1080 around for years. It's all standard tech not the cell processor of the PS3.
It could prove to be a massive benefit though for both consoles and PC if the programmers get more efficient in coding. That should benefit us all going forward without the PC having to have massive upgrades in hardware to push the next generation graphically.

Interesting in why you are going for a steam PC. I assume you mean the Linux version, I simply dont see why I would hobble myself to Linux at this stage when everything comes out on Windows.

[Jasandjules]

Sorry OP that sounds like rubbish to me, I can't see Sony trying to reduce their PS4 to Xbone levels. It is a competition after all, and they are winning.

[Oakey]

Heh, I remember back in the original Xbox One thread in May of last year causing uproar when I suggested next gen would struggle to do 1080p!

[Bullett]

Steam Machines are the machines running the SteamOS which is Linux. I can't see why anyone would bother as not all games are linux compatible although if anyone can drive more mainstream support for the format it will be Valve.

If I was building a livingroom games machine it would be Windows with Steam big picture on top not SteamOS.

Hence the question.

[anarki]

My n00b first look at the aforementioned single slot GTX 750 ti graphics card, as mentioned last week from me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkF7_iRqXRs&fe...

I'm awaiting the criticism... but I cannot wait to set it all up

[scorp]

Steven_RW said:

PS - Scorp: Sounds like you are very knowledgeable on all this. What did you program back in the day? Carmack mentions the points u make about interlacing.

Cheers
Steven_RW

Steven: I did PS1, PS2, N64, Gameboy (Classic & Colour), GBA and NDS development some time ago. Before that the Amiga but that was a hobby, on that machine you learn a lot about video processing due to its unique hardware. I'm a big fan of Carmack, he knows his stuff.

Back to framerates, has anyone seen the new GSync technology from nVidia? Very interesting, the graphics card can drive the displays refresh synchronisation (VSync) so individual frames can have separate timings (no more fixed 1/60th sec per frame).

Edited by scorp on Wednesday 5th November 04:33

[petrolsniffer]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

This!

Chirstmas last year I built this pc I'm typing on it's great still playing the latest titles at above 30Fps for less than the release price of both next gen consoles.

I came from a 360 the slowdown when things went hectic on certain bf3 maps was terrible it's like night and day playing it on the pc.

I don't think i'll ever go back it was a mistake ever selling my pc before this one but space constraints dictated I needed a console to get my gaming fix (laptops just don't cut it)

[Mr Whippy]

For a non-interactive game or something 'cinematic' then I see no need to run over 25-30fps or so.

Invest instead in nicer quality of each rendered frame.



As far as I know one game has been set to 30fps to offload processing power for other tasks in a Ubisoft game. The PS4 could run higher fps but Ubisoft seems under pressure to cap it at 30fps because MS is heavily invested in the game to begin with, so it looks odd that an MS core title runs 'better' on PS4.


From what I can tell that is the only example of this silliness, and imo that is fair enough if MS are paying for the game.


But I see no concerns between console/PC stuff based on arbitrary FPS differences.


And in the end, most console games are naff when ported to PC any way. It looks like the new GTA V has been made into a *serious* PC game with first person view and loads of improvements... that is the kinda PC port we like to see!

Indeed most console games are just bland these days any way, there to just make cash and appeal to the widest possible audience. Any games that also turn out to have capped FPS are likely such terrible games to begin with you wouldn't want to play them on a PC any way!


Not an issue at all unless you like to buy generally pants games and play them on a PC.

Dave

[garylythgoe]

It is not just a case of 'give it more juice/hardware, and it'll run at a higher FPS'.

There are other factors involved.

Some companies develop at 30FPS for very specific reasons....

[Disastrous]

A lot of people misunderstanding the frame rate/realism arguments here.

You should watch this:

https://vimeo.com/videoschool/lesson/56/frame-rate...

I think frame rate should be an artistic choice, that benefits the game. Driving games, I'd guess the higher the better but in a cinematic, immersive game, I want 24fps, thank you!

[Pentoman]

Nothing to add except that this is all very interesting to read.
I can definitely spot 60 fps. Usually with fast moving stuff. The speed of mouse /keyboard response is important too.

I paid for a 120hz screen on my laptop though, expecting something to special. However I can see no difference. Am I missing something?

I'd like to hear more from scorp too. More cunning developer tricks for speeding up games please?

[Oakey]

Disastrous said:

A lot of people misunderstanding the frame rate/realism arguments here.

You should watch this:

https://vimeo.com/videoschool/lesson/56/frame-rate...

I think frame rate should be an artistic choice, that benefits the game. Driving games, I'd guess the higher the better but in a cinematic, immersive game, I want 24fps, thank you!

Can you provide an example of the sort of game you want to play at 24fps?

People keep comparing film 24fps to gaming 24fps as if they're similar but ignore that your game doesn't render motion blur like film does so the frames stutter when in motion