Maybe it's the optimization, though.
If they managed to run the same engine that was used in Lost Planet PC 10 times faster in DMC4 PC then I think that's QUITE an optimization.
I wonder if they just did use some stuff/ paths/ techniques that are impossible to do on consoles because of their lack of RAM or GPU power or whatever.
We need some results from Smooth Groove, dark1x and Cajole and his new, shiny laptop.I should be able to try it later on. Based on my Lost Planet experience, I should have no troubles pulling a rock solid 60 fps at 720p. I don't really need resolutions higher than that.
Holy fuck. PCs are so much more powerful than consoles that it isn't even funny.Yes they are, but that's not a good example. The framerate in your example drops below 60 fps quite often, which does not occur in the console releases. The resolution advantage is made null and void if you are getting slowdown. The only reason the framerate is going ABOVE 60 fps is due to the lack of a vertical sync 60 Hz lock.
Holy fuck. PCs are so much more powerful than consoles that it isn't even funny.
I wasn't talking about YOUR benchmark. :PQuoteHoly fuck. PCs are so much more powerful than consoles that it isn't even funny.Yes they are, but that's not a good example. The framerate in your example drops below 60 fps quite often, which does not occur in the console releases. The resolution advantage is made null and void if you are getting slowdown. The only reason the framerate is going ABOVE 60 fps is due to the lack of a vertical sync 60 Hz lock.
Well for starters I have a notebook that I use mostly for SQL Server :lol
And, demi, I was thinking more about how a game that is absolutely 100% optimized for consoles (which is easy thing to do) is still running way better on PCs (which have random configurations).
dark1x, is this false then:I'd be surprised if they actually re-did all of the textures and such, but if so, that's pretty cool. It doesn't seem more detailed, but I've haven't looked closely yet.Quote- The Model and texture quality of Devil May Cry PC Demo will be 2.5~ 3.6 times higher the 360 version, to get better screen effect.
It's kinda hard to measure. Are the models really better? Don't forget DMC4 PC has new gameplay modes that put dozens and dozens of enemies on screen - something that is simply NOT possible in either console version. Something that is a true benefit of PC platform besides AA and high-res.
dark1x, is this false then:Quote- The Model and texture quality of Devil May Cry PC Demo will be 2.5~ 3.6 times higher the 360 version, to get better screen effect.
It's kinda hard to measure. Are the models really better? Don't forget DMC4 PC has new gameplay modes that put dozens and dozens of enemies on screen - something that is simply NOT possible in either console version. Something that is a true benefit of PC platform besides AA and high-res.
I think this game is too hard for you, Smooth. Leave it to the console gamers.
Benchmarked in DX10 with everything in Super High at 1920x1080 w/4X AA. I can't pick 1920x1200 for some reason but it shouldn't be a big difference.Hey, you're the one using an LCD. :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
:piss Dark1x's 720P gaming with slowdown :piss2
Benchmarked in DX10 with everything in Super High at 1920x1080 w/4X AA. I can't pick 1920x1200 for some reason but it shouldn't be a big difference.Hey, you're the one using an LCD. :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
:piss Dark1x's 720P gaming with slowdown :piss2
(does benchmark)
...
this game sucks :maf
Man there's gotta be something wrong with how my rig's set up. I have a Q6600 and an 8800gt, and it still dips below 60 (in DX10) on two of the scenes at 1680x1050 and 2xAA ??? It would still be playable but :'(
I have 3gigs of RAM, 32bit Vista. Is there shit I need to be turning off? Aero effects?
Yeah that might help, but I'm looking at Smooth Groove's results in DX10, and his rig doesn't seem like it should run much better than mine... unless he has Vista 64 and a shit-ton of RAM... or the 8800GTX is that much better than the GT.Man there's gotta be something wrong with how my rig's set up. I have a Q6600 and an 8800gt, and it still dips below 60 (in DX10) on two of the scenes at 1680x1050 and 2xAA ??? It would still be playable but :'(
I have 3gigs of RAM, 32bit Vista. Is there shit I need to be turning off? Aero effects?
DX10, DX10, DX10, turn that shit off.
How many processes does your machine run?So Aero keeps eating resources even when you're playing full screen? Time to turn that shit off :-\
What applications are running in your tray?
