Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Video Game News › [EG] Confirmed: Watch Dogs PS4 900p, Xbox One 792p, both 30fps
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[EG] Confirmed: Watch Dogs PS4 900p, Xbox One 792p, both 30fps - Page 23

post #221 of 387
what's photo-realistic or not is completely subjective. There are environments on a few 360 games such as red dead, where the distant canyons may appear "photo realistic". Sure not once you get it to a high res, but if you keep it at a low res, you can fool someone.
Alot of racing games appear close to photo realistic as well. The environments look pretty good, it's the human faces where there's trouble. and many of you are judging based on human faces, which is not exactly the definition of "photo realistic", since there is no requirement for a specific detail such as human faces
post #222 of 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ownage96 View Post

Wow, 400$ for a gaming machine that cant even play a game in 1080p and on top of that only 30fps at 900p/792p!! This is pathetic considering that we are in 2014! I was gaming at 1050p 7 years ago on PC lol.

So you played at 1080p 7 years ago.... so what, phones play games at 1080p, but do those games look as good as some of these games on this 400$ machine? Getting something to 1080p does not make the game magically look good, as posted in earlier shots in this thread.

My guess on why this game is 900p 30fps on the ps4 and not higher is simply because they are still making this game for the Xbox 360 and the ps3. I think once developers stop making games for the last set of consoles the visuals and frame rates will improve.
post #223 of 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by felon View Post

what's photo-realistic or not is completely subjective. There are environments on a few 360 games such as red dead, where the distant canyons may appear "photo realistic". Sure not once you get it to a high res, but if you keep it at a low res, you can fool someone.
Alot of racing games appear close to photo realistic as well. The environments look pretty good, it's the human faces where there's trouble. and many of you are judging based on human faces, which is not exactly the definition of "photo realistic", since there is no requirement for a specific detail such as human faces

You do have a point. Arma II at 240p could potentially be passed of as real.

Like in the live leak incident.
video --> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d1e_1317157057



It was enough to fool some people but to many of us on OCN (and lots of other people as well) could tell pretty soon its was fake even though it was captured form an screen using an crappy/shaky phone camera.

Its not what I would consider photo realistic.

But what I would call photo realistic graphics in gaming is when that immersion is never broken meaning you can walk around and look at stuff and it still holds up. Not just form that one angle for a split second screen shot.
Edited by Bit_reaper - 5/15/14 at 11:14pm
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 OC 4.0 GHz 1.35v HT on Asus P6T 1366 SLI Gigabyte GTX 970 OCZ 12GB DDR3 GOLD/Platinum mix 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung Spinpoint F1 1TB Western digital 300GB Western digital Caviar Blue 1TB Samsung 840 EVO 250Gb 
Optical DriveCoolingOSMonitor
generic LG DVD WC'd , Supreme LT, NexXxoS Xtreme III 360, Phob... Windows 7 x64 Samsung 27" LED S27A550B 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
ACER 23" x233H Dell U3415W Logitech G11 Chieftec 850W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Phanteks enthoo luxe Razer deathAdder respawn steelseries Qck Yamaha HTR-6130 AV Receiver 
AudioAudio
Yamaha NS-50B floor tower speakers miditech Audiolink II stereo sound card 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 OC 4.0 GHz 1.35v HT on Asus P6T 1366 SLI Gigabyte GTX 970 OCZ 12GB DDR3 GOLD/Platinum mix 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung Spinpoint F1 1TB Western digital 300GB Western digital Caviar Blue 1TB Samsung 840 EVO 250Gb 
Optical DriveCoolingOSMonitor
generic LG DVD WC'd , Supreme LT, NexXxoS Xtreme III 360, Phob... Windows 7 x64 Samsung 27" LED S27A550B 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
ACER 23" x233H Dell U3415W Logitech G11 Chieftec 850W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Phanteks enthoo luxe Razer deathAdder respawn steelseries Qck Yamaha HTR-6130 AV Receiver 
AudioAudio
Yamaha NS-50B floor tower speakers miditech Audiolink II stereo sound card 
  hide details  
Reply
post #224 of 387
year 2005 - PS3/Xbox 360 - DirectX 9.0C - 30~60FPS, 720~1080p
year 2013 - PS4/Xbox One - DirectX 11.1 - 30~60FPS, 720~1080p

