backtop


Print 59 comment(s) - last by andrep74.. on Aug 21 at 1:53 PM

The war of words continues

It's not uncommon for companies to downplay features that its products don't have in comparison to its competitors. Companies will usually talk about how customers won't likely use the feature or how it's not cost-effective to implement such features at a certain price point. Microsoft has been on the defensive with its XBOX 360 for quite some time. The company has defended its lack of a built-in next generation DVD drive, it has downplayed the importance of HDMI with next generation games and now it is saying that 1080p doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things.

Andre Vrignaud, Microsoft's Director of Technical Strategy for XBOX Live says that 1080p is mostly hype with the PlayStation 3. He goes on to say that 99% of the PS3 games released will be rendered at 720p while the only ones with 1080x native support will be arcade ports or games that sacrifice in-game effects. Here's a snippet from Vrignaud's Ozymandias Blog:

The PS3 has roughly the same pixel-pushing capabilities as the Xbox 360. Don't need to take my word for it, it'll be obvious soon enough over the next year. Even if this wasn't the case, consider we now live in a multi-platform development world, and that the current sweet spot developers are targeting is 720p due to the extremely similar system specifications. Simply put, a developer who is planning to release their game for both the Xbox 360 and the PS3 will aim for a common attainable ground. In fact, I'll stick my neck out and predict that that you won't see any 1080"x" games for the PS3 this year.

Vrignaud goes on to cite Home Theater Magazine's Geoffrey Morrison as validation for his criticisms of 1080p on today's consoles. Since Vrgnaud notes that 99% of PS3 games will render at 720p, that leaves the argument for 1080p with movies. "In this case, the only difference between 1080i and 1080p is where the de-interlacing is done. If you send 1080i, the TV de-interlaces it to 1080p. If you send your TV the 1080p signal, the player is de-interlacing the signal. As long as your TV is de-interlacing the 1080i correctly, then there is no difference," said Morrison.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

De-interlacing
By ND40oz on 8/16/2006 10:53:48 AM , Rating: 2
While the de-interlacing comment is correct for upconverted video, there will be a difference between an actual full resolution 1080p feed and a de-interlaced 1080i feed. Just look at the apple hd trailers and you can tell the difference if you're on a monitor that supports it's resolution without scaling.




RE: De-interlacing
By DallasTexas on 8/16/06, Rating: 0
RE: De-interlacing
By s12033722 on 8/16/2006 11:37:18 AM , Rating: 3
If the source was recorded in 1080p, there is no upconversion. MS's statement is only true for 1080i recordings. 1080p has twice the actual content. That being said, I think they are likely correct about both consoles being better suited to targetting 720p. I will probably not buy either, but rather get a wii, and I do have a 1080p television. I just like the idea of new and interesting gameplay more than the same stuff over with better graphics. If I want 1080p game graphics, I just hook my PC up to the tv.


RE: De-interlacing
By Trisped on 8/16/2006 11:58:20 AM , Rating: 2
PC monitors don't do up conversion, but the computers do. Just take a small movie file and open it in Windows Media Player and set it to scale with the size of the window, then adjust the window so it is really small and really big. You will see an amount of distortion, but not squares that are now made up of 4-16 pixels.

The problem with up converting is that the video processor must guess what the missing pixels are supposed to be. If you read some of the Anand Tech reviews of video cards they talk about it, and the older review have comparisons that clearly show the differences.

So what does this all mean for PS3? If movies are recorded in 1080p, then PS3 will have a better picture. It may not be a huge improvement over an unconverted 1080i, but it will be clearer and cleaner. But, with the HD movies compressed so much already, and designed to output 720p and 1080p it is possible that some corners were cut, so a 1080p signal may not be a true 1080p recorded signal. In this case it would probably fall somewhere between a true 1080p picture and an up scaled 1080i image quality.

What does this mean? If you have a display device capable of receiving and displaying a 1080p signal, and you are buying movies formatted in 1080p, then you will receive a benefit. If you are missing any of those, the you will find no advantage.


RE: De-interlacing
By DallasTexas on 8/16/06, Rating: -1
RE: De-interlacing
By masher2 (blog) on 8/16/2006 12:37:35 PM , Rating: 3
> "The problem with up converting is that the video processor must guess...if movies are recorded in 1080p, then PS3 will have a better picture. It may not be a huge improvement over an unconverted 1080i"

You're confusing upconversion with deinterlacing. A signal digitized properly can be deinterlaced with zero loss of image quality. Upconversion is a different matter entirely, and involves interpolation of missing pixels.

