How does HD7850 rate compared to Xbox 360 and PS3?

  • 72 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Hawkeye747 (636 posts) -

I tried to find the answer myself but everything I read was full of techno babble that went right over my head, so if someone can give a simple answer on which is better or a similar comparison, that'd be good. Also, I KNOW no one knows for sure if/when the next gen consoles are coming but do you have a theory on how a 7850 (over clocked edition) will rate against them? Considering upgrading and switching to an Nvidia card this year, just wondering how far I'll need to go to outshine the new consoles that I will, no doubt, buy as well.

#2 Posted by MonsieurX (29574 posts) -
Only rumors so far about the new consoles,so can't tell. 360 used something similar to the X1800 series,which is like 6 generations before the 7850
#3 Posted by ShadowDeathX (10578 posts) -
About 10 - 12 times more powerful
#4 Posted by blaznwiipspman1 (6028 posts) -

around 10-12X more powerful, but doesn't mean graphics look that much better. Id say the graphics are around 6-8x better than 360/ps3. Also some games like sports games and racing games look as good on consoles as they do on pc, for example sports games and racing games. Thats because these games aren't really graphically intensive and the developers focus their efforts on making the games for consoles then porting over to the pc. So even though these games do look better, they're pretty much in the same ball park, except of course the obvious 1080p (pc) vs sub 720p (console) differences.

#5 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

a 7850 is roughly 8-10 times as powerful as the GPU in an Xbox 360 or PS3. The Xbox 360 uses a chip similar to the ATI X1900 series, the PS3 uses a stripped-down Geforce 7800/7900 series variant. The top dog PC GPUs of 2005 and 2006 were more powerful than what the consoles had.

Like another user said, that doesn't translate to graphics that look 10x better. What we're getting on PC is much higher resolution (1080p or higher rendering versus 720p or lower on consoles), better texture and GFX detail, and game mods that make them look (sometimes) much better than they did. There are some PC games that look "next-gen" when running with the right mods at a high resolution.

It's hard to say exactly what the new consoles will be packing. The rumors that I'm hearing have the xbox720 with something similar to a 7850. Sometimes I read that it will be a bit weaker, sometimes a bit stronger. We won't know for sure until they're out.

#6 Posted by Marfoo (5993 posts) -
No contest. A PS3/Xbox GPU has like 300 million transistors. 7850 is pushing 2.5B+
#7 Posted by psymon100 (6138 posts) -

I have a 7850 and an Xbox 360.

It's like David versus Goliath except David is actually a little grub and Goliath is a mythical beast of most infinite power.

Chalk and cheese mate.

#8 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2570 posts) -
Funny how the cards are more powerful than console yet consoles keep a more consistent frame rate
#9 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

Funny how the cards are more powerful than console yet consoles keep a more consistent frame rate_SKatEDiRt_

Joking, right?

#10 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2570 posts) -

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]Funny how the cards are more powerful than console yet consoles keep a more consistent frame ratehartsickdiscipl

Joking, right?

nope.
#11 Posted by ferret-gamer (17310 posts) -
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]Funny how the cards are more powerful than console yet consoles keep a more consistent frame rate_SKatEDiRt_

Joking, right?

nope.

You must not play many console games if you think most of them have consistent framerates. Especially the more demanding ones. For example both recently released games far cry 3 and Assassins creed 3 both had issues of the framerate commonly dropping below 20fps on consoles.
#12 Posted by MonsieurX (29574 posts) -
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]Funny how the cards are more powerful than console yet consoles keep a more consistent frame rate_SKatEDiRt_

Joking, right?

nope.

Because devs are working with locked components in the consoles,they know how they work out. While with PCs,they keep evolving and changing
#13 Posted by 04dcarraher (19274 posts) -

PS3

RSX GPU: G70(GTX 7800) chipset based 256mb with 22 GB/s bandwidth ~170 GFLOPS of performance based on 2005 era Opengl Direct x 9 equivalent

360

Xenos GPU, based on R500(X1800) with newer features from modern gpu's unified shader architecture with less then 512 of memory (average 256mb ish) with about 22 GB/s bandwidth with 240 GFLOPS of performance based on Direct x 9 shader model 3.

AMD 7850

Southern islands based, 2 GB GDDR5 with 153 GB/s bandwidth and has 1.76 TFLOP (1760 GFLOPS) of performance using Direct x 11 Shader model 5.

So basically

the 7850 has 7x the processing power, has 8x the memory, has nearly 7x the memory bandwidth and is two generations of API and features ahead of the consoles.

#14 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]Funny how the cards are more powerful than console yet consoles keep a more consistent frame rate_SKatEDiRt_

Joking, right?

nope.

Consistent frame rates is not a hallmark of consoles.. especially not the current generation. There are many games that drop well below 30fps. I don't know which games you've been playing, but the X360 and PS3 struggle to run many of the games programmed for them.

#15 Posted by GioVela2010 (4018 posts) -
About 7 times more powerful according to FLOPS, but exclusive console games get twice as much performance vs Equal PC Hardware. Anyway the difference isn't super noticeable
#16 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2570 posts) -

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Joking, right?

hartsickdiscipl

nope.

Consistent frame rates is not a hallmark of consoles.. especially not the current generation. There are many games that drop well below 30fps. I don't know which games you've been playing, but the X360 and PS3 struggle to run many of the games programmed for them.

never seen lag on the console for me only my PC lags. I play bf3 cod forza and halo.
#17 Posted by 04dcarraher (19274 posts) -
but exclusive console games get twice as much performance vs Equal PC Hardware. GioVela2010
That is false,
#18 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"] nope._SKatEDiRt_

Consistent frame rates is not a hallmark of consoles.. especially not the current generation. There are many games that drop well below 30fps. I don't know which games you've been playing, but the X360 and PS3 struggle to run many of the games programmed for them.

never seen lag on the console for me only my PC lags. I play bf3 cod forza and halo.

Perhaps you have the one xbox360 in the world that maintains stable FPS?

#19 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

About 7 times more powerful according to FLOPS, but exclusive console games get twice as much performance vs Equal PC Hardware. Anyway the difference isn't super noticeable GioVela2010

So not true

#20 Posted by GioVela2010 (4018 posts) -

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"]About 7 times more powerful according to FLOPS, but exclusive console games get twice as much performance vs Equal PC Hardware. Anyway the difference isn't super noticeable hartsickdiscipl

So not true

Carmack disagrees with u
#21 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"]About 7 times more powerful according to FLOPS, but exclusive console games get twice as much performance vs Equal PC Hardware. Anyway the difference isn't super noticeable GioVela2010

So not true

Carmack disagrees with u

It can't be true because there is no such thing as PC hardware "equal" to what's in current-gen consoles. Sure, the console GPUs are derived from old ATI/AMD and Nvidia chips, but the CPUs are completely different.

#22 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2570 posts) -
[QUOTE="GioVela2010"]but exclusive console games get twice as much performance vs Equal PC Hardware. 04dcarraher
That is false,

go play farcry 3 on a 1800xt and tell us how that goes
#23 Posted by 04dcarraher (19274 posts) -

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

So not true

hartsickdiscipl

Carmack disagrees with u

It can't be true because there is no such thing as PC hardware "equal" to what's in current-gen consoles. Sure, the console GPUs are derived from old ATI/AMD and Nvidia chips, but the CPUs are completely different.

not only that but an x1950 can run Crysis 2 equally as good as the 360, yet the 360's gpu cant run it 2x faster then an x1800. Plus you cant ignore the fact that optimization includes lower quality and assets to reach a set standard. "run better" is a broadly interpreted phrase and he does not say what aspects what and why the hardware can run better. You can not make a set piece of hardware out perform another set of same performance hardware to that degree without giving up alot of assets.
#24 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2570 posts) -

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Consistent frame rates is not a hallmark of consoles.. especially not the current generation. There are many games that drop well below 30fps. I don't know which games you've been playing, but the X360 and PS3 struggle to run many of the games programmed for them.

hartsickdiscipl

never seen lag on the console for me only my PC lags. I play bf3 cod forza and halo.

Perhaps you have the one xbox360 in the world that maintains stable FPS?

i guess. I've never seen lag on a console ever in my life. I have seen it many times on pc though
#25 Posted by 04dcarraher (19274 posts) -
[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="GioVela2010"]but exclusive console games get twice as much performance vs Equal PC Hardware. _SKatEDiRt_
That is false,

go play farcry 3 on a 1800xt and tell us how that goes

Optimize the game the same way as the 360 then its golden. You can not make a set piece of hardware out perform another set of same performance hardware to that degree without giving up alot of assets.
#26 Posted by 04dcarraher (19274 posts) -
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]never seen lag on the console for me only my PC lags. I play bf3 cod forza and halo. _SKatEDiRt_

Perhaps you have the one xbox360 in the world that maintains stable FPS?

i guess. I've never seen lag on a console ever in my life. I have seen it many times on pc though

Or not playing the games that have the performance issues.
#27 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2570 posts) -
[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Perhaps you have the one xbox360 in the world that maintains stable FPS?

04dcarraher
i guess. I've never seen lag on a console ever in my life. I have seen it many times on pc though

Or not playing the games that have the performance issues.

i guess not.
#28 Posted by ferret-gamer (17310 posts) -

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]i guess. I've never seen lag on a console ever in my life. I have seen it many times on pc though_SKatEDiRt_
Or not playing the games that have the performance issues.

i guess not.

Some frame rate videos for the consoles:

Far Cry 3http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HAMXHJ-kw

Assassins Creed 3http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wTbxWxkThc

Crysishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwD2ty2UfBM

Prototype 2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DLv48dTAO4

Max Payne 3http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mlfy5hm2a4

Each of those games fall below 30fps quite often, and in some cases below 20fps

#29 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2570 posts) -

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] Or not playing the games that have the performance issues.ferret-gamer

i guess not.

Some frame rate videos for the consoles:

Far Cry 3http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HAMXHJ-kw

Assassins Creed 3http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wTbxWxkThc

Crysishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwD2ty2UfBM

Prototype 2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DLv48dTAO4

Max Payne 3http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mlfy5hm2a4

Each of those games fall below 30fps quite often, and in some cases below 20fps

that looks way too smooth to be accurate. What tool were they using to measure console fps? Yeah that doesn't look like 20 fps
#30 Posted by ferret-gamer (17310 posts) -

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]i guess not. _SKatEDiRt_

Some frame rate videos for the consoles:

Far Cry 3http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HAMXHJ-kw

Assassins Creed 3http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wTbxWxkThc

Crysishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwD2ty2UfBM

Prototype 2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DLv48dTAO4

Max Payne 3http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mlfy5hm2a4

Each of those games fall below 30fps quite often, and in some cases below 20fps

that looks way too smooth to be accurate. What tool were they using to measure console fps? Yeah that doesn't look like 20 fps

Watching things on youtube and playing them are two different things. Movies are done in 24fps and are smooth enough to watch, but playing a game at 24fps is not fun at all. As to what exact tools they were using I'm not sure, you would have to ask Eurogamer that, but i would trust them a lot more than how "smooth" things feel to you watching a video.

#31 Posted by kraken2109 (13007 posts) -

Even COD lags on xbox if you split screen or play zombies.

#32 Posted by ronvalencia (15109 posts) -

PS3

RSX GPU: G70(GTX 7800) chipset based 256mb with 22 GB/s bandwidth ~170 GFLOPS of performance based on 2005 era Opengl Direct x 9 equivalent

360

Xenos GPU, based on R500(X1800) with newer features from modern gpu's unified shader architecture with less then 512 of memory (average 256mb ish) with about 22 GB/s bandwidth with 240 GFLOPS of performance based on Direct x 9 shader model 3.

AMD 7850

Southern islands based, 2 GB GDDR5 with 153 GB/s bandwidth and has 1.76 TFLOP (1760 GFLOPS) of performance using Direct x 11 Shader model 5.

So basically

the 7850 has 7x the processing power, has 8x the memory, has nearly 7x the memory bandwidth and is two generations of API and features ahead of the consoles.

04dcarraher

AMD 7850 has Direct x 11.1 Level 11.1 e.g. 64 UAV (unordered access views) enabled for all shader stages (vertex shader, hull shader, domain shader, geomtry shader, pixel shader).

It means you can write to an UAV in the vertex shader and access the same buffer in a pixel shader.

DirectX 11.1 Level 11.0 only has 8 UAV (unordered access views) enabled for pixel shader i.e. less flexible.

