Xbox 360 gfx VS PC gfx

[00stevo]

I prefer it.It makes it a bit more realistic when you move.

[WhenKittensATK]

The only more realistic you get to moving is standing up and moving.

[ClayMeow]

Only some games really need that. For those games they have the walk option (Shift). Most games don't need a walk so joystick vs keyboard isn't going to matter.

Assassin's Creed is a perfect example of this. It takes some getting used to, but if you give the keyboard/mouse controls some time, you'll find it surprisingly intuitive, fluid and most importantly, precise.

[Waco]

Every game I've ever tried with a gamepad as worked fine with my Nyko AirFlo Ex, which is like a dual-analog PS gamepad, not an xbox one.

 

 

I fail to see which facts you seem to think we're ignoring.

 

Vsync is only useful in older games where you are essentially guaranteed to have an FPS higher than your refresh rate at ALL TIMES when you have it disabled. But therein lies the problem. There's a reason why good game benchmarks show you a min, max and avg.

 

Average: Obviously the most important of the three numbers. If your average FPS (at the settings you want to play) with vsync off is below your monitor's refresh rate, then you should keep vsync off, as you will actually suffer an fps loss in most situations in said game.

 

Minimum: Even if your average FPS is above your monitor's refresh rate, if the minimum FPS is below, then you will notice more stuttering during those intense scenes with vsync on than when it's off. This is the main reason why tkrow and other first-person shooter players are not a fan of vsync even when they will generally have high FPS (an average above their FPS).

 

Maximum: Least important of the three numbers, but still worth looking at, because if the maximum is below your monitor's refresh rate, then vsync won't improve anything whatsoever. On the contrary, you'd only be hurting yourself. If the number is above the refresh rate, then yes, during those times, vsync would reduce any potential tearing. However, maximum FPS often occurs during idle settings, like when you're just admiring the scenery. Since very little movement will be going on during these instances of maximum FPS, there wouldn't be much, if any, tearing.

 

So there are the facts....now it's up to you whether you choose to ignore them or not.

You can make up fake scenarios all you like but it doesn't change the fact that you're wrong.

 

If you don't use vsync it doesn't matter whether you are above or below your refresh rate...you'll see tearing either way. Justifying your opinion based upon incorrect data isn't going to make your opinion any more valid.

 

If you spent about 3 seconds reading about triple-buffering (or spent a half a second looking at a game with vsync disabled) you'd immediately recognize the problem. Since you seem determined to ignore the facts I'm not going to put any more effort into convincing you that you can't beat how the hardware works by simply believing it works in another fashion. It just doesn't work that way and if you want to convince others to follow your lunacy I won't object.

 

I will, however, lose a bit of faith in OCC since you're someone people listen to...

[ClayMeow]

You can make up fake scenarios all you like but it doesn't change the fact that you're wrong.

 

If you don't use vsync it doesn't matter whether you are above or below your refresh rate...you'll see tearing either way. Justifying your opinion based upon incorrect data isn't going to make your opinion any more valid.

 

If you spent about 3 seconds reading about triple-buffering (or spent a half a second looking at a game with vsync disabled) you'd immediately recognize the problem. Since you seem determined to ignore the facts I'm not going to put any more effort into convincing you that you can't beat how the hardware works by simply believing it works in another fashion. It just doesn't work that way and if you want to convince others to follow your lunacy I won't object.

 

I will, however, lose a bit of faith in OCC since you're someone people listen to...

lol, you keep talking about facts...I provide them and you don't, and yet I'm still wrong. Triple buffering uses more VRAM, so depending on the game, you can still notice a performance hit, so it won't be as large as without it. But regardless, there's still no point if your average FPS is below the your refresh rate.

[Waco]

lol, you keep talking about facts...I provide them and you don't, and yet I'm still wrong. Triple buffering uses more VRAM, so depending on the game, you can still notice a performance hit, so it won't be as large as without it. But regardless, there's still no point if your average FPS is below the your refresh rate.

You're wrong because you're wrong...you can look up the facts yourself if you really want to have an argument.

 

Vsync is useful whenever your video card cannot exactly match the refresh rate of your monitor...which is 99.99999999999% of the time.

 

Triple buffering uses more memory, yes, but when is the last time you had a card that was so close to the limit in terms of memory that an extra few megabytes of framebuffer would kill performance dramatically?

 

Yeah, you haven't. Don't make up scenarios that were ridiculous even 10 years ago to try and prove your point. You can argue against vsync all you like but it doesn't change the fact that you're wrong. Vsync is a very real problem and you can't just pretend it doesn't exist...

[ClayMeow]

If you think vsync improves visuals without a performance hit, then answer me this...why is it an OPTION? You'd think developers would just have it set on if there was only an upside, no?

 

Exactly.

[KK_]

If you think vsync improves visuals without a performance hit, then answer me this...why is it an OPTION? You'd think developers would just have it set on if there was only an upside, no?

 

Exactly.

 

agreed.

[Compxpert]

You're wrong because you're wrong...you can look up the facts yourself if you really want to have an argument.

 

Vsync is useful whenever your video card cannot exactly match the refresh rate of your monitor...which is 99.99999999999% of the time.

 

Triple buffering uses more memory, yes, but when is the last time you had a card that was so close to the limit in terms of memory that an extra few megabytes of framebuffer would kill performance dramatically?

 

Yeah, you haven't. Don't make up scenarios that were ridiculous even 10 years ago to try and prove your point. You can argue against vsync all you like but it doesn't change the fact that you're wrong. Vsync is a very real problem and you can't just pretend it doesn't exist...

Then explain why I don't have a constant 60 frames a second on a 60hz refresh rate and still have mild amounts of tearing with vsync on. Its not ATI either because this happens on my nvidia laptop as well I noticed it when playing portal.

 

Edit: Now I don't need an anwser. I just googled it. Since games handle vsync differently some can't hold it at 60 and thus go with divisible of 60 like 45fps or 30fps you probably get the idea. And of course there are some games that are buggy as * and act like crap with vsync such as ME.

Edited September 5, 2009 by Compxpert

[xchrissypoox]

Unless they make pressure sentitive keyboards(cringe) a 360 pad is always best.Thats the main advantage on a console controller for me.Anologue movement.

I believe there is a pressure sensitive keyboard, I recall seeing someone typing on one and the fontr size was determined by how hard they hit the keys

 

found it

on a side note, xbox 360 controllers are so great for pc gaming, In oblivion I use a combination of xpadder and the games recognition of analogue sticks (though you have to edit the oblivion.ini otherwise it won't do diagonal movements correctly).

 

On another side note I'm no longer a new member, yay

Edited September 5, 2009 by xchrissypoox

[Waco]

If you think vsync improves visuals without a performance hit, then answer me this...why is it an OPTION? You'd think developers would just have it set on if there was only an upside, no?

 

Exactly.

It's an option for people who have hardware that can't keep a constant framerate and because many games are buggy as hell.

 

The only performance "hit" comes when you fall below your refresh rate...which you can avoid completely if you use triple buffering. The only real downside is that you use *slightly* more video memory for the extra buffers.

 

I'm not going to argue about this any more; it's clear you don't understand and don't care to.

 

Then explain why I don't have a constant 60 frames a second on a 60hz refresh rate and still have mild amounts of tearing with vsync on. Its not ATI either because this happens on my nvidia laptop as well I noticed it when playing portal.

 

Edit: Now I don't need an anwser. I just googled it. Since games handle vsync differently some can't hold it at 60 and thus go with divisible of 60 like 45fps or 30fps you probably get the idea. And of course there are some games that are buggy as * and act like crap with vsync such as ME.

Turn on triple buffering (either in the game or your driver control panel) and that issue will go away. Usually ports of games are the ones that are the worst with vsync (like ME). I can't stand to play without it though.

Edited September 5, 2009 by Waco

[Jump4h]

How about we all stop arguing about the tearing and stuff and buy a 120Hz LCD. That ought to fix all potential problems, am I correct?