GPU comparison - PC, 360, PS3 - time to stop the console over PC hype

  • 172 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for commander
commander

16217

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#101 commander
Member since 2010 • 16217 Posts

[QUOTE="evildead6789"]

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

Just because it has 3 cores at 3.2 ghz doesn't mean much.

Architecture is more important.

Anyone who knows anything about computers sees this as common knowledge.

The 8800GTX is around 3-4x as powerful as a console.

The 8800gt came out in 2007 for only 200USD and was only slightly slower than an 8800gtx.

The console cpus are fairly weak and just about any old dual core will beat it. Even the Pentium D CPUs.

Hakkai007

You don't say architecture, the xbox 360 has a locked, custom madeoperating system. Lol it's just the architecture that's so good on it . It can do a lot more with a lot less because only has to doa couple of things like playing games and playing movies and maybe some other stuff. It doesn't haveto manage any windows services,ever-changing registry, filetables,background runningprograms, multitasking and so on.The user has also no control over the operating system that makes it very stable.

And please stop selling lies. the8800 gt couldn't even touch the 8800 gtx it was only on par with xbox 360 graphics. And the 8800 gt only came out end 2007. With that price of the 8800 gt you could probably buy a cheap system that could match the x360 but i think 650$ is cutting it a little low , i would love to know which cpu and ram you got with that. By that time you only had to pay 220$for an xbox 360 with a harddrive. But i had mine also for a year so this discussion is useless.

anyway to prove my point about the power of the 8800 gt , the xbox graphics is between the hd 2900 pro and the x1900xt. Read this list and weep

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-radeon-hd-6870-geforce-gtx-570,2834-7.html

Oh so that is why my 8800gt is running Devil May Cry 4 at 1920x1080 with 16xQCSAA at higher settings and the Xbox 360 is running is at lower settings and 1280x720 at 2xAA.

That is why the Xbox 360 is running Modern Warefare 2 at 1024x600 (2xAA) with medium settings and my 8800gt is running it at 1920x1080 max settings with 8xAA.

The 8800gt was only slightly weaker than an 8800gtx.

And I can OC mine to match an 8800gtx.

Please do more research.

I am running Crysis on an 8800gt and it looks like this.

Crysis can't even run on consoles.

No way you run those resoluitons with a 650$ pc from end 2007.

Avatar image for Kinthalis
Kinthalis

5503

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#102 Kinthalis
Member since 2002 • 5503 Posts

@ haikkai

I know my x360can run most of my gameson full hd that's 1900 x 1080 .

And more research oh lord

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2365/9

Still i said this discussion was useless because your talking about end 2007 while i was talking beginning 2007 and like i said 650$ is very low (i'm sure you reused some parts)and still a lot more costlythan the x360 @ that time .

evildead6789

What are you talking about? MOST console games run at 720p or less. Halo Reach was like 600 something horizontal lines of resolution.

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23824

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#103 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23824 Posts
[QUOTE="lespaul1919"]

alright. I'm tired of this "crysis couldn't run on consoles" stuff. it's simply because they didn't make a console version. thats like saying "PC's couldn't run killzone 2".....which is true. consoles can't run anything that is a windows game disc lol.

crysis 2 is on consoles, so obviously crysis could have been. yeah, it wouldn't be 1920x1080 4xAA.......but they could have easily made a console version. if RAGE is on the iphone, crysis could be on the PS3. stop with this nonsense already. just because it's at a little lower resolution, little less AA, little lower texture quality does not make it any less of a game. at all. it's not like halo PC is better than halo xbox because I can increase the resolution.

ok done. that was my "SW is slightly too anal and care a little too much about things that don't matter at all" rant.

Come on, dont you understand what Crysis needs in memory amounts to run? which is double if not triple what the consoles have. Now a direct port over to Pc with Killzone 2 would be possible because Pc's have the memory, cpu and gpu power to do so and be better then the PS3 version. Crysis 2 has been stripped to work on consoles smaller levels , using stream loading, a downgrade in draw distances, and the game seem to be more linear and not the open free levels from the 1st.
Avatar image for commander
commander

16217

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#104 commander
Member since 2010 • 16217 Posts
If your talking high quality crysis you're right but the way some people play it on their pc well let's just say they won't bring that on the market for consoles
Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23824

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#105 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23824 Posts

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="evildead6789"]

You don't say architecture, the xbox 360 has a locked, custom madeoperating system. Lol it's just the architecture that's so good on it . It can do a lot more with a lot less because only has to doa couple of things like playing games and playing movies and maybe some other stuff. It doesn't haveto manage any windows services,ever-changing registry, filetables,background runningprograms, multitasking and so on.The user has also no control over the operating system that makes it very stable.

And please stop selling lies. the8800 gt couldn't even touch the 8800 gtx it was only on par with xbox 360 graphics. And the 8800 gt only came out end 2007. With that price of the 8800 gt you could probably buy a cheap system that could match the x360 but i think 650$ is cutting it a little low , i would love to know which cpu and ram you got with that. By that time you only had to pay 220$for an xbox 360 with a harddrive. But i had mine also for a year so this discussion is useless.

anyway to prove my point about the power of the 8800 gt , the xbox graphics is between the hd 2900 pro and the x1900xt. Read this list and weep

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-radeon-hd-6870-geforce-gtx-570,2834-7.html

evildead6789

Oh so that is why my 8800gt is running Devil May Cry 4 at 1920x1080 with 16xQCSAA at higher settings and the Xbox 360 is running is at lower settings and 1280x720 at 2xAA.

That is why the Xbox 360 is running Modern Warefare 2 at 1024x600 (2xAA) with medium settings and my 8800gt is running it at 1920x1080 max settings with 8xAA.

The 8800gt was only slightly weaker than an 8800gtx.

And I can OC mine to match an 8800gtx.

Please do more research.

I am running Crysis on an 8800gt and it looks like this.

