XBOX 360/PS 3:Aren't they losin' To PC

[koЯngear]

Folks,
Continuous error report and crashes from XBOX 360, PS 3 tries to reah as a media centre like PC-but yet not succeeded.
But a PC has all, superior graphics, HDD stability, HD capability.
It is not that these gamin consoles will ultimately loose to PC?
Also, wide range of games are now being started to specially deisgned for xbxo 360/ps3-do you think it is infact a cunning approach to dominate PC?
Just learned about dell's XPA H2 7000 pc THAT HAS IT ALL.
wHAT DO YA THINK?

[BrightSpark]

i don't know about the superior graphics bit. i think thats why consoles tend to be better for games....even though graphics shouldn't matter, but it's what the developers seem to use as a criteria for their choice.

[sidneylopsides]

BrightSpark, PCs are always ahead graphically, an easy comparison is Oblivion, the PC version on max detail is better than anything the 360 or PS3 can muster.
Consoles are usually better in ease of use, not much else. PC's have better controllers, graphics, more processing power, more flexibility, just more everything! The only problem is that PCs are not as simple to start playing on, and most people buy low end machines off the high street which are cippled in the graphics department.
Console is easy, find a game you like for you machine, put it in and play.
PCs on the other hand require you to check the game minimum spec, make sure your PC is capable, if not uprgade it, put the disc in, install it, run it, go to setup and configure it for you PC, make sure it runs, tweak it for performance if it's running slow etc....

edit: PC has been doing stuff consoles are showing off about for years, HD, online play, media player etc. In gaming you can always see the PC do it first. Except on Linux :p


I think the PC as we think of it is going to die out, and so are the consoles. Everything seems to be converging, it'll all be some kind of HTPC/console in the end, just lots of very media capable machines all networked together so they can all do the same thing. I thnik as a gaming the platfor m the PC outclasses everything else, though you need to spend a lot more than you would on a console. People complain at the PS3 prices, a true gaming PC would cost a minimum of double that, plus the screen, the one I use would have paid for at least 4 PS3s, but it can do much more.

[BrightSpark]

PCs are always ahead graphically, an easy comparison is Oblivion, the PC version on max detail is better than anything the 360 or PS3 can muster.
i find that hard to believe. the amount of heat that those consoles generate.


Except on Linux
i doubt it :lol:. for example, i wonder where 3D compositing first appeared on out of windows, OS X, and linux. clue: i wasn't the first 2. it first appeared in the shape of project looking glass. the open source community were working on a similar thing (now called Compiz Fusion) at the same time. both of them are open source.
apple and microsoft then swiped those ideas and did their own copy of it.

[McKinley]

Most modern computers today are being sold with graphic card that supports DX10 while neither PS3 nor Xbox360 do that.
Things looks much better in games with DX10 support that actually are being proper rendered by a DX10 graphic card.
High-end PCs will always be ahead of any console in that department.

[sidneylopsides]

I'm just talking gaming here :p

Just because they kick out a lot of heat doesn't mean they are good! Just inefficient. Look at the Pentium 4 and the Core 2 Duo, the C2D is a much more powerful processor, but generates less heat. Same goes for graphics chips, each generation has different thermal output, some run a lot cooler than others.
Cooling in a console is trickier, you have similar heat output to a PC in a much more confined space, heatsinks are smaller meaning more airflow is needed, causing them to pump a lot of warm air out fast. The PS3 is using its fan too much from what I've read, only Folding gets it really working, there's even been talk of a fanless version.

McKinley, supporting DX10 is a bit of a moot point, neither console can play a DX10 game anyway as that's for Windows...
The 360 uses an early R600 core for graphics, in theory it could support DX10

[BrightSpark]

Most modern computers today are being sold with graphic card that supports DX10 while neither PS3 nor Xbox360 do that.
Things looks much better in games with DX10 support that actually are being proper rendered by a DX10 graphic card.
High-end PCs will always be ahead of any console in that department.
DX10 is merely a windows basedAPi for development. other examples include Mesa and OpenGL.

also, the graphics chip in the PS3 is the fastest and most powerful graphics chip available today.
Sony also unveiled the PS3's graphics chip, the RSX "Reality Synthesizer," which is based on Nvidia technology. The GPU will be capable of 128bit pixel precision and 1080p resolution, (some of the highest HD resolution available anywhere). The RSX also has 512MB of graphics render memory and is capable of 100 billion shader operations and 51 billion dot products per second. The new Playstation 3 graphics chip also has more than 300 million transistors, larger than any processor commercially available today.




at the time of launch, consoles are always ahead of the PC in terms of graphical power.

[mynameis_Kaz]

PC's have always outdone consoles in the graphics dept. Sound department, providing you have a good card in there, and most importantly in the interface Dept. Keyboard & Joystick vs joypad? I know what I need.

Consoles are most likely played on a TV set, and its that interface that ruins the console even more.
Gimme a pc that runs games, over a network and over the 'net, the ability to talk in real time to team mates with Ventrilo anyday. Consoles? Pah!
I think the consoles will 'win' the 'war' simply because its easier to develop for the standard set of hardware, therefore making it cheaper.

[BrightSpark]

PC's have always outdone consoles in the graphics dept.
not heard that one before. what's always been the case is that the best systems are put into the consoles and the PC's catch up later.
it didn't take too long to find this:

Usually, game consoles ship with hardware that is not available on personal computer at the time of launch, and a few months later, PC hardware manufacturers create hardware parts that surpass console technologies.

But launching with a technology that is already available on PC is not good at all for a ?next-generation? console. By the time the PlayStation 3 launches, there will be already a new GPU from nVIDIA that will be more powerful that their current flagship GPU, the GeForce 7800 GTX.

So, what about the Xbox 360? In the case of the graphics processing unit designed for the Xbox 360, ATI has included technology on the Xenos GPU that won?t be available for PC graphics chip in the next twelve months, including the unified shader architecture and the embedded DRAM daughter die.
A so called R600, which might debut towards the launch of Windows Vista, in the fourth quarter of 2006, might incorporate the special technologies ATI put into the Xbox 360 GPU.





and the above was later corrected to say this
There's no doubting that NVIDIA's new 7800GTX is the ultimate in PC graphics technology. The card's G70 GPU, which is more than twice as powerful as two of NVIDIA's previous top-of-the-line 6800 boards, shares a lot of similar workings with the PS3's RSX chip - only it isn't as fast. Oh, and it retails for $599.
The article actually says the GeForce 7800 GTX is not as fast as the RSX graphics processing unit that NVIDIA developed for the PlayStation 3.
http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/9132/PlayStation-3-GPU-More-Powerful-than-GeForce-7800/






even as far back as 2000:
Xbox will run on Nvidia's NV25 core graphics chip, which should run at eight to ten times the speed of the fastest current PC graphics cards, with additional speed gains from Xbox's more efficient operating system.
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/emergingtech/0,1000000183,2081777,00.htm

[t_makela]

In most cases consoles and PCs arent direct rivals because their different usages. Sure you can play the same games (and quite lot more) on a PC than any console, but your PC must be loaded up-to-date specs. Most people just don't want to upgrade their computer once in a year or two to play the newest games. Once you buy a console you can play all the new games on for years to come. I have been upgrading my PC a few times in the past to be able to play new games, but now I hit the wall and basicly would need to buy a new PC. Therefore i opted for a 360 (cheaper than a new PC). I just think that most of console users don't think PCs and consoles as rivals, because they own both of 'em.

And no, consoles aren't going to dominate PCs. That's just a ridiculous argument, because consoles don't do much else than games.

[koЯngear]

In most cases consoles and PCs arent direct rivals because their different usages. Sure you can play the same games (and quite lot more) on a PC than any console, but your PC must be loaded up-to-date specs. Most people just don't want to upgrade their computer once in a year or two to play the newest games. Once you buy a console you can play all the new games on for years to come. I have been upgrading my PC a few times in the past to be able to play new games, but now I hit the wall and basicly would need to buy a new PC. Therefore i opted for a 360 (cheaper than a new PC). I just think that most of console users don't think PCs and consoles as rivals, because they own both of 'em.

And no, consoles aren't going to dominate PCs. That's just a ridiculous argument, because consoles don't do much else than games.

Your point is ridiculous too.
Cuz if it is so, why dell unleashes its H2 720 XPS which has 1066 MHz CPU overclock rate, 4 GB of RAM, over 1 TB of space.Huh?
You said consoles dont do much else than games.
I heck disagree with tha cuz theseventh Gen gaming era brought
Large HDD,
Online capability,
Higher graphix engine,
why?
And both XBOX 360 and PS3 claims to view pictures, movies and music on the console with the HDD.
You know what does that mean....:insane:

[Awesome_Aleks]

if i were to have a choice between (in aussie $) a $1000 PS3, or a $5000-$10000 gaming computer, which requires $1000 of upgrades a year to remain at the height of gaming, i know which one i'd take, and i've already taken (hint, it's the cheap one)

[t_makela]

Your point is ridiculous too.
Cuz if it is so, why dell unleashes its H2 720 XPS which has 1066 MHz CPU overclock rate, 4 GB of RAM, over 1 TB of space.Huh?
You said consoles dont do much else than games.
I heck disagree with tha cuz theseventh Gen gaming era brought
Large HDD,
Online capability,
Higher graphix engine,
why?
And both XBOX 360 and PS3 claims to view pictures, movies and music on the console with the HDD.
You know what does that mean....:insane:

Ok, you can play games, view pictures, play movies and music, maybe some web with PS3. That ain't a lot you know (in PC standards)? Most usual usage (for basic user) with computer is web, email and word processing. Can you do any of them effienctly with a console? Maybe surfing a bit, but with a pad it is just awkward. For some consoles you can buy keyboards and mouses, but atleast I haven't seen anyone owning one yet. As I said "consoles don't do much else than games".

And whats so special about that dell's PC? Sure it's a mean machine with lots of power, but pricetag will be hefty too. I don't quite understand your point in that. Generally speaking about gaming I think that PC and consoles have different kind of audiences.

[sidneylopsides]

The RSX is in no way the most powerful graphics chip, for a start there is already the 8800, but the 360 also looks to have the edge over the PS3. The technologies that debut in consoles tend to be worse performers than the final pc version. Say the 360 graphics are early R600, the actual pc released cards are more powerful. Every part of a console is a stripped down version of what you'd find in a pc, sacrificing versatility too keep speed up at low cost.
I've used the ps3 for web, but it's not that great. The best thing about the ps3 is linux, or will be once they work it out properly.

[iqtidar]

u can install linux in ps3......

[BrightSpark]

The RSX is in no way the most powerful graphics chip, for a start there is already the 8800, but the 360 also looks to have the edge over the PS3. The technologies that debut in consoles tend to be worse performers than the final pc version. Say the 360 graphics are early R600, the actual pc released cards are more powerful. Every part of a console is a stripped down version of what you'd find in a pc, sacrificing versatility too keep speed up at low cost.
I've used the ps3 for web, but it's not that great. The best thing about the ps3 is linux, or will be once they work it out properly.
you overlooked this:
at the time of launch, consoles are always ahead of the PC in terms of graphical power.

when everything is combined, they are more efficient and powerful for games.

[koЯngear]

Dudes, thanks all except one who did not undertsand toward which this discussion is going to.
Now I got myself into a big confusion:
for what I should go:
1. A 32" HD LCD TV and a XBOX 360/PS3
OR
2. Upgradin my PC to 2 GB RAM, nVIDIA GEFORCE 768 MB ,and more HDD.

Hints: I aint goin to that DELL GIANT and I feel very uncomfortable to use keyboards to play game.
Example, last day, I installed Hitman: blood and money but I cant even go that much because of the keyboard config/complex configuration.
I am a PC user for 2 years and just get used to play certain games like NFS and FIFAs.
I cant even play FIFA 2007 with keyboard, I gotta play it with gamepad.
But PC aint designed for gamepad as they aint supported by many PC games.
I wanna get rid out of this and want nice gameplay with near/same PC graphics.
Help meiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii.

[koЯngear]

Ok, you can play games, view pictures, play movies and music, maybe some web with PS3.

And whats so special about that dell's PC? Sure it's a mean machine with lots of power, but pricetag will be hefty too. I don't quite understand your point in that. Generally speaking about gaming I think that PC and consoles have different kind of audiences.
For dell? I was tryin to say that if it was to face xbox 360 or not. Go to dell's website and find that PC-there were already a program where XBOX 360 gamers and DELL xpas 720 gamers had met to battle each other.
You did not get it.

[sidneylopsides]

BrightSpark, I didn't quite finish that last post correctly.
The chip in the 360 is an earyl version of the R600, it's also not as powerful, I'm not sure wht the top end cards were at the time of the 360s launch, but I'll bet they were more powerful than the 360. The same goes for the PS3, the RSX is based on the 7800, or two of them, but the 8800 overpowers ut, and the 7900 was out for ages, which is still more powerful.
My Radeon X1900XT can play Oblivion at 1920x1200, with HDR and everything on max, even with a distance texture patch to increase detail, perfectly smoothly. The PS3 plays Oblivion with better graphics than the 360, and both of those are worse than the PC version, and they only go to 720p.

Also on the Xbox thing, the chip in the xbox was basically a GeForce 3, and they came out for PCs before the xbox was released...

[BrightSpark]

The same goes for the PS3, the RSX is based on the 7800
this...........
There's no doubting that NVIDIA's new 7800GTX is the ultimate in PC graphics technology. The card's G70 GPU, which is more than twice as powerful as two of NVIDIA's previous top-of-the-line 6800 boards, shares a lot of similar workings with the PS3's RSX chip - only it isn't as fast. Oh, and it retails for $599.
The article actually says the GeForce 7800 GTX is not as fast as the RSX graphics processing unit that NVIDIA developed for the PlayStation 3.

[sidneylopsides]

Yeah, but the 7900 was released before the PS3, the 8800 was out before he PS3 in the UK, not sure about US and Japan though, and SLI has been available to stick two nVidia cards together to boost performance. It's actually turned out the other way round anyway, the it's not quite as powerful as two 6800s, and slightly behind the 7800.
The PS3 is odd, the Cell could be incredibly powerful if used correctly, but the RS is at least a generation behind the Cell. The 360 is the other way round, the 3 core processor is stripped down so not actually as powerful as it sounds, but the graphics core is more powerful than the PS3.
The Cell isn't as versatile as it could be, meaning AI and phyisics could suffer, but at certain things it is immensely fast the RSX also doesn't support Unified Shaders, which the 360 does, though the vertex shaders are faster anyway.
Overall though there is very little difference between them, and it's all down to the extras they supply.

The only problem is that you can interperate everything however you want, there are ways of making each chip more powerful than the other, it just depends which bits you focus on.

[Awesome_Aleks]

things work better on dedicated platforms, if you had a PS3 and a Windows XP/Vista computer, with the exact same specs (theoretically) the PS3 would be faster, because it doesnt have the baggage of Windows XP on it

over time, developers will get used to using the PS3's hardware, if you saw Gran Turismo 3 (which looked good) and then Gran Turismo 4 (which in some places looked like an Xbox game) you would know it takes time for the best results on a sytem to show up

[BrightSpark]

Yeah, but the 7900 was released before the PS3, the 8800 was out before he PS3 in the UK, not sure about US and Japan though, and SLI has been available to stick two nVidia cards together to boost performance. It's actually turned out the other way round anyway, the it's not quite as powerful as two 6800s, and slightly behind the 7800.
The PS3 is odd, the Cell could be incredibly powerful if used correctly, but the RS is at least a generation behind the Cell. The 360 is the other way round, the 3 core processor is stripped down so not actually as powerful as it sounds, but the graphics core is more powerful than the PS3.
The Cell isn't as versatile as it could be, meaning AI and phyisics could suffer, but at certain things it is immensely fast the RSX also doesn't support Unified Shaders, which the 360 does, though the vertex shaders are faster anyway.
Overall though there is very little difference between them, and it's all down to the extras they supply.

The only problem is that you can interperate everything however you want, there are ways of making each chip more powerful than the other, it just depends which bits you focus on.

and this (echoing what Awesome_Aleks said in his first paragraph) .........
when everything is combined, they are more efficient and powerful for games.


there is no if or buts about it, consoles are far far far more powerful, faster, and efficient for playing games than the PC. like i said, when everything is combined, everything is combined for 1 purpose. the OS is also far more efficient as there is none of that complex scheduling etc thats required for a general purpose PC.

[Awesome_Aleks]

there is no if or buts about it, consoles are far far far more powerful, faster, and efficient for playing games than the PC. like i said, when everything is combined, everything is combined for 1 purpose. the OS is also far more efficient as there is none of that complex scheduling etc thats required for a general purpose PC.

exactly, you could have better looking games on the PC (look at Crysis) however, because of Vista, you would need 8800 Ultra's in SLI, whereas Haze (which looks a little worse, if not the same or even better then Crysis) run's on the PS3's "far inferior" RSX graphics card

[t_makela]

Dudes, thanks all except one who did not undertsand toward which this discussion is going to.

Thank you for your politeness...

Now I got myself into a big confusion:
for what I should go:
1. A 32" HD LCD TV and a XBOX 360/PS3
OR
2. Upgradin my PC to 2 GB RAM, nVIDIA GEFORCE 768 MB ,and more HDD.

Hints: I aint goin to that DELL GIANT and I feel very uncomfortable to use keyboards to play game.
Example, last day, I installed Hitman: blood and money but I cant even go that much because of the keyboard config/complex configuration.
I am a PC user for 2 years and just get used to play certain games like NFS and FIFAs.
I cant even play FIFA 2007 with keyboard, I gotta play it with gamepad.
But PC aint designed for gamepad as they aint supported by many PC games.
I wanna get rid out of this and want nice gameplay with near/same PC graphics.
Help meiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii.

Maybe you should buy a console, if keyboard and game configs are too complex... FIFA, NFS and etc. arcadegames are really good in consoles.

[Awesome_Aleks]

if you want games then get a console, if you want the latest and greatest PC games, it will be very expensive, and you will have to upgrade it every year to cope with the latest releases

[koЯngear]

Thank you for your politeness...

Yes, I am polite you know.:p

Maybe you should buy a console, if keyboard and game configs are too complex... FIFA, NFS and etc. arcadegames are really good in consoles.
Thanks, I have made my mind quite determined.
[Now this time I thanked you, I am really polite you know.:)


if you want games then get a console, if you want the latest and greatest PC games, it will be very expensive, and you will have to upgrade it every year to cope with the latest releases
Very right.

Has anyone seen linux install on PS3 and its effects?:confused:

[Awesome_Aleks]

Very right.

Has anyone seen linux install on PS3 and its effects?:confused:

search on youtube, "linux ps3" (without the quotation marks) and you should get some video results

it doesn't replace the XMB, once you make a partition on the hard drive and install it, you load into it from the XMB

[koЯngear]

Just saw one-is it also possible to run windows and if so-with a keyboard does the PS3 can do much else than a pc?:insane:

[Awesome_Aleks]

Just saw one-is it also possible to run windows and if so-with a keyboard does the PS3 can do much else than a pc?:insane:

it can not run Windows

[diaboleek]

Ok.... i see that here is some fog....
1 The PS3 at this moment is more powerfull than a PC, even if it has something like this....
Top Core 2 Quadro
4 or 8 gigs of DDR2 1066
Top GeForce 8800
And of course 2 WD Rptor in RAID....
The only thing that is faster is video card, but u can`t do everything with just a video card.... what saves PS3 is CELL combined with RSX and hi-speed interface between them
If you could use CELL with Windows in a standard PC.... thing would be diferent
2 Consoles are JUST for games, music and movies... i saw how linux or Windows works on PS3.... and better not use consoles for running a standard OS.... who play games ocassionaly.... better buy a PC....
And for consoles fans....They would be outdated in max 1 year in processing power... even PS3... and don`t forget that DX11 would be released next year... LET`S SEE THEN HOW IS WITH GRAPHICS ON PC AND CONSOLES...
Cheers

[Jo]

in this generation of games putting aside the wii (cuz is weak), the graphics and the detailing of the pc, xbox360, ps3 depends on the designers how well they know the platform... for what i seen many companies still doesn't use the full power of each console....
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OnLsYJfkhNc final fantasy 7 technical demo
http://youtube.com/watch?v=yvyHcBzetrk final fantasy 13
http://youtube.com/watch?v=yvyHcBzetrk metal gear solid 4
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gyfE04MI7-Q trailer 2.



btw: i hate how youtube kills the quality of the videos :(

[mynameis_Kaz]

On top of all the upgrades for a PC, have you considered the price of the games?
I can buy a PC title less than 6 months old for a quarter of the price of a console game.
Recently I bought Oblivion IV Eldar scrolls, IL2 1946, F.E.A.R. and Prey. The last one was ?4.99.
Console game prices, as far as I have noticed, keep themselves pretty high.

[DUNGA]

I have another simple take on this, even though I think PC is obviously the best choice for me... PS3 could achieve record sales with games like GTA4 and the latest pro Evo...

Sony will catch up with their Ps3 sales later but for now, while Xbox's keep dying and while PS3 is overpriced even if Blu ray is convenient for some people, PC is the best choice considering the prices of the processors right now....

[Awesome_Aleks]

I have another simple take on this, even though I think PC is obviously the best choice for me... PS3 could achieve record sales with games like GTA4 and the latest pro Evo...

GTA 4 is not exclusive, and chances are it will have special features on Xbox 360

however there is a wealth of other games, i only like one game on Xbox 360, and that is Forza Motorsport,, but you have to pay for online, Playstation 3 is good because of free online, blu-ray, tons of upcoming fantastic games

[koЯngear]

So, who will remain standin or win at last?:rotate:

[diaboleek]

PC will win for sure.... of course this doesnt mean that consoles will disapear.... but will keep theyr fans and that`s all....

[Steve78]

PC will win for sure.... of course this doesnt mean that consoles will disapear.... but will keep theyr fans and that`s all....

PC isn't in competition with the consoles. Never has been, never will be. The PC is continually evolving and the technology doesn't stand still for a second.

[diaboleek]

Steve78 so should be.... but even if you like it or not they are in direct competition....

[Steve78]

Steve78 so should be.... but even if you like it or not they are in direct competition....

No they're not. I've been involved in the games industry for well over a decade and the PC is not a threat to the consoles and the consoles are not a threat to the PC. They co-exist. The only battles are between the console manufacturers.

With Windows Live, Microsoft is attempting to bring the PC closer to console type gaming than ever before. So they are basically trying to use the PC platform as a weapon in their quest to try and become the industry leader.

The only competition is where the media and consumers "compare graphics" and other such nonsense. A PC game like Crysis simply cannot be done on a console without compromising it in some way. PC game developers are not in competition with their console equivalents, they are only in competition with themselves.

[sshock2]

i don't know about the superior graphics bit. i think thats why consoles tend to be better for games....even though graphics shouldn't matter, but it's what the developers seem to use as a criteria for their choice.

It's more like an illusion created by the console developers. Technically speaking PC is always superior. Now PC graphics has already come to the age of DirectX 10 with GeForce 8800 while consoles will remain in its current state for another 3 to 4 years or so. The thing is that PC graphics can develop constantly and new generation of graphics card come out at least twice a year, while console graphics has to stay for at least 3 years before the next generation comes in. Also console resolution is limited by TV resolution, so now it's 1080i, but PC games achieved 1600*1200 a long time ago, and now the golden resolution has come to 2560*1600. Did you see the Crysis tech demo in last year's E3? completely beats anything from consoles. And that's one year ago. That's not theories or hypothesis, it's facts. Yes console's architecture is dedicated to gaming, but PC makes it up by constantly evolving and simply being a brute powerhouse.

Keep in mind that I do agree console graphics is better than PC graphics at the same price, or at the same clockrate, but the fact is, they are not at the same price/clockrate/etc.. PC has the extensibility of putting in extra graphics card, upgrading every half a year, consoles don't. PC loses in terms of efficiency, but wins in terms of brute force, so the best looking graphics and newest technology are always on PC earlier than on consoles.

Now about the topic, I think PC games and console games will co-exist. In the end it comes to the games, not about the technology of how you can put a billion polygons into a monster or whatever. Else why do you think NDSL outselling PSP and Wii outselling PS3 by the buckloads? And PC games and console games have different attractive-ness. I love many PC games, and I love many console games, consoles won't be able to replace PC for sure, and I don't think the other way around is possible neither.

[koЯngear]

Nice, very nice and nonbiased view of perception.
But I just wanted to know if the graphics are constant for this seventh generation era for consoles for next 3-4 years or so and technology specially graphics card etc are easy to upgrade to the higher level for PC, then is it not reliable to develop games only for PC?
That is just my thought.

[hellopeach]

DX10 is merely a windows basedAPi for development. other examples include Mesa and OpenGL.

also, the graphics chip in the PS3 is the fastest and most powerful graphics chip available today.

at the time of launch, consoles are always ahead of the PC in terms of graphical power.
DX10 is an API for sure, but it has several groundbreaking features over the past APIs, meaning its full utilization needs several groundbreaking features in the hardware.

I won't trust Sony's claim at RSX at all, it's just figures made up by Sony under certain artificial environment that's never going to be reached.

The consoles may have the most powerful graphics at the time of their announcement (and that's a big maybe), but by the time of their release, they are already obsolette. For example the PS3, at the time of its announcement, the best graphics card was 7900, but at the time of its release, there's already the 8800. And we can't even tell for sure whether it's really the most powerful even at the time of its announcement, since we only have some empty figures made up by the companies, with no way to truly test them.


even as far back as 2000:

Xbox will run on Nvidia's NV25 core graphics chip, which should run at eight to ten times the speed of the fastest current PC graphics cards, with additional speed gains from Xbox's more efficient operating system.

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/emergingtech/0,1000000183,2081777,00.htm
I can't believe there are still people falling for this propaganda crap nowadays. NV25 is the same core in GeForce4, and it's only about twice as fast as GeForce 2 Ultra, the fastest card in 2000. Let's remember what Sony's CEO said about the PS3 CELL :

simulation of the cosmos -> simulation of Earth -> simulation of an adult's brain -> equal to a 4-year-old's brain -> 100 times of the power of a Pentium 4 -> around the same of a Pentium 4 :lol: :lol: :lol:

So you see? the PS3's CELL is no more powerful than a Pentium 4, which is arguably the worst CPU architecture ever with that NetBurst crap.

And there is a reason why those console companies pump out craps all the time, because like I said, there's no way for us to truly benchmark them and compare to existing PC graphics card. GeForce4 (NV25) is eight times faster than GeForce2 Ultra? We can tell instantly that's a lie when we benchmark them side by side with 3DMarks. But we can't do that with consoles, so those companies can make up numbers favorable to them and pour out propaganda lies all the time.

However when we see that non-SLI GeForce 8800 Ultra and Radeon HD 2900XT can run Oblivion at 2560x1600 with around 60FPS while PS3 struggles at running games at 1080i, we know who's faster don't we? ;)

[koЯngear]

DX10 is an API for sure, but it has several groundbreaking features over the past APIs, meaning its full utilization needs several groundbreaking features in the hardware.

I won't trust Sony's claim at RSX at all, it's just figures made up by Sony under certain artificial environment that's never going to be reached.

The consoles may have the most powerful graphics at the time of their announcement (and that's a big maybe), but by the time of their release, they are already obsolette. For example the PS3, at the time of its announcement, the best graphics card was 7900, but at the time of its release, there's already the 8800. And we can't even tell for sure whether it's really the most powerful even at the time of its announcement, since we only have some empty figures made up by the companies, with no way to truly test them.


I can't believe there are still people falling for this propaganda crap nowadays. NV25 is the same core in GeForce4, and it's only about twice as fast as GeForce 2 Ultra, the fastest card in 2000. Let's remember what Sony's CEO said about the PS3 CELL :

simulation of the cosmos -> simulation of Earth -> simulation of an adult's brain -> equal to a 4-year-old's brain -> 100 times of the power of a Pentium 4 -> around the same of a Pentium 4 :lol: :lol: :lol:

So you see? the PS3's CELL is no more powerful than a Pentium 4, which is arguably the worst CPU architecture ever with that NetBurst crap.

And there is a reason why those console companies pump out craps all the time, because like I said, there's no way for us to truly benchmark them and compare to existing PC graphics card. GeForce4 (NV25) is eight times faster than GeForce2 Ultra? We can tell instantly that's a lie when we benchmark them side by side with 3DMarks. But we can't do that with consoles, so those companies can make up numbers favorable to them and pour out propaganda lies all the time.

However when we see that non-SLI GeForce 8800 Ultra and Radeon HD 2900XT can run Oblivion at 2560x1600 with around 60FPS while PS3 struggles at running games at 1080i, we know who's faster don't we? ;)

Earlier game consoles like xbox, ps,ps2 were meant to play for sure. But asthe companies announce their seventh gen era it is quite clear to me now that announcing a console is just actually tryin to compete with the superiority of a PC?
It is the developers to be blamed off. Do you think in future there will be /should be only one platform for gamin:eek:

[BrightSpark]

people keep on forgetting about the role that the OS plays in the speed. just like consoles are dedicated to games and have trimmed down OSs, thats also the reason why supercomputers are dedicated to one particular tasks and have trimmed down OS as far as possible. just imagine if any supercomputer used the windows OS :eek:. it wouldn't even be at half the speed, and thats why almost all supercomputers run on linux.
comparing gaming consoles with PCs is like comparing supercomputers running windows with those running linux.

[sshock2]

people keep on forgetting about the role that the OS plays in the speed. just like consoles are dedicated to games and have trimmed down OSs, thats also the reason why supercomputers are dedicated to one particular tasks and have trimmed down OS as far as possible. just imagine if any supercomputer used the windows OS :eek:. it wouldn't even be at half the speed, and thats why almost all supercomputers run on linux.
comparing gaming consoles with PCs is like comparing supercomputers running windows with those running linux.

I think you mean comparing gaming consoles with PCs is like comparing 286 running linux with Pentium running Windows :p Like I said, PC loses for overall efficiency, but wins for being a brute powerhouse.

Really, currently all facts points to current top-end PC being faster than current consoles like PS3 and Xbox 360 even in running games.

Another thing is, despite all those "dedicated to game" theories, it's extremely hard to code for consoles like PS3. even now people are still saying they can't make use of the full power of PS2. Not to mention the abominable architecture of PS3. So in the end, both PC and consoles full powers can't be exploited when running games. They say they can only make use of less than 30% of PS3's power currently. So maybe after a years or so they can finally make use of 60% of PS3's power, guess what? there will be two more generations of graphics cards available for PC, and everything else on PC will evolve too.

Earlier game consoles like xbox, ps,ps2 were meant to play for sure. But asthe companies announce their seventh gen era it is quite clear to me now that announcing a console is just actually tryin to compete with the superiority of a PC?
It is the developers to be blamed off. Do you think in future there will be /should be only one platform for gamin:eek:
There's still the Wii, so there is still hope.

Nice, very nice and nonbiased view of perception.
But I just wanted to know if the graphics are constant for this seventh generation era for consoles for next 3-4 years or so and technology specially graphics card etc are easy to upgrade to the higher level for PC, then is it not reliable to develop games only for PC?
That is just my thought.
The problem is developing games for PC is very exhausting and expensive, There are various compatibility issues, and you can't just code for the top-end PCs if you want to sell the game. You need to make sure your game can run under different resolutions, can run well for the mid-range PCs, can run on both ATi and nVidia graphics card, on both Intel and AMD CPUs, and for both sound blaster and onboard sound chip, etc. etc. And then when you finally finished making the game, new technologies are out and suddenly your game using newest technologies at that time becomes technologically obsolette as there are new games announced for DX11, DX12, etc.

For consoles, despite some console's architecture can be a bitch (ie. PS3), they at least stay the same, you can take your time understand it, make use of it, you can take a whole year and there won't be anything new suddenly come out. And you don't need to code for different hardware configuration, you can always try make best out of the hardware without worrying about compatibility issues. You can code with all those device specific codes that makes life much easier.

So it's actually much more reliable to develop for a console than a PC. For a console, once it works, it always works. For a PC, it works for you, but it may not work for a million others.

[koЯngear]

GTA IV, Burnout paradise, etc are announced for PS3 and PS3/XBOX 360.
Raw vs smackdown is always made fro consoles!
I am wondering in near future games will be designed only for consoles? or what?:eek:

[Jo]

hellopeach ps3 can reach up 204GB/s
Xbox360 115GB/s
but its easier to code for 3 cores than 6 SPEs

[st0p.]

this argument is pointless. Games are developed, for the most part, almost exclusively for CONSOLES. Yes, some mmorpgs/strategy games are done exclusively for PC, but, beyond that, the vast majority of games/game developers develop for the mainstream consoles. How long did PC users have to wait before they could play the newest grand theft auto or resident evil games?

It's great to compare statistics such as processing power, but, in the end, you have to look at the big picture: the vast majority of gamers cannot afford to upgrade their computer every time they want to play a cutting edge game. Consoles bypass that need.

Don't get me wrong: I paly both console and PC games, and enjoy both, but I can acknowledge that all the greatest minds in the video game industry (kojima/miyamoto etc etc etc) work for console games.

For game developers, the choice is clear: consoles are cheaper and easier to develop; they reach a wider audience and their staying power is greater due to decreased costs. Furthermore, with innovative new controls such as those found on the Wii remote, console gaming has the ability to branch out into areas that PC games will always, always be behind in.

[Domo Kun]

Sims 2 Sucks On PS2 But Owns On PC How Come ?

[rmcrys]

My Radeon X1900XT can play Oblivion at 1920x1200, with HDR and everything on max, even with a distance texture patch to increase detail, perfectly smoothly. The PS3 plays Oblivion with better graphics than the 360, and both of those are worse than the PC version, and they only go to 720p.

X360/PS3 hardware, at announcement time, was the best available but of course PCs didn´t take long to get better. Nevertheless this phrase by Awesome_Aleks answers that "war" between Consoles vs. PCs

things work better on dedicated platform

PCs are overall machines that can play games. Consoles are gaming machines that can do other stuff too (excluding Wii lol). We can´t directly compare PCs to Consoles because of several other stuff:

- a 600€ PC graphic board won´t run every available games at 1280x720 or 1920x1080 30/60fps with every effects ON, in 1 year (and consoles do it for 3/5-years)

- PC games demand constant OS + Directx + drivers + CPU + Memory + Graphic board updates

- PC games demand installation (which takes time and HDD space)

- Sometimes there are conflits between drivers/OS and games

- On PCs, to load a game it´s not so put-it-and-play. You have to load the OS, pick the mouse and load the game. On a console you have the wireless control and that´s it.

It´s true that on PCs newer games get more details than on a console but only with constant hardware updates you can enable it. There are present games that with a Core 2 Duo 2.8GHz + 2GB RAM + NV 8800 you can´t play over 1280x1024 at medium settings if you want 30-60fps. PC updates takes lots of money. With a 350-600€ console you do the party for 5 years and quality is almost identical!

Most PCs are still based on AMD X2 or P4 3.2GHz with NV 6xxx/7xxx or ATI 1xxx graphics which makes most games to run at 800x600 medium-to-low settings :S

And for those who think graphics between a 2500€ PC and a 600€ PS3/X360 are too different and important, see who is the overall sales winner: Wii, the 480p console... the important on games it´s the fun, not only the image quality!

[Jo]

yep you are right, theorycally PCs are way ahead,
but looking at the market right now if you bough a pc not more than 2 years ago and it wasn't all high end you can't play anything even at low setting.
making all the wonder of directx 10.
and working out a PC/notebook with those specs kind of needs some $$$$$$.

[koЯngear]

Whatever you guys say()I respect you all) when PS 3 and XBOX 360 brings HDD to contain entertainment things it is naturally a competitor to PC.\
And yes, it is hard for most of us to upgrade PC year to year.


But the bottom line is:




CRYSIS will come out this year later with exclusive specs for pc, and it will be sad to see the nu xbox 360 and PS 3 owners suck to its gameplay and graphics of the PC that fulfil the game's requirements.:(
DirectX 10 is already out there.
And see here my point is:
of course you can be satiesfied literally by ownin a xbox 360 or PS 3 but now it has been designed like the way nu PCs are designed.
And when the consoles are designed in this way then should also be upgraded in that way a PC upgrades.;)

[sshock2]

ps3 can reach up 204GB/s
Xbox360 115GB/s
but its easier to code for 3 cores than 6 SPEs
well, it's meaningless to talk about theoretical power which you can never tap into.

this argument is pointless. Games are developed, for the most part, almost exclusively for CONSOLES. Yes, some mmorpgs/strategy games are done exclusively for PC, but, beyond that, the vast majority of games/game developers develop for the mainstream consoles. How long did PC users have to wait before they could play the newest grand theft auto or resident evil games?
Not really. How long did the console users have to wait before they could play the newest Diablo, Neverwinter Nights or Starcraft games? And currently most games are developed multi-platform.

Don't get me wrong: I paly both console and PC games, and enjoy both, but I can acknowledge that all the greatest minds in the video game industry (kojima/miyamoto etc etc etc) work for console games.
huh? instead of looking at only the Japanese, why not look out to the whole world? what about those "gods of games" like Richard Garriott, John Carmack, Peter Molyneux, etc.

see who is the overall sales winner: Wii, the 480p console... the important on games it?s the fun, not only the image quality!
the gameplay is what matters most. Amen.