PC gpu less powerful than a console's?

[spentshells]

Console games that run at "1080p" are upscaled after actually being rendered at a lower resolution.

I find it hard to believe gears of war was upscaled.
But i don't know much about it.

 

[jyjjy]

I find it hard to believe gears of war was upscaled.
But i don't know much about it.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241

 

[spentshells]

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241

I looked at that page and what I saw was this.

Some games let the GPU handle the scaling to 1080p directly from the arbitrary resolution. e.g. MotoGP 06, PGR3, ESIV:O...

Kinda sounds like it varies on the game.

The smiley was on that website.

 

[jyjjy]

You need to scroll down for the list of rendering resolutions.

 

[uncfan_2563]

I play alot of dirt (2 and 3) on PC, and while I was at futureshop one day i decided to try it on the xbox360 on a full HD tv.
First thing I noticed, the edges were very jaggedy, looked like there was definitely no anti-aliasing being used.
2nd thing I noticed was the frame rate... it was seriously hampering the gameplay compared to my PC which runs it at 50-60fps, this was probably close to 30fps.

Same two above problems I noticed while playing GTA4 at a friends house on his PS3, it was so laggy I couldnt even play it, 20-35 fps it seemed. Another game I play alot of is Street fighter 4, besides taking several times longer to load on my xbox than on my pc, it is much less smooth even from far when compared to playing it on pc.

I own an xbox360, play halo, and various games now and then. I connected it to my computer monitor to play halo once, and at the same distance that I sit to my PC games I played halo reach. It looked absolutely terrible, like several times crappier than on my 42" tv and sitting far. Both were running at 1080p (actually tv is only at 1080i...)

yeah and it's really something that hits you once you quit playing your console for a while and the lack of any AA in most console games starts to make your eyes hurt. You've got to know what's out there to pick up on console graphics being a lot worse, I for one have a ton of friends who can't tell the difference. It's not really there fault and they're not stupid, I just don't like them as much now 😛

 

[amirp]

yeah and it's really something that hits you once you quit playing your console for a while and the lack of any AA in most console games starts to make your eyes hurt. You've got to know what's out there to pick up on console graphics being a lot worse, I for one have a ton of friends who can't tell the difference. It's not really there fault and they're not stupid, I just don't like them as much now 😛

hahah yea, I hadn't touched my xbox in a while, mostly because it sounded like it was dying - which it has now damn that red ring nonsense. So when I went back to it everything was crappy to me.

Another really really good example I can come up with is call of duty, i played it on ps3 full 1080p graphics lol my friend played it up so hard, he boots it up and it just looks like crap. When I laughed he shows me borderlands, and portal 2 both of which Ive also played on pc, and both of which I laughed at too. Next day I showed him crysis (a pretty damn old game now) on my pc along with some others.

Long story short I built him a pc the day after. And keep in mind all I have is a 6850... nothing fancy at all.

 

[DelroyMonjo]

I guess if you are 12 yrs old and Mom and Dad are buying your stuff.... XBOX is fantastic!

 

[Swolern]

yeah and it's really something that hits you once you quit playing your console for a while and the lack of any AA in most console games starts to make your eyes hurt. You've got to know what's out there to pick up on console graphics being a lot worse, I for one have a ton of friends who can't tell the difference. It's not really there fault and they're not stupid, I just don't like them as much now 😛

Lol. Show them BF3 when it comes out. I played the PC beta at highest settings and was gorgeous. Then I played it on ps3 and I said WTF! it looked horrible compared to PC, I would compare it to a downgrade from PS3 to PS2. And PC ultra settings won't be available until Oct 25 at 0200am. I'll be there. My BF3 is already downloaded and waiting. Dammit hurry up!

 

[henrytowns]

I'm confused. The Witcher 2 is a Dx9 exclusive game. That is all that is supported. Where did you read it's not Dx9?

Sorry. i checked now its dx9. but i had guessed it was dx10 because the minimum requirement was 8800GT which is a dx10 card. http://gamesystemrequirements.com/games.php?id=1006

so i thought if it was dx9 they must have listed 7800GT or 1950pro or something.

so THIS is what confuses me and thats why i posted the question! that if DX9 still can do wonders why we have dx10, dx11 and it is continuing without taking full advantage of dx9! why new games are coming up and they dont run on an old DX9 gpu? they need PS version 4.0 and stuff. and no dx9 gpu has PS 4.0. they all have 3.0. i did not try witcher 2 myself on a dx9 gpu but it has glitches on the 1950 pro. http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/975399-/59191450
Should it not render smoothly on a low setting? or atleast when in a tent and there is less animation to render?

if crysis 2 can produce such graphical detail on dx9 why other games which look the same demand a dx10 or dx 11gpu. like Mafia 2. ofcourse that is because they use some features of dx10. but then again why not put develop in pure dx9 and dont make us buy new gpus every year? we should only need a more powerful dx9 gpu for most games and not a new dx10 or dx11 gpu for every other game coming out.

