Why do pro-PC posters perpetrate the myth that PC games during the 5th generation were smooth while 3D games on consoles at the same time (Playstation, N64, Saturn) were laggy 20 FPS affairs?
Here is a benchmark showing Quake's framerate on contemporary 1996 hardware. The Pentium 200 was the latest, greatest and most expensive CPU available at the time, and it can't even crack 45 FPS. Most people weren't using something like this. Pentium 75 (Quake's minimum specification) and in particular, the Pentium 90 were far more common.
It's pretty clear that PC weren't signifcantly better off than consoles unless you had absolutely the best hardware. And even then you were nowhere near 60fps.
And this is running at 320x200 (lower than console resolution). With sound disabled.
>>3051924
http://quake.wikia.com/wiki/GLQuake
>>3051945
It ran pretty terribly on every accelerator except Voodoo though.
And the graphics were somewhat downgraded.
>>3051924
Because you're comparing entirely software renderers done on the CPU? The 3dfx voodoo was released in 1996 and finally brought good 3D graphics to the PC platform. In Feb 1997 GLQuake was released which ran on voodoo.
>>3051956
That's simply down to how shitty everyone else was.
>>3051960
>The 3dfx voodoo was released in 1996
January 1997 was the general release. December 1996 was only for OEMs.
Still, it was only about 30fps at 640x480.
Pro PC is just the logical position nowadays, but it wasn't always.
>>3051956
>It ran pretty terribly on every accelerator except Voodoo though.
And? I didn't know anyone that had anything else.
>And the graphics were somewhat downgraded.
What? It had tons of enhancements.
>>3051962
>Still, it was only about 30fps at 640x480.
What did consoles at the time run it like? 20fps 240p with butchered levels, sound, and lighting?
>>3051962
Here's the thing, the PC hardware isn't static like it is on consoles. The Voodoo 2 was released in 98 and offered even better performance and two of them could be run in SLI.
>>3051965
>What? It had tons of enhancements.
It did. But it also was missing a fair number of lighting effects (which were impressive in software mode).
>>3051969
Of course, but it just seems a little bit stupid to me that PC posters are rubbing in their expensive late 90s PC upgrades up against consoles fixed to mid-90s technology and a much MUCH lower price.
>>3051972
You can't get around the simple conditions at the time since 3D graphics were still in its infancy. However, the main problem really was doing it cheaply, and this is what happen with the N64. While powerful in specs they neutered the system too much to save costs. This is where 3dfx voodoo takes the crown, they engineered the chip with a good price/performance ratio without too many sacrifices.
>>3051982
Costs were really a big factor back then. The main reason 3dfx even brought their hardware to consumers was due to the falling prices of EDO DRAM in 1996.
Back then you had to pay about 5 times as much for a PC to get the same performance as game consoles.
Today PCs are as cheap as consoles.
>>3052019
Here's a good video that explains the market at the time and what eventually lead to the formation of 3dfx.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MghYhf-GhU
>>3052019
I'm surprised that they couldn't just go with RDRAM, since while it is really bad when paired with a CPU due to the high random access latency, it's a good graphics solution.
Maybe they couldn't commit to the high bulk orders that RAMBUS probably demanded.
>>3052093
I guess they decided they didn't need it. Assuming balanced load Voodoo enjoys effectively 128 bit local memory path. Together with frame buffer controller there is in total six way memory interleaving, Voodoo enjoyed massive bandwidth.
>>3051924
Pentium 166 wasnt all that expensive back then (I had it) and it ran Quake at 640x480 pretty damn smooth
Also 4 years later people would begin to compete in achieving 120FPS in Quake 3.
>>3052368
>it ran Quake at 640x480 pretty damn smoothly
Bullshit, unless you used a 3dfx card.
>120FPS
Well 4 years later you could buy 1000mhz processors
>>3051924
>>3051972
>>3052403
http://gona.mactar.hu/DOS_TESTS/
You're retarded, anon. Noving your goalposts much. PC gaymers were right. More expensive PCs with decent GPUs did everything better than consoles. Name a /vr/ console that could display up to 1280x1024? The best a /vr/ era console could do was DVD resolutions.
>>3051924
>Pentium 200
>41.40
Just to show how much MMX support fucking mattered back then.
>>3052047
You actually might be understating it.
In 1996, both the N64 and the PlayStation were $199.
>>3052504
Please be trolling. Most of the games on that chart don't support hardware acceleration.
It's one thing to be able to display Duke 3D at 1280x1024, and it's another to have it actually playable on a Pentium 90.
By the way...the original Voodoo was hard locked at 640x480 for actual acceleration.
>>3052618
You're master b8ing too much, consolefag. And look at the chart again, games that are unplayable on certain chipsets or GPUs at X resolutions are noted.
ALL the Voodoo cards performed OK, meaning playable, at all the resolutions tested. Only minor exception is when playing some low resolutions, which only the tester's CRTs could support.
>>3052709
>>3052709
Just stop posting, you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
lol @ using a dos compatibility chart to determine playability
Do you think people on 4chan are old enough to remember how life was like in 1996?
Most of them were still unborn.
>>3051924
More realistic chart that actually tested with Pentium IIs and Voodoo cards.
