Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Nov 2, 2012.
yes for sure, why not?
Well, just look at PS3. It's basically being powered by GeForce 7900 and most games look like 2012 titles on PC. I won't say in every aspect but to casual gamer, there won't be much difference...
Well, the highly optimized and well coded nature of the Xbox 360 allows it to do roughly what a card one generation superior to it can do (an 8800 GTX).
The difference between an APU and a 7970 is a lot bigger than the difference between a modded 7900 series chip and an 8800 GTX.
The PS3 & Xbox 360 are rendering games at 720p around 30fps... you don't need much GPU power to do that on the PC. An 8800 series card will still do that just fine on anything as long as the game is compatible with dx10 or earlier (and it will do a lot more than that in most cases e.g. Skyrim, anything UE3 powered).
I have a single 7950 on an amd 945. At stock I max everything out 1920x1200, 60FPS.
No. No you don't. Not unless you're one of those people who considers turning down the AA to still be "max" settings.
Maybe you max all your games at 60fps if you don't own some of the more demanding ones, but you're not getting 60fps minimum framerates in all the demanding games out there on a single card. BF3 multiplayer is the most obvious example.
Crysis 3 is the only exception.
Recent titles I have played are BF3 and Sleeping dogs, both are astounding.
Don't get upset just because the $900 you spent on your CFX setup is more or less useless for the time being.
Also, those are pre 12.11, and ran at x1600, mine at x1200. I know you are new here, but do some research before posting "sources"
Lol w/e man... if you want to claim you've got a magic setup, go ahead. Arkham City, Sleeping Dogs, those are just two other recent examples of things that a single card doesn't do 60fps minimum framerate in (they don't even get close btw).
But hey maybe your card is a magic card that does far better than all the benchmarks say.
I wonder what the selling point will be? I mean A10 APU wont differ to much from the PS3 to be easily noticeable to the average user. I really hope its A10 APU and maybe a 7770 or something a long with it. If this turns out to be true I doubt most of the high end users (PC) will need to upgrade any time soon than.
You just disregard the fact that I disproved your argument using actual facts.
You are just embarrassing yourself.
Back on topic, the SNES had a 3.58 MHZ processor. For a computer to emulate the SNES perfectly, it has to be over 300MHZ. This is not a very accurate example per say because of the taxing elements of emulating hardware, but gives us a good example of what a small amount of dedicated power can do.
Bad example. Hes not running Physx. He will do 60FPS at 1920 all day in Batman:AC without that.
On topic: These are some nice specs if true. WiiU will have some competition in a year or so.
What facts? The "o wait those benchmarks are wrong my card actually does way better" facts?
And PhysX doesn't matter for Batman AC - 60fps is out of reach for single GPUs.
Also Guild Wars 2:
Sleeping Dogs isn't even close:
Those are just a few examples which could be multiplied over and over.
Now, you might have a magic card that does far better than any benchmark suggests. If your card is magic, then good for you!
Don't forget that all my claims have always been about minimum framerate, not average. And no AA isn't max settings...
Really an A10 APU will be enough for 60FPS at 1080p if a 7900 can do 30FPS at 720/1080p
... What rock do you live under? Though the Batman has no AA
"New PlayStation 4! Now with more HD & 3D!"
The majority of people that buy consoles couldn't care less about its innards.
Maybe lrn2read? :shadedshu
About TPU's test of Sleeping Dogs:
"We tested at highest settings with super-sampling disabled."
PhysX doesn't matter for Batman AC? Wait what? Dude come on you got to be joking.
I give up, there is no convincing him.
Oh look, another Arkham Asylum with a 7950 getting no less than 80 fps.
And why would you be looking at the minimum? There will always be significantly low hitches that are minuscule and provide a very irrelevant statistic.
Did you even check my link? :shadedshu
No PhysX doesn't magically make a 79xx card hit 60fps minimum framerates. Without PhysX, at 1080p, that's a 7970 getting 28fps minimum.
Obviously PhysX increases visuals and matters, but in the context of this discussion, it's irrelevant - PhysX or no, you're not getting 60fps min fps on Batman AC with maxed out settings.
Yes, a 7950 will do 60fps average framerate in everything if in a few circumstances you're willing to turn down the AA options.
No, a (non-magic) 7950 will not do 60fps minimum framerate in the most demanding games with maxed settings.
Here's a hint for you all: posting benchmarks that don't have minimum fps data and which have AA options turned down (as has been done so far), does nothing other than prove my point.
And if you are using the minimum framerate, you are ignorant. This isn't like the minimum average, this is the absolute minimum one-time split-second frame drop.
Edited: didn't want to offend.
^That. Considering a value that only is present for a maximum of a second is incredibly relevant for the overall gaming experience.
Do you even nVidia?
Since when does PhysX work on Radeon cards?
Yeah, because it's tons of fun to be playing at 60fps and suddenly find yourself chugging along at 25fps...
If you don't care about minimum fps, why did you even start trying to argue with me in the first place? Not my fault you chose to pick a losing fight without thinking carefully.
For ATI/AMD GPU's physx works on the CPU
There is no convincing anyone. The mods will be involved if this continues. If there is anyone who wants to argue further, might be a good idea to PM.
why are people even discussing this bullsh!t from sony. why would you even consider buying this after the crap they put us ps3 owners through!!!! boycott!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Separate names with a comma.