Crysis can't even run on consoles.

No way you run those resoluitons with a 650$ pc from end 2007.

Yes you can, Most console ports can be maxed and play a much higher resolutions and settings with a 8800GT. You need to see that a 8800GT is 3x faster then ethier console gpu and has 2x the memory amount to allow those higher settings.

Avatar image for commander
commander

16217

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#106 commander
Member since 2010 • 16217 Posts

i have a hd 5770 i know what those resolutions are and what Antialiasing does do your framerate. I can't see a 8800 gt combined with a 150$cpu from end 2007doing that at a playable framerate .16 x AA @ that resolution lol well i've never played those games maybe they are so bad in quality it's actually true.

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23824

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#107 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23824 Posts
i have a hd 5770 i know what those resolutions are and what Antialiasing does do your framerate. I can't see a 8800 gt doing that at a playable framerate 16 x AA @ that resolution lol well i've never played those games maybe they are so bad in quality it's actually true.evildead6789
All multiplatform games are built around console abilities which means a Pc gpu that is faster will be able to alot more then the console counterparts. Now if you trying to run massive amount of AA or resolution on a real Pc game then it would be hard to do with a gpu like a 8800GT. Also you dont have to run games at higher resolutions then the console versions to get better graphics. Very few games on ethier console run in true 1080, and tend to be weird resolutions and 720 or below.
Avatar image for savagetwinkie
savagetwinkie

7981

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#108 savagetwinkie
Member since 2008 • 7981 Posts
i've got bfbc2 for both pc/360, i have a gt470, and i still would rather play on my console yes my pc is prettier, but bfbc2 didn't work for 3 months after i bought it, which is why i own the console version too, and its not pretty enough to make a difference, I look at screen shots i care, i play the game i don't and thats what really matters most, I am enjoying myself, and the difference isn't enough anymore to compel me to play on a pc
Avatar image for Hakkai007
Hakkai007

4905

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#109 Hakkai007
Member since 2005 • 4905 Posts

@ haikkai

I know my x360can run most of my gameson full hd that's 1900 x 1080 .

And more research oh lord

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2365/9

Still i said this discussion was useless because your talking about end 2007 while i was talking beginning 2007 and like i said 650$ is very low (i'm sure you reused some parts)and still a lot more costlythan the x360 @ that time .

evildead6789

Wrong the resolution for consoles is usually 720P and some are lower like Alan Wake and Call of Duty games.

And no I didn't reuse parts I just know how to shop.

Sites like newegg.com do wonders.

Avatar image for Hakkai007
Hakkai007

4905

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#110 Hakkai007
Member since 2005 • 4905 Posts

No way you run those resoluitons with a 650$ pc from end 2007.

evildead6789

I actually play Crysis at a higher res than in that screen.

I play Crysis usually at 1680x1050.

I use a modified config.

Avatar image for Hakkai007
Hakkai007

4905

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#111 Hakkai007
Member since 2005 • 4905 Posts

i have a hd 5770 i know what those resolutions are and what Antialiasing does do your framerate. I can't see a 8800 gt combined with a 150$cpu from end 2007doing that at a playable framerate .16 x AA @ that resolution lol well i've never played those games maybe they are so bad in quality it's actually true.

evildead6789

I am running crysis with no AA so I am not sure what you are talking about.

Crysis is not CPU intensive either unless you use certain mods.

Avatar image for Hakkai007
Hakkai007

4905

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#112 Hakkai007
Member since 2005 • 4905 Posts

[QUOTE="evildead6789"]i have a hd 5770 i know what those resolutions are and what Antialiasing does do your framerate. I can't see a 8800 gt doing that at a playable framerate 16 x AA @ that resolution lol well i've never played those games maybe they are so bad in quality it's actually true.04dcarraher
All multiplatform games are built around console abilities which means a Pc gpu that is faster will be able to alot more then the console counterparts. Now if you trying to run massive amount of AA or resolution on a real Pc game then it would be hard to do with a gpu like a 8800GT. Also you dont have to run games at higher resolutions then the console versions to get better graphics. Very few games on ethier console run in true 1080, and tend to be weird resolutions and 720 or below.

Older games and just about any console multiplat can run at twice the resolution and higher AA with only an 8800gt.

There are exceptions like Metro 2033 but we all know it's one of the best looking games and one of the most demanding too.

I was just playing Dead Space earlier and am happy to see I can force AA with the new drivers now.

It already looked better than the console version but now with AA it looks a lot better.

Jagged edges hurt my eyes.

.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#113 ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts

Uhm, PS3 uses OpenGL. They are not restricted by MS standards (LOL NO DX11 FOR YOU GO BUY A NEW VIDEOCARD AND NEW WINDOWS BICOZ NO FANCY EFFECTS ARE POSIBUL ON YOUR GEAR). Well this last statement is kinda old for 2011, but I remeber being SO pissed off two years ago.

Orchid87

NVIDIA RSX still has Geforce FX/6/7 design flaws i.e. it's inability to do HDR FP + MSAA via hardware still matches DX9 spec. Btw DX GPUs includes OpenGL support.

For today's raster workloads, the RSX/Geforce 7 is an aging GPU.

From http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=57736&page=5

------------------------

"I could go on for pages listing the types of things the spu's are used for to make up for the machines aging gpu, which may be 7 series NVidia but that's basically a tweaked 6 series NVidia for the most part. But I'll just type a few off the top of my head:"


1) Two ppu/vmx units
There are three ppu/vmx units on the 360, and just one on the PS3. So any load on the 360's remaining two ppu/vmx units must be moved to spu.

2) Vertex culling
You can look back a few years at my first post talking about this, but it's common knowledge now that you need to move as much vertex load as possible to spu otherwise it won't keep pace with the 360.

3) Vertex texture sampling
You can texture sample in vertex shaders on 360 just fine, but it's unusably slow on PS3. Most multi platform games simply won't use this feature on 360 to make keeping parity easier, but if a dev does make use of it then you will have no choice but to move all such functionality to spu.

4) Shader patching
Changing variables in shader programs is cake on the 360. Not so on the PS3 because they are embedded into the shader programs. So you have to use spu's to patch your shader programs.

5) Branching
You never want a lot of branching in general, but when you do really need it the 360 handles it fine, PS3 does not. If you are stuck needing branching in shaders then you will want to move all such functionality to spu.

6) Shader inputs
You can pass plenty of inputs to shaders on 360, but do it on PS3 and your game will grind to a halt. You will want to move all such functionality to spu to minimize the amount of inputs needed on the shader programs.

7) MSAA alternatives
Msaa runs full speed on 360 gpu needing just cpu tiling calculations. Msaa on PS3 gpu is very slow. You will want to move msaa to spu as soon as you can.

8. Post processing
360 is unified architecture meaning post process steps can often be slotted into gpu idle time. This is not as easily doable on PS3, so you will want to move as much post process to spu as possible.

9) Load balancing
360 gpu load balances itself just fine since it's unified. If the load on a given frame shifts to heavy vertex or heavy pixel load then you don't care. Not so on PS3 where such load shifts will cause frame drops. You will want to shift as much load as possible to spu to minimize your peak load on the gpu.

10) Half floats
You can use full floats just fine on the 360 gpu. On the PS3 gpu they cause performance slowdowns. If you really need/have to use shaders with many full floats then you will want to move such functionality over to the spu's.

11) Shader array indexing
You can index into arrays in shaders on the 360 gpu no problem. You can't do that on PS3. If you absolutely need this functionality then you will have to either rework your shaders or move it all to spu.

Etc, etc, etc...

PS; On point 10, limitation is similar to Geforce FX's 32bit FP issues. OpenGL nor low level RSX's libCGM middleware will solve the G7X hardware design issues.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#114 ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts
Disgruntled PC fan boy angry that he payed $3000 on the dying PC platform.Vadamee
 PC Digital Downloads is in growth phase.
Avatar image for Hakkai007
Hakkai007

4905

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#115 Hakkai007
Member since 2005 • 4905 Posts

And to the one talking about The Witcher and ME1. LOL, I got both of those through Steam and run it on my 4850. And The Witcher isn't a awesome looking game at all, and ME1 I would say it doesn't have that impressive feel either, except for maybe the characters, enviroments and rock textures look a mess.

Gaming on consoles, definitly doesn't hurt my feelings at all.

GreyFoXX4

The Witcher is an ok looking game especially since it's running on a 2003 game engine.

I played it for the awesome story though.

.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#116 ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts
[QUOTE="ShadowDeathX"]Xenon - IBM PowerPC-based Architecture - Xbox 360's uses it - Very Very Outdated Architecture Xeon - Is an Intel Server-Based Architecturelowe0
Did you seriously just call PowerPC outdated compared to x86? You might want to check out what IBM's high-end servers use. Besides, the front-end isn't necessarily the be-all-end-all of modernity, as modern microprocessors can decode instructions internally to whatever the CPU designers want to implement.

Depends on PowerPC implementation. IBM Power7 is a update to date "fat" out-of-order processor. PPE in theses consoles is designed like Intel Atom not like IBM PowerPC 970/Power5/Power7 series.
Avatar image for topsemag55
topsemag55

19063

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#117 topsemag55
Member since 2007 • 19063 Posts

The Witcher is an ok looking game especially since it's running on a 2003 game engine.

I played it for the awesome story though.

Hakkai007

Hakkai, did you ever reach Level 40 - Master Witcher? I did.

Level 40 Geralt

Avatar image for Hakkai007
Hakkai007

4905

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#118 Hakkai007
Member since 2005 • 4905 Posts

Hakkai, did you ever reach Level 40 - Master Witcher? I did.

topsemag55

Nah I got close.

I kept switching from the Combat mod and no combat mod because it became ridiculously hard.

But without the mod it is ridiculously easy for me because I got used to it....

I mainly played for the story though.

.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#119 ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts

[QUOTE="-Snooze-"]

And yet ... Console games look so good.

Isn't it a testament to the skill the console developers have that they can squeeze so much performance out of long outdated hardware?

killab2oo5

Is that Keri Hilson in your sig?

Uhm, PS3 uses OpenGL. They are not restricted by MS standards (LOL NO DX11 FOR YOU GO BUY A NEW VIDEOCARD AND NEW WINDOWS BICOZ NO FANCY EFFECTS ARE POSIBUL ON YOUR GEAR). Well this last statement is kinda old for 2011, but I remeber being SO pissed off two years ago.

Orchid87

On Topic...the end product of OpenGL and DirectX are pretty similar, believe it or not.

NVIDIA RSX has a low level LibCGM middleware i.e. think of CUDA like low levelmiddleware with all of Geforce 7's hardware design flaws.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#120 ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="ShadowDeathX"]

That is Crysis tho >.>, that game is very unoptimized. Try a mutli-plat game and compare the two.

ShadowDeathX

actually Crysis has pretty good optimization for pc standards when you consider what it's doing. not as optimised as the cryengine 3 though, that is very optimised.

But yeah consoles show much better results than a 7900. how is this so hard to understand?

Not for that 7900GS....and you can't really compare them. The hardware is almost the same just one is a chip and the other is a card. The difference is the development process. Uncharted and Killzone are only being developed and only developed for ONE graphics chip. PCs have a bunch of combos. It is like having a bunch of gfs. It is hard to keep track of all them and make sure none of them find out you are cheating on them. (Unless you are an amazing developer ;) Now if you only had one gf, then the relationship would be easier to track, develop, and etc. etc....

Unlike Geforce 7X/RSX, Geforce 8 includes hardware optimizations.

Avatar image for HailCaesarHail
HailCaesarHail

814

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#121 HailCaesarHail
Member since 2010 • 814 Posts
[QUOTE="killab2oo5"]0/10 for originality. On-topic...meh. 360/PS3 games still amaze me.FollowY0urBliss
0/10- agreed

im with you guys on this one. this thread and topic is tired.
Avatar image for topsemag55
topsemag55

19063

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#122 topsemag55
Member since 2007 • 19063 Posts

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

Hakkai, did you ever reach Level 40 - Master Witcher? I did.

Hakkai007

Nah I got close.

I kept switching from the Combat mod and no combat mod because it became ridiculously hard.

But without the mod it is ridiculously easy for me because I got used to it....

I mainly played for the story though.

.

So did I, but I once came up needing only 1,860 more points. That was so frustrating.:lol:

So I was determined to reach it. I did tons of extra combat - got Level 39 right after the Koschey, and 40 in the Ice Fields.

Nice pic, btw.:)

Got a level 40 save for Witcher 2 all ready to go.:P

Avatar image for Hakkai007
Hakkai007

4905

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#123 Hakkai007
Member since 2005 • 4905 Posts

So did I, but I once came up needing only 1,860 more points. That was so frustrating.:lol:

So I was determined to reach it. I did tons of extra combat - got Level 39 right after the Koschey, and 40 in the Ice Fields.

Nice pic, btw.:)

Got a level 40 save for Witcher 2 all ready to go.:P

topsemag55

I don't think you keep the character stats or level for The Witcher 2.

But I know some of your choices are carried over.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#124 ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="evildead6789"]I must say when the consoles came out the prices for the console were ultra-cheap for the hardware you were getting. Sadly those days i passed, I bought an x360 also in 2007 because my pc was outdated and if I wanted the same hardware that was in the xbox 360 i had to pay 1500$. The choice was easily made. Back in the days of the super nintendo we simply didn't have a choice . the snes had simply superior hardware and no pc could match it. Half a year ago i bought a pc again because prices were so cheap and pc games even some from back in 2006 like oblivion, in 2007 crysis look way better than on console . Not to mention a bunch of newer games. Still it has to be affordable. I have always been a budget gamer and as much i like to bash consoles i'm glad the x360 was there (ps3 too off course :)) back in 2006,7,8 and 9 because i could simply not afford a pc that could match the beautifull graphics of the consoles. Today that's past and i hope when pc hardware becomes very expensive again there will be a new console to save my ass.evildead6789

Um I built a PC in 2007 for around 650USD and it's around 3-4 times the power of a console.

Even when the 360 came out building a PC to match the performance or beat it wasn't expensive.

Yeah right , have you even looked at the spec of an x360. Do know that the xbox 360 has three xeon cores running @ 3.2 ghz. the videocard is comparable tosomething between the hd 2900 and the x1900xt. or in nvidia standards something between 8800 gtx and 7900 gtx. 2-3 times the power didn't even exist in 2007 or you would have to had 2 8800 gtx in sli. One 8800 gtx already costed as much as your whole budget of 650 usd. and the xbox graphics maybe outdated today but the cpu's of the x360 go a long way.Are you sure you know what your talking about.

PPE @3.2Ghz in these consoles performs like PowerPC 970 @1.6Ghz.

It's comparing Intel Atom(1) against Intel Core 2 (2).

1. PPE is designed like Intel Atom e.g. dual instruction issue per cycle, in-order processing.

2. PowerPC970 designed like Intel Core 2 e.g. quad instruction issue per cycle, out-of-order processing.

Unlike Intel Core 2 or AMD Athlon 64, both PPE and PowerPC 970 has a long pipeline length similar to Intel Pentium IV Northwood. Both Intel Core 2 or AMD Athlon 64 includes shorter pipeline depth. PowerPC 970's IPC efficiency is not same level as PowerPC 7448 (shorter pipeline depth).

Avatar image for danish-death
danish-death

5314

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#125 danish-death
Member since 2004 • 5314 Posts
I got both a PC and PS3. Do I care about the graphic? No - it's the gameplay that matters.
Avatar image for savagetwinkie
savagetwinkie

7981

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#126 savagetwinkie
Member since 2008 • 7981 Posts

[QUOTE="evildead6789"]

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

Um I built a PC in 2007 for around 650USD and it's around 3-4 times the power of a console.

Even when the 360 came out building a PC to match the performance or beat it wasn't expensive.

ronvalencia

Yeah right , have you even looked at the spec of an x360. Do know that the xbox 360 has three xeon cores running @ 3.2 ghz. the videocard is comparable tosomething between the hd 2900 and the x1900xt. or in nvidia standards something between 8800 gtx and 7900 gtx. 2-3 times the power didn't even exist in 2007 or you would have to had 2 8800 gtx in sli. One 8800 gtx already costed as much as your whole budget of 650 usd. and the xbox graphics maybe outdated today but the cpu's of the x360 go a long way.Are you sure you know what your talking about.

PPE @3.2Ghz in these consoles performs like PowerPC 970 @1.6Ghz.

It's comparing Intel Atom(1) against Intel Core 2 (2).

1. PPE is designed like Intel Atom e.g. dual instruction issue per cycle, in-order processing.

2. PowerPC970 designed like Intel Core 2 e.g. quad instruction issue per cycle, out-of-order processing.

Unlike Intel Core 2 or AMD Athlon 64, both PPE and PowerPC 970 has a long pipeline length similar to Intel Pentium IV Northwood. Both Intel Core 2 or AMD Athlon 64 includes shorter pipeline depth. PowerPC 970's IPC efficiency is not same level as PowerPC 7448 (shorter pipeline depth).

the PPE processors are custom processors, i don't think you can really udnerstand what they compare to... other then they have a ppe instruction set and are in order at 3.2ghz... the in order isn't going to make a difference since the environment its running in isn't exactly as complex as desktops, and with a decent compiler would negate any performance problems you'd have with a in order processor,
Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#127 ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="evildead6789"]

Yeah right , have you even looked at the spec of an x360. Do know that the xbox 360 has three xeon cores running @ 3.2 ghz. the videocard is comparable tosomething between the hd 2900 and the x1900xt. or in nvidia standards something between 8800 gtx and 7900 gtx. 2-3 times the power didn't even exist in 2007 or you would have to had 2 8800 gtx in sli. One 8800 gtx already costed as much as your whole budget of 650 usd. and the xbox graphics maybe outdated today but the cpu's of the x360 go a long way.Are you sure you know what your talking about.

savagetwinkie

PPE @3.2Ghz in these consoles performs like PowerPC 970 @1.6Ghz.