I know dx10 and dx11 can do wonders but really there are a few games which truly utilize them. i played crysis 2 thinking it looked so beautiful BECAUSE it was dx11 only to realise it was dx9! i think we are just forced to buy newer gpus.

 

[bystander]

Sorry. i checked now its dx9. but i had guessed it was dx10 because the minimum requirement was 8800GT which is a dx10 card. http://gamesystemrequirements.com/games.php?id=1006

so i thought if it was dx9 they must have listed 7800GT or 1950pro or something.

so THIS is what confuses me and thats why i posted the question! that if DX9 still can do wonders why we have dx10, dx11 and it is continuing without taking full advantage of dx9! why new games are coming up and they dont run on an old DX9 gpu? they need PS version 4.0 and stuff. and no dx9 gpu has PS 4.0. they all have 3.0. i did not try witcher 2 myself on a dx9 gpu but it has glitches on the 1950 pro. http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/975399-/59191450
Should it not render smoothly on a low setting? or atleast when in a tent and there is less animation to render?

if crysis 2 can produce such graphical detail on dx9 why other games which look the same demand a dx10 or dx 11gpu. like Mafia 2. ofcourse that is because they use some features of dx10. but then again why not put develop in pure dx9 and dont make us buy new gpus every year? we should only need a more powerful dx9 gpu for most games and not a new dx10 or dx11 gpu for every other game coming out.

I know dx10 and dx11 can do wonders but really there are a few games which truly utilize them. i played crysis 2 thinking it looked so beautiful BECAUSE it was dx11 only to realise it was dx9! i think we are just forced to buy newer gpus.

I'll try to break this down for you.

Currently, there are no games which require more than Dx9. All the games which offer Dx10 and Dx11, also offer a Dx9 version at the same time. This is done so that people with older hardware and Windows XP can play the game.

They choose to create DX11 games because they have some special effects which cannot be done effectively with previous versions. They can also use DX11 to improve performance with the same visual effects.

The minimum requirements to play a game is not always about what shader model they use, it's more often an indication of how much power is needed to play the game smoothly.

Some day in the future, you'll find the dev's finally abandon Windows XP and when that day comes, the minimum DX version will increase to DX11 or what ever the vast majority of people have available to them.

 

[jyjjy]

i think we are just forced to buy newer gpus.

I don't know what you are talking about. No one is forcing you to buy a new GPU. As far as I'm aware the number of major games that require anything above DX9 can be counted on one hand. It sounds a lot like you are stating a problem that doesn't exist "they force us to by new cards!" then complaining that it isn't actually true. Very odd.

 

[bystander]

I don't know what you are talking about. No one is forcing you to buy a new GPU. As far as I'm aware the number of major games that require anything above DX9 can be counted on one hand. It sounds a lot like you are stating a problem that doesn't exist "they force us to by new cards!" then complaining that it isn't actually true. Very odd.

Are there any games that "require" anything above Dx9. I'm not aware of any.

 

[jyjjy]

Just Cause 2 is the most notable. There's also Stormrise, Renegade Ops and Shattered Horizon.

 

[henrytowns]

I don't know what you are talking about. No one is forcing you to buy a new GPU. As far as I'm aware the number of major games that require anything above DX9 can be counted on one hand. It sounds a lot like you are stating a problem that doesn't exist "they force us to by new cards!" then complaining that it isn't actually true. Very odd.

well i had a 1950 pro and i used to play all my dear games on it and one day one by one all good games started to die on it. metro 2033, just cause 2, Chronicles of Riddick dark Athena (if i remember correctly) etc. mostly because of shader problem. what i wrote up there meant that developers dont fully utilize dx9 and use some of the features of dx10 and dx11 which end up games requiring a good gpu. but if they do a really good job they can optimize the game for dx9 and still make it good.

one good example is Dirt 2. i did not imagine it would ever work on my x1950 pro. but to my surprise, it worked on max settings on 1280x1024. with 4xAA. Now i have a GTX560ti and all games seem to work ok. but crysis 2 was my surprise. it looked stunning and yet it was DX9 which makes me wonder why some games that dont have a good gameplay or story still has some dx10 or dx11 elements. The developers thus force us (IMO) to buy a newer gpu only for little bells and whistles while offering nothing great in return.

 

[henrytowns]

I'll try to break this down for you.

Currently, there are no games which require more than Dx9. All the games which offer Dx10 and Dx11, also offer a Dx9 version at the same time. This is done so that people with older hardware and Windows XP can play the game.

They choose to create DX11 games because they have some special effects which cannot be done effectively with previous versions. They can also use DX11 to improve performance with the same visual effects.

The minimum requirements to play a game is not always about what shader model they use, it's more often an indication of how much power is needed to play the game smoothly.

Some day in the future, you'll find the dev's finally abandon Windows XP and when that day comes, the minimum DX version will increase to DX11 or what ever the vast majority of people have available to them.

thanks for the explanation! now i am faced with the same question again. how to mark the topic as solved? this happened the last time as well. i could not do that. when i edit the topic in my first post and submit it tells me i aint allowed to do that.

 

[jyjjy]

well i had a 1950 pro and i used to play all my dear games on it and one day one by one all good games started to die on it. metro 2033, just cause 2, Chronicles of Riddick dark Athena (if i remember correctly) etc. mostly because of shader problem. what i wrote up there meant that developers dont fully utilize dx9 and use some of the features of dx10 and dx11 which end up games requiring a good gpu. but if they do a really good job they can optimize the game for dx9 and still make it good.

one good example is Dirt 2. i did not imagine it would ever work on my x1950 pro. but to my surprise, it worked on max settings on 1280x1024. with 4xAA. Now i have a GTX560ti and all games seem to work ok. but crysis 2 was my surprise. it looked stunning and yet it was DX9 which makes me wonder why some games that dont have a good gameplay or story still has some dx10 or dx11 elements. The developers thus force us (IMO) to buy a newer gpu only for little bells and whistles while offering nothing great in return.

An x1950 is ancient. You can't expect a 5 year old card to play all current games. If that is what you are complaining about your expectations are simply unreasonable. As the DX stuff just because you can make a game look great on DX9 doesn't mean you can't continue improving things. What game designers focus on is up to them. Card manufacturers just try to make the best technology they can currently produce available.
So... yeah, you are going to need a new video card at least every 5 years. If you consider that unfair then... I don't know what to tell you but it's no reason to object to the existence of DX10 and DX11. They are there to give developers more options. You mention Crysis 2 which is perfect example. It looks great in DX9 but there is also a DX11 patch which adds "bells and whistles" as you put it. If you don't consider them worthwhile then don't use it but a lot of people think it adds to the game and the additions wouldn't be possible if we were still stuck on DX9.

 

[henrytowns]

An x1950 is ancient. You can't expect a 5 year old card to play all current games. If that is what you are complaining about your expectations are simply unreasonable. As the DX stuff just because you can make a game look great on DX9 doesn't mean you can't continue improving things. What game designers focus on is up to them. Card manufacturers just try to make the best technology they can currently produce available.
So... yeah, you are going to need a new video card at least every 5 years. If you consider that unfair then... I don't know what to tell you but it's no reason to object to the existence of DX10 and DX11. They are there to give developers more options. You mention Crysis 2 which is perfect example. It looks great in DX9 but there is also a DX11 patch which adds "bells and whistles" as you put it. If you don't consider them worthwhile then don't use it but a lot of people think it adds to the game and the additions wouldn't be possible if we were still stuck on DX9.

thanks for the explanation! ofcourse i love new improvements and DX11 is most welcome. Dirt 2 looked fabulous on it and Crysis 2 as well with the new patch. i just was complaning against many new developers which produce average games which dont work on any DX9 gpu and look very mediocre with "fewer"bells and whistles justifying higher gpu requirements . Like u said how developers use it is up to them. So i understand that.

The discussion has drifted to other direction a little but my basic question has been answered. (i am trying to mark it as solved but cant!)
Thank you all.

 

[GreenDutchAlien]

(i am trying to mark it as solved but cant!)

You could ask a moderator i believe.

 

[jyjjy]

You started this as a discussion thread, not a question thread so there is no solved/best answer.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Shoulda been closed after the first post.

And I see the forum's as buggy as evah too, trying to load extraneous junk!

You started this as a discussion thread, not a question thread so there is no solved/best answer.

I don't even see why there's a discussion option anymore, it's pretty much only Q&A around here.