You can run into cases where a video stream has been improperly encoded (particularly when performing 3-2 pulldown to an NTSC signal) that will cause the video processor to improperly deinterlace and cause some loss of image quality, but this isn't an issue in the general case.




RE: De-interlacing
By glennpratt on 8/16/2006 12:47:45 PM , Rating: 2
Deinterlacing is never perfect as far as I know. Matching odd and even fields from adjacent frames is extremely likely to produce artifacts, even if it is just ocasionally or not noticeable.


RE: De-interlacing
By masher2 (blog) on 8/16/2006 1:21:52 PM , Rating: 3
Deinterlacing is perfect when you're reinterweaving material interlaced through 3-2 pulldown. You're just reversing the process, so you wind up with data identical to the original.

When you're dealing with material interlaced for broadcast via NTSC or otherwise (or material improperly marked as such) its a whole different ballgame. In that case, you're going to get interlaced artifacts galore, as the video processor has to guess which fields go with which frames.


RE: De-interlacing
By leonowski on 8/16/2006 1:53:27 PM , Rating: 2
One thing to keep in mind about the 1080p NTSC standards:

Unlike 720p, 1080p does not have a 60 FPS mode. 1080p runs in 24 and 30. After de-interlacing, a 1080i signal should equal a 1080p signal. You shouldn't see any difference.

While I am all for improvements in technology (as we all are), I don't think Sony has anything better to offer than Microsofts HDTV support. The buzzword "1080p" is used way too often by people who haven't seen all the formats.


RE: De-interlacing
By Trisped on 8/17/2006 2:54:14 PM , Rating: 2
A deinterlaced 1080i video is not the same as a native 1080p video. When the video is interlaced half the data is thrown out. It is gone, never to be found there again. Yes, you could go back to the original, but that is not what you have now. For example. Consider a video where half the scan lines are blue and the other half are yellow and where the color alternates each frame (so first frame will be green, yellow, green, yellow and the second frame is yellow, green, yellow, green and the third is the same as the first). An interlaced video will only pull one of the colors. As a result the deinterlacer will examine the picture, see that everything is the same color, and guess that that is what the picture is suppose to be. Then your flashy green screen turns into a yellow or blue one. While this is an extreme example, it does happen to a lesser extent with normal TV images.

Oh, and we are not talking about the over air transmission of HDTV, we are talking about HD movie play back, so the 1080p30 format does not apply. Also, NTSC does not have a 1080 format. That is ASCL or something like that. Same people, different name.


RE: De-interlacing
By FITCamaro on 8/16/2006 2:20:47 PM , Rating: 3
If I put two halves of a circle together, is there a difference between that circle and a full circle that wasn't split?

As long as the deinterlacing is done correctly, the picture is the same.


RE: De-interlacing
By fidodido on 8/17/2006 4:56:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If I put two halves of a circle together, is there a difference between that circle and a full circle that wasn't split?

As long as the deinterlacing is done correctly, the picture is the same.


This is true...if your circle is motionless. If, however, your circle is moving at speed of say...300 pixels every second. Then with a 1080p30 freeze frame halfway through the movement, what you will see is a circle that's shifted 150 pixels. But with a de-interlaced 1080i freeze frame, what you see is a "capsule" shape which is your circle elongated by 10 pixels in the middle and a bit faded on each end. Of course, the method of de-interlacing will affect the quality of that "distortion", but no matter what, you will NEVER achieve that circle from the 1080i signal.

Not the same picture by any definition.



Reality
By OrSin on 8/16/2006 2:38:28 PM , Rating: 2
1080P is almost worthless. This is why.
90% of all TV sets are not even HD.
So at this piont you might as well get a Wii. Moving on to the HD sets.

So the 10 % that are HD less then 15% can do 1080P.
So even if you HD most likely you can do 1080P most do 720p or 1080i. So we are down 1.5% of then population already.

Now of those that can do 1080p 75% are 37' or less.
From 10ft viewing distance you can tell the diffence in 720p or 1080p from a set under 50'. So now we are down to
.3% of the population at most.

I have 3 HD sets and none can do 1080p. In fact if you go 12 months back very few sets even could even do 1080P at all. Thier is no HD braoscast at 1080p. 1080P is new standard and orginal HD specs didn't even call for it. TV are made to watch show so unless you just got a HD-dvd player in the last few months or you are talented eonught to setup you computer to work on your tv, you have not ever seen a 1080p signal.





RE: Reality
By OrSin on 8/16/2006 2:40:21 PM , Rating: 2
sorry no edit buttom some of my can's should be can't :)


RE: Reality
By therealnickdanger on 8/16/2006 2:58:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thier is no HD braoscast at 1080p. 1080P is new standard and orginal HD specs didn't even call for it.

I don't know why people are saying this. 1080p is not new, 1080p24, 1080p25, and 1080p30 have been part of the ATSC spec from the get-go. We'll see the 1080p standards broadcast once the shift to MPEG4 from MPEG2 is made and once there is a high enough concentration of 1080p sets on the market. 1080p50 and 1080p60 are the only two that are NOT part of the ATSC spec.


RE: Reality
By masher2 (blog) on 8/16/2006 3:33:15 PM , Rating: 2
> "1080p24, 1080p25, and 1080p30 have been part of the ATSC spec from the get-go"

ATSC adopted the 3 1080p formats fairly recently. I don't recall the exact date, but it was well after 720p and 1080i was added.


RE: Reality
By Xavian on 8/16/2006 5:11:41 PM , Rating: 2
MPEG4 will not make 1080p magically viable for broadcasting. Since even in MPEG4 1080p consumes a massive amount of bandwidth and TBH if i had a choice of 100 720p channels or 10 1080p channels, i'd take the 100 720p channels thanks.

You also have to remember that the amount of channels you can shove down any wire/signal (for digital satellite) is finite and providing 1080p would cut the amount of channels that could be transmitted drastically.


RE: Reality
By Trisped on 8/17/2006 3:17:36 PM , Rating: 2
It is twice as much data means 1/2 the number of channels, not 1/10. So your choice is between 30 720p/1080i channels (of which you might want to watch 0-8) and 15 1080p channels. Of course even that isn't acurate, as many will upgrade to 720p/1080i and not worry about that last step to 1080p.


RE: Reality
By snooze2 on 8/21/2006 11:13:38 AM , Rating: 2
right now there is very few 1080p sets out there but think about it in a couple of years more and more people will get them. PS3 is supposed to last awhile.


Maybe 1080p is not just for games
By hstewarth on 8/16/2006 11:37:10 AM , Rating: 3
Maybe PS3 is not just for games but instead Blu-Ray movies..

I personally have a 360, one thing that is a major problem is the external power supply - now if we also have external HD DVD, than means yet another device to lug arround.

I also understand that some games will be made for both platforms and likely will be limited to lowest common denominators - 720p. But some games may still take advantage of 1080p on the PS3 even thougg on 360 limited to 720p.

But think about the purpose of these statesment. they are bashing Sony because they desired for public to not buy the PS3. Personally I own a 360 and will also have a PS3 but not even thinking of getting an Wii.




RE: Maybe 1080p is not just for games
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/16/2006 11:51:20 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
than means yet another device to lug arround.


Do you regularly lug your Xbox 360 around? :-) I thought most people left it in their entertainment center or on the floor where it would just sit there and collect dust like any other electronic device at your disposal. If you do lug it around to a friend's house, wouldn't it be to play games rather than to watch an HD DVD movie? So why would the additional "lug factor" come into play?

As for the power brick, isn't is usually out of sight sitting on the floor with the rest of the nest of cabling from your TV, speakers, receiver, DVD player, PS2, GameCube, DVR, etc? It's just another power brick, albeit a large one. If it out of sight, it's out of mind IMHO :-)


RE: Maybe 1080p is not just for games
By Kilim on 8/16/2006 3:29:57 PM , Rating: 2
Lug around?

Maybe for lan parties, but one of the nice features of the 360 is the detachable hard drive. My friend wanted to hang out at my place and wanted to play street fighter and finish dead rising. You know what he did? Took off his HDD from his 360, took it to my place, plugged it into mine, and my 360 was the same as his was. No need to change gamertags or anything.

Completely plug and play, which makes the 360 rock in convenience.


By rushfan2006 on 8/16/2006 11:52:57 AM , Rating: 2
Keep in mind I have no real motivation to buy either console...so it's easy for me to comment on either PS3 or X360.....anyway...unless you go from place to place with your console...I don't see a problem with the external PS...from a design idea its a good decision -- less heat in the unit....my nephew just tucks his behind his entertainment center...so what's the dealio about it?