Pretty sad if you ask me. 8 years and the only thing that changed was the DirectX level. Whatever happened to electronics doubling in speeds every 2 years? The reason is obvious, Sony/Microsoft made the PS4/Xbox One at cost (underpowered) while the PS3/Xbox360 lost them hundreds of dollars (overpowered) on each console sale. I guess I can't really hold it against them when Sony is still loosing hundreds of millions year over year even with a successful PS4 launch. Oh and here comes the PC:

year 2005 - PC - DirectX 9.0c - 60FPS, 1600p
year 2013 - PC - DirectX 11.1 - 60FPS, 2160p

Unfortunately in the year 2005 it was only a few thousand dollars to reach those numbers. Now in 2013 we're looking at several thousand dollars. I'm not sure if I can still support this hobby anymore at the rate it's going (hint: Nvidia's new GPU pricing strategies). I highly doubt in another 8 years (2021?) when the next consoles come out they will even run 4k and 30FPS. I'd wager 1080p 60FPS most likely with 4k support for low 2D and/or Arcade style games.
Edited by Seyumi - 5/15/14 at 11:21pm
post #225 of 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seyumi View Post

year 2005 - PS3/Xbox 360 - DirectX 9.0C - 30~60FPS, 720~1080p
year 2013 - PS4/Xbox One - DirectX 11.1 - 30~60FPS, 720~1080p

Pretty sad if you ask me. 8 years and the only thing that changed was the DirectX level. Whatever happened to electronics doubling in speeds every 2 years? The reason is obvious, Sony/Microsoft made the PS4/Xbox One at cost (underpowered) while the PS3/Xbox360 lost them hundreds of dollars (overpowered) on each console sale. I guess I can't really hold it against them when Sony is still loosing hundreds of millions year over year even with a successful PS4 launch. Oh and here comes the PC:

year 2005 - PC - DirectX 9.0c - 60FPS, 1600p
year 2013 - PC - DirectX 11.1 - 60FPS, 2160p

Unfortunately in the year 2005 it was only a few thousand dollars to reach those numbers. Now in 2013 we're looking at several thousand dollars. I'm not sure if I can still support this hobby anymore at the rate it's going (hint: Nvidia's new GPU pricing strategies). I highly doubt in another 8 years (2021?) when the next consoles come out they will even run 4k and 30FPS. I'd wager 1080p 60FPS most likely with 4k support for low 2D and/or Arcade style games.

ya did you forget the cost for the builds during 2005 to hit 1600p with ease? Did you also forget the cost to get constant 60fps at 4k? Now go try that with a $400 budget and let me know how that goes. You also must have forgotten that there's only a select few games that hit 1080p last gen.
post #226 of 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by theturbofd View Post

ya did you forget the cost for the builds during 2005 to hit 1600p with ease? Did you also forget the cost to get constant 60fps at 4k? Now go try that with a $400 budget and let me know how that goes. You also must have forgotten that there's only a select few games that hit 1080p last gen.

Read my last paragraph wink.gif My numbers obviously aren't exact. I actually don't think 1600p was out until 2007.
post #227 of 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by theturbofd View Post

ya did you forget the cost for the builds during 2005 to hit 1600p with ease? Did you also forget the cost to get constant 60fps at 4k? Now go try that with a $400 budget and let me know how that goes. You also must have forgotten that there's only a select few games that hit 1080p last gen.


I think 4k today is actually easier then 1600p in 05. Back then multi gpu setups didn't really work so even if you threw a crap ton of money on an rig you where still more then anything limited by available hardware.