>http://www.soldcentralfl.com/quakecoop/compare2.htm
>>Any of these systems will give you okay performance in solo play (although it's going to bog down sometimes on anything less than a P-133), but realistically you need at least 30 fps to enjoy netplay. Competative netplay requires about 40 fps. I would consider a minimal system for competative netplay to be a P-233 with a Voodoo2 or Voodoo3, and I'd disable dynamic lighting (set gl_dynamic 0) to keep the framerate near 40 fps.
Yes, PC mustard ricers used mid-ranged PII CPUs with Voodoo cards in the late 90's before nVidia utterly crushed Voodo. Of course they think they're superior to poorfags. What are you, a hipster? Get >>>/out/
>>3052814
Fuck.
Where do 30 year olds hang out on the Internet anyway?
>>3052818
That's pretty bad since Quake existed for a year before there was a Pentium II to buy.
>>3052827
Fact remains that PC game blew consoles out of the water in terms of resolution , color depth, and textures. They ran much faster at the lowest resolutions(console-tier resolutions). But of course, OP thinks I'm a fucking liar even for that.
>>3052825
>Fine. Go rig up some old pentium i and pentium ii machines with voodoo cards and show me the results
No shit a Voodoo card will beat consoles. But the fact is that Quake was out for over half a year before you could even buy one.
By the time the Voodoo came out, PS1 and Saturn had been out for over 2 years. N64 had been out for over 6 months (having been launched literally one day after Quake).
That's not to mention that the Voodoo card alone cost more than any of the consoles at the time, not factoring the rest of the computer you have to buy.
Your 60fps mustard fantasy wasn't available until 1997 and it was only there for those willing to spend a lot of money.
>>3052821
IRC?
and one more thingVoodoo didn't couldn't even run most things at 60fps anyway, so you had to wait until 1998 and Voodoo 2 to get 60fps
>>3052868
> willing to spend a lot of money.
Where do you think you are, consolefag reseller scum?
Wolfenstein 3D ran at 70 FPS.
>>3051924
>Why do pro-PC posters perpetrate the myth that PC games during the 5th generation were smooth while 3D games on consoles at the same time (Playstation, N64, Saturn) were laggy 20 FPS affairs?
Because they remember the era first hand.
>>3052970
On Pentiums.
ITT: Children try re-writing a history they never lived based on spec sheets of computers they never owned.
>/vr/ in a nutshell
>>3052998
My parents had a 200 MMX that was passed on to me.
>>3052868
Back then gaming wasn't expected to be cheap. I knew many people who bought Voodoo day 1. That's the price you paid for being into PC gaming at the time.
>>3053004
>ITT: Children try re-writing a history they never lived based on spec sheets of computers they were given by their parents
Okay, fixed.
>>3052980
That's a dumb thing to say when you know many people around remember it opposite. I do and it was the last generation consoles. Sure you could pay at least ten times as much for a better PC, you'd still have to try to hack it together right to play properly. Even things such as booting up and getting things working took time a lot of time on winblows 95 and it could all fall apart at any moment. It's not like now where you can get a fine GPU and tower for a few hundred bucks and play the top games for a few years.
Being a PC gamer was pretty shit hardware wise until like the 2000s.
How about other games? PS1 sacrificed proper 3D geometry to get its speed. Duke Nukem 3 is probably a fairer comparison. Any frame rate numbers on that?
>>3053008
Kids back in the year you were born didn't had 2000 dollars to buy a computer by themselves
>>3053012
consoles dominated gaming* If you had playstation and n64, unless you were big into competitive RTS, MMORPG or FPS there was no reason to get a PC. Even then I would say it would be healthier to play on the consoles, not developing stupid online addictions.
>>3053012
>That's a dumb thing to say when you know many people around remember it opposite.
Yeah, the kids who had consoles. "you'd still have to try to hack it together right to play properly" This was seen as a sign of pride, putting together and optimizing your PC.
>>3053020
Kids born in the year I did who were into PC gaming had that kind of money by the mid 90's though. Sure they're expensive, but that's what jobs are for.
>>3053026
I don't mean linux-style hacking, I mean windows 95 style pushing together things, wasting hours waiting and hoping it'll work.
>>3053034
I know exactly what you meant. Taking a stack of parts and putting it together into a kick ass PC used to be a kind of right of passage and point of pride when done well. A little like knowing how to take apart and clean a carburetor.
>>3052868
Quake was a bad game for hardware acceleration. Games using Glide run much better.
>>3053038
I've heard of this only online, it wasn't like that for me or anyone I knew. Swapping ram, GPU, hard drive, modem was the only thing I ever did.
>>3053056
I imagine it would depend partially on age. If you were a teen or younger it probably wasn't as common. But Quake came out my first year of university and everyone I knew built their own computers, it was just how it was done.
>>3051924
Because a 20fps laggy console game remains a 20fps laggy console game five years later.
Meanwhile, a 20fps laggy PC game, in five years it will run at 60fps with significantly increased resolution and increased graphics fidelty on your then-current PC.
The only time a console game ever got graphics boost from newer hardware was when you could pop in PS1 games into a PS2 game and enable (buggy) texture filtering.
>>3052576
>In 1996, both the N64 and the PlayStation were $199.