It's comparing Intel Atom(1) against Intel Core 2 (2).

1. PPE is designed like Intel Atom e.g. dual instruction issue per cycle, in-order processing.

2. PowerPC970 designed like Intel Core 2 e.g. quad instruction issue per cycle, out-of-order processing.

Unlike Intel Core 2 or AMD Athlon 64, both PPE and PowerPC 970 has a long pipeline length similar to Intel Pentium IV Northwood. Both Intel Core 2 or AMD Athlon 64 includes shorter pipeline depth. PowerPC 970's IPC efficiency is not same level as PowerPC 7448 (shorter pipeline depth).

the PPE processors are custom processors, i don't think you can really udnerstand what they compare to... other then they have a ppe instruction set and are in order at 3.2ghz... the in order isn't going to make a difference since the environment its running in isn't exactly as complex as desktops, and with a decent compiler would negate any performance problems you'd have with a in order processor,

That's the theory with Power6, but with Power7, IBM reverted back to out-of-order processing. A control CPU should be able handle breaks (e.g. branch) in the command stream with ease. PPEs are less capable than Intel Core series and AMD Athlons in that regard. PPEs are well documented and recycled for PowerPC A2 based products. Note that ARM Cortex A9 includes out-of-order processing and they are not even on the desktop PCs.

Another failed in-order processor is Intel Itanium i.e. yet another "move complexity to complier" concept.

The second problem with PPE is the single scalar ALU for GPR registers. One of the reasons why AMD Bobcat is almost twice the performance over Intel Atom is due to the dual scalar ALUs for GPR registers. Both AMD Bobcat and Intel Atom are dual instruction issue per cycle type CPU.

The 3rd problem with Xbox 360 is PPE's L2 cache i.e. clocked at 1.6Ghz and it's shared.

Both Xbox 360 and Windows PC uses Windows NT based kernel. You can kitbash a Windows X6 PC just run games e.g. Taito Type X2.

A modern gaming PC includes the extreme designfor task/command (Out-Of-Order for instructions and data**) and paralleled workloads (GpGPU). The current HD consoles are master of none of these workloads.

**Out-of-Order PowerPCs doesn't include this Intel Core 2 or AMD Phenom feature i.e. Memory Disambiguation.

Avatar image for monkey_muffin
monkey_muffin

171

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#128 monkey_muffin
Member since 2003 • 171 Posts
Pesonally, I think the PS3's graphics are very respectable for the hardware. The award it got from GS was well deserved since it's based off how good the graphics are in relation to the hardware. I just hate when PS3 fanboys start yelling superiority when a good looking game comes out b/c it's common knowledge that the PC has better graphics...and thats the end of that story.
Avatar image for teuf_
Teuf_

30805

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#129 Teuf_
Member since 2004 • 30805 Posts

I don't think anyone is going to argue that PS3/360 is somehow more "powerful" than a modern, beefy, PC rig. That's a straw man if I've ever heard one.

What is up for debate (since it's totally 100% opinion) is whether some console games look as good as better as PC games.

Avatar image for monkey_muffin
monkey_muffin

171

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#130 monkey_muffin
Member since 2003 • 171 Posts

I don't think anyone is going to argue that PS3/360 is somehow more "powerful" than a modern, beefy, PC rig. That's a straw man if I've ever heard one.

What is up for debate (since it's totally 100% opinion) is whether some console games look as good as better as PC games.

Teufelhuhn

I don't think consoles have better graphics. That doesn't mean console graphics are ugly. The PS3 is far from it by all means. It's like asking whats bigger Mars or Earth. One is bigger than the other, but really does it matter? They're both huge.

Avatar image for teuf_
Teuf_

30805

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#131 Teuf_
Member since 2004 • 30805 Posts

Uhm, PS3 uses OpenGL. They are not restricted by MS standards (LOL NO DX11 FOR YOU GO BUY A NEW VIDEOCARD AND NEW WINDOWS BICOZ NO FANCY EFFECTS ARE POSIBUL ON YOUR GEAR). Well this last statement is kinda old for 2011, but I remeber being SO pissed off two years ago.

Orchid87



PS3 doesn't use OpenGL. OpenGL is a PC API, it's not relevent on consoles. The PS3 has it's own extremely low-level API, or if they want programmers can just bypass that entirely.

Also I don't think you understand how graphics API's work on PC's, especially with regards to Direct3D versions. When Microsoft is working on a new version, they base the feature set of the new API on the features that ATI and Nvidia are planning on building into their GPU's. So ATI might say they want a full tessellation pipeline, and Nvidia says they want Compute Shaders, and eventually all three parties (plus an an advisory panel of graphics programmers) decide on what the new API is going to look like. Then MS makes the spec, and new hardware is made to meet the spec. It's not at all arbitrary like you make it out to be...the older hardware simply won't have the feature set required for new versions.

Avatar image for Hakkai007
Hakkai007

4905

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#132 Hakkai007
Member since 2005 • 4905 Posts

I don't think anyone is going to argue that PS3/360 is somehow more "powerful" than a modern, beefy, PC rig. That's a straw man if I've ever heard one.

What is up for debate (since it's totally 100% opinion) is whether some console games look as good as better as PC games.

Teufelhuhn

Well if it's 100% opinion then PC games win out because of higher Resolution and AA+AF.

I can't stand jagged edges/aliasing.

Avatar image for tomarlyn
tomarlyn

20148

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#133 tomarlyn
Member since 2005 • 20148 Posts
[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

[QUOTE="FollowY0urBliss"]

Who is saying the consoles have better graphics or GPUs? Seriously, threads like this need to stop. If anyone believes that a console delivers better graphics than a high-end pc... well... they are lacking in the intelligence department,

Mozelleple112

There was a thread that was locked saying PS3 > PC.

And that really upset you? 90% of the gaming population should know, PC>consoles. its obvious...

It does on the technical level. But as a manticore the best looking PS3 games still give the PC a run for its money.
Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23824

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#134 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23824 Posts

[QUOTE="Mozelleple112"][QUOTE="topsemag55"]

There was a thread that was locked saying PS3 > PC.

tomarlyn

And that really upset you? 90% of the gaming population should know, PC>consoles. its obvious...

It does on the technical level. But as a manticore the best looking PS3 games still give the PC a run for its money.

No not really, because of the fact that detail, resolution and other effects always are better on Pc.

Avatar image for Martin_G_N
Martin_G_N

2124

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#135 Martin_G_N
Member since 2006 • 2124 Posts

A PC will allways have an advantage over consoles. But this gen both MS and Sony have been closer than ever in keeping the graphics comparable to PC. A PC's hardware will never be completely used to the fullest, because they have to make the game working on alot of different hardware. Unlike consoles.

On the PS3 they can use the CPU for alot of GPU stuff, aswell as physics, so the GPU can be spared. On PC's the use the GPU for allmost everything. I'm not saying that makes the PS3 equal to PC, I'm just saying it's one of the reasons it still can deliver those beautyfull and awesome games.

Avatar image for deactivated-5cf4b2c19c4ab
deactivated-5cf4b2c19c4ab

17476

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#136 deactivated-5cf4b2c19c4ab
Member since 2008 • 17476 Posts

A PC will allways have an advantage over consoles. But this gen both MS and Sony have been closer than ever in keeping the graphics comparable to PC. A PC's hardware will never be completely used to the fullest, because they have to make the game working on alot of different hardware. Unlike consoles.

On the PS3 they can use the CPU for alot of GPU stuff, aswell as physics, so the GPU can be spared. On PC's the use the GPU for allmost everything. I'm not saying that makes the PS3 equal to PC, I'm just saying it's one of the reasons it still can deliver those beautyfull and awesome games.

Martin_G_N
physics on PC games has almost always been done on the CPU, only recently and in specialized cases has the physics processing been offloaded to the GPU.
Avatar image for mitu123
mitu123

155290

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 0

#137 mitu123
Member since 2006 • 155290 Posts

to be honest, my 4850 isnt even cutting anymore. I look at a killzone 3 gameplay and go DAYUM. I severly want a 6950. but life expenses superseed time wasting ones.

lespaul1919
Same here, that's why I'm getting a GTX 460 in a few days.
Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23824

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#138 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23824 Posts
[QUOTE="mitu123"][QUOTE="lespaul1919"]

to be honest, my 4850 isnt even cutting anymore. I look at a killzone 3 gameplay and go DAYUM. I severly want a 6950. but life expenses superseed time wasting ones.

Same here, that's why I'm getting a GTX 460 in a few days.

Heck I dont even see the purpose of replacing my 8800GT's because I still able to play games all on high or max settings. But my cards in SLI is much stronger then a 4850, and you going to a GTX 460 will be a good improvement.
Avatar image for mitu123
mitu123

155290

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 0

#139 mitu123
Member since 2006 • 155290 Posts

[QUOTE="mitu123"][QUOTE="lespaul1919"]

to be honest, my 4850 isnt even cutting anymore. I look at a killzone 3 gameplay and go DAYUM. I severly want a 6950. but life expenses superseed time wasting ones.

04dcarraher

Same here, that's why I'm getting a GTX 460 in a few days.

Heck I dont even see the purpose of replacing my 8800GT's because I still able to play games all on high or max settings. But my cards in SLI is much stronger then a 4850, and you going to a GTX 460 will be a good improvement.

Plus I can't do Directx11 on my 4850 anyways.:P Heard the GTX 460 overclocks very well.

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23824

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#140 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23824 Posts

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="mitu123"] Same here, that's why I'm getting a GTX 460 in a few days.mitu123

Heck I dont even see the purpose of replacing my 8800GT's because I still able to play games all on high or max settings. But my cards in SLI is much stronger then a 4850, and you going to a GTX 460 will be a good improvement.

Plus I can't do Directx11 on my 4850 anyways.:P Heard the GTX 460 overclocks very well.

Right now direct x 11 isnt nothing to aim for until theres a game built from the ground up for direct x 10/11 no direct x 9... But yes the 460 can Overclock like crazy and can reach 6870/ gtx 470 performance ranges. Also take a look at what to expect

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/180?vs=177

Avatar image for mitu123
mitu123

155290

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 0

#141 mitu123
Member since 2006 • 155290 Posts

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] Heck I dont even see the purpose of replacing my 8800GT's because I still able to play games all on high or max settings. But my cards in SLI is much stronger then a 4850, and you going to a GTX 460 will be a good improvement.04dcarraher

Plus I can't do Directx11 on my 4850 anyways.:P Heard the GTX 460 overclocks very well.

Right now direct x 11 isnt nothing to aim for until theres a game built from the ground up for direct x 10/11 no direct x 9... But yes the 460 can Overclock like crazy and can reach 6870/ gtx 470 performance ranges. Also take a look at what to expect

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/180?vs=177

Yeah, that's true for Directx11, though I should handle the others pretty easily. Gee, that's insane to match high end cards.

And that looks to be a huge improvement, come on Tuesday/Wednesday!

Avatar image for commander
commander

16217

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#142 commander
Member since 2010 • 16217 Posts

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="evildead6789"]i have a hd 5770 i know what those resolutions are and what Antialiasing does do your framerate. I can't see a 8800 gt doing that at a playable framerate 16 x AA @ that resolution lol well i've never played those games maybe they are so bad in quality it's actually true.Hakkai007

All multiplatform games are built around console abilities which means a Pc gpu that is faster will be able to alot more then the console counterparts. Now if you trying to run massive amount of AA or resolution on a real Pc game then it would be hard to do with a gpu like a 8800GT. Also you dont have to run games at higher resolutions then the console versions to get better graphics. Very few games on ethier console run in true 1080, and tend to be weird resolutions and 720 or below.

Older games and just about any console multiplat can run at twice the resolution and higher AA with only an 8800gt.

There are exceptions like Metro 2033 but we all know it's one of the best looking games and one of the most demanding too.

I was just playing Dead Space earlier and am happy to see I can force AA with the new drivers now.

It already looked better than the console version but now with AA it looks a lot better.

Jagged edges hurt my eyes.

I run crysis on 1280 x 1024 Very high settings on my i3 530/hd 5770 with 2 X AA and i'm getting framerate drops with the final boss. Don't tell me you're running it on higher settings with an 8800 gt . It's simply not possible. The fact that you can run dead space now with AA just doesn't matter . It's almost a three year old game.

Besides you're driving my point that I initially made to somewhere else. My pointthat an Xbox 360 in 2006 and 2007 was a more affordable option to play the latest games.Off coursepc hardware could best it but you had to paya lot more. You said you had a 650$ pc that could best the x360. It was probably so that the 8800 gt end 2007 made the pc- option somewhat cheaper but a year is a long time incomputergame land.

And still 650$ at that time was somewhat pushing the enveloppe.You still didn't mention what cpu, ram,youactually got for that price.If you had to buy everything from scratch i doubt you could buy a pc that could actually run everything. I mean assasins creed had a minimum system requirement of a dual core 2.66 ghz.An xbox 360 was still a lot less expensive andthe quality of games was just top notch. the following years 2008,2009,2010 pc-hardware became cheaper and better (as it always does) and the x360 (or ps3 for that matter) becomes a less interesting option.

Fact remains the x360 was in 2006-2007 a very good option to play the lastest games becausethe console was very cheap in comparison of that of pc. especially if you had an old pc to browse the internet and do other pc-stuff besides game.

Avatar image for commander
commander

16217

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#143 commander
Member since 2010 • 16217 Posts

Also the point i was actually trying to prove is that console bashing (as fun as it is) isn't always fair. Because consoles can give us an evenly or even better gaming experience for an affordable price. It was so with ps3 and the x360, the playstation one and the snes. Buying a pc when those consoles came out was way more expensive (and then i mean multiple times the price of the console) to get a similar gaming experience. The snes and playstation however never got any real competion.

Defending the x360 and ps3 nowadays is just holding on to old victories. I only have a hd 5770 with only 1/4 the power/quality of the strongest card available (gtx580/hd 5970) that runs in an i3 530/4 gb ddr3 system and the quality of games is significantly higher than my x360 quality. It wasn't like this three years ago but now it is. Saying that console graphics still amaze you is because you haven't seen games like oblivion, mass effect 2, crysis, metro 2033, singularity, ... running on mine or a better system.

Defending your 8800 gt on an end 2007 platform can be very nice and the difference in quality is probably noticable against the x360/ps3 (allthough those pics you posted actually look uglier than my x360 dead space lol)but like i said the card only came out end 2007. The x360 was already launched since mid 2005.The ps3 came a little late though and almost too late because it was only launched in november 2006 in japan , march 2007 in europe and only in november 2007 in north america. It never really had the chance to show off it's hardware especially at such an expensive launching price. Byend 2007you could buy a pc that delevired games with the same quality for the same price. It's the fanboys, blue rayand the 8-core hype that saved the system. Games still have the same quality as the x360 but the ps3 always came out as being 'the stronger system' but still haven't really proven this. Off course some people will always play on a console regardless of the graphics they rather play pacman on their tv from their seat without having to install or do anything besides 'buying the game' lol but that wasn't really the discussion here now was it.

Besides till midto end 2006 i was playing games with my p4 / geforce 4 titatinum. the card i could have upgraded but it still ran games quite good. Only 2006 games especiallyoblivion slaughtered the card.IfIwantedto get back in the game I had to buy a whole new platform to have a dual core cpu, faster ram, and an pci-e slot. After that i had to buy a 400$ card to even get close with x360 graphics. The xbox 360 only costed 270$ then the choice was easily made. Besides my pc could still do all the stuff that you do with a pc besides gaming very well. So yes the 7th generation consoles x360/ps were real winners allthough the ps3 came a little late.

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23824

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#144 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23824 Posts

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] All multiplatform games are built around console abilities which means a Pc gpu that is faster will be able to alot more then the console counterparts. Now if you trying to run massive amount of AA or resolution on a real Pc game then it would be hard to do with a gpu like a 8800GT. Also you dont have to run games at higher resolutions then the console versions to get better graphics. Very few games on ethier console run in true 1080, and tend to be weird resolutions and 720 or below. evildead6789

Older games and just about any console multiplat can run at twice the resolution and higher AA with only an 8800gt.

There are exceptions like Metro 2033 but we all know it's one of the best looking games and one of the most demanding too.

I was just playing Dead Space earlier and am happy to see I can force AA with the new drivers now.

It already looked better than the console version but now with AA it looks a lot better.

Jagged edges hurt my eyes.

.

I run crysis on 1280 x 1024 Very high settings on my i3 530/hd 5770 with 2 X AA and i'm getting framerate drops with the final boss. Don't tell me you're running it on higher settings with an 8800 gt . It's simply not possible. The fact that you can run dead space now with AA just doesn't matter . It's almost a three year old game.

