Graphics Vs Xbox 360

Say you have a reasonable high end PC, not a £1000 PC but around £500. How do the graphics compare to the Xbox 360?

that translates to $1000 usd right? well a $1000 computer will give you slightly better graphics, but it also depends on the game you play.

though with USAs economy in its current state, a $1000 computer in the future will be able to add and subtract numbers at its best. >_>

since 500 pounds= 1000$us, you can expect much better graphic.Franko_3

While £500 is $1000 (give or take), £500 doesn't buy a $1000 PC unless you're buying it in America - there's a big price difference in UK. Stuff is a lot more expensive and then there's VAT on top of that. Realistically, you might want to take $1000 to mean $650 or so. My 8800GTS cost around £300, for example. That's 3/5 of the budget gone just on the GPU.

I would say for £500, buying in the UK, you will get roughly as good looking games as a 360. With £500, you can probably get a good single core CPU, a 7950 and about 1GB ram - which will play stuff like Oblivion and F.E.A.R, and maybe Call of Duty 4 at just about max settings.

If that's all you could get for 500 pounds, then you guys are seriously getting ripped off big time. My condolances.Fanible

The same things happens in whole Europe. For example iPod Classic 80Gb costs 270 euros in Finland which is about $400.

Its not just pc's that cost more, its everything. A PS3 elite is currently around £450, i think the top 360 is around £300.

You can get a Duel core, 2 gig ram and 8800gt 512 for around £6-£700 without monitor though, if u shop around.

If you want to compare a multiplatform game. Bioshock on 360 will have almost the same graphical detail as a pc with an 8800 and a decent cpu. The pc will get about double the framerate though even with vsync on at similar resolution.

The biggest problem is that pc games graphics are being held back quite a bit by the consoles this gen.

In less than a year after the xbox came out we had UT2k3, NOLF 2 and a few other games that were way ahead of the xbox.

Here we are 2 years into the next gen consoles and the 2nd best graphics I've ever seen is DMC 4 on 360. 2nd only to Crysis.

If you want to compare a multiplatform game. Bioshock on 360 will have almost the same graphical detail as a pc with an 8800 and a decent cpu. The pc will get about double the framerate though even with vsync on at similar resolution.

The biggest problem is that pc games graphics are being held back quite a bit by the consoles this gen.

In less than a year after the xbox came out we had UT2k3, NOLF 2 and a few other games that were way ahead of the xbox.

Here we are 2 years into the next gen consoles and the 2nd best graphics I've ever seen is DMC 4 on 360. 2nd only to Crysis.

Cranler

Well i think too many people play down the impact resolution, AA and AF have on games. I have played many multiplats on 360 and my pc. I'm sorry but even running at 1280x1024 with lots of AA and lots of AF most games look significantly better on pc than console. Bioshock and COD4 are just examples.

[QUOTE="Franko_3"]since 500 pounds= 1000$us, you can expect much better graphic.mfsa

While £500 is $1000 (give or take), £500 doesn't buy a $1000 PC unless you're buying it in America - there's a big price difference in UK. Stuff is a lot more expensive and then there's VAT on top of that. Realistically, you might want to take $1000 to mean $650 or so. My 8800GTS cost around £300, for example. That's 3/5 of the budget gone just on the GPU.

I would say for £500, buying in the UK, you will get roughly as good looking games as a 360. With £500, you can probably get a good single core CPU, a 7950 and about 1GB ram - which will play stuff like Oblivion and F.E.A.R, and maybe Call of Duty 4 at just about max settings.

[QUOTE="mfsa"]

[QUOTE="Franko_3"]since 500 pounds= 1000$us, you can expect much better graphic.snakehips57

While £500 is $1000 (give or take), £500 doesn't buy a $1000 PC unless you're buying it in America - there's a big price difference in UK. Stuff is a lot more expensive and then there's VAT on top of that. Realistically, you might want to take $1000 to mean $650 or so. My 8800GTS cost around £300, for example. That's 3/5 of the budget gone just on the GPU.

I would say for £500, buying in the UK, you will get roughly as good looking games as a 360. With £500, you can probably get a good single core CPU, a 7950 and about 1GB ram - which will play stuff like Oblivion and F.E.A.R, and maybe Call of Duty 4 at just about max settings.