But they couldn't connect to the internet, chat online, send emails, build websites, run photoshop, do graphics or design work, run any number of office suites, run complex simulators, run any program you wanted to (including something you wrote for yourself), create music, watch movies, etc.
And the mag you posted is laptops only, which are 2x the price for half the performance.
>>3053101
Hey, I think you don't know much about videogames do you? And you're a bit of retarded also right?
Console games get updated all the time, however you sometimes need different hardware for them. That's not what we're talking about here.
>>3053101
This. Also it not being up-gradable on console meant you were stuck just accepting what you had. With a PC there was always better performance waiting around the corner. Maybe it wasn't 60fps now, but you knew it would get there.
>>3053114
Examples? Keep in mind we're talking retro games here.
>>3053109
THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. That's not what we're debating.
We're not talking about fucking Excel. We're not talking about how useful it is to have a PC for email.
>>3053117
Every game you can run emulated with enhancements on a PC or console. Every game that has ever been re-released on another console.
Quake and Doom run perfectly fine on the N64, only an autistic fuck would think there were framerate problems.
>>3053123
So your argument for console games being up-gradable is entirely dependent on a PC to either emulate it better or reformat it for another console. I don't see how that does anything but support his point.
>Quake and Doom run perfectly fine on the N64, only an autistic fuck would think there were framerate problems.
If you're happy with how they run then that's good for you. If you try to argue that a PC can't run them better in every way I will laugh in your face though.
>>3053118
No, but he's just pointing out all the other things a PC can do on top of outperform console games.
>>3053118
Nobody denies that consoles are cheaper than PCs.
There is an initial cost of the PC no matter what, it's what you pay to get the essentials. Even if you were a console gamer, you would probably still have a PC for everything else. One could also not buy a console and instead spend that extra money on the PC to make it capable of gaming.
>>3053148
There also used to be a radical concept of saving up money and working harder to afford the things you wanted to spend money on. All the threads around here complaining about 25$ games is embarrassing. Is the world really made up of poor entitled man-children now?
>>3053157
>poor entitled man-children
isn't that a pretty good description of /vr/'s, if not 4chans, userbase?
>>3053114
>Console games get updated all the time
Yes, and then you have to buy them again and again and again.
Meanwhile I have PC software here that I bought in 1998 that runs on my current PC with better graphics than anyone could run it with in 1998.
Console gamer since the beginning here. Other than a little dicking around with low-demand adventure and simulation games I literally did not game on my PCs until just a few years ago because of the insane cost of even remotely decent graphics cards all the way up to the '10s now that Moore's Law is actually running out of steam plus diminishing returns.
Just this week I actually set up a dedicated retro PC for gaming it's a P4 with 1gb of RAM, a real Sound Blaster and a Radeon 7000. I must say that it's pretty sweet to be able to not only run every game that will run on it at max settings but to also just run DOS games with no tinkering but the stupid thing would have cost $400+ dollars IN 2002. It's nice to have access to the entire enormous PC library up to that time but if I had to choose I'd still probably take a PS2 + Xbox.
>>3053123
>Every game you can run emulated with enhancements on a PC or console. Every game that has ever been re-released on another console.
Show me a current console into which I can put a NES or SNES or Gameboy cart into, and play it with significantly improved or enhanced graphics and framerate.
Because that is essentially what I can do on my PC: put in a game CD from 2001 and play it like I did it in 2001, except with way better graphics.
>>3053214
>put in a game CD from 2001
>Can't install it because the installer is 16 bit only
>Be forced to pirate if I want to play old games
>>3053207
>but the stupid thing would have cost $400+ dollars IN 2002
If you were a working person and gaming was one of your main hobbies, $400 was really not an astronomical amount of money.
>>3053223
I put it into my consoles though, particularly into SNES games which were dirt cheap at the time. You better believe I don't regret it considering I bought this PC for $10 at a thrift store last month.
>>3053148
Actually, I'll argue that console gaming is more expensive than PC gaming.
There is a higher initial investment with PCs, unless you're buying a potato, so I'll give you that point off the bat.
But you don't need to spend a lot to build a PC that can easily keep up with or beat the current console generation, and then factor in a few things, like XBL and PS+ subscription fees, and the fact that games on consoles aren't on sale for huge discounts all the time like they are on Steam/Origin every single day, the differences could add up pretty quickly.
Not to mention PCs are capable of a lot more than gaming, consoles really aren't. A computer is a utility and a potential luxury item, a console is a pure luxury item.
>>3053229
I had a huge SNES collection at one time as well. No regrets. Just saying 400 bucks on your hobby when you're working wasn't crazy. Gaming was one of the less expensive ones I had.
>>3053231
>dat 2016 perspective
>>3053232
Thing is that $400 just barely got you in the door. I specifically was seeking out a machine like this one to just draw the line at 98se and never upgrade it. Doing that in 2002 would have been seen as madness and 2004 games would run like shit on it meanwhile the 5th console generation lasted what like 7 years?
>>3053242
Oh, are we talking about actual retro range stuff? I was on a poverty PC + consoles at the time, 'cuz kid/young adult, so I don't exactly trust my memories to be accurate.
I remember having to delete OS components and stuff to scrape together the absolutely massive amount of hard drive space required to install the original Warcraft: Orcs and Humans... 72 megs or so, insanity!
Didn't get an actual video card until I had a real job, 8800 Ultra for life
>>3052821
quake3world.com
oh wait, those guys are 40
>>3052821
I thought here, but it's all babies with old consoles here apparently.
>>3053274
god, PC elitists are such fucking fools it's almost beyond parody. We're trying to argue about whether PCs had any advantage or were shat on during 5th gen.
>argue about how you only need a $2,000 and you'll always do better.
>argue about how years in the future with future equipment you could run the games better
>argue about how you can go online and do other non-game-related stuff with a computer.
>call people who aren't PC hardcore mature like you "babies".
Some PC gamers are cool and smart gamers. They accept the good and bad points of PC games, they just prefer them. Others are the most stupid and delusional elitist individuals you would ever meet.
>>3053293
For the record, I'm a near-exclusive PC player, and I hate those people.
People need to feel special and included. For some people, PC elitism is a way to make themselves part of the "in"-group. There's asshats in every large collection of people.
>>3053293
For every elitist PC gamer there's an equally annoying console gamer complaining about how much other people spend on their hobbies.
>>3053109
>And the mag you posted is laptops only, which are 2x the price for half the performance.
You chucklefuck there was only one laptop in that ad and the rest of them included "tower" or "desktop" in the description
>>3053313
That's so true. It makes me glad I'm an arcade game patrician instead of one of you mouth-breathing casual children.
>>3053321
Ohh you!
>>3053308
It's funny how the elitism grows and grows as consoles and PCs become closer and closer in terms of technical capabilities.
The fits they threw when Witcher 3 looked better on PS4 than on PC, my god.
>>3053293
This thread is especially dumb because the fifth gen was the absolute height of console's power compared to a computer.
10 years earlier, a Commodore 64 wasn't much more expensive than an NES, could play similar games and could have all kinds of other practical uses.
10 years later, you could get a really strong sub-$1000 rig that could shit on consoles, especially when consoles were facing debacles like the $600 PS3 and the annual Xbox Live subscriptions.
But right there, in that one spot, the big, new, mainstream consoles were 200 friggin' bucks, and that is hard for anyone to compete with, let alone in the age of the $3k Pentium.
>>3053326
They're becoming so close that the consoles are becoming utterly pointless.
In prior gens you could have a special sprite engine or pixel pipeline or RDRAM or any other kind of weird technical wizardry you want in your new console hardware, but the PS4 and Xbone are LITERALLY made of the same shitty off-the-shelf AMD PC hardware you could get anywhere.
It's not unheard of because the original Xbox was just a cobbled together Pentium III/GeForce 3 rig but it's still shockingly lazy.
>>3053332
I don't think consoles will actually exist much longer. Witcher 3 was an exception which is why it caused such a stir, in general even mid range PCs are out performing consoles. Just look at Just Cause 3 which is barely playable in it's console form.
And this is still near the start of the console cycle. In five years if they last that long, console games will look horrible next to PC releases. It's going to be really hard to convince people to go for another round of that.
>>3053346
8th gen wasn't even as powerful as a mid/high end PC was at release. It's one of the more weak gens.
>>3053346
>I don't think consoles will actually exist much longer.
With all due respect, I've been hearing this argument for 10 years or so, nothing ever changed.
You guys forget that consoles sell a lot to those who can't handle a PC, be it kids or casuals, the biggest advantage of consoles is that they're almost completely idiot proof, they don't require you to read a manual, they don't need to be constantly controlled and come with controllers and all the basic stuff you need.
A good gaming rig needs to be assembled, you need to buy controllers, set up all the software and a lot of things that most people won't spend time learning, and we're not even bringing emulation into the picture which is far too much to handle for the average joe most of the times.
Consoles aren't going anywhere as long as people are too lazy to learn to use computers decently, it was the very reason they came to be in the first place, not to mention that they're great for kids, a lot of parents won't risk wasting money on a computer for their kids when god knows what they'll do with it.
>>3053414
Before tablets and cellphones I'd agree with you.
>>3053328
i did one of these contests and put PINTO for some reason
>>3053424
This is definitely why the 3DS and Vita have underperformed the DS and PSP.
>>3053414
You need to literally spend the same amount of money on a PC, plug it in and download Steam. They're right, console gaming is dead but it's not a /vr/ topic.
On /vr/ consoles will always have that special unique flavor of dedicated hardware. Mmmmmmm.
>>3053426
Did anyone ever won these things?
>>3053414
>Consoles aren't going anywhere as long as people are too lazy to learn to use computers decently
Dude, it's not even as complex as that.
Consoles will continue for as long as people think that computers attach only to monitors and TVs are for DVRs and consoles and never the twain shall meet.
That's it.
As soon as Apple/Microsoft/whoever make a TVPC, it's over. And they would sell, too, even though you could already do it right now.
>>3053594
The TVPC idea has failed numerous times.
Apple themselves even tried it.
>>3053607
The smartphone and tablet ideas failed numerous times, too.
Including when Apple tried them.
We're at a point right now where very powerful ARM shit can be slapped into any device you'd like, very cheaply.
>>3053607
You're not referring to Apple TV are you?
>>3053612
Are you tech illiterate? A fucking PDA/Organizer what ever you want to call it is not a tablet or smartphone.
Are you like 12?
>>3053626
I'm not even going to give you a proper reply because of your bullshit tone.
Enjoy this:
lol u mad faget
>>3053630
That's what I expect from your underageb& ass.
Next you'll tell me a blackberry is a smartphone.
>>3053636
Actually a blackberry is a smartphone.
Question:
Did DOS constantly crash and bluescreen like Windows 9X?
>>3052504
On my Pentium 2 366mhz with a shitty Cyber9397 video card, I ran Quake 2 at 800x600, Half-Life at 640x480 and Unreal Tournament at 512x384.
I never actually measured framerates back then, but that's what I had to do to get playable speeds. In fact UT probably should have been run at 400x300 but that was TOO eye cancer for me so I put up with occasional chop instead.
I also distinctly recall in the glory days when I was salivating over high end hardware I would never have, they would always benchmark Quake 3 in 640x480, 800x600 and 1024x768 resolution, and even on the highest end cards the 1024 framerates were garbage.
>>3053909
DOS never bluescreens
>>3054046
>DOS never bluescreens
It can't run more than 1 programs either, and when that 1 program hangs you have to reset the machine.
Upside is that it boots up in like 2 secs from poweron to command prompt (less if you disable memory check).
>>3053909
no DOS was stable
>>3054050
>It can't run more than 1 programs either
Not exactly an issue when you're playing a game, though.
>>3053804
>Actually a blackberry is a smartphone.
This is the underageb& that posts here now.
>>3054050
>It can't run more than 1 programs either
Desqview m8
ITT kids born in 2000's debate frame rates based on an image of CPU ONLY software mode frame rates.
>>3054081
If anything, you are the one who was underage. That was considered a smartphone at the time.
>>3054120
>2000
>smartphone
Cool story, champ.
>>3054103
The kid is you for not knowing that before Glide and a 3dfx card, software mode was the only credible way to run games on PC.
>>3054160
Which we now know was an incredible inefficient way of playing 3D games, hence the proliferation of 3D cards.
>>3052618
tomb raider supported hardware acceleration and looked way better than the PS1 version
>>3054329
Sure, but you had to wait until 1997 for it and pay $300 for the addon card (that still had to be bundled with a 2D card).
Until then, it was software acceleration only, baby.
>>3051924
They don't.
PS2 can't even run this game smoothly at 448i.
>>3053020
Just because millenials can't fathom getting a job and saving doesn't mean previous generations were the same.
I spent $2400 dollaroos in 1997 on a P2 233. I was 15 and had a job.
>>3054840
>2400 on the slowest P2 CPU
I was only four back then, what did all the cheap computers have inside them?
>>3054862
he might be from australia, PC prices were literally fucked up in the 90s over there
>>3053251
Not me. I was babby when I first signed up.
>>3055020
Vquake doesn't actually use the polygonal renderer used in GLQuake because the card was too slow for it. It's more closer to the software renderer, they programmed it in a similar method to accelerate that instead. Even with all this Vquake still ends up rather heavy on the CPU, meaning the graphics card isn't really helping very much.
>>3054981
It was relatively cheap, but part of that was because it lacked 2D capabilities.
Much of the high cost of PCs back then was because you needed to buy add on cards for almost every single port on the back of the PC. Also CD drives and hard drives were comparatively more expensive than now. And RAM, by god, RAM.
>>3055020
The Verite Rendition was far too similar in capability to the N64 hardware to make it worth anybody's time (may as well buy an N64).
At least it wasn't worse, like the Virge was.
>>3051924
In 1996 the Pentium Pro was the fastest cpu. But sure, before the 3d accelerator cards came to PC, the consoles did 3d better. I had a Pentium 100mhz from 1996 to 2000 and I even played Quake 2 on it in software mode despite having a N64. Why? Because PC games where way cheaper then N64 games. That is why my toaster PC was my main gaming system during that time.
>>3052576
now take off 1/4 for the price of the same PC non-dell,
those are laptop?!
strike that, halve the prices for desktop or even more if from local assemblers or even smallers brands. and eve more if you dont consider CRT monitor (u used it for the next 2 upgrade PCs... and u didnt ass TV + n64)in a way the latest 2 gens ended up being PCs, my 20year long "philosophical" argument with a buddy on PC vs console became moot.. i mean console became the ultimate absurdity... but then steam...
>>3052715
requesting spreadshit! i mean spreadsheet
srsly, mind sharing?
>>3053441
>>Before tablets and cellphones I'd agree with you.
>This is definitely why the 3DS and Vita have underperformed the DS and PSP.
im not either anons, could tyou explain that logical jump youve made
>>3053636
not that anon, but at somepoint the marketing term was in widespread use and it didnt solely mean open architechture arm computers that could boot anthing you wanted
>>3053626
i bet you think a tablet is an Android or IOS device without simcard and/or with 10+ inches
Are you like 20?
>>3055886
The DS was the best-selling handheld of all time.
The PSP was the best-selling non-Nintendo handheld of all time.
The 3DS has barely moved a third of the DS's units, and the Vita hasn't seen ONE FIFTH of the PSP's sales, and I think that a lot of that is because their user base has been cannibalized by the $25 billion (!!!) smartphone and tablet gaming industry.
Angry Birds and Candy Crush are pulling in people that would otherwise be playing Pokemon and Tetris.
PC started surpassing the 5th gen consoles visually once they got graphics accelerator cards.
But in terms of audio 5th gen consoles were superior to PCs because they were fanless.
Consoles lost this advantage over PC in the 6th gen.
Just for fun let's rank the consoles by noisyness:
6th gen:
Dreamcast
PS2
PS2 Slim
Gamecube
XBox
7th gen:
XBox360
Wii
PS3
8th gen:
WiiU
XBox one
PS4
Ouya
>>3055967
>But in terms of audio 5th gen consoles were superior to PCs because they were fanless.
In terms of audio, computers had multichannel PCM synth at high sampling rates since the mid 80s (Amiga), and then CD quality pcm sampling from 1992 (Gravis Ultrasound). Once consoles caught up, PCs were doing 5.1 sound. Once consoles started doing that, PCs could do 96khz 24bit 7.1.
Surround sound is a meme to scam normies who think they need to constantly upgrade their tech every 2 years. The kind of people who tossed out their XBox on garbage day because they got a 360.
Audio enthusiasts do not go above sterio because they know that humans only have 2 ears.
You only need 2 speaker plus a sub if your speakers are cheap crap (computer speakers, speakers not sourced from audio stores).
Has anyone here listened to games in surround sound?
Are there even any games pre 7th gen that have surround sound?
>>3055967
>listing Ouya as a game console
top kek
>>3058414
It connects to your TV to play games.
It's not a phone, computer, or handheld.
What do you want to call it? A dreidel?
>>3058408
A lot of the N64's Rare library supported surround sound, including Perfect Dark, Jet Force Gemini and Banjo-Tooie.
It's useful for positional awareness, if you have a surround sound system and you hear a guard in PD call out, you immediately know what direction he's in.
I do agree that it's a little superfluous though, because you can also get good positional awareness with stereo audio, especially because you don't really need audio cues for things that are in front of you, so you only need to know if you have to go left or right to kill the asshole behind you.
>>3058426
I would think the Ouya barely counts in the same way the 3D0, the TurboGrafx-16, the CD-i or the Apple Pippin barely count.
If you're not Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Sega or Atari you've never *really* been in the console business, and two of those five companies haven't been in that business during this century either.
>>3058408
>Audio enthusiasts do not go above sterio because they know that humans only have 2 ears.
"The human eye can't see above 60 fps"
>>3058509
>>3058505
Only headphones can give proper HRTF cues for positional audio because there's no cross talk between the left and right channels like with speakers.
>>3053020
I waited a year until '98 and got a 350 mhz version for $1600 dollary doos. I was making $9.75 an hour at a factory. My dad was still gaming on a 486 DX4 120 that cost him several hundred bucks.
>>3053457
I sure as hell never did.
>>3054862
486 chips or first gen pentium 60-90s.
Maybe a knock-off Cyrix CPU.
>>3055967
That's incorrect, because you're leaving out the Amiga, which did multimedia things quite well, and were frequently used as studio tools for both audio and television.
>>3055058
>In 1996 the Pentium Pro was the fastest cpu
Wasn't Quake (without source ports) 16 bit? So the Pentium Pro wouldn't run it very well.
>>3058408
There are SNES games with surround sound, pretty sure the same goes for MD games.
>>3059753
DOS4/G games are 32 bit and Quake is Pentium optimised.
>>3059824
That is not possible. Surround sound can only be transmitted via coaxial, hdmi or optical output. The snes had none of these. You are probably referring to some pseudo 3d sound like you would find in the amplifier of your smartphone.
>>3058408
The Xbox had real time Dolby surround sound. A lot of games used it. PS2 had surround sound for movies
With Windows games you had Aureal3D and EAX before that.
Most normalfags don't have surround sound, they buy a huge TV and then use the shitty build in speakers.
>>3054125
PDAs are smartphones
>>3059862
Dolby Prologic/Dolby Surround is pretty old tech, it matrix encodes the 4 channels into two and it is then later decoded to recreate it.
List of SNES games with pro logic support.
http://www.mobygames.com/attribute/sheet/attributeId,136/p,15/
>>3051924
Depends on your settings and which games. Quake was basically Crysis when it came out. Duke3D at 60fps for example, even at high res with certain setups.
In in 1998 accelerators started picking up and you could play Q2 at 60+ FPS
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia,87-7.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia,87-8.html
http://www.3dgw.com/hardware/benchmarks.php3 - as early as 1997 you could get 60+ at 640x480 on a machine with Q2, which was heavier than Q1.
Quake 1 thus also got more of a boost by that time as well.
So basically, time + more than a single game made up that generation.
But it's also quite telling that you cut the top of that benchmark list from thandor.net off where it shows a year later after Quake was released those benchmarks did in fact hit 60 FPS.
So, why did you do that again? Oh right. Troll can't be using facts now can then.
>>3051924
>Pentium 75
Also just noting, that was released in 1994, two years earlier. It helps that during this era every year more than doubled every two years. So by the time Quake was released, this processor was under half the speed and two years after Quake processors were more than twice as powerful.
>>3053221
>Can't install it because the installer is 16 bit only
what is a VM?
>>3051924
>Pentium 200
I thought they stopped at the Pentium 4. I had no idea they went up to 200.
About as retarded as your comparison. Show me a chart from 98 with N64 quake sport.
>>3059830
According to their FAQ it's complicated whether a Pentium or PPro will run extended DOS/4G faster since it's a blend of 16bit and 32bit.
Pentium optimized just means that Quake takes advantage of superscalar architecture which 486s did not have.
http://tenberry.com/dos4g/faq/perform.html#04
>>3060545
Your post is irrelevant because by 1997 you could buy 3dfx Voodoo. Better CPUs didn't matter for PC to be faster than console - it was already overkill. But that's over 6 months after Quake came out.
By the way...unless you were running V2 SLI with a good P2 you weren't getting 60fps in 1998 for Unreal.
>3060562
Pentium 75 and Pentium 90 were still being sold as budget processors in 1996.
They were necessary for range diversification because the newer Pentiums were very expensive. Most people would have bought them in 1995 when they were mid-range processors. A year later they'd still be hanging onto them, anon.
>>3053328
And the funny thing is, 5th gen possibly had the absolute largest overlap between console games and PC. Almost every multiplatform western game was on PC, and even Japanese games got ported to PC. PC had WipEout 1 and Twisted Metal 2, even when their respective companies were bought out by Sony. 5th gen is a lot like the current gen, right down to the *also on PC thing.
6th gen, by contrast, had a far bigger gap between PC and console games, in fact, going back to play a 6th gen game means you either need to hunt down a console, or emulate it. I wish TimeSplitters had a PC version, I mean why didn't it?
>>3060948
>And the funny thing is, 5th gen possibly had the absolute largest overlap between console games and PC
You saying there wasn't a huge amount of overlap in the Atari/NES era?
>>3060932
>Pentium 75 and Pentium 90 were still being sold as budget processors in 1996.
>They were necessary for range diversification because the newer Pentiums were very expensive. Most people would have bought them in 1995 when they were mid-range processors. A year later they'd still be hanging onto them, anon.
This is true. I had a Dell P133 made in 96 and this was a mid-range model at the time with 90Mhz being low end and 166Mhz being high end.
>>3060969
Technically there shouldn't be, due to how Nintendo forbid developers and publishers from making games for consoles other than their own. But 3rd gen was still an era of arcade ports, so PC (or at least computers) saw a lot more Japanese games than they usually do. Hell, 3rd gen was probably the last gen when the Japanese actually made games for computers, instead of surrendering entirely to Nintendo like what they did with Sony. Either the MSX/2 was competition to the Famicom, or Nintendo saw computers and consoles to be different markets.
>>3060983
3rd gen was still the 80s, it was still an era when there were 8-9 different platforms around instead of a PC monoculture. You did not see this sort of thing happen much after about 1991.
>>3060996
What I'm most impressed with is how some companies had to port a game to DIFFERENT kinds of computers, like the C64, ZX Spectrum, and others. Also amusing is how some versions were based off various other versions, I remember seeing another version of Ghosts n Goblins that used similar art assets to the NES version. I know the GBC reused the NES graphics, and I remember seeing a computer port of GnG that used the NES graphics, but I can't seem to find it.
>>3060932
>By the way...unless you were running V2 SLI with a good P2 you weren't getting 60fps in 1998 for Unreal.
This. I have a system with a Voodoo 3 3500, 128 MB RAM, and a Celeron 400A in it, and it struggles to run Unreal at more than 30-40fps.
Still, even taking that relatively low performance into account, Unreal did a lot more than any console game did at the time. The graphics were incredible, the environments are huge, the level design is good, the music is top tier, and the online multiplayer is what formed the basis for UT. There was nothing like it on consoles.
>>3061048
>$200 consoles from mid 90s can't compete with $2000 PC from late 90s
It is a mystery to me
>>3061048
Unreal 1 engine is rather CPU heavy for some reason.
>>3061059
Yeah, try playing Deus Ex on that system. It's probably the heaviest unreal 1 engine game.
>>3061059
I think because it's one of the later 3D game engines that doesn't rely on hardware T&L so the CPU has to process it instead.
You also tend to see a fair number of later Quake 3 engine games that ram the CPU hard. Nothing less than a Pentium 4 Northwood / Athlon XP will give you 60fps in Medal of Honor Allied Assault even if you have an excellent GPU.
>>3061392
Wasn't hardware T&L only introduced with the GeForce 256?
>>3061396
Yeah, but you didn't start to see it implemented in games until 2000. Engines like Quake 3 and Unreal didn't have automatic support for it.
For a while I think only extensions to the engines would run with hardware T&L but not the rest.
>>3054034
>Quake 2 at 800x600
>Trident video card
How did you even cope, anon? I have a P2 366 and an ATI Rage Pro, and even at 640x480 it is laggy.
>>3061048
Absolutely stunning image. Gonna set it as my background.
>>3061364
I remember needng to disable lighting to get the game to be playable on my Pentium II machine. Didn't have a good video card either. Pic shows how horrible it looked and the settings I used to use on it.
(The system was above minimum requirements too!)
