Has a PC game EVER been as optimized as most console games?

Fledge

Fledge

Fledge

Associate
Joined
9 Jan 2009
Posts
851
Location
Olney
Simple question:

If you had a PC with the same CPU / GPU / RAM as...let's say a PS3, and you played X game on it. Has X game ever have the same performance on both machines? This is with identical graphics settings.

I just had this thought today as I was discussing with my friend of mine how Crysis 2 going to console is greatly a good thing as Cryengine3 has been optimized beyond belief so it can run on consoles. I quote "The 260/285 are eating it for breakfast" (Crytek employee at Cryengine3sandbox demo).

If PC games were optimized this much then surely we wouldn't need beastly 5970's for many years.

Or have I approached this wrongly? If so I'd like to be enlightened :D
 
You have a strange definition for "Optimised". You also appear to think that the American's spell said word correctly.
 
I don't see whats wrong with using optimized, tho coming from a programming background I tend to use optimized, color, etc.
 
console games are not optimised that well. Thats why they get up-scaled from stupid low resolutions such as 640x480 then claim its 720p.
 
Ross1234 said:
console games are not optimised that well. Thats why they get up-scaled from stupid low resolutions such as 640x480 then claim its 720p.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with that. If you look at the specs on a PS3 or Xbox 360 they are very low. For the hardware they have, they perform VERY well.

To answer the question: not really. I'd say running Half life 2 on a single-core CPU with a 9800pro or something similar is comparable with a console running a modern game in terms that the newer game looks better but in line with the increased hardware, if that makes sense.:p
 
Ahh Mame you speak my language!

But I wonder, will we ever reach a point when ridiculously expensice hardware simply isn't needed? I suppose the hardware brands wouldn't like it, but it COULD become a possiblilty...maybe.
 
quake was optimised stupidly well! it scaled with hardware like no other game i know of ever did, :P (games used cpu for most things back then though but it was amazing how well the game looked running at silly fps compared to how it looked at like 30

optimised can mean anything optimised for what?

optimised and optimal are 2 very different beasts
 
The quake 3/idtech3 engine still forms the basis of Modern Warfare 2 thats how well that engine is optimized/scales :D
 
Fledge said:
Ahh Mame you speak my language!

But I wonder, will we ever reach a point when ridiculously expensice hardware simply isn't needed? I suppose the hardware brands wouldn't like it, but it COULD become a possiblilty...maybe.
Click to expand...

Probably. back in the 90s people used to talk about sound quality in games. Sample rate, 4 channel or 8 channels etc and of course it was all limited by storage. That's not really an issue today, you could only knock game music in an artistic way.

I don't think the next generation of console will be just about better graphics. I mean, they will be batter but they will be as much about innovation than GPU power. They will probably be online/download based like itunes.

I think the further we progess with hardware/graphics, the less important each generation is. When I went from an Amstrad CPC 464 to an Amiga 500 that was a huge increase. Again when people traded in their Megadrive or SNES for a Playstation 1, that too was a massive increase. Moving from a PS2 to a PS3 wasn't as big a jump. It was the online, hardrive, extra storage, wireless etc that made up the difference.

In a funny way it's probably why the CD has lasted so long. The sound quality is more than good enough for 99% of people and they are a decent size. They have tried and failed to launch DCC, Minidisc, DVD audio and probably some others. It's just not needed. In fact, people are opting to use lower quality MP3's for their innovation. So yes, we could get to the point and extra graphics power isn't that important.
 
Last edited:
I have worked with a few engines such as Unity and UDK. I generally make my games for PC use as making them for console is slightly different as even though the components are similar, they work slightly different. The memory useage on a console is smaller too, and when you look at a console game in engine without clipping mode on, its quiet different from a PC.

I tend to think of consoles as being more direct at games. A PC is very general, we just choose to play games on it, hence why we have put big money into the hardware for it. I think that if a PC was made that was soley for gaming, a "gaming only" OS would be great, as system resources then could be directed at game use.

I know thats not a clear cut statement but does anyone understand where I am coming from?
 
Fledge said:
Simple question:

If you had a PC with the same CPU / GPU / RAM as...let's say a PS3, and you played X game on it. Has X game ever have the same performance on both machines? This is with identical graphics settings.

I just had this thought today as I was discussing with my friend of mine how Crysis 2 going to console is greatly a good thing as Cryengine3 has been optimized beyond belief so it can run on consoles. I quote "The 260/285 are eating it for breakfast" (Crytek employee at Cryengine3sandbox demo).

If PC games were optimized this much then surely we wouldn't need beastly 5970's for many years.

Or have I approached this wrongly? If so I'd like to be enlightened :D
Click to expand...

the fact that most consoles run games in resolutions that pcs where using in the early nineties helps :p
 
The thing is console games are only 'optimised' for a very small number of platforms. Some might argue that, in fact, that's isn't really optimising - it is more 'tailoring' for a given configuration. True optimisation is when a game is fully scalable on a wide range of hardware (Quake 3 engine being a good example).

But to answer your original question, no, a PC with exactly the same hardware as a PS3 wouldn't run the game as well in the same settings, as it would have additional overheads.
 
Are they really optimised though, i was under the impression that developer usually cater to the lowest common denominator first and then transfer the game to other more capable consoles.
 
The main problem with all of this is that game companies are trying to make one product for 3 platforms Xbox360/PS3/PC.

It is said that the Xbox holds the PS3 back because companies are under pressure to release a single DVD game. Once you go down the multi-disc route (which some games are now) it's very inefficient because then much of the common game data has to be on every disc. So even though they could make a 50gb disc, they are restricted. Then there is the PC. Now there's 3 main problems here. the first is that the PC is by far the smallest market share of the 3. The next problem is that, in most cases, the game itself has never aspired to be anything more than something a low spec console can run so it's often a case of turning textures and resolution up as best they can. most companies would be reluclant to start all over again to make a superior product for the smallest market share platform. If they have already covered 85% of the market share, how much money are they going to spend improving sales of the last 15%? it's not like it's going to sell nothing in its current state. The final problem is once they are at this stage, they run the game on a PC and find that it runs pretty good because the PC is far more powerful than the other 2 platforms. So they release it, it works.

Now before anyone starts saying I'm putting the PC down, look at my sig. and then notice that it's only the game companies that I am criticising.
 
Last edited:
Calm said:
Are they really optimised though, i was under the impression that developer usually cater to the lowest common denominator first and then transfer the game to other more capable consoles.
Click to expand...

they usually make them for the 360as it;s easier and can be ported to the pc with less issues as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom