Will the graphics for consoles ever catch up to the PCs graphics?

I'm just curious.

The answer will be no. That's because a new one comes out that's better every few months. So PCs keep improving, and the consoles really can't keep up.

Oh huzzah more console vs PC threads.:roll:

Nope. Consoles have to stay on the cheap side of things, they can never have the latest hardware.

Nope. Consoles have to stay on the cheap side of things, they can never have the latest hardware.

wis3boi

only around launch thats when the hardware is at some parity with top end pc. Xenos was the most advanced gpu when it released with a unified architecture and blazing fast 10mb of EdRAM, it also had a fast triple core cpu. the current consoles have held their own very well this gen, but now the gap is widening quit a bit. if history holds true and if new hardware is launched in 2012-2013 it should be on par.

rough specs 2013 PC. 4.5ghz 6-8 core cpu, graphics card 900-1000 cuda core 900mhz graphics clock, 2000mhz processor clock, 2gig GDDR6,DX11/12

obviously the above config would be an absolute beast, but the next consoles will come very close to this guessing 10-15% slower.

Nope. Consoles have to stay on the cheap side of things, they can never have the latest hardware.

wis3boi

yet MS manages to incorparate the most advanced gpu for it's time, a triple core cpu@3.2ghz, and 512mb ram for $399. we need to remember that they sell these things at a loss, but will that trend continue or will they go the rout of the wii.

[QUOTE="Chris_Williams"]

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

Also the ps3 is a great mini super computer that can crunch numbers really fast thanks to the cell processor, something even your pc couldn't do,

Fightingfan

only around launch thats when the hardware is at some parity with top end pc. Xenos was the most advanced gpu when it released with a unified architecture and blazing fast 10mb of EdRAM, it also had a fast triple core cpu. the current consoles have held their own very well this gen, but now the gap is widening quit a bit. if history holds true and if new hardware is launched in 2012-2013 it should be on par.

rough specs 2013 PC. 4.5ghz 6-8 core cpu, graphics card 900-1000 cuda core 900mhz graphics clock, 2000mhz processor clock, 2gig GDDR6,DX11/12

obviously the above config would be an absolute beast, but the next consoles will come very close to this guessing 10-15% slower.

GotNugz

As far as hardware no, everytime a console has been released it was outdated at least a month before hand. As far as actually using the hardware...well thats another story, normally it takes about a year after for pc games to actually keep up with a console games because devs dont push the pc as much because the majority of computers are still behind the consoles when they come out if they were sold at a loss.

Restricted hardware says otherwise.

Catch up to a 1000 bucks self-build PC? Nope. Out perform cheap pre-build PCs? Yes.magicalclick

Current consoles can't even out perform a $600 self-builts.

As far as hardware no, everytime a console has been released it was outdated at least a month before hand. As far as actually using the hardware...well thats another story, normally it takes about a year after for pc games to actually keep up with a console games because devs dont push the pc as much because the majority of computers are still behind the consoles when they come out if they were sold at a loss.

edinsftw

That makes sense. Nobody wants to sell at a loss.

Well consoles can be MORE powerful than pcs at launch.Usually they incorporate the latest tech and they are closed systems so devs can harness all or most of its power which devs cant do for pcs, since all pc are differant. Unfortunently, by the time devs learn to harness all the power of the consoles, its already a few years post launch and the pc would have shot ahead again.pl4yer_f0und

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

Nope. Consoles have to stay on the cheap side of things, they can never have the latest hardware.

Chris_Williams

Ofcourse teh cell is teh uberpowerful :roll:

[QUOTE="magicalclick"]Catch up to a 1000 bucks self-build PC? Nope. Out perform cheap pre-build PCs? Yes.Jankarcop

Current consoles can't even out perform a $600 self-builts.

It always makes me laugh.:lol:

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

Nope. Consoles have to stay on the cheap side of things, they can never have the latest hardware.

Chris_Williams

[QUOTE="Chris_Williams"]

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

Nope. Consoles have to stay on the cheap side of things, they can never have the latest hardware.

sami117

Ofcourse teh cell is teh uberpowerful :roll:

I don't get why everyone is saying no. Surely we'll hit a point where we perfect how graphics should be represented. And thus, consoles can catch up and be even.

Or am I missing something?

[QUOTE="Chris_Williams"]

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

Nope. Consoles have to stay on the cheap side of things, they can never have the latest hardware.

taterfrickintot

wow..how many threads can we get in SW about the exact same things?..lol..Console graphics are almost the same as PC graphics which says a lot for old tech and the game developers that can pull so much out of them.

I love taking part in multiple threads of the same subject..its kind of fun..:D

[QUOTE="taterfrickintot"][QUOTE="Chris_Williams"] The ps3 was the cheapest blu-ray on the market and at the time blu-ray was the latest thing out there in terms of movie quality and the ps3 help sony win the format war against HD-DVD'S, so whats this about consoles never getting the latest hardware? Also the ps3 is a great mini super computer that can crunch numbers really fast thanks to the cell processor, something even your pc couldn't do, so again what about consoles not getting the latest hardware?

Chris_Williams

[QUOTE="magicalclick"]Catch up to a 1000 bucks self-build PC? Nope. Out perform cheap pre-build PCs? Yes.Jankarcop

Current consoles can't even out perform a $600 self-builts.

[QUOTE="Chris_Williams"]

[QUOTE="taterfrickintot"] i lol when people call the PS3 a supercomputerferret-gamer

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

Nope. Consoles have to stay on the cheap side of things, they can never have the latest hardware.

Chris_Williams

wow..how many threads can we get in SW about the exact same things?..lol..Console graphics are almost the same as PC graphics which says a lot for old tech and the game developers that can pull so much out of them.

I love taking part in multiple threads of the same subject..its kind of fun..:D

VanDammFan

Actually. Go play a 360 launch title and compare it with PC titles in 2005. The 360 had the upperhand. Hell I even give it the uperhand until Crysis came out. (Gears owned that 2006-mid 2007 year).

Oh huzzah more console vs PC threads.:roll:

Vyse_Legends

You know that argument about how its never Hermits that start these? Well I think they are wrong by about a very large margin.

Also TC, you forgot the beginning of this generation. You know, the ones where consoles were actually MORE powerful then PC's for about a year (2 with the 360)? Or do you just want to block that from your memory because you said something that doesn't make sense?

Its going to happen again next gen too most likely, and when it does elitists will just mysteriously disappear until Crysis 4 comes out 3 years later and they can act like PC was always on top.

Actually. Go play a 360 launch title and compare it with PC titles in 2005. The 360 had the upperhand. Hell I even give it the uperhand until Crysis came out. (Gears owned that 2006-mid 2007 year).

TailBlood

[QUOTE="Chris_Williams"]

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

Nope. Consoles have to stay on the cheap side of things, they can never have the latest hardware.

RyviusARC

Actually.... the military supercomputers use actual PS3's, not just the CPU from the PS3.... The difference is that it is thousands of them in parallel. A single Cell is rather unremarkable and doesn't necessarily beat most other processors(except in raw math calculations, which is only a fraction of a what a CPU needs to be doing these days). However, IBM did make it an exceptionally parallel processor and in that regard it is ideal for servers...

The top tier supercomputers do have the full featured Cell(PS3 has a gimped version), but the military went the cheaper route of just buying a lot of PS3s...

[QUOTE="Vyse_Legends"]

Oh huzzah more console vs PC threads.:roll:

SPYDER0416

You know that argument about how its never Hermits that start these? Well I think they are wrong by about a very large margin.

Also TC, you forgot the beginning of this generation. You know, the ones where consoles were actually MORE powerful then PC's for about a year (2 with the 360)? Or do you just want to block that from your memory because you said something that doesn't make sense?

Its going to happen again next gen too most likely, and when it does elitists will just mysteriously disappear until Crysis 4 comes out 3 years later and they can act like PC was always on top.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="Vyse_Legends"]

Oh huzzah more console vs PC threads.:roll:

RyviusARC

You know that argument about how its never Hermits that start these? Well I think they are wrong by about a very large margin.

Also TC, you forgot the beginning of this generation. You know, the ones where consoles were actually MORE powerful then PC's for about a year (2 with the 360)? Or do you just want to block that from your memory because you said something that doesn't make sense?

Its going to happen again next gen too most likely, and when it does elitists will just mysteriously disappear until Crysis 4 comes out 3 years later and they can act like PC was always on top.

That must be why PC's didn't have a single title that matched the graphics in Gears of War back then. Yup, makes perfect sense.

Sometimes I feel ashamed when I tell people I'm a PC gamer, just because I don't want them to assume I'll make statements like this all the time.

[QUOTE="Jankarcop"]

[QUOTE="magicalclick"]Catch up to a 1000 bucks self-build PC? Nope. Out perform cheap pre-build PCs? Yes.TailBlood

Current consoles can't even out perform a $600 self-builts.

still alot better than the $1000 estimate I quoted

[QUOTE="RyviusARC"][QUOTE="Chris_Williams"] The ps3 was the cheapest blu-ray on the market and at the time blu-ray was the latest thing out there in terms of movie quality and the ps3 help sony win the format war against HD-DVD'S, so whats this about consoles never getting the latest hardware? Also the ps3 is a great mini super computer that can crunch numbers really fast thanks to the cell processor, something even your pc couldn't do, so again what about consoles not getting the latest hardware?

KingsMessenger

Actually.... the military supercomputers use actual PS3's, not just the CPU from the PS3.... The difference is that it is thousands of them in parallel. A single Cell is rather unremarkable and doesn't necessarily beat most other processors(except in raw math calculations, which is only a fraction of a what a CPU needs to be doing these days). However, IBM did make it an exceptionally parallel processor and in that regard it is ideal for servers...

Since consoles right now are around Medium and 30fps for most games, I'd say that at $200-$300, its one hel of a deal compared to a $600 PC that showcases the exact same power.

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

[QUOTE="RyviusARC"] The CPUs used in the super computers are not the ones in the PS3. They are modified Cell Architecture CPUs that are much more powerful. Why do people always think that those military super computers are using exact copies of the Cell in the PS3..... They are so very wrong.RyviusARC

Actually.... the military supercomputers use actual PS3's, not just the CPU from the PS3.... The difference is that it is thousands of them in parallel. A single Cell is rather unremarkable and doesn't necessarily beat most other processors(except in raw math calculations, which is only a fraction of a what a CPU needs to be doing these days). However, IBM did make it an exceptionally parallel processor and in that regard it is ideal for servers...

Yes. But you said military supercomputers weren't using the PS3, when in fact they are... My edit does note the higher end Cell processor and its inclusion in other supercomputers, but that doesn't make what you said originally any more correct.

again, this guy responded saying consoles don't have the latest hardware, the ps3 had the cell processor which was pretty advance for its time 5-6 years ago. But yeah maybe that was a bad example. But the ps3 still had blu-ray and was the cheapest blu-ray on the market, so bam.Chris_Williams

I would place the Cell behind the Core 2 line of processors as far as CPUs go. It has its own set of advantages and things that can be done with it(and developers have put that to good use), but the Core 2 processors still have the Cell beat purely as a CPU.

[QUOTE="TailBlood"]

[QUOTE="Jankarcop"]

Current consoles can't even out perform a $600 self-builts.

Jankarcop

Arent current consoles half of that price?

still alot better than the $1000 estimate I quoted

It's not fair either. You're comparing a 2005 console to 2011 PC market. In 2005, the PC hardware to match up with console would be around $1000 - 1200. But ofcourse in 2005 the consoles were a lot expensive than what they are today.

[QUOTE="Jankarcop"]

[QUOTE="TailBlood"]

Arent current consoles half of that price?

harshv82

still alot better than the $1000 estimate I quoted

It's not fair either. You're comparing a 2005 console to 2011 PC market. In 2005, the PC hardware to match up with console would be around $1000 - 1200. But ofcourse in 2005 the consoles were a lot expensive than what they are today.

this thread said nothing about price. how is it not fair? you making up rules again?

thats what it was being used as? ever heard of folding @ home? it was used by stanford to crunch numbers to help them with cancer research or something. like i said chillax pc gamers. Heck it was also used to replicate black hole vibrations, oh wait i'm talking to guys who think they know everything about everything.

Chris_Williams

... I could make an Intel 4004 run Folding@Home if I wanted to. It would be slow, but it would run. Same thing could be said about making it "replicate black hole vibrations." You may think it is impressive, but the reality is that they are just running math functions and honestly, programmable GPUs would be far faster at it, they just are less effective as massively parallel devices because of the heat generated... A server full of GeForce 580s would literally melt to the ground. It would wipe the floor with a Cell-based server but it would be hot and it would still need a fleet of CPUs to manage the massively parallel threads across all of the GPUs.

[QUOTE="Chris_Williams"]again, this guy responded saying consoles don't have the latest hardware, the ps3 had the cell processor which was pretty advance for its time 5-6 years ago. But yeah maybe that was a bad example. But the ps3 still had blu-ray and was the cheapest blu-ray on the market, so bam.KingsMessenger

I would place the Cell behind the Core 2 line of processors as far as CPUs go. It has its own set of advantages and things that can be done with it(and developers have put that to good use), but the Core 2 processors still have the Cell beat purely as a CPU.

[QUOTE="Chris_Williams"]

thats what it was being used as? ever heard of folding @ home? it was used by stanford to crunch numbers to help them with cancer research or something. like i said chillax pc gamers. Heck it was also used to replicate black hole vibrations, oh wait i'm talking to guys who think they know everything about everything.

KingsMessenger

... I could make an Intel 4004 run Folding@Home if I wanted to. It would be slow, but it would run. Same thing could be said about making it "replicate black hole vibrations." You may think it is impressive, but the reality is that they are just running math functions and honestly, programmable GPUs would be far faster at it, they just are less effective as massively parallel devices because of the heat generated... A server full of GeForce 580s would literally melt to the ground. It would wipe the floor with a Cell-based server but it would be hot and it would still need a fleet of CPUs to manage the massively parallel threads across all of the GPUs.