PC gaming is crushing consoles

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#451 Edited by Dasein808 (630 posts) -

@Cranler said:

A give up post. Still putting words in my mouth instead of trying to have a respectful debate.

No attempt at proving me wrong which proves your post is in reality a description of what you're doing.

Oh yeah did you notice the Skyrim 7800gtx pc had a core 2 duo which is better than any of the amd cpu's we were using in the hypotheitcal build?

Still waiting for you to point out where I got owned.

There is no "respectable debating" with you because you're a troll and you don't have the first clue on how to structure a logically sound argument or defend your moronic claims.

You rely on the logic of an ignorant child. ("Derp, you can't use a user built PC because consoles are prebuilt, so you have to buy a prebuilt $2000-$3000 PC for comparison because I can't prove my claim otherwise")

All of your latest tangential claims re: 7800GTX performance, 5 years after the release of the 8xxxx series, has NOTHING to do with your original, indefensible, and thoroughly wrecked, "$2000 PC required to match 360 on launch," claim, but I know that you know this, and you are still trying to derail the thread away from your original point.

Btw, as we already have been over, PCs are not tied to console generations, and given that the 8xxxx series of cards were already released 5 years before Skyrim and that a 7600 was Skyrim's minimum requirement, a more legitimate comparison would be a demo of the game with the developer's RECOMMENDED tech (i.e. a 260GTX) vs, a 360 playing with the same 720p resolution and effects.

Unfortunately, that would be a legitimate comparison and that's not what you do.

I don't need to prove any of your posts wrong because I already have and you don't even bother to read my replies anyway. There is no point, but given what I've seen of your posts across multiple threads, it's also safe to say, that you're likely wrong in whatever you are saying.

We've been over how you've been owned numerous times now, but you never bother to read, so I guess it will just have to remain a mystery to you.

Here's a hint: "You have to compare using a prebuilt PC cuz teh consoles r prebuilt," 250GB hdd, $600 7800GTX price/comparison, irrelevant Bad Company 2 comparison, irrelevant Oblivion/Skyrim comparisons. etc.

#452 Edited by Gammit10 (2313 posts) -
@Cranler said:

@Gammit10 said:

@Cranler said:

@Dasein808 said:

@Cranler said:

When you keep getting pwned it's time put words into people's mouths.

What GTX lie? You want to put a 100gb hdd in the build? That would have been fun only being able to have a few games installed at once.

Fact is you needed an absolute top of the line pc to match the 360 and even then it would have still required a Windows 7 upgrade, ram, gpu and hdd upgrade to match the logevity of the 360. Absolute top of the line means a gtx not a gt.

No, when you tire of the transparency of idiots, you toy with them.

Durr hurr. The GTX lie that I have called you on about 50 times already for trying to include a top of the line $600 GTX GPU in your hypothetical build.

Are you really that illiterate? Oh, that's right, you're just a stupid troll with no tact or reading comprehension.

Yeah 100GB HDD, sure thing. You proposed a $2000 system that MATCHED a 360.

PCs could get away with a 20GB HDD at the time.

I gave you the additional RAM for 2GB, but no, you don't get to add a 100GB HDD to a build that's supposed to match a 360 at release.

Congratulations on finally grasping NVIDIA's suffix naming system, now realize that the Xbox 360's GPU was comparable to the GT not the GTX, but we all know that you won't.

You'll just persist with your same indefensible claim, while ignoring everyone that proves your claim is ridiculous, and continuing to try and inflate part costs in your hopelessly desperate attempt to prove yourself.

The 360 outperforms even the gtx version.

A pc with a 20gb hdd? Lol! In case you didn't know pc gamesrequire installation while 360 game don't so you need a much bigger hdd for the pc.

Mass Effect from 2007 uses 12 gb and the original Bioshock uses 8gb so you couldn't even have both installed at the same time.

You seem to be slowly grasping the differences between consoles and pc's with your realization that the pc needs more ram. I hope I helped you get started on your journey to understanding why pc's need larger hard drives than last gen consoles.

Here we see 7800 gtx can't match 360's Skyrim perfomance

Loading Video...

I don't even know where to start dismantling this argument. I have about 5 different thoughts running through my head per second. I hope somebody with more patience does it for me.

An argument you consider weak should be easy to dismantle. Here's a tip: start at the beginning.

Electrons are subatomic particles which have properties that allow us to conduct electricity.

#453 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@Dasein808 said:

@Cranler said:

A give up post. Still putting words in my mouth instead of trying to have a respectful debate.

No attempt at proving me wrong which proves your post is in reality a description of what you're doing.

Oh yeah did you notice the Skyrim 7800gtx pc had a core 2 duo which is better than any of the amd cpu's we were using in the hypotheitcal build?

Still waiting for you to point out where I got owned.

There is no "respectable debating" with you because you don't have the first clue on how to structure a logically sound argument or defend your moronic claims.

You rely on the logic of an ignorant child. ("Derp, you can't use a user built PC because consoles are prebuilt, so you have to buy a prebuilt $2000-$3000 PC for comparison because I can't prove my claim otherwise")

All of your latest tangential claims re: 7800GTX performance, 5 years after the release of the 8xxxx series, has NOTHING to do with your original, indefensible and thoroughly wrecked original $2000 PC required to match 360 on launch claim, but I know that you know this, and you are still trying to derail the thread away from your original point.

Btw, as we already have been over, PCs are not tied to console generations, and given that the 8xxxx series of cards were already released 5 years before Skyrim and that a 7600 was Skyrim's minimum requirement, a more legitimate comparison would be a demo of the game with the developer's RECOMMENDED tech (i.e. a 260GTX) vs, a 360 playing with the same 720p resolution and effects.

Unfortunately, that would be a legitimate comparison and that's not what you do.

I don't need to prove any of your posts wrong because I already have and you don't even bother to read my replies anyway. There is no point, but given what I've seen of your posts across multiple threads, it's also safe to say, that you're likely wrong in whatever you are saying.

We've been over how you've been owned numerous times now, but you never bother to read, so I guess it will just have to remain a mystery to you.

Here's a hint: 250GB hdd, 7800GTX price/comparison, irrelevant Bad Company 2 comparison, irrelevant Oblivion/Skyrim comparisons. etc.

A prebuilt with top of the line cpu and gpu would have been at least $2500 in 2005. Self built about $2000

Show me someone running skyrim on a 7600 gt.

You want to compare a pc with the gtx 260 to the 360. LOL! Not sure if serious. You realize if the tech in the recommended pc for skyrim had been available in 2005 it would have been a $5000 pc right?

Why do you keep bringing up the 8xxx series? Sounds liek you think the 7800gtx wasn't enough to match the 360.

Quote or link to where i got owned.