Honestly Sony could have made a much more powerful console. Even just bumping up the price $50 would have enabled them to enhance the hardware that much more. The real reason why the PS4 specs are what they are is thanks to the Xbone. Sony simply set out to build something that was faster then the competition instead of trying to push the envelope like they did with the PS3.

They started of with an faster GPU. When final specs where coming in they noticed that M$ was going for 8GB of DDR3 while they where going for 4GB GDDR5 so they bumped it up to 8.

In case of the CPU's I actually aren't sure what the final speeds ended up as. Both started at 1.6Ghz but as final binning came in at least M$ raised that to 1.75Ghz while Sony ended up officially sticking to 1.6Ghz but bench marks show that they put in some sort of boost tech or something as the PS4 still manages to pull ahead to the Xbone in at least some of the CPU tests.

source --> http://vr-zone.com/articles/sony-reveals-ps4s-cpu-clock-frequency-runs-8-x-1-6-ghz-43-times-powerful-ps2/73617.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=sony-reveals-ps4s-cpu-clock-frequency-runs-8-x-1-6-ghz-43-times-powerful-ps2


I think the two horse race (as Nintendo is content to stick to its own little niche) is really hurting console gaming. It would be real nice if some one could shake things up a bit. Things like the Ouya and other micro consoles aren't really enough and Valve is taking its sweat time with the steam box (is that ever going to get somewhere). How about it SEGA? Feel like making Dreamcast II tongue.gif
Edited by Bit_reaper - 5/16/14 at 12:19am
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 OC 4.0 GHz 1.35v HT on Asus P6T 1366 SLI Gigabyte GTX 970 OCZ 12GB DDR3 GOLD/Platinum mix 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung Spinpoint F1 1TB Western digital 300GB Western digital Caviar Blue 1TB Samsung 840 EVO 250Gb 
Optical DriveCoolingOSMonitor
generic LG DVD WC'd , Supreme LT, NexXxoS Xtreme III 360, Phob... Windows 7 x64 Samsung 27" LED S27A550B 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
ACER 23" x233H Dell U3415W Logitech G11 Chieftec 850W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Phanteks enthoo luxe Razer deathAdder respawn steelseries Qck Yamaha HTR-6130 AV Receiver 
AudioAudio
Yamaha NS-50B floor tower speakers miditech Audiolink II stereo sound card 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 OC 4.0 GHz 1.35v HT on Asus P6T 1366 SLI Gigabyte GTX 970 OCZ 12GB DDR3 GOLD/Platinum mix 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung Spinpoint F1 1TB Western digital 300GB Western digital Caviar Blue 1TB Samsung 840 EVO 250Gb 
Optical DriveCoolingOSMonitor
generic LG DVD WC'd , Supreme LT, NexXxoS Xtreme III 360, Phob... Windows 7 x64 Samsung 27" LED S27A550B 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
ACER 23" x233H Dell U3415W Logitech G11 Chieftec 850W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Phanteks enthoo luxe Razer deathAdder respawn steelseries Qck Yamaha HTR-6130 AV Receiver 
AudioAudio
Yamaha NS-50B floor tower speakers miditech Audiolink II stereo sound card 
  hide details  
Reply
post #228 of 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seyumi View Post

year 2005 - PS3/Xbox 360 - DirectX 9.0C - 30~60FPS, 720~1080p
year 2013 - PS4/Xbox One - DirectX 11.1 - 30~60FPS, 720~1080p

Pretty sad if you ask me. 8 years and the only thing that changed was the DirectX level. Whatever happened to electronics doubling in speeds every 2 years? The reason is obvious, Sony/Microsoft made the PS4/Xbox One at cost (underpowered) while the PS3/Xbox360 lost them hundreds of dollars (overpowered) on each console sale. I guess I can't really hold it against them when Sony is still loosing hundreds of millions year over year even with a successful PS4 launch. Oh and here comes the PC:

year 2005 - PC - DirectX 9.0c - 60FPS, 1600p
year 2013 - PC - DirectX 11.1 - 60FPS, 2160p

Unfortunately in the year 2005 it was only a few thousand dollars to reach those numbers. Now in 2013 we're looking at several thousand dollars. I'm not sure if I can still support this hobby anymore at the rate it's going (hint: Nvidia's new GPU pricing strategies). I highly doubt in another 8 years (2021?) when the next consoles come out they will even run 4k and 30FPS. I'd wager 1080p 60FPS most likely with 4k support for low 2D and/or Arcade style games.
PlayStation is not DX...
Intel Killer
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD 8320 4.4ghz Gigabyte 990fx XFX R9 290 (1100/1250) 8GB DDR3 1866 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
750GB Momentus XT Corsair H80i Windows 8 3x 23" 1080p 
KeyboardPower
Logitech Mk 710 OCZ 1000 watts 
  hide details  
Reply
Intel Killer
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD 8320 4.4ghz Gigabyte 990fx XFX R9 290 (1100/1250) 8GB DDR3 1866 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
750GB Momentus XT Corsair H80i Windows 8 3x 23" 1080p 
KeyboardPower
Logitech Mk 710 OCZ 1000 watts 
  hide details  
Reply
post #229 of 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bit_reaper View Post

But what I would call photo realistic graphics in gaming is when that immersion is never broken meaning you can walk around and look at stuff and it still holds up. Not just form that one angle for a split second screen shot.

Exactly.
CGI movies have looked "photorealistic" in single frames for a very long time. For example, the Final Fantasy movie was supposed to be completely "photorealistic", and part of the marketing was to show off a picture of the main character and ask what the name of the actress was. Of course the image looked great, but the movie never fooled anyone.
To this day, I can pick out CGI almost anywhere I see it. The Star Wars prequels should have been made with more muppets (and better ones) since it was that interaction in movies like Jurassic Park that make the effects hold up so well.

Of course I'm going to tie this back into "graphics will always look bad compared to something else so at least they could keep the framerate up", but it's pretty much hopeless since the number of people who seem to care about the fluidity of image is a small minority.
And then half of those that do care seem dead set on only doing so without making any sacrifices to overall graphical quality (which is just inherently impossible).
post #230 of 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bit_reaper View Post

I think 4k today is actually easier then 1600p in 05. Back then multi gpu setups didn't really work so even if you threw a crap ton of money on an rig you where still more then anything limited by available hardware.

Honestly Sony could have made a much more powerful console. Even just bumping up the price $50 would have enabled them to enhance the hardware that much more. The real reason why the PS4 specs are what they are is thanks to the Xbone. Sony simply set out to build something that was faster then the competition instead of trying to push the envelope like they did with the PS3.

They started of with an faster GPU. When final specs where coming in they noticed that M$ was going for 8GB of DDR3 while they where going for 4GB GDDR5 so they bumped it up to 8.

In case of the CPU's I actually aren't sure what the final speeds ended up as. Both started at 1.6Ghz but as final binning came in at least M$ raised that to 1.75Ghz while Sony ended up officially sticking to 1.6Ghz but bench marks show that they put in some sort of boost tech or something as the PS4 still manages to pull ahead to the Xbone in at least some of the CPU tests.

source --> http://vr-zone.com/articles/sony-reveals-ps4s-cpu-clock-frequency-runs-8-x-1-6-ghz-43-times-powerful-ps2/73617.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=sony-reveals-ps4s-cpu-clock-frequency-runs-8-x-1-6-ghz-43-times-powerful-ps2


I think the two horse race (as Nintendo is content to stick to its own little niche) is really hurting console gaming. It would be real nice if some one could shake things up a bit. Things like the Ouya and other micro consoles aren't really enough and Valve is taking its sweat time with the steam box (is that ever going to get somewhere). How about it SEGA? Feel like making Dreamcast II tongue.gif

I completely agree. If sony offered an upgraded CPU for 100$ more I still would have paid $500 for a PS4 instead of an Xbox.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Video Game News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Video Game News › [EG] Confirmed: Watch Dogs PS4 900p, Xbox One 792p, both 30fps