Really? Buy or build? And where from? It's a long time since I've build a PC from the ground up, so I'm not totally up to date on prices - but the cheapest I found my 8800GTS 640 back in August was around £300.

Ya I went to Europe (Spain, France, England) last summer and I was shocked how expensive things were. In England I was expecting to see things for a litle more expensive, but not as much as I saw. 360s were like 300 pounds, games were like 40 pounds...its just crazy.

I'd really love to move to England but it would literally bankrupt me.

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

If you want to compare a multiplatform game. Bioshock on 360 will have almost the same graphical detail as a pc with an 8800 and a decent cpu. The pc will get about double the framerate though even with vsync on at similar resolution.

The biggest problem is that pc games graphics are being held back quite a bit by the consoles this gen.

In less than a year after the xbox came out we had UT2k3, NOLF 2 and a few other games that were way ahead of the xbox.

Here we are 2 years into the next gen consoles and the 2nd best graphics I've ever seen is DMC 4 on 360. 2nd only to Crysis.

Frozzik

Well i think too many people play down the impact resolution, AA and AF have on games. I have played many multiplats on 360 and my pc. I'm sorry but even running at 1280x1024 with lots of AA and lots of AF most games look significantly better on pc than console. Bioshock and COD4 are just examples.

Forcing aa in Bioshock can cause visual glitches. UE3 is a pile of crap anyway.

Oblivion has much better AF on pc but I see no difference in Bioshock. I havent played the 360 version of COD 4 but reviews say there are no jaggies and it does run a constant 60fps. The COD 2 and COD 3 360 demos had no jaggies and well detailed floors and walls.

No af and unignorable jaggies that plagued the last gen are overwith for most games.

Last gen didnt need aa and af to destroy console graphics. Top end pc is twice the speed of either console yet the only game that looks better than DMC 4 barely runs on even that.

Really? Buy or build? And where from? It's a long time since I've build a PC from the ground up, so I'm not totally up to date on prices - but the cheapest I found my 8800GTS 640 back in August was around £300. mfsa

Built from scratch (like I said earlier not including case and dvd writer etc) using Ebuyer
CPU = Around £107
Ram = Around £35
Mobo = Around £60

HDD = Around £63
GPU= Around £180

PSU = Around £20

In fact, unless I am mistaken it came to less than £500, if you don't cound the two GPUs I sent back due to one being AGP not PCI-E (picked by someone other by myself) and the other being faulty and bluescreening me every 5 mins. Also like I said I am still using on board sound, which is pretty decent, an old case which is still very useable, a BENQ DVD R/W (18x) which I had in a previous system, an old floppy drive, my old keyboard and mouse which are still perfect, using massive Hi-Fi speakers which I had before, and a 20.1" Viewsonic Flatscreen Widescreen TFT etc monitor that I had with my previous computer.

[QUOTE="Frozzik"][QUOTE="Cranler"]

If you want to compare a multiplatform game. Bioshock on 360 will have almost the same graphical detail as a pc with an 8800 and a decent cpu. The pc will get about double the framerate though even with vsync on at similar resolution.

The biggest problem is that pc games graphics are being held back quite a bit by the consoles this gen.

In less than a year after the xbox came out we had UT2k3, NOLF 2 and a few other games that were way ahead of the xbox.

Here we are 2 years into the next gen consoles and the 2nd best graphics I've ever seen is DMC 4 on 360. 2nd only to Crysis.

Cranler

Well i think too many people play down the impact resolution, AA and AF have on games. I have played many multiplats on 360 and my pc. I'm sorry but even running at 1280x1024 with lots of AA and lots of AF most games look significantly better on pc than console. Bioshock and COD4 are just examples.

Forcing aa in Bioshock can cause visual glitches. UE3 is a pile of crap anyway.

Oblivion has much better AF on pc but I see no difference in Bioshock. I havent played the 360 version of COD 4 but reviews say there are no jaggies and it does run a constant 60fps. The COD 2 and COD 3 360 demos had no jaggies and well detailed floors and walls.

No af and unignorable jaggies that plagued the last gen are overwith for most games.