If pc ran games from the disc then you could go with a 20 gb hdd.

The pc in the Bioshock benchmark is even higher end than the hypothetical build from 2005 and it still can't match the 360.

Here's the specs

Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 (dual-core, 2.13GHz – 266 x 8); Asus Striker Extreme motherboard (nForce 680i SLI); 2 x 1GB Corsair XMS2-8500C5 (operating in dual channel at DDR2-800 with 4-4-4-12-1T timings); Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 200GB SATA hard drive

#454 Posted by The_Last_Ride (75414 posts) -

@thehig1 said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

@thehig1 said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

uhm, almost everyone has a pc and pc's are more expensive than consoles.

unless you buy more than 4 games per year, then PC gaming will end being cheaper over a couple years span.

True, but the hardware is still more expensive. Gaming PC's are really expensive

yeah they can, the price can keep rising up and up if your not careful. You always end up spending a little more than you orignally budget for

true, i spent 2k on my pc in 2011, it's not that good anymore. But it ended being more than i thought

#455 Edited by Mr_Huggles_dog (3245 posts) -

Comparing an exclusive to a multiplatform is just ridiculous. Yeah....Blizzard makes milltions with WOW and it's a PC exclusive.

FACT: the only thing that makes big money on PC are F2P games, MOBAs and big MMOs.....and those are becoming extinct. There was an actual article saying this exact thing.

Do you honestly think that there is no way for a WOW type game to be big on console? No. There just hasn't been one yet...that sort of thing isn't exclusive to PC. Of course WOW and Blizzard made more money on PC....b/c WOW is exclusive to PC....you can't compare that.

But when you look at all the AAA games released...Farcry 3, Watchdogs, COD, Assassin's Creed, Dark Souls, GTA,......they ALL sell better on console.

So however you justify it....however you spin it.....conosles are where the money is at.

And you just proved my point. PS4 has only 9 million or so consoles....and is a bigger seller for Ubisoft that aaaaalll those PC out there.

#456 Posted by Butcer2 (67 posts) -

@Cranler said:
@GarGx1 said:

@Butcer2 said:

@lostrib said:

@MonsieurX said:

@lostrib said:

However this statement implies they aren't present

"Yeah but if you want to play mp hack free then console is the way to go."

But it's "relatively" hack free,derp.

Can't you read properly lostrib?

@Cranler said:

@lostrib said:

@Cranler said:

"Odds are much higher" is a quite straightforward statement implying there are cheaters on console but much more rare.

However this statement implies they aren't present

"Yeah but if you want to play mp hack free then console is the way to go."

Console gaming is relatively hack free.

You guys have been hanging out too much

ps4 and xbox one have still not been hacked so yeah no hacking for you on those

You really should check the truth of a statement before making it

http://www.inferse.com/10909/sonys-playstation-4-successfully-jailbroken/

This next one, I'm not going to post a link too but here's a feature list from a hack site for COD Ghosts (took all of 5 seconds to find this on Google)

Features

AimbotWallhack + ESP (See the status of other players including their position and health) Speed Hack (Run at triple the normal speed) Unlimited AmmoHide Username (Your name will be invisible) No Recoil (No movement of the gun when firing constantly) SuperJump (Jump 6x higher than normal) God Mode (Nothing can kill you) Prestige Hack (Make yourself any level and prestige you want)

Current state: UndetectedCurrent Version: v1.6.3

PlayStation 4: UndetectedPlayStation 3: Undetected Xbox One: Undetected Xbox 360: Undetected PC: Undetected So you were saying? 

And at the end of the jailbreaking tutorial it says

  1. You now have the ability to run unassigned/assigned code and pirated games on your PS4, but do NOT go online, if you do go online, your console will be immediately banned.

That has a bullshit lie from reckz0r a lier wh never did hack the ps4

http://www.thetechgame.com/Archives/t=5946797/reckz0r-fake-there-is-no-jailbreak-for-the-ps4.html

http://arcadesushi.com/arcade-sushi-quick-tip-avoiding-the-ps4-jailbreak-scam/

and those trainers are literaly jus malware who have nothing in them and trying to get you sign all sorts of surveys, ps3 yes , xbox 360 yes and xbox 1 had shitload of trainers, but no neither xbox one or ps4 have been hacked yet

#457 Edited by psx_warrior (1684 posts) -

@RedentSC said:

@walloftruth said:

@RedentSC said:

@psx_warrior said:

@RedentSC:

@RedentSC said:

I like how the article left out price... which is the most important factor.

I switch from PC gaming about 3 years ago. I was sick of having to keep up to date and upgrade at least one component a year (around £300 minimum PER YEAR) just to keep ontop of that ever breaking wave of games.

PC gaming has its fedelity and yes its impressive (BF4 on PC is an entirely different beast to PS4) but the drawback of PC are massive and cannot be ignored

Personally... i'm happy i shifted to console. Spent what i would have in a single year on hardware for one product which will keep me happily gaming for the next 5 years at least. I'll use the other £1200 MINIMUM saved on somthing more worth while. This is the major issue. Who has that much money just to throw around.... and any hermit who banters on about PC superiority and doesn't recognise this fact is either an ignorant bellend with lots of money, or are just trolling. So can we put this topic to sleep again for the 500th time?

Hmm, where to start here. First of all, I've had my gaming rig for a little or five years now. I haven't had to upgrade a single component. Only just now am I finding that I need to upgrade to a new machine. Yeah, it will be costly, but I'll keep that same rig for another few years. I don't know what you are going on about here saying you had to minimum spend that much money every single year. You don't have to do that unless you were upgrading the gpu once a year. Even then, you do realize that most pc games allow you to adjust the settings so your machine can run it without being brought to its knees. So much fail in your post, so much fail.

So if you turn down your settings just so you don't have tpo upgrade your rig yearly why don't you just buy a PS4? your knocking down the visuals to the same level anyways... so much fail.. so much

Your trolling is awful.

Its not a troll honestly.... I understands that PC gaming is much more than just Graphical fidelity... but poeple forget the cost... which is massive (and nobody can deny this) and the trouble with drivers/hardware ... shoddy developer support (most AAA games these days have a console as a lead platform) and therefor PC usually get shoddy ports... at least at launch until they release stability fixes and that could take months if not years.

Its more cost effective for the average gamer to play console, much more casual and far more enjoyable for the most part..... did i mention its cheaper? wayyyy cheaper...... most of us have families to support and stuff... and i don't mean IMVU girlfriends ;)

Hmm, yeah, I do agree that initially, it's pretty expensive to get a nice gaming rig that can blow consoles out of the water, but once you've made the initial investment, you don't have to do anything to your machine for the next several years before you need to think about upgrading, and then if you did your homework and invested in the right components, you might only have to upgrade the gpu and operating system down the line. I didn't do my homework and will have to get a new rig all together. I'm fine with that as I'm gonna make the right decisions this time.

Tell you what, though. I'm gonna be rocking Skyrim on all max settings with that new rig when I do get it. Can't say the same about the PS4 or Xbone since they can't even run the game at all. One of the other advantages of the PC as an open platform. Doubt Skyrim would look as good on those systems as it would on that new beastly machine I'm gonna own.

#458 Posted by RyviusARC (4961 posts) -

@04dcarraher said:

In 2005 it did cost a bucket load for a pc to be comparable within a short timeframe but still be obsolete because the of the gpu architecture of the 360.

An Athlon X2 4400 was $500+ socket 939.

1gb DDR 400mhz was around $90-$100

A 7800GTX 512mb was $650 at launch

So just with the cpu and gpu your looking at $1k easily not including all other parts needed for the tower. So a 1.5-2k build to match the 360 should not be ignored when looking at the progression of the game engines maturing making use of the 360 hardware but namely the unified shader gpu.

The only saving grace for the 7800 GTX was its 512mb buffer and the fact that many games from 2005-2007 were not shader intensive. But the few games that were the 7800GTX choked. The 7800GTX at resolutions to and above 1600x1200 did hurt performance. Butcher Bay for example 1280x1024 to 1600x1200 seen a 20 fps drop from 66 to 45 fps. same with Splinter Cell Chaos Theory 71 to 52 fps. But less demanding games like HL 2 allowed the 7800GTX to run 2048x1536 with an average of 70 fps.

The point is that in 2005 to early 2006 pc hardware was nearing the end of multiple aging architectures and coding and would bring a new set of hardware and software standards that would change the industry. Microsoft seen the incoming shift and put out the money and resources to make their new console "the 360" ready for the future packing it with hardware that was in some ways ahead of its time. However by doing so and cutting corners the 360 suffered from reliability issues which added costs that prevented MS in making true profit until years later.

I like how the guys arguing completely ignored your post.

It's sad that this gen consoles are so under powered compared to last gen.

A CPU from 2008 and an Oced GPU from 2010 could perform better than the PS4 or Xbox One.

You would never see something like that in the past.

That would be like seeing a Pentium III CPU and Nvidia GeForce4 Ti4600 perform better than the Xbox 360.

#459 Posted by RyviusARC (4961 posts) -

@psx_warrior said:

@RedentSC said:

@walloftruth said:

@RedentSC said:

@psx_warrior said:

@RedentSC:

@RedentSC said:

I like how the article left out price... which is the most important factor.

I switch from PC gaming about 3 years ago. I was sick of having to keep up to date and upgrade at least one component a year (around £300 minimum PER YEAR) just to keep ontop of that ever breaking wave of games.

PC gaming has its fedelity and yes its impressive (BF4 on PC is an entirely different beast to PS4) but the drawback of PC are massive and cannot be ignored

Personally... i'm happy i shifted to console. Spent what i would have in a single year on hardware for one product which will keep me happily gaming for the next 5 years at least. I'll use the other £1200 MINIMUM saved on somthing more worth while. This is the major issue. Who has that much money just to throw around.... and any hermit who banters on about PC superiority and doesn't recognise this fact is either an ignorant bellend with lots of money, or are just trolling. So can we put this topic to sleep again for the 500th time?

Hmm, where to start here. First of all, I've had my gaming rig for a little or five years now. I haven't had to upgrade a single component. Only just now am I finding that I need to upgrade to a new machine. Yeah, it will be costly, but I'll keep that same rig for another few years. I don't know what you are going on about here saying you had to minimum spend that much money every single year. You don't have to do that unless you were upgrading the gpu once a year. Even then, you do realize that most pc games allow you to adjust the settings so your machine can run it without being brought to its knees. So much fail in your post, so much fail.

So if you turn down your settings just so you don't have tpo upgrade your rig yearly why don't you just buy a PS4? your knocking down the visuals to the same level anyways... so much fail.. so much

Your trolling is awful.

Its not a troll honestly.... I understands that PC gaming is much more than just Graphical fidelity... but poeple forget the cost... which is massive (and nobody can deny this) and the trouble with drivers/hardware ... shoddy developer support (most AAA games these days have a console as a lead platform) and therefor PC usually get shoddy ports... at least at launch until they release stability fixes and that could take months if not years.

Its more cost effective for the average gamer to play console, much more casual and far more enjoyable for the most part..... did i mention its cheaper? wayyyy cheaper...... most of us have families to support and stuff... and i don't mean IMVU girlfriends ;)

Hmm, yeah, I do agree that initially, it's pretty expensive to get a nice gaming rig that can blow consoles out of the water, but once you've made the initial investment, you don't have to do anything to your machine for the next several years before you need to think about upgrading, and then if you did your homework and invested in the right components, you might only have to upgrade the gpu and operating system down the line. I didn't do my homework and will have to get a new rig all together. I'm fine with that as I'm gonna make the right decisions this time.

Tell you what, though. I'm gonna be rocking Skyrim on all max settings with that new rig when I do get it. Can't say the same about the PS4 or Xbone since they can't even run the game at all. One of the other advantages of the PC as an open platform. Doubt Skyrim would look as good on those systems as it would on that new beastly machine I'm gonna own.

It all depends on how smart of a shopper you are.

Around 2007 I built a new computer for around 600-700USD and it still performs much better than either the PS3 or 360.

That was mostly thanks to the cheap price of an 8800gt which was Nvidia's golden card IMO.

#460 Edited by ShepardCommandr (3398 posts) -

except these indie games are garbage

I'd rather thin my backlog than waste my money and time on indie games

#461 Posted by 001011000101101 (4204 posts) -

Yea the PC is my go-to platform for half-assed indie games! There's like an infinite supply of them!

#462 Edited by 04dcarraher (20872 posts) -

@001011000101101 said:

Yea the PC is my go-to platform for half-assed indie games! There's like an infinite supply of them!

If your dumb enough to buy them you deserve everything you get same goes with many of the AAA over hyped lack luster games that gets done over and over again on consoles too.

#463 Posted by dakan45 (18724 posts) -

@hehe101: yes bro, every game on pc gets hacked, thats why people keep playing games on pc...OR the hackers are kicked and banned after the anti cheat detects the hacker or the other players report them and everyone keeps playing the game....you know, because devs wouldnt let hackers ruin their game!!

@The_Last_Ride: Partially true, a budget pc can be build for 600, pc gaming has become alot cheaper than it was.

http://www.dsogaming.com/news/45-cpu-110-gpu-run-crysis-3-at-high-settings-on-consoles-framerates/

Its the start that is hard, after that you can upgrade wherever you feel like it and you save money from cheaper games and no mp fees.

@mr_huggles_dog:The pc version outsold the x360 version, not bat at all for a bad port and thanks to steam it will outsell the ps3 version soon.

If only ubisoft was like valve and cd projekt. Their games would sell very well on pc.

#464 Posted by The_Last_Ride (75414 posts) -

@dakan45: true, the games are cheaper because no one takes a big cut like Sony or MS and the online is free. But console games are more convenient for many and cheaper than a pc. Also many don't buy that many games on console. So it's cheaper for them on that platform

#465 Edited by Gammit10 (2313 posts) -

@The_Last_Ride said:

@dakan45: true, the games are cheaper because no one takes a big cut like Sony or MS and the online is free. But console games are more convenient for many and cheaper than a pc. Also many don't buy that many games on console. So it's cheaper for them on that platform

PC games are cheaper... but console games are cheaper?

Or did you mean a console is cheaper than a PC? If this is your thought, you should check out some of the $400-500 console-killer PC configurations on sites like reddit.

#466 Edited by 04dcarraher (20872 posts) -

@RyviusARC said:

@04dcarraher said:

In 2005 it did cost a bucket load for a pc to be comparable within a short timeframe but still be obsolete because the of the gpu architecture of the 360.

An Athlon X2 4400 was $500+ socket 939.

1gb DDR 400mhz was around $90-$100

A 7800GTX 512mb was $650 at launch

So just with the cpu and gpu your looking at $1k easily not including all other parts needed for the tower. So a 1.5-2k build to match the 360 should not be ignored when looking at the progression of the game engines maturing making use of the 360 hardware but namely the unified shader gpu.

The only saving grace for the 7800 GTX was its 512mb buffer and the fact that many games from 2005-2007 were not shader intensive. But the few games that were the 7800GTX choked. The 7800GTX at resolutions to and above 1600x1200 did hurt performance. Butcher Bay for example 1280x1024 to 1600x1200 seen a 20 fps drop from 66 to 45 fps. same with Splinter Cell Chaos Theory 71 to 52 fps. But less demanding games like HL 2 allowed the 7800GTX to run 2048x1536 with an average of 70 fps.

The point is that in 2005 to early 2006 pc hardware was nearing the end of multiple aging architectures and coding and would bring a new set of hardware and software standards that would change the industry. Microsoft seen the incoming shift and put out the money and resources to make their new console "the 360" ready for the future packing it with hardware that was in some ways ahead of its time. However by doing so and cutting corners the 360 suffered from reliability issues which added costs that prevented MS in making true profit until years later.

I like how the guys arguing completely ignored your post.

It's sad that this gen consoles are so under powered compared to last gen.

A CPU from 2008 and an Oced GPU from 2010 could perform better than the PS4 or Xbox One.

You would never see something like that in the past.

That would be like seeing a Pentium III CPU and Nvidia GeForce4 Ti4600 perform better than the Xbox 360.

lol yeah

#467 Posted by The_Last_Ride (75414 posts) -

@Gammit10 said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

@dakan45: true, the games are cheaper because no one takes a big cut like Sony or MS and the online is free. But console games are more convenient for many and cheaper than a pc. Also many don't buy that many games on console. So it's cheaper for them on that platform

PC games are cheaper... but console games are cheaper?

Or did you mean a console is cheaper than a PC? If this is your thought, you should check out some of the $400-500 console-killer PC configurations on sites like reddit.

Sorry, didn't phrase that right. A console is cheaper depending on if you buy games cheap and don't play that many games. If you're a pc gamer aswell, it is more "expensive" of a platform if you only play an mmo for example.

#468 Edited by MBirdy88 (9294 posts) -

@The_Last_Ride said:

@Gammit10 said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

@dakan45: true, the games are cheaper because no one takes a big cut like Sony or MS and the online is free. But console games are more convenient for many and cheaper than a pc. Also many don't buy that many games on console. So it's cheaper for them on that platform

PC games are cheaper... but console games are cheaper?

Or did you mean a console is cheaper than a PC? If this is your thought, you should check out some of the $400-500 console-killer PC configurations on sites like reddit.

Sorry, didn't phrase that right. A console is cheaper depending on if you buy games cheap and don't play that many games. If you're a pc gamer aswell, it is more "expensive" of a platform if you only play an mmo for example.

well actually those that only play an mmo likely spend less than those that buy 5 games a year (at standard or close to standard price). a years MMO is £108. thats less than 3 standard release price console games.

#469 Edited by The_Last_Ride (75414 posts) -

@MBirdy88 said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

@Gammit10 said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

@dakan45: true, the games are cheaper because no one takes a big cut like Sony or MS and the online is free. But console games are more convenient for many and cheaper than a pc. Also many don't buy that many games on console. So it's cheaper for them on that platform

PC games are cheaper... but console games are cheaper?

Or did you mean a console is cheaper than a PC? If this is your thought, you should check out some of the $400-500 console-killer PC configurations on sites like reddit.

Sorry, didn't phrase that right. A console is cheaper depending on if you buy games cheap and don't play that many games. If you're a pc gamer aswell, it is more "expensive" of a platform if you only play an mmo for example.

well actually those that only play an mmo likely spend less than those that buy 5 games a year (at standard or close to standard price). a years MMO is £108. thats less than 3 standard release price console games.

yeah, that was my point, if you only play an mmo it is cheaper. But that doesn't apply to all gamers as it doesn't on the console. It would probably be cheaper for me with all of the games i buy to have a pc, but i don't buy games at full price. So i don't really notice it and games cost 100/120 bucks here anyways

#470 Posted by clyde46 (47872 posts) -

Why do these threads devolve into arguing over really old hardware from 2005?

#471 Posted by NUSNA_Moebius (47 posts) -

@clyde46 said:

Why do these threads devolve into arguing over really old hardware from 2005?

Because it's one of the first things that is pointed out when comparing console and PC hardware. People forget that the 360 was sold at a decent loss for the first couple years at least. It's also important to note that older pre-unified shader GPU hardware is not well to the games of the past few years. What is interesting this round is that the PC hardware to match consoles is comparatively much cheaper than in 2005. A $200 graphics card will get you along way. $300 worth of graphics (R9 280) card will easily last you through this generation.

The rise of F2P games, better multiplatforming, and a very long console generation really helped the PC to become a new haven for high end development. In concert, the popularity of Youtube stars like PewDiePie have gone a long way to promote the PC as the indie platform of choice as well and even game mods like DayZ and those for Skyrim really show off the freedom of the PC.

#472 Edited by Dasein808 (630 posts) -

@RyviusARC said:

@04dcarraher said:

In 2005 it did cost a bucket load for a pc to be comparable within a short timeframe but still be obsolete because the of the gpu architecture of the 360.