>>3053328
>8MB of RAM on a Pentium with (presumably) Windows 95
>Genesis in 1995 when it was almost at the end of the road
>Faguar
Great contest, no?
>>3062118
The Genesis was ending but the 32X was just beginning.
>>3062118
It was actually pretty standard practice to ship PCs with the bare minimum of RAM. Also wtf is a Compudyne? That's a brand I never heard of. Sounds like some Packard Bell-tier garbage brand.
>>3060914
PPro is optimized for 32-bit code, it will run 16-bit code slower than a standard Pentium.
>>3062147
How often does it run 16bit code in practice while running Quake? DOS4G and sorts provide protected mode through partially 16bit code, but isn't the rest 32bit after that? And Quake is fpu heavy, the Cyrix and AMD alternatives don't perform as well as the Intel offerings.
>>3062189
Windows 9x had extensive amounts of 16-bit code, especially in the UI, which significantly degrades performance on a PPro. Windows NT had no 16-bit code but Quake can't run on that.
>>3061547
Deus Ex is fucked.
I installed the demo on a good CPU and a Voodoo 2. Unreal runs well, but Deus Ex doesn't. It arguably looks worse too.
>>3064284
I vaguely remember somebody told me that a Pentium 3 at 1.4ghz isn't even 100% smooth with Deus Ex, even if it was paired with a Radeon 9700 Pro.
>>3064290
Not surprising. Even when I played it years ago on a modern multi-core system, it had some weird stuttering.
I really wonder how they fucked up.
>>3060914
Where's that document describing the assembly optimization done in Quake?
>>3054160
Except you(I assume you're the samefagging OP again) are using Quake as a benchmark which was clearly programmed to work best with a proper discrete videocard. And even games like Duke 3D worked much better with a videocard than without one. Dumbass.
>>3061547
That doesn't look any worse than the butchered PS1 version. The only thing the PS1 version did better was the intro FMV.
And it was a released in 2000 game. Try running it on a mid-tier rig from the 2000s and get back to me.
>>3064290
>>3064308
>Even when I played it years ago on a modern multi-core system, it had some weird stuttering.I really wonder how they fucked up.
It wasn't made for multi-cores, and it ran best on a Voodoo card. Most games made for single-cores are buggy or plain unplayable on multicore and/or 64-bit CPUs. Again, you're samefagging again, OP.
>>3055967
>But in terms of audio 5th gen consoles were superior to PCs because they were fanless.
Plug in a headphone, dumbass.
>>3067262
They started moving to multicores after the early Pentium 4s which were still single core. If you try to run older games on them, they have a habit of hogging 50% of the CPU and causing the fan to kick on.
>>3064308
>>3067262
>modern system with multi-core
Not only that, but UE1 doesn't like CPUs which change their frequency on the fly, especially laptop ones, making speed fluctuate wildly. Frame rates above ~200 fps also cause the game to speed up.
It is wise when playing any UE1 game to disable processor power management and to cap your FPS to monitor refresh rate in order to minimise these issues.
>>3067258
I've played the PS2 port, and the experience on my PII was worse. I don't have an early 2000s rig to test it on, the closest I have is that PII and a Pentium D system from 2005.
>>3067258
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kXk2fMRst8
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_Ex#Release
My bad. Butchered PS2 version. Even then... Well ,what are the limitations of a PS2? Do I have to spell out the obvious? Just look at the video! Look!
>>3067276
>I've played the PS2 port, and the experience on my PII was worse. I don't have an early 2000s rig to test it on
I have a Gateway box from 2003-04 and it does seem to have the newer model P4 that causes Windows 9x games to hog the thing.
>>3067276
>I don't have an early 2000s rig to test it on, the closest I have is that PII and a Pentium D system from 2005.
Moving goalposts. Opinions trashed.
>>3067258
>http://deusex.wikia.com/wiki/Deus_Ex:_The_Conspiracy
>The game mostly consists of the same dialogue and area layouts as the PC version aside from some minor changes: e.g. the layout of Liberty Island. This was due to the fact that the PS2 version had smaller sectioned maps compared to the PC counterpart.
>Other notable changes are the fact that the game uses pre-rendered high polygon CGI cutscenes during the intro and the three endings rather than the in-game graphics that the PC version uses. This, coupled with the slightly better graphics, are largely considered to be improvements. Despite this, the PS2 version of Deus Ex is often overlooked and is far less well-known than (and largely thought to be inferior to) the PC original.
"Slightly better graphics" only if you like blurry flitered textures, DVD-tier resolution(no better than 640x480 on the PC), and muh FMVs. Consolefags preferred this version.
>>3067306
Every Unreal 1 engine game also supports A3D 2.0 on PC, which is a plus.
>>3067243
>Quake as a benchmark which was clearly programmed to work best with a proper discrete videocard
oh my god how young are you, quake didn't support any 3D accelerators without source ports
>still having console/pc drama about shit that's 2 decades old
delicious
>>3068182
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quake_(video_game)#VQuake
VQuake was released in 96'. That's still relevent, you cherrypicking butthurt console fag.
>>3068459
That's a source port, and it needed a Rendition Verite card, which was literally an on-par to N64 renderer (possibly worse). Voodoo was over double as powerful. It wasn't getting close to 60 friend. More like a solid 30 with texture filtering and shit turned on.
