Will next-gen games run better on AMD 8350 than 3770K?

[Ollie1132]

This latest gen of Consoles are PC's, deliberately to make porting back and forth easy.

They will still be working differently to how a PC works, mainly in the coding aspect of things. Im still in the mind set they should for go porting to PC's make the games for PC's first then port to console higher quality games better graphics and since this gen is pretty much "PC" tech anyway... wheres the harm?

 

[humbug]

They will still be working differently to how a PC works, mainly in the coding aspect of things. Im still in the mind set they should for go porting to PC's make the games for PC's first then port to console higher quality games better graphics and since this gen is pretty much "PC" tech anyway... wheres the harm?

given that they are PC hardware they will be codded to run on PC hardware.

No harm.

 

[Ollie1132]

given that they are PC hardware they will be codded to run on PC hardware.

No harm.

Yet they will be made for Console and ported to PC D: I still generally hate consoles and view them as a very bad thing to the games industry. Hopefully once I finish Uni I'll be able to get a job at a developer that developes for PC only.

 

[humbug]

Yet they will be made for Console and ported to PC D: I still generally hate consoles and view them as a very bad thing to the games industry. Hopefully once I finish Uni I'll be able to get a job at a developer that developes for PC only.

They are a necessary evil, the gaming industry would not survive without Consoles, they make up a significantly larger proportion of their revenue.

Personally i don't mind at all that they exist, just as long as we continue to get all the visual perks.
And we do.

 

[Ollie1132]

They are a necessary evil, the gaming industry would not survive without Consoles, they make up a significantly larger proportion of their revenue.

Personally i don't mind at all that they exist, just as long as we continue to get all the visual perks.
And we do.

Yeah I know. This generation will hopefully be the last.. Mobile gaming is just too big now. AAA titles cost too much for what they are becoming. Tbh the next jump (since now every house has at least 1 computer) is for the industry to hit hard and fast onto PC gaming/Mobile gaming ASAP. Only way itll keep going.

 

[spoffle]

Yet they will be made for Console and ported to PC D: I still generally hate consoles and view them as a very bad thing to the games industry. Hopefully once I finish Uni I'll be able to get a job at a developer that developes for PC only.

You do games development and still talk about "console ports" and claim to hate consoles? What are they teaching you?

 

[Ollie1132]

You do games development and still talk about "console ports" and claim to hate consoles? What are they teaching you?

They are teaching me how to program. I'm not a fan of how consoles have crippled game eveolution as such. Think of it this way, my PC has a 670 and a 2600k so thats 2 years out of date CPU and this years 2nd best GPU pretty much. So it's quite damn powerful. Take a mid range PC, say a 2500k/8350 add a 660ti/79XX you've got a beast. Take into account that the games aren't using the CPU 100% yet when they could be, then take into account that the graphics are being used but only because the developers have to rehaul the graphics for PC releases. Now say they made the graphics for the PC to begin with better quality more efficient coding etc etc. Graphics cards being used less + better games. Also GPU's are doing a hell of a lot of physics work when the CPU could be doing it instead.

 

[zakblood]

if the programmers of most games, actually wrote good code, then optimised it for multi threads, games might just look and play better and faster, but they don't.

instead they wait for better hardware to come out so they can still be so lazy and sloppy with the code, if you look at 1k demo's written/coded well you can be amazed at what can be done it so little a space, if you ramped it up and made them only work with what they had got instead of keep giving them more, we might all get a game worth having, so many xbox and PlayStation games get more out of less than most pc games because of sometimes better programmers.

we don't need to keep bringing out more and more hardware, just utilize what you have got better, as i'm sure most will agree most pc hardware still doesn't get fully used, no matter what the make and spec is.

i can think of many games that were so so when they came out, then the community got involved and made it better, with a few tweaks and codes / patches, it doesn't take much and if a lone programmer can do it, i'm sure most software houses could, if they wanted to.

2/4/6 or 8 cores matter little if they don't use them correctly and efficiently

 

[spoffle]

They are teaching me how to program. I'm not a fan of how consoles have crippled game eveolution as such.

No they haven't, consoles are necessary, and haven't crippled game development. Game development relies on consoles.

Think of it this way, my PC has a 670 and a 2600k so thats 2 years out of date CPU and this years 2nd best GPU pretty much. So it's quite damn powerful.

More like fifth best, but yes, it is powerful.

Take a mid range PC, say a 2500k/8350 add a 660ti/79XX you've got a beast. Take into account that the games aren't using the CPU 100% yet when they could be

I'm really struggling to believe you are doing games development. CPU usage is based on variables. Often you need a lot of graphics power to push CPU usage hard.

then take into account that the graphics are being used but only because the developers have to rehaul the graphics for PC releases.

Not really, they don't actually have to overhaul the graphics for a PC release. Textures made in the studio are at a much higher quality than what the consoles end up using, for example. It's a lot more complex than that.

Now say they made the graphics for the PC to begin with better quality more efficient coding etc etc. Graphics cards being used less + better games. Also GPU's are doing a hell of a lot of physics work when the CPU could be doing it instead.

That's not really how it works, and GPUs aren't doing a hell of a lot of physic work either. There's PhysX, but that's barely used, and nVidia have purposefully made it run poorly on CPUs to exaggerate the performance of it on their graphics cards.

 

[Martini1991]

No they haven't, consoles are necessary, and haven't crippled game development. Game development relies on consoles.

Game development relies on consoles because consoles are the lowest denominator, so yes they have crippled game development, unless of course you think the stagnation of games we've had for years isn't because of the current generation of consoles.

 

[Ollie1132]

No they haven't, consoles are necessary, and haven't crippled game development. Game development relies on consoles.

More like fifth best, but yes, it is powerful.




I'm really struggling to believe you are doing games development. CPU usage is based on variables. Often you need a lot of graphics power to push CPU usage hard.



Not really, they don't actually have to overhaul the graphics for a PC release. Textures made in the studio are at a much higher quality than what the consoles end up using, for example. It's a lot more complex than that.



That's not really how it works, and GPUs aren't doing a hell of a lot of physic work either. There's PhysX, but that's barely used, and nVidia have purposefully made it run poorly on CPUs to exaggerate the performance of it on their graphics cards.

Games development does NOT rely on games consoles. Please look at the iPhone or any android phone. LOOK at the indie market. Tell me how many of those games are being MADE for consoles? very few really. Made for phones first then made for consoles later. Consoles may be a driving force in the industry but they aren't necessary. The textures are remade at higher res' for DX11 compatibility usually. Kinda a rehaul imo. Also note PC came first. DOS games didnt need consoles did they?

 

[spoffle]

Mate. SHUT THE HELL UP LOL.

Nice rebuttal...

CPU's in games are used for calculations. GPU's for graphics, now take OpenGL right? Okay so we have a 3d object that is graphically moving. So lets see thats using the GPU to render + do calculations ON THE OBJECT. got it? Okay good. Now take say a BF3, now we have bullets that are rendered + physically calculated on the GPU not the CPU.

Right, both the GPU and CPU do calculations...

The GPU doesn't process the physics, it just doesn't. Just because the GPU processes the visual representation of the bullet's trajectory doesn't mean that that GPU is processing the physics.

Games development does NOT rely on games consoles. Please look at the iPhone or any android phone. LOOK at the indie market. Tell me how many of those games are being MADE for consoles? very few really.

You knew full well what I meant, and in general, multi platform games with advanced graphics engines rely on the consoles as the lowest common denominator.

Made for phones first then made for consoles later. Consoles may be a driving force in the industry but they aren't necessary. The textures are remade at higher res for DX11 compatibility usually. Kinda a rehaul imo.

We're not talking about mobile games, you know full well, considering the thread's title is about "next gen games"...

Textures are also not remade at higher resolutions, they are made at very high resolutions, and then sampled down for the specific hardware it's supposed to be running on.

Really, I'm really struggling to believe you're actually doing games development, have you just started or something?

How inefficient would it be to be making textures multiple times instead of making a single very high res version, and sampling it down depending on its use? It would be a complete waste of time.

*facepalm*

 

[Martini1991]

Textures are also not remade at higher resolutions, they are made at very high resolutions, and then sampled down for the specific hardware it's supposed to be running on.

Really? Wonder why the majority of games have god awful textures.

 

[spoffle]

Really? Wonder why the majority of games have god awful textures.

Because generally, they're lazy. They do the textures for the console version and then just use the same assets for the PC version.

That wasn't my point anyway, I was rebutting the notion that textures are made for the console version, then new, higher res textures are remade afterwards for the PC version.

It's an insane notion to suggest that textures are done twice.

 

[Ollie1132]

You knew full well what I meant, and in general, multi platform games with advanced graphics engines rely on the consoles as the lowest common denominator.

Actually, the games world doesn't revolve around consoles. At all, this thread maybe about next gen. Development has gone well beyond just playing on a console mate.

We're not talking about mobile games, you know full well, considering the thread's title is about "next gen games"...

Again, Indie/Mobile games = a huge part of the games market. Hence the development demand for them is massive.

And remaking textures takes a bit longer but have you seen the process of developing a game lately? 2-5Yrs has been the "normal" for well about 8 years now. AAA games = long development very very long. Slow releases and badly textured etc etc.

 

[Martini1991]

Because generally, they're lazy. They do the textures for the console version and then just use the same assets for the PC version.

That wasn't my point anyway, I was rebutting the notion that textures are made for the console version, then new, higher res textures are remade afterwards for the PC version.

It's an insane notion to suggest that textures are done twice.

But then what you've said isn't currently what happens anyway, as it's evident these textures aren't at very high resolutions ?

I could settle for they use X resolution texture, and then downscale it to device.

EDIT : I like the mobile gaming market, but you just have to look at the Play Store and the downloads figure to realise it's in no way the same league (Those that are paid for, not Angry birds and the like)
I also wasn't aware that indie gaming was pushing the boundaries (/Sarcasm) I know there's some gems, and some brilliant games, as they're not always the norm, but they're not pushing gaming forward in technical development.

 

[Ollie1132]

But then what you've said isn't currently what happens anyway, as it's evident these textures aren't at very high resolutions ?

I could settle for they use X resolution texture, and then downscale it to device.

EDIT : I like the mobile gaming market, but you just have to look at the Play Store and the downloads figure to realise it's in no way the same league (Those that are paid for, not Angry birds and the like)
I also wasn't aware that indie gaming was pushing the boundaries (/Sarcasm) I know there's some gems, and some brilliant games, as they're not always the norm, but they're not pushing gaming forward in technical development.

I know they aren't pushing the boundaries forward etc. And I know that sales aren't awesome but still its part of the development. There are mobile games that push phones to the limits. Console games are only just doing that now... at the end of the consoles life span. I agree with the textures thing. But so that he gets it you can't use a DX9 texture in DX11 it would look awful,

 

[spoffle]

Actually, the games world doesn't revolve around consoles. At all, this thread maybe about next gen. Development has gone well beyond just playing on a console mate.

Yet, a lot of games rely on consoles for their development. Your argument is incoherent.

Again, Indie/Mobile games = a huge part of the games market. Hence the development demand for them is massive.

We're not talking about indie and mobile, we're talking about "next gen" which the consoles will lead.

And remaking textures takes a bit longer but have you seen the process of developing a game lately? 2-5Yrs has been the "normal" for well about 8 years now. AAA games = long development very very long. Slow releases and badly textured etc etc.

Textures are NOT remade, Seriously. Just because the development cycle is long, doesn't mean that they make textures from scratch multiple times for different resolutions. How do you think that even makes any sense? It's a waste of time, pure and simple, and doesn't happen.

But then what you've said isn't currently what happens anyway, as it's evident these textures aren't at very high resolutions ?

Well, it's easier to work on a texture that's high resolution anyway. Textures are nearly always made at "studio" resolution, and down sampled, simply because it makes the creation of the texture easier.
I could settle for they use X resolution texture, and then downscale it to device.

EDIT : I like the mobile gaming market, but you just have to look at the Play Store and the downloads figure to realise it's in no way the same league (Those that are paid for, not Angry birds and the like)

I don't even get why he's bringing it up when it's not part of the subject

 

[spoffle]

I know they aren't pushing the boundaries forward etc. And I know that sales aren't awesome but still its part of the development. There are mobile games that push phones to the limits. Console games are only just doing that now... at the end of the consoles life span. I agree with the textures thing. But so that he gets it you can't use a DX9 texture in DX11 it would look awful,

Define "DX9 texture". Honestly, you have no idea what you're talking about.

The DX version doesn't mean textures in DX9 games have to look awful. Texture mods that replace all textures with very high textures?

*facepalm*

 

[Martini1991]

The Witcher 2 for example, when that came out, arguably the most visually stunning game when maxed out (Uber sampling etc) and that was DX9.