PC's and Consoles
- Thread starter bbad89
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Because your PC is really, really bad.
Also companies spend a lot of time making sure that games run and look good on consoles.
Also companies spend a lot of time making sure that games run and look good on consoles.
It's because new PCs are always being made, but consoles are static machines; thus, PC game designers can just ramp up the minimum requirements to get more bang for their buck, whereas console game designers have to work within the limitations of the current technology.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 16,454
- 5,058
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Its a bit easier to design for a single hardware configuration then it is all the possibilities that a real computer has, plus you have to work out differences in the os and different os's.
Firstly I doubt that.
But, to answer your question, the reason this is possible is because a console is a 'fixed' design. ALL consoles of a given type are the same.
This means developers can use every trick in the book to squeeze more performance out of a console, confident in the knowledge that any trick they come up with will always work correctly.
No two PC's are identical, so you can't do this in any real meaningful way on a PC.
Add to this that the operating system which allows you to do so much with a PC does a lot of things in the background that are important, but not strictly needed if the only thing you cared about was playing a game, and you find that a PC probably needs to be about 4 times as fast at the very least just to look 'the same' as a console game.
However, I should note from personal experience that I can (and do) run PC games at settings that a console couldn't even dream of handling.
2560x1280 is a weird resolution, but running games that way at 40fps with 4x AA and 16 anisotropic filtering, plus realtime shadows and very high resolution textures...
May ironically not look that much more impressive than a console game, but compared to 30fps at 720p (1280x720), usually with tricks to hide the corners that are being cut is likely to take only about 1/5th the processing power even WITHOUT taking the inefficiencies of the PC into account.
But, to answer your question, the reason this is possible is because a console is a 'fixed' design. ALL consoles of a given type are the same.
This means developers can use every trick in the book to squeeze more performance out of a console, confident in the knowledge that any trick they come up with will always work correctly.
No two PC's are identical, so you can't do this in any real meaningful way on a PC.
Add to this that the operating system which allows you to do so much with a PC does a lot of things in the background that are important, but not strictly needed if the only thing you cared about was playing a game, and you find that a PC probably needs to be about 4 times as fast at the very least just to look 'the same' as a console game.
However, I should note from personal experience that I can (and do) run PC games at settings that a console couldn't even dream of handling.
2560x1280 is a weird resolution, but running games that way at 40fps with 4x AA and 16 anisotropic filtering, plus realtime shadows and very high resolution textures...
May ironically not look that much more impressive than a console game, but compared to 30fps at 720p (1280x720), usually with tricks to hide the corners that are being cut is likely to take only about 1/5th the processing power even WITHOUT taking the inefficiencies of the PC into account.
Pcs also have higher resolutions, consoles only go to 720p and upscale the rest, on pc you'll be playing with full 1080, so you need a lot more horsepower. Not to mention anti-aliasing, which is pretty much required when you're so close to the screen.
Because companies spend fortunes optimizing their games for consoles.
Also you're not running the same game, you will be running a much prettier game at a better frame-rate.
Also you're not running the same game, you will be running a much prettier game at a better frame-rate.
This,chif-ii said:
BUT I really think this thread is a little silly. Because a 6yr old PC can still run games fine, it'll just be on low graphics settings :3
Meanwhile I built my PC back in December 09 and it still plays BF3 maxed out
I'm pretty sure I'm gonna survive 4 more years and still be on medium graphics settings.I'll probably upgrade before then though
It might be that your hardware is bad (price and brand aren't good indicators for buying gaming PCs, in general you or someone who will help you has to know about PC hardware). It could be that your hardware is fine but your software is poorly configured (missing drivers, out-of-control background processes, viruses). Also the first thing I do with a new PC game is to fix all the graphics settings, the default settings are made to work with every machine so individual tweaks are essential.
For contrast, a gaming PC I put together for $1k in 2008 is enough to run all the new releases in 1080p with medium-high settings, it's at least half a generation ahead of the consoles in terms of graphical quality.
For contrast, a gaming PC I put together for $1k in 2008 is enough to run all the new releases in 1080p with medium-high settings, it's at least half a generation ahead of the consoles in terms of graphical quality.
Who says? I'm running everything but BF3 on Max (With the exclusion of DX11 in ONE game), and BF3 runs on medium with a god framerate (Will run on high, but about 2-8 FPS :S).Fluffles said:
OT: Because you fail at upgrading your computer. You don't just buy the cheapest and nastiest parts you can, you buy some that are reasonable quality and reasonably good, yet with a price still lower than $300 per part. If you're lucky, you'll get them on sale and get all of your parts together at less than $300. My six year old PC has been running things on Max, or near max for a select few games, for the last 5-6 years. Now, I have upgraded all bar my GPU for under $300, and will be spending a further $250 to upgrade it and run all on max settings.
Besides, even on lowest settings on PC, it is usually better looking then on console, and with a better FPS if you have even a half decent rig too.
So... Much... Awesome...CrystalShadow said:
Don't you mean 2560x1600? I myself can run any game on ultra with no lag, though on consoles the limitations of their hardware is especially evident on games like Borderlands, with textures takes long times to appear and an annoying amount of lag. PC gaming is more expensive, but an overall better experience performance-wise.CrystalShadow said:
My computer is still running an old Geforce 8800 gtx from 2007 and runs just about everything out there right now flawlessly. Unless you're really intent on owning an absolutely bleeding edge gaming rig at all times there's no need to upgrade your computer save every couple of years.
The unfortunate back-draw to pc gaming, is the upgrading and the amounts of technical knowledge needed to 'build' a PC. Sure you could ask a friend on what to do, but if you aren't computer savvy, they might as well be speaking another language on what to use or buy.
Consoles? plug in and play. Instant gaming experience with less setup time. Limitations on what a console can do, but they can last for years.
Consoles? plug in and play. Instant gaming experience with less setup time. Limitations on what a console can do, but they can last for years.
No. I mean what I said. There's a reason I said it was weird.MercurySteam said:
If you want to be technical it results from using two rather old monitors in a dual monitor setup.
Thanks to ATI/AMD eyefinity most games can be convinced it's a single monitor.
It can be a bit awkward in some games because... Well, you'd be surprised how important the middle of the screen can be. (which is why most people using Eyefinity setups use an odd number of monitors. IE. 3 or 5 rather than 2, 4 or 6)
So it comes out as 2560 by 1280 because it's 2 monitors side by side at... You know what? sorry. It's two lots of 1280 by 1024 (2560 x 1024). My bad.
(Although until they changed the drivers to be less flexible I was using 1440 x 960 x 2 or 2880x960 - Yet that's disabled now. >_< - It's like they don't think that people might actually want some flexibility with their choices. )
So... I got the numbers wrong unfortunately, but it wasn't a mistake in the sense you might have been thinking of.
Cause you don't know how to buy a good PC in the first place? If you buy a "just getting by" PC when you acquire your console, then keep updating to the bare minimum, you'll most likely need to keep buying small updates.bbad89 said:
If you build yourself a solid PC to start with you won't run into that problem. You might want to upgrade it at some point in 6 years, but that's just so you'll get far bigger and better than consoles can get. Not a requirement to play the games at the same quality as consoles, just if you want that extra something.