PS: UAV is a random access (read/write) view on a buffer.

#33 Posted by chris24l (1286 posts) -
My guess is the 7850 will be half the gpu that will be In the next consoles. I predict the next consoles will have quad gpu of about 4x 6770, or it should. That would be a fair step up from current consoles.
#34 Posted by 04dcarraher (19274 posts) -

My guess is the 7850 will be half the gpu that will be In the next consoles. I predict the next consoles will have quad gpu of about 4x 6770, or it should. That would be a fair step up from current consoles. chris24l
huh? are you serious....

Consoles cant not handle a gpu stronger then a 7850 because of power and cooling requirements let alone the the costs and price target. These consoles are going to be "semi custom" and AMD has hinted from presentation slides that one or both consoles will be based off the 8800M based gpu. Also from latest rumors the target TDP area of the consoles will be ~150w total.

#35 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2570 posts) -

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"][QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

Some frame rate videos for the consoles:

Far Cry 3http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HAMXHJ-kw

Assassins Creed 3http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wTbxWxkThc

Crysishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwD2ty2UfBM

Prototype 2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DLv48dTAO4

Max Payne 3http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mlfy5hm2a4

Each of those games fall below 30fps quite often, and in some cases below 20fps

ferret-gamer

that looks way too smooth to be accurate. What tool were they using to measure console fps? Yeah that doesn't look like 20 fps

Watching things on youtube and playing them are two different things. Movies are done in 24fps and are smooth enough to watch, but playing a game at 24fps is not fun at all. As to what exact tools they were using I'm not sure, you would have to ask Eurogamer that, but i would trust them a lot more than how "smooth" things feel to you watching a video.

went to my buddy's house that has far cry 3, we could not measure fps but fc3 was not smooth but definatly not running at 20fps. if i max out crysis 2 on my pc i get 20 fps (whih is unplayable) Also. I have cod blacks ops 2. Smooth as butter with split screen. Those videos are false
#36 Posted by Hawkeye747 (636 posts) -

Pretty freakin happy I probably wont be drooling over the new console graphics when I play on my PC!!! On a side note re. Steam Box (having not fully read all the "steam box" articles) I am thinking that you will "need" an nvidia card to get into that? If so, I will probably get something slightly better than my 7850. Would that be the GTX 660? If so, how much better is the GTX 660 Ti... as in is it worth the few extra $$$?

#37 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2570 posts) -

Even COD lags on xbox if you split screen or play zombies.

kraken2109
never had lag on zombies never seen nor heard of until now
#38 Posted by 04dcarraher (19274 posts) -
[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"] that looks way too smooth to be accurate. What tool were they using to measure console fps? Yeah that doesn't look like 20 fps_SKatEDiRt_

Watching things on youtube and playing them are two different things. Movies are done in 24fps and are smooth enough to watch, but playing a game at 24fps is not fun at all. As to what exact tools they were using I'm not sure, you would have to ask Eurogamer that, but i would trust them a lot more than how "smooth" things feel to you watching a video.

went to my buddy's house that has far cry 3, we could not measure fps but fc3 was not smooth but definatly not running at 20fps. if i max out crysis 2 on my pc i get 20 fps (whih is unplayable) Also. I have cod blacks ops 2. Smooth as butter with split screen. Those videos are false

Um anything under 30 isnt smooth so farcry 3 was running 20-26 fps. You need to understand that Crysis 2's lowest settings equal the consoles and if your running max settings with tessellation of course your going to run into performance issues, if you disable or mod tessellation with the fix your performance will get better. Ive played and watch BO2 MP and when there's alot of action with explosions the frame rate does dip into the 40's or 30's at times. You also need the realize that BO 2 runs at 880x720. Consoles do not run games with the same graphical assets as Pc nor resolutions.
#39 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2570 posts) -
[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"][QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] Watching things on youtube and playing them are two different things. Movies are done in 24fps and are smooth enough to watch, but playing a game at 24fps is not fun at all. As to what exact tools they were using I'm not sure, you would have to ask Eurogamer that, but i would trust them a lot more than how "smooth" things feel to you watching a video.04dcarraher
went to my buddy's house that has far cry 3, we could not measure fps but fc3 was not smooth but definatly not running at 20fps. if i max out crysis 2 on my pc i get 20 fps (whih is unplayable) Also. I have cod blacks ops 2. Smooth as butter with split screen. Those videos are false