RE: Maybe 1080p is not just for games
By Josh7289 on 8/16/2006 12:25:49 PM , Rating: 1
A PS3 and an Xbox 360? Why are you buying the same thing twice? And no Wii? I guess you don't like games.


By hstewarth on 8/21/2006 10:00:07 AM , Rating: 2
That is funny, the reason that I don't desired the Wii is because i don't care about the games on it - that is my personal opinion.. others might like them.

As for the 360 and PS3 - there is different games on them. Grpahics wise the PS3 will be the best adn than the 360 and finally the Wii.


Another silly attack on the PS3
By JimFear on 8/16/2006 12:27:03 PM , Rating: 2
Why are MS saying its not needed? Because they dont support it! At least Sony have given the developers the option to go to 1080p if they feel they can want. Sony are supporting all formats (480, 720 and 1080) and then letting the developers chose which is best rather than making them like it or lump it. In a few years when developers get to grips with coding for the PS3 they might be able to pull off 1080P really well, the 360 will still be stuck at 720p/1080i unless MS change their mind meaning Sony will either have one up on MS or they'll change their mind and look like fools.

Silly companies telling us what we want :)




By finalfan on 8/16/2006 1:03:18 PM , Rating: 3
Ask your friend who works for a game company, you will know MS is right.


RE: Another silly attack on the PS3
By sweb74 on 8/16/2006 11:57:55 PM , Rating: 1
Thing is that no one is even mentioning that only the high end PS3 will do 1080p. Component cable is not capable of braodcasting full 1080p resolutions, and HDMI 1.3 is the only digital theater connector that can. As we all know, the PS3 20gb model lacks HDMI, so unless you have the high end PS3, everything will be 1080i on the 20gb model, even Blu-Ray.

So much for Sony giving developers options!


RE: Another silly attack on the PS3
By Shoal07 on 8/17/2006 9:35:14 AM , Rating: 2
All HDMI, since 1.1, can pass 1080p. Read the specs. Unfortunately, most 1080ps until recently (if it's changed, I'm sure it has) cannot accept a 1080p input. So, of the HD TV owners (small percentage of pop) only a small percentage of them have 1080p TVs. And even smaller percentage of them have 1080p TVs hat can accept 1080p signals.


RE: Another silly attack on the PS3
By sweb74 on 8/19/2006 9:29:59 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunetly that was a LIE, as HDMI 1.1 could never support the 1080p bandwidth. I even talk to a Samsung tech at CES and he confirmed that port could not render 1080p correctly and why most 1080p tvs that first came out would only accept 1080i then upsample to 1080p. That is why HDMI 1.3 was ratified, to support 1080p properly and higher resolutions, by adding a butt load of bandwidth.

Read here and you will understand

http://www.avreview.co.uk/news/article/mps/UAN/791...


PS3
By gramboh on 8/16/2006 11:21:59 PM , Rating: 2
Is the PS3 or Xbox360 hardware even capable of pushing 1920x1080 in 3D games? You need a very fast computer to play at that detail (especially with AA/AF). I just can't see these consoles being powerful enough to game at 1080p (especially at 30fps or greater) without turning the detail way down. 720p makes more sense.




RE: PS3
By Dijonaise on 8/17/2006 3:44:01 AM , Rating: 2
You hit the nail on the head. 1920x1080 is pretty punishing, even for your PC SLI or Crossfire setup. The only real way I can see 1080p on a console is if other details (such as draw-distance) suffers.

Stable, solid frame rates add much more value to a game than 1080p.


RE: PS3
By othercents on 8/17/2006 10:57:28 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sure it will do it and it will look great, but you will have to deal with 1 minute of game play and 5 minutes of "LOADING".

Other


RE: PS3
By JWalk on 8/17/2006 2:34:16 PM , Rating: 2
Bingo! We have a winner. It is going to be hard to run any games natively at 1080(i or p) on either system. Now playing movies at those resolutions (HD-DVD drive for X360 and Blue-Ray for PS3) will be possible. But that is going to be the only real reason to have 1080 capability in either system. Games running at those resolutions on this hardware are going to be few and far between.


Good to know
By PitbulI on 8/16/2006 2:12:55 PM , Rating: 1
This is good to know for those who are on the fence and thought next gen would look different on either system. I feel the movie playback will look great on a 1080p TV but we have already been told that the first BluRay movies won't even be on 1080p if I'm correct.

However, this won't sway people that want the PS3 already. It's just stating that the games will look quite similar.

I feel that with the graphics chip the XBox 360 is using, a few more unique graphics will be seen on the 360 but the PS3 should have some nice things on it as well. The selling point on the PS3 is the BluRay player. Now all they need to do is win the format war and I'll go get me a PS3. As for now I'm happy with my XBox 360.




RE: Good to know
By therealnickdanger on 8/16/2006 2:46:59 PM , Rating: 2
Say it with me now:
All HD-DVD and Blu-Ray films are encoded in 1080p24. The differences lie in the players and televisions. Currently, Blu-Ray movies are encoded in 1080p24 MPEG2 on single-layer discs, which has led to quite an uproar in the HT crowd due to the poor picture quality compared to the current HD-DVDs, which are encoded in 1080p24 using VC-1 and H.264 codecs on single and dual-layer discs.

The players and the HDTVs they are connected to determine whether you see 1080i or 1080p content on the screen.

So far, I've read a great many discouraging things regarding the PS3. Dropping exclusives, losing developers, high development costs, poor Cell performance, high price, alongside the dismal showings of Blu-Ray so far and their lackluster E3 showing. OTOH, Xbox360 is pretty awesome so far, I have to say. I borrowed a friend's for a weekend and played lots of games on it. Even on my old EDTV plasma, everything was remarkably better looking than anything from last generation.

I don't really care much since my PC can play "2560p". LOL


RE: Good to know
By andrep74 on 8/21/2006 1:53:18 PM , Rating: 2
You mean "1600p"? I don't know of any monitor that can do <something>x2560.


HISTORY REPEATS
By griffynz on 8/16/2006 6:55:23 PM , Rating: 3
They are right,Those old enough will remeber the Atari ST vs. Amiga issue. The Amiga has more sound channels and greater colour per resolution but because the games were produced for both the developers hardly ever upgraded the titles from the Atari ST version (which I owned incidently). A few titles had improved sound but the graphics were nearly 100% a port from the Atari ST. Friends with Amigas knew their computer could do better but were always having to setting for substandard games.
This WILL happen with title that are produced for both machines, sure they may 'up-scale' the resolution sometimes but we all know that the lower 720p resolution will help prevent 'slow-downs' and will allow quick and easy ports to either games machine.




RE: HISTORY REPEATS
By psychobriggsy on 8/17/2006 9:10:33 AM , Rating: 2
Initially that was the case, but by around 1990 when the Amiga was outselling the ST many game developers put the effort into using the Amiga's capabilities.

Some Amiga games were works of art and technically amazing, these games didn't appear on the ST. However the ST had a very slight clockspeed advantage (about 0.7MHz) which helped it in certain types of games that couldn't make use of the custom hardware, mainly 3D games.

When an Amiga game used overscan effectively, the full possible palette (32 colours or even 64), and the graphics coprocessor to get nice effects then the difference was night and day.

I don't think that there will be many differences in games on the 360 and PS3, and cross platform games including the Wii will use reduced textures on the Wii due to the lack of HD and memory. The Cell processor may enable good physics effects that might increase realism. The 360's extra cores will come in handy too. We'll see how the systems perform in a couple of years when developers are more comfortable with the hardware.


PS4?
By lemonadesoda on 8/16/2006 11:49:45 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe its time for Sony to can the PS3 project and jump straight to PS4, solving all the issues and upscaling both cell, GPU and controllers, to create a new class in extreme gaming.




RE: PS4?
By hstewarth on 8/21/2006 9:57:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maybe its time for Sony to can the PS3 project and jump straight to PS4, solving all the issues and upscaling both cell, GPU and controllers, to create a new class in extreme gaming.



Stating Sony to can PS3 and go PS4 is stupid.. with all the development in PS3 - this would be ammit lost in the project even befor eit has started. Obvious such a statement is from one that desires Sony not to be successfull.


From a studying game developer.
By Riffage on 8/17/2006 7:19:59 PM , Rating: 2
There seems to be a common view amongst this thread that games developers aren't going to release their games in 1080p due to the 'lowest common denominator' factor.

This is a fair view, but when concerning the technicalities of how 3D scenes are rendered using vector-math to calculate the scanlines, the effort required to release a 1080p version is not as daunting as you think.

Scaling factors are increased. splines/NURMS are further interpolated & perhaps common models are redefined.Textures rebuilt from the original High-res proofs etc.

The problem with 1080p is not at the developer side so much. Its at render time. The PS3 is gonna have to kick major arse when it comes to the pixel pipeline, especially the real-world lighting and shading calls- judging by the specs, it SHOULD be possible.




By hstewarth on 8/21/2006 10:03:20 AM , Rating: 2
Its not a developer statement - but Fanboy/Marketting statement that not support 1080p. If Microsoft feels that that 1080p is possible than PS3 will have an advanatage on them and they desired that not be the case.

Sony however desires developers to take advantage of it and therefor will encourage it and make it easy for them. If anything Games from Sony will support 1080p at first and later other venders will follow suit.


There will be 1080p games...
By MIDIman on 8/16/06, Rating: 0
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/16/2006 12:01:23 PM , Rating: 2
That article only mentions one 1080p game, Gran Turismo HD


who cares ... ?
By mforce on 8/16/2006 11:23:07 AM , Rating: 1
I don't care anymore , all this M$ atacking Sony is leaving me cold . Seems they're a bit afraid though .
I say let the fight begin and let's how well M$ does where it has strong competition and still doesn't own the whole market like it does with the OS market .
Still all this M$ vs. Sony , AMD vs. Intel is a good thing but we shouldn't really care . Let them fight it out and we can get lower prices and better products . I really don't think we need to take sides cause there really isn't a good guy and a bad guy , they're all companies out there to make $ and they could care less about us , the customers . So why should we give a damn about them .




MISSING: andre vrignauds head
By Armorize on 8/16/06, Rating: 0
Resolutions
By shabodah on 8/16/06, Rating: -1
RE: Resolutions
By DallasTexas on 8/16/06, Rating: -1
RE: Resolutions
By rushfan2006 on 8/16/2006 11:46:26 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah post in all <bBOLD because that makes your post more enriching for the reader. I bet you are the guy that presses the elevator call button after someone else already pressed it to......



RE: Resolutions
By rushfan2006 on 8/16/06, Rating: 0
RE: Resolutions
By Trisped on 8/16/2006 12:01:49 PM , Rating: 4
There is no edit button so people can't post something, then come back later and change it. Just like the spoken word, what you write stays for all to analyze, so think before you post.


RE: Resolutions
By MonkeyPaw on 8/16/2006 2:56:00 PM , Rating: 2
...and it's another reason why we get to vote on comments. Plus one for you, by the way. ;)


RE: Resolutions
By MrSmurf on 8/16/2006 7:48:35 PM , Rating: 2
Which was taken away when you posted... lol


RE: Resolutions
By TomZ on 8/16/2006 1:18:36 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I love how archaic the forum feature is here....its a heavily used forum for various topics and the cheapsakes that run the site can't even throw in an EDIT button

You're right, there is no Edit button, but there certainly is a Preview button, which should serve the same purpose.


RE: Resolutions
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 8/17/2006 5:22:59 AM , Rating: 2
We're mandating the preview button soon too.


RE: Resolutions
By lemonadesoda on 8/16/2006 11:46:34 AM , Rating: 2
You were making sense up to:
quote:
Most PC games target the lowest common denominator - which is usually Intel's integrated graphic by nature of it's volumes. It has been that way for years
What complete nonsense! Name just 3 of the top 20 games that developers have aimed at integrated graphics. (go to http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/678/678238p1.html for some ideas of applicable games to choose from. I don't want to hear about minesweeper and other nonsense)


RE: Resolutions
By Trisped on 8/16/2006 12:06:14 PM , Rating: 2
Most games are designed to work (though not smoothly) if you are using an Intel IGP. The reason is the number of users who don't have the money to buy their own PC, so they use their parents $400-500 Dell. If you set the display to 800x600 and turn EVERYTHING else off then it should work ok. Personally, I have a rather large monitor, and prefer games that I can run at 1600x1200 with medium-high res models.


RE: Resolutions
By shabodah on 8/16/2006 11:51:01 AM , Rating: 1
You haven't played a PC game in a while, have you? Intel's crappy IGP still does hold things back, no doubt, but I don't even own a game (current game) that it is capable of playing at 1024x768, let alone higher resolutions. Most current games have support for AT LEAST 1600x1200, and many with higher.


"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki