"Optimized"
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /v/ - Video Games
You are currently reading a thread in /v/ - Video Games
Why do PC players not know what the FUCK this word means?
If a game runs at 60fps on consoles, it's not fucking well optimized if it needs twice the power to run at 60fps on PC. Tons of people are saying DOOM runs great at 1080p 60fps on their 970. Great! That card is multiple times better than the Xbone and PS4, so it should easily run at 1080p and maximum. Same with MGS V and GTA V, which were built for last-gen consoles and looked pretty bad.
Why are so many mid-high end PC gamers such morons?
I dunno nigga, I think PC devs need to look at Gaijin Entertainment's slav magic when it comes to optimization and netcode. War Thunder is some serious fucking wizardry compared to most games.
It's not just PC players. Recently I've only seen the word optimized being used in place of 'working.' If the game actually runs it's called optimized.
Blame steam and the influx of people buying $1000-2000 pre-built rigs that don't know anything about pc gaming
>>337480436
Developers deliberately limits performance on PC version because of "muh console sales".Working in the industry
>>337480436
Except that there's a difference between making a game run well on a console with specific hardware, and the variety of cards a PC can have.
Why would i settle for 60fps what the fuck?
>>337480989
No shit Gabe
>>337481005
This, optimizing PC games is much harder than console games
Doesn't matter anyways since the human eye can't see past 24 fps.
>>337481005
>>337481148
This was true in the 90's.
Modern tech are all built around the same foundation. In clear text, that's fucking bullshit.
>>337480693
witcher 3 everything on high with a gtx 570, after i bought the 970 the game didn't look that different.
>>337481191
DELETE NOW
>>337481228
It's way easier now, but it's still not the same as making something specific for a console.
Not that it excuses shitty devs who can't get games to run well on mid-range cards.
>>337480989
This guy is a liarWorking in the markingindustry
>>337481283
What resolution?
>>337481005
1. Not really, a good engine can run the same on equivalent PC hardware
2. That's the definition of optimized: running well on weaker hardware
I just find it absurd that people are saying Doom is well-optimized when it cannot run less than a 670 while the PS4 /Xbone have much worse GPUs. That's not what optimized means.
>>337480693
Not wizardly, it's just that nowadays devs cut every corner they can, optimization is one of them because "lol you can just buy a better CPU/GPU" when it comes to PC games.
Doesn't DOOM use some shit like adaptive resolution to keep the 60fps on consoles?
>>337481524
Who was it that said people who had their game run badly should just get a better card?
I think it was Ubisoft.
>>337481384
1080
>>337481435
>That's the definition of optimized: running well on weaker hardware
Yes, but it's still relative.
You can't except a game to have console optimisation on every possible setup.
Well, we're finally near the age of optimisation versus physical improvement.
However it's a lot easier to overkill performance with expensive measures.
Most devs will push their optimisation as far as they can.or care to,and that is enough for them.
If they could find an easy way to do it, they would. Unfortunately optimisation isn't easy. It's like redesigning the wheel in some regards.
When the game has been developed and released and is 'playable', why would they put themselves through the woes of optimisation?
/thread.
>Japanese multiplat
>still capped at 30/60FPS, what most console games usually run at
>need absurdly powerful hardware just to match console specs
>"b-b-b-b-but the port is good, unlike many other Japanese games, this one actually WORKS!"
Japan (and America) are singlehandedly holding back PC gaming. Surprise surprise, both are also controlled by their respective console manufacturers (MS for USA, Sony for Japan).
>>337481872
Uh okay. But some PC players saying it's well-optimized is what pisses me off, especially when engines like UE can actually run as well as consoles on similar PC specs.
>>337481072
It's the refresh rate of most displays. No sense having a 200 fps if your display can't handle it. If your display can, more power to you.
All I want is a game that doesn't go overboard with the fancy shaders.
Why can't devs design an Art Direction that looks good without taxing the hardware.
It's because they want nice bull shots for promotional footing to grab preorders.
Based on Assasin Creed and Batman and Just Cause, apparently developers literally do not give a single fuck what happens after they have your money in their pockets.
MGS V ran well on my fucking 6770, it was really well optimized. The options were a bit lacking, didn't do much difference and had little impact on performance, but the game ran well even on fucking awful hardware.
>>337481191
This. My friend is reading this thread to me and I can assure you that I can't tell the difference between 12 fps and 120 fps.
>>337482387
See, but that's wrong.
MGSV ran on the Xbox 360 and PS3. It didn't look amazing, but it ran. The fact your 6770 ran it just means you card was more powerful than a last gen console, not that it was amazingly well-optimized. Look at the actual game, it's really not that graphically impressive. That's why it could run at 60fps on weak hardware, not "optimization".
>implying consoles do 1080p for most titles
>>337481435
>That's the definition of optimized: running well on weaker hardware
Actual CS grad here, that's not quite true. Optimized means that unnecessary resource use, etc. has been reduced as much as possible so that a program runs quickly and efficiently.
In some cases, you will optimize a program FOR specific hardware, because certain hardware has specirfic built-in tricks your program can use to optimize in ways that wouldn't work on other hardware. This is often technobabble that's advertised on GPUs: built-in stuff on the chip that that programs can take advantage of (meaning that programs that DO have the option to take advantage of it will run better with that hardware).
Why this is relevant to Consoles vs. PC: While Consoles tend to have underpowered hardware to current-gen PCs, they do have the distinct advantage of having unified or nearly unified hardware specs- meaning you can use hardware-dependent optimization tricks and KNOW your audience has a machine capable of using them, so there's little reason not to use them on a console exclusive.
However, on PC-exclusive, or cross-platform titles, you lose this advantage: you suddenly have to deal with a fucking massive range of hardware and even software specs- fuck optimizing, just making code that WORKS across all systems is hard as shit.
tl;dr: you can optimize for specific systems, but you usually have to choose one set of hardware you favor. A game can thus be well-optimized for console or PC but terribly optimized on the other. Etc.
>>337482348
most games have their input tied to framerate, for shitty shootans like csgo or tf2 its important to have bazzilions fps to minimise input lag.
Also fps/framerate is marketing, its all about frametime but plebs don't even know what it is. 30 fps with good stable frametime > 60 fps stuttering crap with shitty frametime.
Why the fuck no one has told OP this
DOOM on PS4 does not run at native 1080p all the time. It has dynamic resolution. Any mid-tier gpu can play any game lowering the internal resolution to 900p or lower when the game gets resource intensive
Meanwhile those people with 970/980 whatever are running the game at always 1080p/1400p with higher graphical fidelity than ps4
https://youtu.be/GhhsmcoYybc
>>337483092
>MGSV ran on the Xbox 360 and PS3. It didn't look amazing, but it ran
at 1080p? with a stable >30 frame rate? I doubt it.
I understand what you're saying. A game not being demanding and being well-optimized are two very different things. But MGSV did run really well and some other often praised examples like DMC4 do too.
I'm not sure about GTAV, but after IV I'd be very surprised if anyone ever praised them for it. Jesus christ what a shitshow that was.
>>337480436
Well now, it depends.
The one thing consoles do better than most modern PC gfx cards is VRAM. Aren't those machines coming packed with like 8GBs out of the box nowadays? Meanwhile even the 1080 only has 4GB IIRC.
So if there's one area consoles should shine, it should be in the ability to display a shitload of unique textures, just because they can literally hold twice as many in memory at once.
PC cards handle tris and shader instruction counts MUCH better. But the thing is, a game that pours all of its detail elements into the texturing process (e.g. Skyrim had like 9 unique textures for every single asset: diffuse, normal, specular, displacement, AO, whatever the fuck else) at the expense of actually adding additional triangles to represent geometric details is going to shine much more on a card with a high VRAM than one with a high fillrate.
Also, you'd probably be AMAZED at just how much of a game can get CPU-bound in this age of 50-bone enemy armatures, neural-network-powered AI, etc.
Most PC users are pouring their upgradebux into a graphics card but that isn't gonna help (until Vulkan/DX12, anyway) their machine run a game that was built to run on some quad-core architecture that can run 50 physics-simulating enemies at once as long as the lighting is pre-baked.
>>337483656
I actually knew that. Let's say it runs at 900p and low on the Xbone (it's actually 1350x1080 I think).
It still doesn't make sense that the minimum is a 670.
Code being "unoptimized" has everything to do with publishers.
Do you think devs want to put out bad code? It does them no good, especially down the road on later projects when all their reference work is shitty.
Optimizing your code is literally the equivalent of proofreading a book. Except the book is written by hundreds of people at once.
This takes time, time that isn't afforded to them in AAA development.
This is why so many games are rehashes. Once they have code that works you need to stretch that as far as possible.
>>337486713
The first rule of optimization IS "don't do it", after all
>>337486379
>The one thing consoles do better than most modern PC gfx cards is VRAM
I'm not sure about the bone, but doesn't the PS4 have shared RAM?
8 gigs isn't a whole lot then, even if you only put 2 to graphics, 6 gigs of regular ram is subpar at best. And 4 would be quite painful, I'd know.
>>337486936
Eh, it depends.
If all the detail is in textures, you don't need much RAM for geometry. I mean, there really isn't much else TO store in memory, as long as you have the CPU cycles needed to decode audio on the fly. Strip away all the textures from a game and watch the filesize decrease to like a tenth of what it was; plus, streaming tech is the New Normal and loading things into memory is just not done quite as much as you'd think.
Now if you have a game with a lot of complex geometry and animations, THOSE need to be loaded into memory, but if you're running a modern console Everything Is Baked to Low Poly style approach to geometry design, I feel like 2GB would be more than plenty 90% of the time.
>>337487280
Ah, well I'm not well versed in tech stuff. Just figured all that RAM games eat does something, but it makes sense they'd do things differently for consoles so I'll take your word for it.
>>337480436
>and GTA V, which were built for last-gen consoles and looked pretty bad.
yeah right
>>337480436
This bait is slowly reaching new heights
>>337480436
>Console
>1080@60
>>337488245
Well, they DO, but most of what a game eats in RAM is handed off to VRAM.
Or rather, it's like this: VRAM is a kind of RAM that handles textures specifically, so if you have enough VRAM for all your textures, all that the RAM needs to handle is the OTHER stuff loaded into memory.
Shit like basic game logic is remarkably simple, actually, I doubt more than 500MB in most cases. Maybe not for like Civ VI or something with a high degree of complexity on the CPU end, IDK how many million variables have to be known every frame, but in a typical game just not that much.
So, there's geometry; two sets, the visual set and the collision hulls (often simplified but not always) has to be held for any object that "exists" in the world and can't be streamed in. Depending on the complexity this can amount to a lot or a little. Then there's the skeletons and all of the corresponding animations that they might be able to play; again, this is conditional (Bayonetta has a lot more than an FPS, for instance) but probably doesn't amount to a lot in most games.
There's also audio, which is an interesting case; it has to be loaded into memory and decoded, which CAN be pretty complex, but consoles have the advantage of fixed space requirements (a disc holds what it holds) and so they often just chew up free disc space storing the audio as uncompressed to reduce RAM and CPU overhead. PC games could do this too, but nobody wants a 60GB download that could be repacked to 5GB if only 512MB of RAM was freed up to decode audio.
>>337481761
No, but I should be able to expect a game to be able to use all of the resources it's given to run well. Even fucking FFXIV does this.
When I drop frames and my GPU and CPU are only at 40%, there's some wonky shit going on. When games that look worse than Witcher 3 run like shit when using less of my PC, there's something wrong.
>>337480436
>MGS V
It ran 60FPS on medium in 1080p.
On my 6850.
If the game looks better and still runs as good as on more powerful console hardware, then the PC version is well optimized.
GTA V wasn't.
>>337489794
I hear what you're saying but I don't see where the demands would differ aside from audio in that case, unless they actually load textures into RAM for PC when the VRAM is full.
>>337480436
>Bethesda shills shitting on PC
This is why people in here don't like your games Todd. Stop it already.
That stopped being a thing this generation, these days devs just make a PC game, make sure it runs on PS4 and Bone, and then it release it without proper debugging or optimization.
>>337490165
Wait, fuck, shit. Where they dump it shouldn't affect overall memory usage. I just don't get it, never mind my rambling.
>>337490165
>unless they actually load textures into RAM for PC when the VRAM is full.
Which is exactly what they do, though.
VRAM is there because shaders have to make repeat calls to the same texture file multiple times for each pixel they shade, so by having the texture file accessible to the parallel GPU architecture you can bypass the bottleneck of the shader calling out to the CPU/RAM to get the value of a pixel on a lookup texture stored in memory and then getting that info back.
With full VRAM, as many textures as possible will then be loaded into normal RAM because it's still infinitely faster than trying to stream the value from disk/paging for all however-many-hundred-pixels that need to query that texture each frame.
Bear in mind, every frame, the CPU needs to process every event/function call which has occurred in that frame, as well as handle the cycles for all ticking objects in that frame (which often amounts to quite a bit, especially for physics). But the main things it needs to pull from MEMORY are variable values, which are usually, what, 4 bytes a piece? The most complex stuff it needs to maintain are transform arrays for object vertices and bone positions in anims (and audio)
The GPU, every frame, needs to look up a given pixel value from multiple textures (diffuse, light/shadow maps, other rendering stuff like normal and AO, etc) and perform some maths which outputs a final color FOR EVERY SINGLE PIXEL ON SCREEN.
Assuming that you're at 1080p, and every object in the scene has at least 2 textures (diffuse and normal), plus some sort of light or shadow rendering, that means the GPU needs to get the value of a pixel in a texture something like 6 MILLION times every frame.
So yeah, GPU gets all the memory precedence, the rest of the game gets in line, and if you have 2GB of VRAM and the game needs 4GB of textures on-call you best believe that 2GB of your system RAM is getting alotted.
>>337491296
Thanks for spelling it out man. Can't say I understand it all, but you've made it pretty damn clear why 8 gigs of shared and 4+4 is nothing alike.