Um anything under 30 isnt smooth so farcry 3 was running 20-26 fps. You need to understand that Crysis 2's lowest settings equal the consoles and if your running max settings with tessellation of course your going to run into performance issues, if you disable or mod tessellation with the fix your performance will get better. Ive played and watch BO2 MP and when there's alot of action with explosions the frame rate does dip into the 40's or 30's at times. You also need the realize that BO 2 runs at 880x720. Consoles do not run games with the same graphical assets as Pc nor resolutions.

no it was not that low fps. If I had to guess I'd say 40 at the lowest. Unless they can prove using a real tool to measure console fps. And no it is not its lowest setting on consoles. It doesn't look as good as PC but PC looks worse on low than does a console
#40 Posted by 04dcarraher (19274 posts) -

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"] went to my buddy's house that has far cry 3, we could not measure fps but fc3 was not smooth but definatly not running at 20fps. if i max out crysis 2 on my pc i get 20 fps (whih is unplayable) Also. I have cod blacks ops 2. Smooth as butter with split screen. Those videos are false_SKatEDiRt_
Um anything under 30 isnt smooth so farcry 3 was running 20-26 fps. You need to understand that Crysis 2's lowest settings equal the consoles and if your running max settings with tessellation of course your going to run into performance issues, if you disable or mod tessellation with the fix your performance will get better. Ive played and watch BO2 MP and when there's alot of action with explosions the frame rate does dip into the 40's or 30's at times. You also need the realize that BO 2 runs at 880x720. Consoles do not run games with the same graphical assets as Pc nor resolutions.

no it was not that low fps. If I had to guess I'd say 40 at the lowest. Unless they can prove using a real tool to measure console fps. And no it is not its lowest setting on consoles. It doesn't look as good as PC but PC looks worse on low than does a console

lol, are you so sure?

Crysis 2 on lowest graphical setting is console based settings, Farcry 3 does dip below 30 fps, "Far Cry 3 aims for 30FPS on console but in-game it rarely attains it. In the most intense scenes frame-rate descends south of 20FPS, with a small 360 lead." http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-far-cry-3-face-off

#41 Posted by kraken2109 (13007 posts) -

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"] went to my buddy's house that has far cry 3, we could notmeasure fps but fc3 was not smooth but definatly not running at 20fps. if i max out crysis 2 on my pc i get 20 fps (whih is unplayable) Also. I have cod blacks ops 2. Smooth as butter with split screen. Those videos are false_SKatEDiRt_
Um anything under 30 isnt smooth so farcry 3 was running 20-26 fps. You need to understand that Crysis 2's lowest settings equal the consoles and if your running max settings with tessellation of course your going to run into performance issues, if you disable or mod tessellation with the fix your performance will get better. Ive played and watch BO2 MP and when there's alot of action with explosions the frame rate does dip into the 40's or 30's at times. You also need the realize that BO 2 runs at 880x720. Consoles do not run games with the same graphical assets as Pc nor resolutions.

no it was not that low fps. If I had to guess I'd say 40 at the lowest. Unless they can prove using a real tool to measure console fps. And no it is not its lowest setting on consoles. It doesn't look as good as PC but PC looks worse on low than does a console

Average fps: 23.82 (Far Cry 3)

http://www.lensoftruth.com/heads-up-far-cry-3-screenshot-comparison-and-analysis/

#42 Posted by chris24l (1286 posts) -

[QUOTE="chris24l"]My guess is the 7850 will be half the gpu that will be In the next consoles. I predict the next consoles will have quad gpu of about 4x 6770, or it should. That would be a fair step up from current consoles. 04dcarraher

huh? are you serious....

Consoles cant not handle a gpu stronger then a 7850 because of power and cooling requirements let alone the the costs and price target. These consoles are going to be "semi custom" and AMD has hinted from presentation slides that one or both consoles will be based off the 8800M based gpu. Also from latest rumors the target TDP area of the consoles will be ~150w total.

I didn't say a single gpu stronger than a 7850. A multiple lesser gpu setup maybe. But a single 8800M laptop gpu doesn't seem like enough for a new console?
#43 Posted by LORD_BOOZ (10 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"]About 7 times more powerful according to FLOPS, but exclusive console games get twice as much performance vs Equal PC Hardware. Anyway the difference isn't super noticeable GioVela2010

So not true

Carmack disagrees with u

A pc gpu "equal" to consoles would be a very small and very cheap card. An hd7850 is so not! equal to the consoles it's like Zues compared to a peasant.

#44 Posted by 04dcarraher (19274 posts) -

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="chris24l"]My guess is the 7850 will be half the gpu that will be In the next consoles. I predict the next consoles will have quad gpu of about 4x 6770, or it should. That would be a fair step up from current consoles. chris24l

huh? are you serious....

Consoles cant not handle a gpu stronger then a 7850 because of power and cooling requirements let alone the the costs and price target. These consoles are going to be "semi custom" and AMD has hinted from presentation slides that one or both consoles will be based off the 8800M based gpu. Also from latest rumors the target TDP area of the consoles will be ~150w total.

I didn't say a single gpu stronger than a 7850. A multiple lesser gpu setup maybe. But a single 8800M laptop gpu doesn't seem like enough for a new console?

Your example of multiplelesser gpu's would add to the TDP requirements and size and wouldn't allow 4 of them your example of 4x 6770 would use 400w. A 7970m for example has the performance of around a 7850 and uses only about 100w. The goal of the next set of consoles are low cost low TDP based systems where the goal is to reach as many people as they can while increasing reliability.The best you will see is an APU plus a weak to moderate gpu.

#45 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2570 posts) -

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] Um anything under 30 isnt smooth so farcry 3 was running 20-26 fps. You need to understand that Crysis 2's lowest settings equal the consoles and if your running max settings with tessellation of course your going to run into performance issues, if you disable or mod tessellation with the fix your performance will get better. Ive played and watch BO2 MP and when there's alot of action with explosions the frame rate does dip into the 40's or 30's at times. You also need the realize that BO 2 runs at 880x720. Consoles do not run games with the same graphical assets as Pc nor resolutions.kraken2109

no it was not that low fps. If I had to guess I'd say 40 at the lowest. Unless they can prove using a real tool to measure console fps. And no it is not its lowest setting on consoles. It doesn't look as good as PC but PC looks worse on low than does a console

Average fps: 23.82 (Far Cry 3)

http://www.lensoftruth.com/heads-up-far-cry-3-screenshot-comparison-and-analysis/

Once again how are they measuring console fps? lol

#46 Posted by 04dcarraher (19274 posts) -

[QUOTE="kraken2109"]

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"] no it was not that low fps. If I had to guess I'd say 40 at the lowest. Unless they can prove using a real tool to measure console fps. And no it is not its lowest setting on consoles. It doesn't look as good as PC but PC looks worse on low than does a console_SKatEDiRt_

Average fps: 23.82 (Far Cry 3)

http://www.lensoftruth.com/heads-up-far-cry-3-screenshot-comparison-and-analysis/

Once again how are they measuring console fps? lol

capture card or device..... they do register the framerate
#47 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2570 posts) -
#48 Posted by 04dcarraher (19274 posts) -

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]

Once again how are they measuring console fps? lol

_SKatEDiRt_

capture card or device..... they do register the framerate

you can set the frame rate at which it captures but it does not show how many fps the console is rendering. So no

So wrong, you haven't used a capture software or device before because you can see the source franerate and or capture the raw data without capping it.

#49 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2570 posts) -

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] capture card or device..... they do register the framerate04dcarraher

you can set the frame rate at which it captures but it does not show how many fps the console is rendering. So no

So wrong, you haven't used a capture software or device before because you can see the source franerate and or capture the raw data without capping it.

lol to see the frames that the console renders it would have to be a program on the console.
#50 Posted by 04dcarraher (19274 posts) -
[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]you can set the frame rate at which it captures but it does not show how many fps the console is rendering. So no_SKatEDiRt_

So wrong, you haven't used a capture software or device before because you can see the source franerate and or capture the raw data without capping it.

lol to see the frames that the console renders it would have to be a program on the console.

No you can use a pc based capture card and see the frame rate being produced from the source :roll: