EvaUnit02 on 28/5/2009 at 16:19
Wow, that's a really enlightening link.
Quote:
Xbox 360
Alone in the Dark = 1040x600 (2xAA)
Call of Duty 4 = 1024x600 (2xAA)
Call of Duty: World at War = 1024x600 (2x AA)
Tomb Raider Underworld = 1024x576 (2xAA) - depth buffer is 1040x576
Holy fucking shit, those resolutions aren't even close to approaching the lowest HD resolution (720p), they're almost running at the same resolution as fucking PAL widescreen (1024x576)!!!
The console versions of CoD 4 & 5 do run at a constant 60fps, so they obvious sacrificed the resolution to achieve that.
Well I suppose I shouldn't really be surprised, PS3 and 360 are about equal to high end PC's from 2005.
The 360's Xenos GPU was the forerunner to modern DX10 cards, being the direct ancestor of the ATI HD2900. I guess that it must be bottlenecked by having fuck all RAM (512MB total, regardless of system or VRAM). Imagine how worse it would've been if Epic hadn't convinced MS to up the RAM count.
But the HD2900 was fairly shit performance wise in comparison to Nvidia 8800GTS (G80), so maybe Xenos wasn't as crash hot as they said it was?
steo on 28/5/2009 at 16:30
Yeah, that is pretty enlightening. Plus it gives us PC gamers more to gloat about.
Jason Moyer on 28/5/2009 at 19:29
Wow, those are some shit resolutions. Thanks for the link.
ZylonBane on 28/5/2009 at 21:22
Ahhh, resolution whores. Cute.
fett on 28/5/2009 at 21:29
See, I just want to play games, and you guys are off into HD algebra which I care fuck all about. All I know is I can play Oblivion on my 4 year old, $1500 PC without a hitch and it looks awesome, yet looks like crap anytime I've seen it on a console. Are those trees in the distance or did someone piss green all over the screen? I honestly can't tell the difference.
steo on 28/5/2009 at 21:38
Resolution whores? Ever try playing San Andreas on the PC and then playing it on the PS2? Good God, it looks horrible.
Zerker on 28/5/2009 at 21:43
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
It takes a pretty hefty PC to play something like Bioshock or Mass Effect at 1920×1080.
Bioshock ran great at 1920 X 1200 my previous Athlon 64 x2 with Radeon X1900XTX. Runs even better on my Mac Pro at 2560 x 1600 with 8800 GT. Yes, the Mac Pro is pretty beefy, but the 8800 really isn't any more.
Renzatic on 28/5/2009 at 22:50
Hell, even with FPS numbers being posted, what equates as fine for one guy is absolute framey shit for another. You've got a wide spectrum between "As long as I can maintain 25 FPS, I'm fine" to "COUNTERSTRIKE IS UNPLAYABLE AT ANYTHING BELOW 150 FPS" to take into consideration here.
Volitions Advocate on 28/5/2009 at 23:34
I'm in the former category.
What I can't stand is playing a game like Fable on the 360, and despite the ramped up hardware it still runs at 4.5 fps when there's more than 5 things on screen.
steo on 29/5/2009 at 00:02
Well, I wouldn't want to play Counter-Strike with 25fps, but I played through Stalker the first time with 10-25fps, because I wanted full dynamic lighting. Obviously different games have different requirements, fast paced FPS multiplayer being the highest.