An Athlon X2 4400 was $500+ socket 939.

1gb DDR 400mhz was around $90-$100

A 7800GTX 512mb was $650 at launch

So just with the cpu and gpu your looking at $1k easily not including all other parts needed for the tower. So a 1.5-2k build to match the 360 should not be ignored when looking at the progression of the game engines maturing making use of the 360 hardware but namely the unified shader gpu.

The only saving grace for the 7800 GTX was its 512mb buffer and the fact that many games from 2005-2007 were not shader intensive. But the few games that were the 7800GTX choked. The 7800GTX at resolutions to and above 1600x1200 did hurt performance. Butcher Bay for example 1280x1024 to 1600x1200 seen a 20 fps drop from 66 to 45 fps. same with Splinter Cell Chaos Theory 71 to 52 fps. But less demanding games like HL 2 allowed the 7800GTX to run 2048x1536 with an average of 70 fps.

The point is that in 2005 to early 2006 pc hardware was nearing the end of multiple aging architectures and coding and would bring a new set of hardware and software standards that would change the industry. Microsoft seen the incoming shift and put out the money and resources to make their new console "the 360" ready for the future packing it with hardware that was in some ways ahead of its time. However by doing so and cutting corners the 360 suffered from reliability issues which added costs that prevented MS in making true profit until years later.

I like how the guys arguing completely ignored your post.

And I like how consolites are still trying to equate the Xbox 360's GPU to a $600 7800GTX and not the CORRECT 7800GT/X1800.

It's only been 9 years...

#473 Posted by PapaTrop (1710 posts) -

@clyde46 said:

Why do these threads devolve into arguing over really old hardware from 2005?

I asked it a few pages back, and it just kept going.......

I don't even get how it's an argument. Everyone knows that PCs were much more expensive than consoles a long time ago. Nowadays you can get a great PC for a much more comparable cost to a console (especially when you think of what you get out of it), and if you want, you can still opt to go the enthusiast route and drop $1500+ on a computer.

Like..... What are people even arguing about by bringing up old prices? I don't get it. It has absolutely ZERO relevance to PC/Console gaming in the year 2014.

#474 Posted by 04dcarraher (20872 posts) -

@Dasein808 said:

@RyviusARC said:

@04dcarraher said:

In 2005 it did cost a bucket load for a pc to be comparable within a short timeframe but still be obsolete because the of the gpu architecture of the 360.

An Athlon X2 4400 was $500+ socket 939.

1gb DDR 400mhz was around $90-$100

A 7800GTX 512mb was $650 at launch

So just with the cpu and gpu your looking at $1k easily not including all other parts needed for the tower. So a 1.5-2k build to match the 360 should not be ignored when looking at the progression of the game engines maturing making use of the 360 hardware but namely the unified shader gpu.

The only saving grace for the 7800 GTX was its 512mb buffer and the fact that many games from 2005-2007 were not shader intensive. But the few games that were the 7800GTX choked. The 7800GTX at resolutions to and above 1600x1200 did hurt performance. Butcher Bay for example 1280x1024 to 1600x1200 seen a 20 fps drop from 66 to 45 fps. same with Splinter Cell Chaos Theory 71 to 52 fps. But less demanding games like HL 2 allowed the 7800GTX to run 2048x1536 with an average of 70 fps.

The point is that in 2005 to early 2006 pc hardware was nearing the end of multiple aging architectures and coding and would bring a new set of hardware and software standards that would change the industry. Microsoft seen the incoming shift and put out the money and resources to make their new console "the 360" ready for the future packing it with hardware that was in some ways ahead of its time. However by doing so and cutting corners the 360 suffered from reliability issues which added costs that prevented MS in making true profit until years later.

I like how the guys arguing completely ignored your post.

And I like how consolites are still trying to equate the Xbox 360's GPU to a $600 7800GTX and not the CORRECT 7800GT/X1800.

It's only been 9 years...

360 is faster and more advanced then the 7800GTX was. So dont even compare the 7800GT which is weaker yet.

Lets look at the 7800GTX

512mb GDDR3

24 pixel shader pipelines

8 vertex shader pipelines

It operated around 165 GFLOPS

The 360 Xenos

>512mb GDDR3 (averages half for buffer"256mb")

48 Unified Shader processors able to do both pixel & vertex workloads in any combination

it operates at 240 GFLOPS

The only thing the 7800 series had over the 360 Xenos was more memory and faster bandwidth.

#475 Edited by Dasein808 (630 posts) -

@04dcarraher said:

360 is faster and more advanced then the 7800GTX was. So dont even compare the 7800GT which is weaker yet.

Lets look at the 7800GTX

512mb GDDR3

24 pixel shader pipelines

8 vertex shader pipelines

It operated around 165 GFLOPS

The 360 Xenos

>512mb GDDR3 (averages half for buffer"256mb")

48 Unified Shader processors able to do both pixel & vertex workloads in any combination

it operates at 240 GFLOPS

Then why was the 7800GTX capable of higher resolutions and more simultaneous effects?

Greater gflops and additional shaders mean little at lesser resolutions, with fewer simultaneous effects, etc.

If you google the Xbox 360's most commonly associated equivalent full-size GPU, then you'll find that it's the 7800GT or the X1800 that are most commonly cited.

There is no exact comparison because it was a proprietary chip.

There's also the laws of thermodynamics and heat dissipation that are much more pronounced in a graphics chip/console environment versus a discrete, independently cooled full-size GPU.

These will also limit the chip's ability.

@04dcarraher said:

The only thing the 7800 series had over the 360 Xenos was more memory and faster bandwidth.

Which ultimately combined to make it a stronger GPU in spite of any of the Xbox GPU's paper potential.

#477 Edited by NUSNA_Moebius (47 posts) -

I imagine that the Cell's only two real problems in rendering were texture mapping and z-buffering since it doesn't have TMUs or ROPs. It's hard to make up for a lack of specialized hardware, hence why the PS3 needed a real GPU. Vertex generation and culling was best suited towards offloading to Cell probably because the RSX didn't have enough vertex shaders to meet the future needs of developers versus the unified shader arch of Xenos. The Cell has an excess of GFLOPs that can be dedicated to rendering, as long as you have enough left over for animation and physics.

#478 Edited by 04dcarraher (20872 posts) -
@scottpsfan14 said:

The RSX operated at around 195 GFLOPS. Quite a bit slower than the Xenos. And if I recall, the Cell had a single core 3.2 GHz CPU and 7 SPE's that operated at around 240 GFLOPS all together.

Developers (first parties mainly) were able to use the SPE's to offload polygons and physics calculations to 6 of the SPE's as the 7th was used for the OS I think. Along with 50MB of ram if I'm not mistaken.