Besides you're driving my point that I initially made to somewhere else. My pointthat an Xbox 360 in 2006 and 2007 was a more affordable option to play the latest games.Off coursepc hardware could best it but you had to paya lot more. You said you had a 650$ pc that could best the x360. It was probably so that the 8800 gt end 2007 made the pc- option somewhat cheaper but a year is a long time incomputergame land.

And still 650$ at that time was somewhat pushing the enveloppe.You still didn't mention what cpu, ram,youactually got for that price.If you had to buy everything from scratch i doubt you could buy a pc that could actually run everything. I mean assasins creed had a minimum system requirement of a dual core 2.66 ghz.An xbox 360 was still a lot less expensive andthe quality of games was just top notch. the following years 2008,2009,2010 pc-hardware became cheaper and better (as it always does) and the x360 (or ps3 for that matter) becomes a less interesting option.

Fact remains the x360 was in 2006-2007 a very good option to play the lastest games becausethe console was very cheap in comparison of that of pc. especially if you had an old pc to browse the internet and do other pc-stuff besides game.

Game requirements depends how much time and effort a dev takes to create the Pc version, some ports are badly made or ported, while most are done good enough. All multiplat games from 2005-2007 only needed a single core cpu to run normal. Also MS took a cut in profits to sell their xbox which means really it was nearly a $500 console in 2005 that had horrid failure rates, and in 2006 the PS3 was $600 and cost Sony almost $700 to produce. Which means a self made Pc for under $700 even in 2007 with a 8800GT had 3x the graphical power a much better bang for your buck.

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23824

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#145 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23824 Posts

Also the point i was actually trying to prove is that console bashing (as fun as it is) isn't always fair. Because consoles can give us an evenly or even better gaming experience for an affordable price. It was so with ps3 and the x360, the playstation one and the snes. Buying a pc when those consoles came out was way more expensive (and then i mean multiple times the price of the console) to get a similar gaming experience. The snes and playstation however never got any real competion.

Defending the x360 and ps3 nowadays is just holding on to old victories. I only have a hd 5770 with only 1/4 the power/quality of the strongest card available (gtx580/hd 5970) that runs in an i3 530/4 gb ddr3 system and the quality of games is significantly higher than my x360 quality. It wasn't like this three years ago but now it is. Saying that console graphics still amaze you is because you haven't seen games like oblivion, mass effect 2, crysis, metro 2033, singularity, ... running on mine or a better system.

Yes it was done three years ago.... actually it was done 4 years ago with the 8800GTX giving 3x the gpu power and 3x the memory then what the console offered

Defending your 8800 gt on an end 2007 platform can be very nice and the difference in quality is probably noticable against the x360/ps3 (allthough those pics you posted actually look uglier than my x360 dead space lol)but like i said the card only came out end 2007. The x360 was already launched since mid 2005.The ps3 came a little late though and almost too late because it was only launched in november 2006 in japan , march 2007 in europe and only in november 2007 in north america. It never really had the chance to show off it's hardware especially at such an expensive launching price. Byend 2007you could buy a pc that delevired games with the same quality for the same price. It's the fanboys, blue rayand the 8-core hype that saved the system. Games still have the same quality as the x360 but the ps3 always came out as being 'the stronger system' but still haven't really proven this. Off course some people will always play on a console regardless of the graphics they rather play pacman on their tv from their seat without having to install or do anything besides 'buying the game' lol but that wasn't really the discussion here now was it.

The main downfall of both consoles are the lack of resources. Which affects everything that they do. Just with using higher resolutions on a Pc version can make the console version look dull and blurry even with nearly the same graphical settings.

Besides till midto end 2006 i was playing games with my p4 / geforce 4 titatinum. the card i could have upgraded but it still ran games quite good. Only 2006 games especiallyoblivion slaughtered the card.IfIwantedto get back in the game I had to buy a whole new platform to have a dual core cpu, faster ram, and an pci-e slot. After that i had to buy a 400$ card to even get close with x360 graphics. The xbox 360 only costed 270$ then the choice was easily made. Besides my pc could still do all the stuff that you do with a pc besides gaming very well. So yes the 7th generation consoles x360/ps were real winners allthough the ps3 came a little late.

No you wouldnt need to buy a whole new system sigh.... Any single core cpu like a Pentium 4 or Athlon 64was enough to play any game all the way into 2007. In late 2005/early 2006, I had a Geforce 7600 which had graphics better then the 360 with multiplatform games and ran at a higher resolution to begin with and it wasnt a $400 card. Even in games like Oblivion Prey or any of CoD's during that timeframe my 7600 out did the the consoles graphically.

evildead6789

Avatar image for htekemerald
htekemerald

7325

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#146 htekemerald
Member since 2004 • 7325 Posts

I was under the impression the RSX was a stipped down 7800 gt.

Avatar image for Jesus_on_fire
Jesus_on_fire

2022

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#148 Jesus_on_fire
Member since 2008 • 2022 Posts

[QUOTE="lespaul1919"]

to be honest, my 4850 isnt even cutting anymore. I look at a killzone 3 gameplay and go DAYUM. I severly want a 6950. but life expenses superseed time wasting ones.

mitu123

Same here, that's why I'm getting a GTX 460 in a few days.

Isn't the 560 coming out soon though?

Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#149 ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts
[QUOTE="htekemerald"]

I was under the impression the RSX was a stipped down 7800 gt.

The RSX is between Geforce 7700 and 7900 i.e. RSX has Geforce 7600/7700's 8 ROPs and Geforce 7800's shader count.
Avatar image for X360PS3AMD05
X360PS3AMD05

36320

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#150 X360PS3AMD05
Member since 2005 • 36320 Posts
Apples and oranges from a primary PC gamer, console gives you games you can't play anywhere else and they are also a closed optimized platform unlike PC. In the end everyone knows PC will be superior anyway.