Do you have any non-essential, unnecessary or useless applications running in the background?
Visual effects (e.g. Aero) on?
Turn all that off and your computer should be able to post improved results.
How many processes does your machine run?So Aero keeps eating resources even when you're playing full screen? Time to turn that shit off :-\
What applications are running in your tray?
Do you have any non-essential, unnecessary or useless applications running in the background?
Visual effects (e.g. Aero) on?
Turn all that off and your computer should be able to post improved results.
Maybe flushing out the config files could fix the problem. It's not going to be in C:\Program Files\CAPCOM\DEVILMAYCRY4_BENCHMARK as it will instead be in C:\Document and Settings\...\Application Data\CAPCOM\DEVILMAYCRY4_BENCHMARK (I think, I haven't used XP for a long time.)
Also, try testing the 1920x1080 resolution in other games and updating to the latest drivers for your graphics card. (Beta drivers are wonky, they might give you more or less FPS).
Yeah that might help, but I'm looking at Smooth Groove's results in DX10, and his rig doesn't seem like it should run much better than mine... unless he has Vista 64 and a shit-ton of RAM... or the 8800GTX is that much better than the GT.Man there's gotta be something wrong with how my rig's set up. I have a Q6600 and an 8800gt, and it still dips below 60 (in DX10) on two of the scenes at 1680x1050 and 2xAA ??? It would still be playable but :'(
I have 3gigs of RAM, 32bit Vista. Is there shit I need to be turning off? Aero effects?
DX10, DX10, DX10, turn that shit off.
I'll try running the DX9 bench tomorrow though and see what difference there is.
I think my computer is going to fry up and die from the benchmark. Guess I'll wait and see. :-\
Hey man I sent you an invite in UT3 yesterday! We'll be friends :-*
LMAO @ Smooth's and mamesj's results.Eh, not really. I tested my own rig and had no problems getting an S-rank at high resolutions (with v-sync disabled). With v-sync enabled and the framerate capped at 60 fps, I get a virtually perfect line across the whole test (one tiny dip) yet it scores as a B. I do think the PC version is a bit better, but I didn't think it was as necessary as many other console ports simply because it already looked and ran just fine. I was disappointed that Super High shadows were still pretty ugly, though. They seemed a bit sharper, but the pixelation was surprising considering how smooth the shadows in Lost Planet were.
dark1x and his "there's no need to play this on a PC! waste of resources! PS3 is enough! I don't like higher than 720p resolutions anyway!" owned pretty hard.
(no hard feelings dark1x)
I can't imagine RE5 PC.
It will be G L O R I O U S.
Besides, my 24" LCD monitor looks better than any CRT I've ever seen, as long as I stick to its native resolution, which I do.:lol :lol :lol
Ah, bitchin' rig :bow2Yeah that might help, but I'm looking at Smooth Groove's results in DX10, and his rig doesn't seem like it should run much better than mine... unless he has Vista 64 and a shit-ton of RAM... or the 8800GTX is that much better than the GT.Man there's gotta be something wrong with how my rig's set up. I have a Q6600 and an 8800gt, and it still dips below 60 (in DX10) on two of the scenes at 1680x1050 and 2xAA ??? It would still be playable but :'(
I have 3gigs of RAM, 32bit Vista. Is there shit I need to be turning off? Aero effects?
DX10, DX10, DX10, turn that shit off.
I'll try running the DX9 bench tomorrow though and see what difference there is.
The stats shown by the test aren't accurate. My Q6600 is running at 3.4ghz and I'm actually using two 8800 GTXes.
I can't wait to see the numbers when I'm running two 280 GTXes in a few months.
Whatever floats your boat. Enjoy your massively inferior LCD while I stick with my Kuro plasma and/or CRT. Gotta love that ugly backlight and extreme motion blurring. Oh, you don't see it? :lol :lol That's what all LCD owners convince themselves of. Thanks for f*cking up the display market by buying shitty technology. High framerates don't mean jack shit when your using an LCD.