What the SPE's weren't very good at however was shading and lighting etc. That was all done on the RSX. The SPE's worked more like a GPGPU in a sense. Meaning that only core GPU tasks such as triangle drawing and physics/particles could be off loaded, and not rendering tech found on GPU's of the day.

The RSX did not operate at 195 GFLOPS, the RSX was a gimped G70 chipset aka geforce 7800 , The true processing performance is around 150 GFLOPS. The theoretical Cell processing power of 240 GFLOPS is false can never be reached because of memory bandwidth limitations. The best the Cell can do is 218 GFLOPS.

Yea 1st party devs after a period of time were able to offload graphical workloads to the SPE's to help out the RSX. The Cell normally has 8 SPE's but 7 are only used because of production yields, the PPE was used for OS and normal cpu tasks . SPE's were originally designed for gpu work to be the "gpu" But the performance was lack luster to the standards.

#479 Edited by 04dcarraher (20872 posts) -

@Dasein808 said:

\

Then why was the 7800GTX capable of higher resolutions and more simultaneous effects?

Greater gflops and additional shaders mean little at lesser resolutions, with fewer simultaneous effects, etc.

If you google the Xbox 360's most commonly associated equivalent full-size GPU, then you'll find that it's the 7800GT or the X1800 that are most commonly cited.

There is no exact comparison because it was a proprietary chip.

There's also the laws of thermodynamics and heat dissipation that are much more pronounced in a graphics chip/console environment versus a discrete, independently cooled full-size GPU.

These will also limit the chip's ability.

@04dcarraher said:

The only thing the 7800 series had over the 360 Xenos was more memory and faster bandwidth.

Which ultimately combined to make it a stronger GPU in spite of any of the Xbox GPU's paper potential.

just no just no

gpu's can render higher resolutions because of the openness of options and then the 7800GTx had more memory which allowed it too. You can run 2048×1536 on a FX 5200....

what? greater flops does not mean less resolution they limit resolutions for performance and mainly from lack of vram. greater processing performance mean more complex effects and able to run better at higher resolutions if you have the memory resources.

you can compare the gpu's and both the 7800GTx and 360 Xenos had around 100w TDP

ultimately the 7800GTX was the inferior gpu because of the older architecture design

#480 Edited by Dasein808 (630 posts) -

@04dcarraher said:

just no just no

gpu's can render higher resolutions because of the openness of options and then the 7800GTx had more memory which allowed it too. You can run 2048×1536 on a FX 5200....

what? greater flops does not mean less resolution they limit resolutions for performance and mainly from lack of vram. greater processing performance mean more complex effects and able to run better at higher resolutions if you have the memory resources.

you can compare the gpu's and both the 7800GTx and 360 Xenos had around 100w TDP

ultimately the 7800GTX was the inferior gpu because of the older architecture design

Yes, exactly.

More overall memory and bandwidth contributes to greater resolutions and more simultaneous effects, which ultimately equals a more powerful card in terms of actual capability.

I know that more GFLOPs does not mean less resolution.

It just means more potential for advanced floating point mathematical operations, and in this case, at a less demanding resolution.

You're right about greater processing performance allowing access to more complex effects and the ability to run at higher resolutions, but ONLY if, as you say, "...you have the memory resources."

The 360 simply didn't have the necessary memory resources to overpower a 7800GTX.

The 360 was playing games at a 720p (1280x720) resolution with 512MB RAM.

PCs using 7800 series cards generally were playing at 1600x1200 with more effects and usually a minimum of 2GB of system RAM, nevermind the GPU's dedicated 512MB of RAM.

If a PC gamer were playing @720p, with the exact same amount of reduced effects, then maybe the 360's GPU would have outperformed or looked better than a 7800GTX with the 360's newer shader architecture, but I don't know of a PC gamer that would even opt to play at 720p when they could've used 1600x1200.

The 360's chip had newer shader architecture that should have helped it perform better according to its paper specs, but it didn't in terms of real-world performance because of its lack of RAM and bandwidth.

#481 Edited by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@Dasein808 said:

@04dcarraher said:

just no just no

gpu's can render higher resolutions because of the openness of options and then the 7800GTx had more memory which allowed it too. You can run 2048×1536 on a FX 5200....

what? greater flops does not mean less resolution they limit resolutions for performance and mainly from lack of vram. greater processing performance mean more complex effects and able to run better at higher resolutions if you have the memory resources.

you can compare the gpu's and both the 7800GTx and 360 Xenos had around 100w TDP

ultimately the 7800GTX was the inferior gpu because of the older architecture design

PCs using 7800 series cards generally were playing at 1600x1200 with more effects and usually a minimum of 2GB of system RAM, nevermind the GPU's dedicated 512MB of RAM.

The 7800 can run very outdated games at 1600 but it struggles with newer games. Try running Bioshock at 1600x1200. Even the 8600 can barely run Bioshock above 1024x768 while the 360 runs it at 1280x720 without breaking a sweat.

#482 Edited by Dasein808 (630 posts) -

@Cranler said:

The 7800 can run very outdated games at 1600 but it struggles with newer games. Ty running Bioshock at 1600x1200. Even the 8600 can barely run Bioshock above 1024x768 while the 360 runs it at 1280x720 without breaking a sweat.

I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that the games in question are NEWER and PCs don't exist on a console generation timeline technologically?

Given that a 6600GT is listed as Bioshock's minimum requirements and the fact that you're a known liar, I'm just going to flush you now.

#483 Edited by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@Dasein808 said:

@Cranler said:

The 7800 can run very outdated games at 1600 but it struggles with newer games. Ty running Bioshock at 1600x1200. Even the 8600 can barely run Bioshock above 1024x768 while the 360 runs it at 1280x720 without breaking a sweat.

I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that the games in question are NEWER and PCs don't exist on a console generation timeline technologically.

Given that a 6600GT is listed as Bioshock's minimum requirements and the fact that you're a known liar, I'm just going to flush you now.

So a $500 gpu isn't supposed to run games that come out 2 years later at an acceptable resolution and setiings?

6600 is for low settings 800x600 25 fps. The 8600 gt bench is medium settings and it struggles at 1024x768. Do i need to link the bench a 3rd time? It's in my fav list. 360 runs high settings at 1280x720 btw.

#484 Edited by Dasein808 (630 posts) -

@Cranler said:

So a $500 gpu isn't supposed to run games that come out 2 years later at an acceptable resolution and setiings?

6600 is for low settings 800x600 25 fps. The 8600 gt bench is medium settings and it struggles at 1024x768. Do i need to link the bench a 3rd time? It's in my fav list.

/flush

#485 Edited by wis3boi (32098 posts) -
@Dasein808 said:

@Cranler said:

So a $500 gpu isn't supposed to run games that come out 2 years later at an acceptable resolution and setiings?

