Originally Posted by assaulth3ro911
Am I the only one with a brain? OKAY BEFORE ALL YOU "KNOW IT ALLs" flame me for my true comments, read, think, then comment, if it's still a stupid comment, I feel bad for you...
Computers are capable of quite a bit of graphics so far, reason why the average game isn't like Crysis is because it is taylored towards wide ranges of users with different computers, I will not go into detail as many of you should already know this
No offense meant, but apparently some nubs think they know everything because they have a 580.
Also depending on the launch date of this console, this is probably true. WHY? Because the Xbox 360 and PS3 launched with the "NEAR" highest spec hardware available for decent pricing at the time. Predicting this may be the same for the future, look at launch titles, then look at games like Crysis 2 after being optimized.
Still not convinced but still reading on to see what else you can learn?
Well then... note: on PC the games are almost never optimized for one setup... as we ALL see. Do you know how much performance we can gain from this? Note: the console is one consistent setup, from launch titles to now, like Crysis 2 and such, the graphics have improved 2x at minimum.
/rant and history lesson
Sorry for being so straight up and in your face, it is mainly meant for the very ignorant members.
You call others ignorant despite the fact that you are trying to claim that simply by having games optimised for the specific hardware (consoles) that they can somehow render what takes 40,000 processors, 104 terrabytes of memory and is ranked 193-197 in the Top 500 supercomputers in realtime.
You sir need a reality check.
Those 40,000 processors and 32 computers that comprised the render farm had to be water cooled in order to allow for the bandwidth that was required. It was also situated on a 10,000 square foot area, I can't see any console being water cooled (stock) or being 10,000 feet in area.
Lets not also forget that each frame that render farm rendered probably took a good 2-3 hours (possibly more) with pretty much the best enterprise level hardware available. Yet here you are calling others ignorant for calling out this total BS despite the fact you clearly fail to understand just how powerful a computer has to be to render those frames let alone do it in real time.
So please don't call others ignorant when you try to come across as knowledgable about the topic when you couldn't be any more wrong if you tried.
I don't mean to flame you dude but seriously, you're on a forum with people who actually know what hardware is capable of. And try and tell them that next-gen consoles will be able to render the millions and millions of polygons that Avatar is comprised of in real time and at the standard console frame rate of 30FPS. It would have taken that supercomputer over a day to render 30 frames, let alone render 30 frames in 1 second.