You can't see the massive CHASM of a difference between DMC4 PC and DMC4 consoles. DMC4 PC runs in resolutions way beyond PS3/ 360 capabilities, at framerate those console will never even dream of, with picture quality way, way BEYOND even console bullshots provided by Capcom (AA and AF) and has MASSIVE amounts of enemies on screen (which would bring PS3/ 360 to a halt - see the included pictures) yet you can only notice the tiny-ass, absolutely unimportant fault of not "perfect" shadows.Of course I see the difference. I never suggested that the PC version is anything but the superior version. I was simply noting that it was less necessary than usual. Most console games struggle to even hit 30 fps and often sport some pretty bad image quality. When you get a PC port you tend to see some massive improvements. With DMC4, however, the difference isn't all that striking.
The market isn't driven by gamers so LCD was an obvious choice. That's pretty unfortunate, however, as most people seem oblivious to the flaws of the technology. They simply want them because they are "flat". Hopefully OLED will become feasible soon enough.
It's true that backlighting and blurring issues are lesser on PC LCDs, but it's still a far cry from a high quality CRT. It's not even remotely close at this point. It's true that the majority of CRTs are not widescreen, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. I simply find it amusing that you've coupled your powerful PC with a shitty display. If you really wanted the best of the best, you'd find one of those 24" Sony GW900. Then you could truly brag about your rig. Of course, that's only possible if you live in the US and even still they are difficult to obtain.
I'm obsessed in 60+ framerates because it's... possible as simple as that. I like numbers, I like benchmarks, I like seeing better results with each new hardware part I buy.
You can't get that (feeling) on consoles (yet).
I'm obsessed in 60+ framerates because it's... possible as simple as that. I like numbers, I like benchmarks, I like seeing better results with each new hardware part I buy.I can understand that, but those high numbers are completely worthless while actually playing the game.
You can't get that (feeling) on consoles (yet).
Competitive PC gamers like to keep their framerates at 100fps so that the game will move as fast as possible when stuff like network lag happen.100fps would only ever make sense if the user was working with a CRT at 100Hz. On an LCD, hitting such a framerate means lack of vertical sync. I simply don't understand why anyone would prefer to play that way.
With regards to just DMC4 specifically, neither console version can keep at 60fps so it's not like it was just VSYNC holding them back.
100fps would only ever make sense if the user was working with a CRT at 100Hz. On an LCD, hitting such a framerate means lack of vertical sync. I simply don't understand why anyone would prefer to play that way.
You will be able to maintain 60 fps throughout. I only have one 8800GT and had no troubles doing so (though I experienced some minor drops at 1080p, it was perfect at 768p).100fps would only ever make sense if the user was working with a CRT at 100Hz. On an LCD, hitting such a framerate means lack of vertical sync. I simply don't understand why anyone would prefer to play that way.Most professional gamers used CRTS a few years ago. I don't know how it is now though since the monitor market has changed so drastically.
Regarding DMC4, I think the console versions dropped too much in the forest level for Vsync to make any difference.
Still, I'll take another benchmark with Vsync on to see if it can still maintain 60fps throughout.
You will be able to maintain 60 fps throughout. I only have one 8800GT and had no troubles doing so (though I experienced some minor drops at 1080p, it was perfect at 768p).100fps would only ever make sense if the user was working with a CRT at 100Hz. On an LCD, hitting such a framerate means lack of vertical sync. I simply don't understand why anyone would prefer to play that way.Most professional gamers used CRTS a few years ago. I don't know how it is now though since the monitor market has changed so drastically.
Regarding DMC4, I think the console versions dropped too much in the forest level for Vsync to make any difference.
Still, I'll take another benchmark with Vsync on to see if it can still maintain 60fps throughout.
Which console version did you play? I tested both of them in the forest level and found that slowdown was much more severe on XBOX360 for some reason, but both had their share of slowdown there (which is why I assume the PC benchmark in the forest is more demanding). It's a shame they didn't further improve the shadows, though, as they are still ugly (not as ugly at least).
Aren't there 120Hz LCDs nowadays? Wouldn't that allow you to game at 120fps with Vsync (provided your hardware was capable)?That's not how those displays work.
Ok, I did another benchmark with vsync on. This time I did it in XP wtih DX9, 1920x1200, 8X AA and everything on Super High.Yep, same results. I noted the whole B thing earlier. Doesn't make sense.
Apparently, locked 60fps is only worth a B.