6600 is for low settings 800x600 25 fps. The 8600 gt bench is medium settings and it struggles at 1024x768. Do i need to link the bench a 3rd time? It's in my fav list.

/flush

#486 Edited by clyde46 (47872 posts) -

@wis3boi said:
@Dasein808 said:

@Cranler said:

So a $500 gpu isn't supposed to run games that come out 2 years later at an acceptable resolution and setiings?

6600 is for low settings 800x600 25 fps. The 8600 gt bench is medium settings and it struggles at 1024x768. Do i need to link the bench a 3rd time? It's in my fav list.

/flush

#487 Edited by RyviusARC (4961 posts) -

@Cranler said:

@Dasein808 said:

@04dcarraher said:

just no just no

gpu's can render higher resolutions because of the openness of options and then the 7800GTx had more memory which allowed it too. You can run 2048×1536 on a FX 5200....

what? greater flops does not mean less resolution they limit resolutions for performance and mainly from lack of vram. greater processing performance mean more complex effects and able to run better at higher resolutions if you have the memory resources.

you can compare the gpu's and both the 7800GTx and 360 Xenos had around 100w TDP

ultimately the 7800GTX was the inferior gpu because of the older architecture design

PCs using 7800 series cards generally were playing at 1600x1200 with more effects and usually a minimum of 2GB of system RAM, nevermind the GPU's dedicated 512MB of RAM.

The 7800 can run very outdated games at 1600 but it struggles with newer games. Try running Bioshock at 1600x1200. Even the 8600 can barely run Bioshock above 1024x768 while the 360 runs it at 1280x720 without breaking a sweat.

The 8600gt could run Bioshock just fine at 1280x720 at console settings and I know this since my friend had one.

The 8600gt is around the same in power to the 360 with it being weaker in some areas and stronger in others.

But one thing you forget is that you can overclock PC GPUs for a boost in performance.

I did this with my old 8800gt and even after 7 years it is still kicking.

My GTX 570 performs around 30% better with the overclock I have on it.

#489 Edited by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@Dasein808 said:

@Cranler said:

So a $500 gpu isn't supposed to run games that come out 2 years later at an acceptable resolution and setiings?

6600 is for low settings 800x600 25 fps. The 8600 gt bench is medium settings and it struggles at 1024x768. Do i need to link the bench a 3rd time? It's in my fav list.

/flush

Some people just can't concede gracefully.

@Dasein808 said:

@04dcarraher said:

360 is faster and more advanced then the 7800GTX was. So dont even compare the 7800GT which is weaker yet.

Lets look at the 7800GTX

512mb GDDR3

24 pixel shader pipelines

8 vertex shader pipelines

It operated around 165 GFLOPS

The 360 Xenos

>512mb GDDR3 (averages half for buffer"256mb")

48 Unified Shader processors able to do both pixel & vertex workloads in any combination

it operates at 240 GFLOPS

Then why was the 7800GTX capable of higher resolutions and more simultaneous effects?

Greater gflops and additional shaders mean little at lesser resolutions, with fewer simultaneous effects, etc.

If you google the Xbox 360's most commonly associated equivalent full-size GPU, then you'll find that it's the 7800GT or the X1800 that are most commonly cited.

There is no exact comparison because it was a proprietary chip.

There's also the laws of thermodynamics and heat dissipation that are much more pronounced in a graphics chip/console environment versus a discrete, independently cooled full-size GPU.

These will also limit the chip's ability.

@04dcarraher said:

The only thing the 7800 series had over the 360 Xenos was more memory and faster bandwidth.

Which ultimately combined to make it a stronger GPU in spite of any of the Xbox GPU's paper potential.

Yet even the 7900 gtx stuggles at 1600x1200 in Oblivion

#490 Edited by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@RyviusARC said:

@Cranler said:

@Dasein808 said:

@04dcarraher said:

just no just no

gpu's can render higher resolutions because of the openness of options and then the 7800GTx had more memory which allowed it too. You can run 2048×1536 on a FX 5200....

what? greater flops does not mean less resolution they limit resolutions for performance and mainly from lack of vram. greater processing performance mean more complex effects and able to run better at higher resolutions if you have the memory resources.

you can compare the gpu's and both the 7800GTx and 360 Xenos had around 100w TDP

ultimately the 7800GTX was the inferior gpu because of the older architecture design

PCs using 7800 series cards generally were playing at 1600x1200 with more effects and usually a minimum of 2GB of system RAM, nevermind the GPU's dedicated 512MB of RAM.

The 7800 can run very outdated games at 1600 but it struggles with newer games. Try running Bioshock at 1600x1200. Even the 8600 can barely run Bioshock above 1024x768 while the 360 runs it at 1280x720 without breaking a sweat.

The 8600gt could run Bioshock just fine at 1280x720 at console settings and I know this since my friend had one.

The 8600gt is around the same in power to the 360 with it being weaker in some areas and stronger in others.

But one thing you forget is that you can overclock PC GPUs for a boost in performance.

I did this with my old 8800gt and even after 7 years it is still kicking.

My GTX 570 performs around 30% better with the overclock I have on it.

From Gamespot

PC High Quality vs. Xbox 360

The PC graphics at high quality are comparable to the Xbox 360's, http://www.gamespot.com/articles/bioshock-pc-vs-xbox-360/1100-6178185/

Here the 8600 gt gets unplayable fps at 1280x1024 at medium settings. Dropping to 1280x720 and upping the settings to high will result in about the same fps. An overclock isn't going to make it run as well as 360 does.

#491 Edited by Dasein808 (630 posts) -

There's nothing to concede to an idiot who fails to realize that he needs a majority of multiplat games from the previous generation that perform better on the 360 than a PC playing at 720p with the same amount of reduced effects in order to actually prove whatever he thinks he's now proving.

Your poorly optimized, isolated examples that provide no corresponding console stats under the EXACT same graphical conditions proves nothing when everyone knows that the majority of multiplat games of the previous console generation performed better on PC.

/plunge

//double flush

#492 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@Dasein808 said:

There's nothing to concede to an idiot who fails to realize that he needs a majority of multiplat games from the previous generation that perform better on the 360 in order to actually prove whatever he thinks he's now proving.

Your poorly optimized, isolated examples prove nothing when everyone knows that the majority of multiplat games of the previous console generation performed better on PC.

/plunge

//double flush

Prove me wrong then. Your word alone isn't enough even though your ego makes you think it is.

#493 Edited by Bebi_vegeta (13558 posts) -

@The_Last_Ride said:

@thehig1 said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

@thehig1 said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

uhm, almost everyone has a pc and pc's are more expensive than consoles.

unless you buy more than 4 games per year, then PC gaming will end being cheaper over a couple years span.

True, but the hardware is still more expensive. Gaming PC's are really expensive

yeah they can, the price can keep rising up and up if your not careful. You always end up spending a little more than you orignally budget for

true, i spent 2k on my pc in 2011, it's not that good anymore. But it ended being more than i thought

What, 2k in 2011... you'd still have a great PC...

#494 Edited by Dasein808 (630 posts) -

@Cranler said:

@Dasein808 said:

There's nothing to concede to an idiot who fails to realize that he needs a majority of multiplat games from the previous generation that perform better on the 360 in order to actually prove whatever he thinks he's now proving.

Your poorly optimized, isolated examples prove nothing when everyone knows that the majority of multiplat games of the previous console generation performed better on PC.

/plunge

//double flush

Prove me wrong then. Your word alone isn't enough even though your ego makes you think it is.

That's not how this works.

The burden of proof is still on YOU to prove that the MAJORITY of multiplat games played better on a 360 than on a PC playing @720p with the same amount of reduced effects and that it took a $2000 to match an Xbox 360 at release.

These are your claims that you can't prove.

#495 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@Dasein808 said:

@Cranler said:

@Dasein808 said:

There's nothing to concede to an idiot who fails to realize that he needs a majority of multiplat games from the previous generation that perform better on the 360 in order to actually prove whatever he thinks he's now proving.

Your poorly optimized, isolated examples prove nothing when everyone knows that the majority of multiplat games of the previous console generation performed better on PC.

/plunge

//double flush

Prove me wrong then. Your word alone isn't enough even though your ego makes you think it is.

That's not how this works.

The burden of proof is still on YOU to prove that the MAJORITY of multiplat games played better on a 360 than on a PC playing @720p with the same amount of reduced effects and that it took a $2000 to match an Xbox 360 at release.

These are your claims that you can't prove.

I provided a few examples of games that run better on 360 than the best pc's from 2005 while you've provided nothing to support your stance.

#496 Posted by Zelda187 (1047 posts) -

@lglz1337 said:

spreadsheet race still trying

chair gamers isolated from the world with no friends

benchmark this shit m8

sad lemming hiding behind pc

LOL

So says the kid with 3,000 posts in 8 months

#497 Edited by Dasein808 (630 posts) -
@Cranler said:

I provided a few examples of games that run better on 360 than the best pc's from 2005 while you've provided nothing to support your stance.

You provided a few examples of games that were not even released in 2005, playing with GPUs that were less than those recommended by the games' developers, at resolutions higher than the Xbox360 could produce, with more additional effects than those available for the Xbox360 while simultaneously not providing corroborating console stats.

Again, I'm not the one that needs to prove anything considering these are your claims and not mine.

All I've done is destroy everything you try to present as evidence in support of your trolling.

#498 Edited by 04dcarraher (20872 posts) -

@scottpsfan14 said:
@04dcarraher said:
@scottpsfan14 said:

The RSX operated at around 195 GFLOPS. Quite a bit slower than the Xenos. And if I recall, the Cell had a single core 3.2 GHz CPU and 7 SPE's that operated at around 240 GFLOPS all together.

Developers (first parties mainly) were able to use the SPE's to offload polygons and physics calculations to 6 of the SPE's as the 7th was used for the OS I think. Along with 50MB of ram if I'm not mistaken.

What the SPE's weren't very good at however was shading and lighting etc. That was all done on the RSX. The SPE's worked more like a GPGPU in a sense. Meaning that only core GPU tasks such as triangle drawing and physics/particles could be off loaded, and not rendering tech found on GPU's of the day.

The RSX did not operate at 195 GFLOPS, the RSX was a gimped G70 chipset aka geforce 7800 , The true processing performance is around 150 GFLOPS. The theoretical Cell processing power of 240 GFLOPS is false can never be reached because of memory bandwidth limitations. The best the Cell can do is 218 GFLOPS.

Yea 1st party devs after a period of time were able to offload graphical workloads to the SPE's to help out the RSX. The Cell normally has 8 SPE's but 7 are only used because of production yields, the PPE was used for OS and normal cpu tasks . SPE's were originally designed for gpu work to be the "gpu" But the performance was lack luster to the standards.

I'm pretty sure the RSX was 192 GLOPS actually. And yes the Cell could operate (in practice) at 218 GFLOPS max. That's correct.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=65215

Console GPU's (GFLOPS)

PS3: 192

Xbox 360: 240

Xbox One: 1,310

PS4: 1,843

I don't know if this is a false statement but I couldn't find a source of RSX being 150 GFLOPS anywhere. But you are correct about the Cells performance.

And lol at SONY for even considering making the Cell the primary GPU lol. Good thing they used some common sense in the end or else we would have had the most generic GPU functionality in any console to date. Drawing triangles, processing textures, and having to brute force the rest. There is no way the PS3 would have began to compete with the 360 without the RSX. But Cell did prove to co exist with RSX quite well in the end.

The RSX does not run at 192 GFLOPS, its another Sony theoretical statement, The RSX was a stripped down slightly altered version of the G70 chip which is what the 7800 series were. The RSX runs at 500 mhz with slightly faster clocked memory at 1.4 ghz. but the RSX has half the bus width and half the ROPS then a normal 7800GTX . But the RSX does have 50% more texture cache per pipeline vs the 7800GTX which helps with the 128 bit bus and ROPS. The RSX is stuck with 22.4 GB/s memory bandwidth vs 7800GTX's 54 GB/s.

Heck even the Geforce 7600GT has a theoretical limit of 192 GFLOPS when we know The 7800GTX only does an actual of 165 GFLOPS at around 450 mhz at 1.2 ghz with 256 bus and 16 ROPS. The PS3's memory limits again chokes the theoretical max just like the Cell 240 theoretical limit when in fact it limited to 218, same applies to the RSX.

#499 Posted by lglz1337 (4446 posts) -

@Zelda187: who are you newbie ? you have no rights!

yes i love to spam lemmings, so what?!

#500 Edited by Zelda187 (1047 posts) -

@001011000101101 said:

Yea the PC is my go-to platform for half-assed indie games! There's like an infinite supply of them!

And consoles are the go-to platform for the same half-assed shit that you've played a thousand times over.

LOL

Halo? GTA? Gears of War? Call of Duty? Zelda? Mario?

How many times can people play the same shit over and over again and keep getting super excited for the next run of the mill installment?

I used to talk shit about indie games too until I sat down and tried a few of them. At least Indie developers try different things and actually bring some original ideas to the table. And a lot of the games are fun as hell with some truly groundbreaking gameplay components.

You also have access to emulators on PC. Which means I can play any game dating from the original Atari all the way up through the PS2 and XBOX for absolutely free. The same games that they'll charge your ass at least $4.99 for on XB Live or the PS Store.