Last gen didnt need aa and af to destroy console graphics. Top end pc is twice the speed of either console yet the only game that looks better than DMC 4 barely runs on even that.

i'm sorry but i will have to disagree. Cod4 looks awful on 360 ( i havn't seen PS3 version), compared to my pc at 1280x1024 with full aa and af. Running at 1024x768 with 2xaa and 0xaf is very close to the 360 and this looks significantly worse at these settings. You are kidding yourself if you say otherwise. Same goes for bioshock and oblivion. Dont even get me started on GoW, C&C etc.

Just look at the cutbacks they have made with Sup Com. Lower unit cap, inferior gfx, this game could be maxed out on last gen gfx cards, 7 series.

i guess myself and all my 360 owning friends are wrong, they always comment on how much better games look on my pc to their 360's. I used to own a 360.

Ya I went to Europe (Spain, France, England) last summer and I was shocked how expensive things were. In England I was expecting to see things for a litle more expensive, but not as much as I saw. 360s were like 300 pounds, games were like 40 pounds...its just crazy.

I'd really love to move to England but it would literally bankrupt me.

mrbojangles25

yup, it shocking. I hate it.

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="Frozzik"][QUOTE="Cranler"]

If you want to compare a multiplatform game. Bioshock on 360 will have almost the same graphical detail as a pc with an 8800 and a decent cpu. The pc will get about double the framerate though even with vsync on at similar resolution.

The biggest problem is that pc games graphics are being held back quite a bit by the consoles this gen.

In less than a year after the xbox came out we had UT2k3, NOLF 2 and a few other games that were way ahead of the xbox.

Here we are 2 years into the next gen consoles and the 2nd best graphics I've ever seen is DMC 4 on 360. 2nd only to Crysis.

Frozzik

Well i think too many people play down the impact resolution, AA and AF have on games. I have played many multiplats on 360 and my pc. I'm sorry but even running at 1280x1024 with lots of AA and lots of AF most games look significantly better on pc than console. Bioshock and COD4 are just examples.

Forcing aa in Bioshock can cause visual glitches. UE3 is a pile of crap anyway.

Oblivion has much better AF on pc but I see no difference in Bioshock. I havent played the 360 version of COD 4 but reviews say there are no jaggies and it does run a constant 60fps. The COD 2 and COD 3 360 demos had no jaggies and well detailed floors and walls.

No af and unignorable jaggies that plagued the last gen are overwith for most games.

Last gen didnt need aa and af to destroy console graphics. Top end pc is twice the speed of either console yet the only game that looks better than DMC 4 barely runs on even that.

i'm sorry but i will have to disagree. Cod4 looks awful on 360 ( i havn't seen PS3 version), compared to my pc at 1280x1024 with full aa and af. Running at 1024x768 with 2xaa and 0xaf is very close to the 360 and this looks significantly worse at these settings. You are kidding yourself if you say otherwise. Same goes for bioshock and oblivion. Dont even get me started on GoW, C&C etc.

Just look at the cutbacks they have made with Sup Com. Lower unit cap, inferior gfx, this game could be maxed out on last gen gfx cards, 7 series.

i guess myself and all my 360 owning friends are wrong, they always comment on how much better games look on my pc to their 360's. I used to own a 360.

The screens of COD 4 for pc and 360 are almost identical. Oblivion is a little bit better on pc before modding. Bioshock is exactly the same. I had both demos on at the same time, same spot, same room. No af difference. Only advantage is the framerate on pc.

I never said the 360 could handle what the pc can. GOW has updated textures on pc but the only game I find more impressive than DMC 4 on 360 is Crysis.

The graphical gap between pc and console is much smaller this gen. Consoles are dictating the general graphical level for most games. The difference Between GOW on pc and 360 is nothing like comparing the original Halo to UT2k3.

Beleive me if GOW had been pc only it would have looked like this http://www.gametrailers.com/player/usermovies/9404.html

Wait till end of this year and PC will proabably be 4x greater in power.

Besides, people obsessing over graphics are killing the industry.

Crysis proves that obviously....

