Thread replies: 6
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
File: vulkan doom.jpg (100KB, 548x629px) Image search:
[Google]
100KB, 548x629px
>Modern consoles like ps4 are pretty much a HD7850 + 2x laptop processors
>getting all the benefits of low level access to the hardware and not needing to optimise for a variety of configurations
>still limited to 720p60fps or 1080p30fps
Can someone please explain this to me?
I'm especially confused because consoles aren't even using ultra settings like on pc, so those specs should be easily capable of achieving 1080p 60fps minimum fps, yet alone average.
On desktop you can easily get 60fps in most games on low or medium with a HD7790 or 7770, why can't the 7850 in the consoles compete?
>>
Because "pretty much" doesn't equate to actual hardware comparisons. A Nissan GTR and Nissan Pathfinders are pretty much V6 engine vehicles. Why is the GTR so much faster?
>>
>>55925676
I see where you're coming from, but if an r7 260x + i3 3220 can get 60fps 1080p on desktop with medium/high settings why can't a console?
I'm talking about games like gta v, bf4.
My 260x is plenty for gtav medium and bf4 high.
I don't play any other games to test it on, but I'm sure you get my point.
>>
>>55925626
>R7 370 above 780ti
>7970 below 7950
>280X below 380X
LOL
i highly doubt these are valid
>>
File: 3021266-rise+of+tomb+raider+dx12+gameworks.png (38KB, 741x566px) Image search:
[Google]
38KB, 741x566px
>>55925775
You only get these results on vulkan for some weird reason. Dx12 is fine for kepler
>>
File: 3017554-gears_of_war__ultimate__1920.jpg (103KB, 931x960px) Image search:
[Google]
103KB, 931x960px
>>55925801
Thread posts: 6
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3