360 reigns supreme.

about cod 4 pc versus 360.

i own the pc version and play it ALOT. i rented 360 version to compare, and IMO the pc version is much crisper and sharp. I hooked up my pc to the 32" HDTV to make sure it was a fair comparison. the 360 version is just blurrier, and lacks the detail of the pc version.

also when hooked up to my 1680 x 1050 monitor it definitely blows it outta the water. My clan in cod 4 tried these kinds of tests too and tehy all agreed.

I can't say I've ever been in the same room as an Xbox (I would probably destroy it instantly) but I'd have to guess that a system built for a TV sucks in comparison to a system built for a monitor...as far as graphics are concerned.D9-THC

Doesnt matter what display. The hardware and games made for the hardware are what matters.

Pentium 2 and a Voodoo graphics card is built for a monitor.

about cod 4 pc versus 360.

i own the pc version and play it ALOT. i rented 360 version to compare, and IMO the pc version is much crisper and sharp. I hooked up my pc to the 32" HDTV to make sure it was a fair comparison. the 360 version is just blurrier, and lacks the detail of the pc version.

also when hooked up to my 1680 x 1050 monitor it definitely blows it outta the water. My clan in cod 4 tried these kinds of tests too and tehy all agreed.

zxvb

Pc version of Doom 3 blows the console version outta the water. Cod4 just looks a little better on pc. Pc controls are what blow any console fps outta the water.

When year old graphics cards are running all the latest games but one at ridiculous framerates you know pc graphics improvements are slowing down big time.

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

Ya I went to Europe (Spain, France, England) last summer and I was shocked how expensive things were. In England I was expecting to see things for a litle more expensive, but not as much as I saw. 360s were like 300 pounds, games were like 40 pounds...its just crazy.

I'd really love to move to England but it would literally bankrupt me.

Frozzik

yup, it shocking. I hate it.

So if things are more expensive in Europe, do you guys usually get paid proportionally more in monetary value, as well?

[QUOTE="Frozzik"][QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

Ya I went to Europe (Spain, France, England) last summer and I was shocked how expensive things were. In England I was expecting to see things for a litle more expensive, but not as much as I saw. 360s were like 300 pounds, games were like 40 pounds...its just crazy.

I'd really love to move to England but it would literally bankrupt me.

JP_Russell

yup, it shocking. I hate it.

So if things are more expensive in Europe, do you guys usually get paid proportionally more in monetary value, as well?

I think the higer prices were exaggerated a little tbh.

[QUOTE="Frozzik"][QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

Ya I went to Europe (Spain, France, England) last summer and I was shocked how expensive things were. In England I was expecting to see things for a litle more expensive, but not as much as I saw. 360s were like 300 pounds, games were like 40 pounds...its just crazy.

I'd really love to move to England but it would literally bankrupt me.

JP_Russell

yup, it shocking. I hate it.

So if things are more expensive in Europe, do you guys usually get paid proportionally more in monetary value, as well?

no, the united states is usually in the top 5 (usually 2 or 3) in average income per person by most estimates (with luxembourg (english spelling) being the only country with way higher average than anywhere else, mainly cuz of its small population creating the anomaly).

[QUOTE="zxvb"]

about cod 4 pc versus 360.

i own the pc version and play it ALOT. i rented 360 version to compare, and IMO the pc version is much crisper and sharp. I hooked up my pc to the 32" HDTV to make sure it was a fair comparison. the 360 version is just blurrier, and lacks the detail of the pc version.

also when hooked up to my 1680 x 1050 monitor it definitely blows it outta the water. My clan in cod 4 tried these kinds of tests too and tehy all agreed.

Cranler

Pc version of Doom 3 blows the console version outta the water. Cod4 just looks a little better on pc. Pc controls are what blow any console fps outta the water.

When year old graphics cards are running all the latest games but one at ridiculous framerates you know pc graphics improvements are slowing down big time.

i think far cry 2 will be the first true test of the difference between pc graphics and console graphics, since the game was developed for the pc only initially. the pc version of far cry 2 should, in theory, look incredible, and the console version of the game should look like @$$ in comparison.

[QUOTE="Frozzik"][QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="Frozzik"][QUOTE="Cranler"]

If you want to compare a multiplatform game. Bioshock on 360 will have almost the same graphical detail as a pc with an 8800 and a decent cpu. The pc will get about double the framerate though even with vsync on at similar resolution.

The biggest problem is that pc games graphics are being held back quite a bit by the consoles this gen.

In less than a year after the xbox came out we had UT2k3, NOLF 2 and a few other games that were way ahead of the xbox.

Here we are 2 years into the next gen consoles and the 2nd best graphics I've ever seen is DMC 4 on 360. 2nd only to Crysis.

Cranler

Well i think too many people play down the impact resolution, AA and AF have on games. I have played many multiplats on 360 and my pc. I'm sorry but even running at 1280x1024 with lots of AA and lots of AF most games look significantly better on pc than console. Bioshock and COD4 are just examples.

Forcing aa in Bioshock can cause visual glitches. UE3 is a pile of crap anyway.

Oblivion has much better AF on pc but I see no difference in Bioshock. I havent played the 360 version of COD 4 but reviews say there are no jaggies and it does run a constant 60fps. The COD 2 and COD 3 360 demos had no jaggies and well detailed floors and walls.

No af and unignorable jaggies that plagued the last gen are overwith for most games.

Last gen didnt need aa and af to destroy console graphics. Top end pc is twice the speed of either console yet the only game that looks better than DMC 4 barely runs on even that.

i'm sorry but i will have to disagree. Cod4 looks awful on 360 ( i havn't seen PS3 version), compared to my pc at 1280x1024 with full aa and af. Running at 1024x768 with 2xaa and 0xaf is very close to the 360 and this looks significantly worse at these settings. You are kidding yourself if you say otherwise. Same goes for bioshock and oblivion. Dont even get me started on GoW, C&C etc.

Just look at the cutbacks they have made with Sup Com. Lower unit cap, inferior gfx, this game could be maxed out on last gen gfx cards, 7 series.

i guess myself and all my 360 owning friends are wrong, they always comment on how much better games look on my pc to their 360's. I used to own a 360.

The screens of COD 4 for pc and 360 are almost identical. Oblivion is a little bit better on pc before modding. Bioshock is exactly the same. I had both demos on at the same time, same spot, same room. No af difference. Only advantage is the framerate on pc.

I never said the 360 could handle what the pc can. GOW has updated textures on pc but the only game I find more impressive than DMC 4 on 360 is Crysis.

The graphical gap between pc and console is much smaller this gen. Consoles are dictating the general graphical level for most games. The difference Between GOW on pc and 360 is nothing like comparing the original Halo to UT2k3.

Beleive me if GOW had been pc only it would have looked like this http://www.gametrailers.com/player/usermovies/9404.html

I still disagree. You really cant use screen shots to compare, trust me. I do agree with you that consoles dictate the level of graphical quality we see these days. That was the same last gen, only really doom 3/HL2 and Far cry really pushed pc tech. Just like only crysis pushes it now. This will be the case even towards the end of this gen. Multiplats will be developed with consoles in mind so will not really push pc hardware to its full potential.

Your post seems to be saying 360/PS3 can do anything a pc can, this is false, like i said, look at sup com. This game was developed with pc in mind and has to be drastically altered to run on a 360, as will crysis.

I still stand by my resolution, AA and AF comment though, until you play all these multiplats, as i have, maxed on a pc, then see the 360 version, then u cant comment imo.

[QUOTE="JP_Russell"][QUOTE="Frozzik"][QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

Ya I went to Europe (Spain, France, England) last summer and I was shocked how expensive things were. In England I was expecting to see things for a litle more expensive, but not as much as I saw. 360s were like 300 pounds, games were like 40 pounds...its just crazy.

I'd really love to move to England but it would literally bankrupt me.

snakehips57

yup, it shocking. I hate it.

So if things are more expensive in Europe, do you guys usually get paid proportionally more in monetary value, as well?

I think the higer prices were exaggerated a little tbh.

just looked at amazon.co.uk. You are looking at £2-£350 for xbox models, £2-£450 for PS3 models. PC's can cost around £5-£1000 for a high spec. Games cost £30-£45 for new console and £15-£25 for pc.

Oh, and no we dont get paid in proportion.