Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

LOL, all that power in a little console does 1080p....:p

Last response: in Video Games
Share
August 25, 2008 2:40:06 PM

Man ohh man those little consoles sure do a good job, but yet us pc guys need a card the size of a console itself that draws 150 watts, LMAO!!

Something is wrong.
August 25, 2008 4:57:32 PM

Its to do with the fact that its up scaled to 1080p not true 1080p which requires far more power. Most 1080p TVs still only accept 720p and upscale which is why those hyper expensive "true" HD or "ultra" HD TVs exist. PCs however generate the content at the specified resolution and do not upscale it to the resolution the monitor / graphics is set to.
Related resources
August 25, 2008 5:52:44 PM

(flamebait?)
August 25, 2008 6:25:24 PM

I'll agree with jonisginger.

It is also worth considering that PCs go to higher resolutions with much faster refresh rates than consoles generally do. Also note that a high percentage of console games do not go higher than 720p.

But yeah, we have a particularly bloated and inefficient general use operating system designed to handle an exceptionally large variety of hardware sitting between the hardware and the games. That really does reduce the potential of our hardware significantly as compared to consoles which can optimize for a very small subset of hardware and a very limited number of roles.
August 26, 2008 12:16:29 AM

jerb said:
Man ohh man those little consoles sure do a good job, but yet us pc guys need a card the size of a console itself that draws 150 watts, LMAO!!

Something is wrong.
The only real console game that runs at "1080p" is Gran Turismo 5 Prologue and it's not 1920x1080, but a 1280x1080 with a neat upscaling trick that keeps the 16:9 aspect ratio in tact. It helps improve performance and provide higher image quality than would be experienced with 720p, while also allowing Sony to market it as a "True 1080p" game, because technically yes, the native rendering resolution would be considered "1080p" even though it is not really 1920x1080. Every other Xbox360 / PS3 game runs at a native resolution of 1280x720 or lower.
September 8, 2008 3:11:57 AM

600P (1024x600) like COD4 is very common. 600p with 2xaa is hardly comparable to a PC running native 19x12 with 4xaa/16xaf.
September 8, 2008 7:16:06 PM

Upscaled 1080p =/= true 1080p, which current consoles cannot possibly handle.
All X360 and PS3 games are rendered natively at 1280*720 or less.

Gotta love the misinformed console fanboys, though. Sony did a good job there. :) 

September 8, 2008 7:31:20 PM

consoles lack AA.. ohh those jaggies.
September 8, 2008 10:10:32 PM

But I thought 3 year old graphics tech + the "Cell" processor = PWN all the puny current PC hardware. If it says 1080p it on the back of the game box, does't that make it true?
September 11, 2008 2:23:18 AM

This reminds me of when I was in highschool and some kid was telling me the PS2 had superior graphics compared to the xbox...
September 11, 2008 8:29:37 PM

the games display resolution and texture resolution are 2 different things

many console games use 256x textures and other low res textures in order to keep a playable frame rate

most console games also use many tricks in order to keep frame rates, they use replacements, by having everything in the distance as 1 giant image instead of 3d objects and as you move closer, they turn into objects

console games also have poor handling of dynamic lighting and shadows as those effects are very hard to render
September 11, 2008 11:25:30 PM

razor512 said:
the games display resolution and texture resolution are 2 different things

many console games use 256x textures and other low res textures in order to keep a playable frame rate

most console games also use many tricks in order to keep frame rates, they use replacements, by having everything in the distance as 1 giant image instead of 3d objects and as you move closer, they turn into objects

console games also have poor handling of dynamic lighting and shadows as those effects are very hard to render
Have you ever heard of texture streaming? Hell, GTA IV uses a lighting engine that is more advanced than pretty much everything on the market aside from Crysis, and it's not even on the PC yet. Also what games have you played on the Xbox360 or PS3 that replacing everything in the distance with a giant image? I don't know if you realize it, but EVERY GAME OUT uses methods to improve performance such as limiting the view scale / distance scale where objects begin to load. Hell, even if you play Crysis on Very High you can see objects load into the game from the distance when driving cars or moving on foot quickly and looking into the distance. Only an idiot would argue that the PC isn't the most powerful of hte platforms, but that doesn't mean that the other platforms aren't capable of having decent looking games.
September 12, 2008 11:13:57 AM

i'm not saying that, i'm just saying that consoles use these tricks more often than pc games in order to make the games have better graphics with out killing the performance

but for a pc game, many of those tricks are not needed as it is powerful enough to handle the rendering

September 12, 2008 7:02:13 PM

this is way more complicated/fanboyish then its needs to be. ...Yes devolopers are excellant at squeezing every available system resource out of a console and have much practice over its life in doing so. Games do get better graphicsover a consoles lifetime; however, PC gamer/enthusist have more upgrade ability then consoles and are more technically/visually advanced then console ported game counter parts.

Ultimately IMO both platforms have their strength's and weekenesses. Short but sweet...consoles get a LOT bang for a buck... gaming PCs cost a lot of bucks for a bigger bang...Its not cost effective but it is the god's honest truth. Sorry PS3/xbox360 won't hold a candle to the technical prowess of a modern quadcore rig with sli'd/CF'd and a few gigs of ram. That said your never gonna build a PC "on the cheap" that can keep up with one of those consoles for less money then you can purchase them for.

In the end we are the marketing model. lets face it the latest consoles have more "PC" parts with each new generation. Most of the cosole hardware is made by the same guys making PC hardware. in a sense PC gamers are the alpha testers of the next gen console hardware (7800gtx is to PS3 as x1950 xt is xbox360). Nvidia/ati let their architecture mature and what ever their latest and greatest is when mircosoft/sony/nintendo starts devolopment of a new generation gets some small customizations to increase the chips true potential.

September 12, 2008 7:52:06 PM

atomicWAR said:
That said your never gonna build a PC "on the cheap" that can keep up with one of those consoles for less money then you can purchase them for.


Don't know about that...

Gigabyte EP35-DS3L - $85
Intel E5200 - $90
2GB PQI RAM - $32
Palit HD 3870 512MB - $110 (-$20 in MIRs)
WD Caviar 500GB - $70
Lite-on DVD burner - $24
Antec Sonata III Case w/500W Antec Earthwatts PSU - $130 (-$50 MIRs)

Total after MIRs = approx. $470

Prices above according to Newegg.com.

Beats any console out there, yet still costs less than an 80GB PS3, and it only took me 10 minutes to put together and I wasn't even looking for the best deals out there.
I could have easily gone with cheaper components, like an E2180 CPU (overclocked of course) coupled with an 8800GS/9600GSO, HD 3850 (can be found now for as low as $75) or even an HD 4670 (which seems to be a better performer than a 3850 in many cases from what I've seen), and it would still easily outperform any console out there (i.e run the same games much better at the same settings or higher).

I don't know why people still say PC gaming is expensive when it obviously isn't. You don't have to have the latest, most expensive cutting edge hardware to have a good gaming PC.

I would like to add that prices differ from one region to another. Where I live, current gen consoles cost almost as much as a very good gaming PC ($800+), not to mention console games cost $100+, when the same games on PC cost much less.

September 12, 2008 8:15:24 PM

fair first off a PS3 (the 80 giger) and 360 can be had for seventy less dollars on newegg in contrast to your build and in the case of the PS3...it also has a blue ray player (moot point but still).

No denying PC gaming can be done cheapish...and still keep up. Again we are the market model...Some game on consoles do to ease of use and it lacks the maintence of a modern PC all at a fair price. Some have PC's and are closet geeks upgrading thier rig just for fun...and the extra frame rates and eye candy are just that, extra. Console are enough graphix for the masses...enthusists do it cause we enjoy the "build" and "upgrade" processes. Depending on what you make depends how much you can spend...its no wonder nvidia/amd/intel have such good PR people to sell 4 versions of the same silicon at differant price brackets. Why do you think "overclocking" was looked down at for so long. It screwed up their scheme...now they have open arms and CPU's specially boxed for it. Given time to adapt...the market did.

Anyone in here that has done a few builds know how horribly they can go wrong and it can be months sometimes, especially if your bleeding edge, to get bios and software fixes for said hardware... (personally went through that with the whole 790i fiasco with the 1600fsb n ram sync setting...lame for the record) Point being is gaming on PC is a bit more envolved and that is where all the heaven and heart ache collide. Hell on a bad PC day after a few hundred BSOD...i enjoy turning on my 360 and not having to screw with it. I'll be the first to say i play both sides of the gaming fence.
September 12, 2008 8:31:45 PM

You have a point and I agree. Not everyone would be willing to go through the process of gaining hardware knowledge to pick out components and build their own PCs, etc..
The point of my post was just to show that you can in fact have a cheap gaming PC that performs better than current consoles without a big price difference for all the people that keep using the cost argument.
And yes, you're right about the PS3 80 gig price. I was mistakenly looking at the PS3 and MGS4 bundle before which costs $500.

Quote:
I'll be the first to say i play both sides of the gaming fence.

Absolutely nothing wrong with that. :) 

September 12, 2008 9:21:19 PM

Thanks, thanks and thanks trackman....

It is funny to think how close all this hardware is related and how vastely differant it can cost. Personally i hate this hardware/software market model...I like the idea of having a Console/ PC standard gaming spec for software devolopers (similar to XNA but mulitplatform)...buy one disc and have it work no mater what your hardware is. Wouldn't it be nice if everything just scaled accurately to your machine's true power? makes one ponder why microsoft really entered the console race....

ok anywho back on planet earth where chaos reigns supreme...

Who wants to play a little NES Ninja Gaiden? It still rocks!
September 12, 2008 10:39:16 PM

Trackman, the 4670 you mentioned has a lot of potential to boost the number of people playing PC games, and not just solitaire or jewel quest.

September 13, 2008 1:43:46 AM

trackman2010 said:
Don't know about that...

Gigabyte EP35-DS3L - $85
Intel E5200 - $90
2GB PQI RAM - $32
Palit HD 3870 512MB - $110 (-$20 in MIRs)
WD Caviar 500GB - $70
Lite-on DVD burner - $24
Antec Sonata III Case w/500W Antec Earthwatts PSU - $130 (-$50 MIRs)

Total after MIRs = approx. $470

Prices above according to Newegg.com.

Beats any console out there, yet still costs less than an 80GB PS3, and it only took me 10 minutes to put together and I wasn't even looking for the best deals out there.
I could have easily gone with cheaper components, like an E2180 CPU (overclocked of course) coupled with an 8800GS/9600GSO, HD 3850 (can be found now for as low as $75) or even an HD 4670 (which seems to be a better performer than a 3850 in many cases from what I've seen), and it would still easily outperform any console out there (i.e run the same games much better at the same settings or higher).


Yeah, $20 cheaper on the CPU and $40 cheaper on the GPU:
9600GSO for $50 shipped AR.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

September 13, 2008 3:52:33 AM

San Pedro said:
Trackman, the 4670 you mentioned has a lot of potential to boost the number of people playing PC games, and not just solitaire or jewel quest.

I agree.
I think that largely depends on OEM builders (HP, Dell, Gateway, etc..) adopting the card and implementing it into their builds more than anything else. Most people buy pre-builts, and end up with crappy IGPs or entry level cards and then wonder why their brand new PC can't run games.
If the card is well received by OEMs, and they manage to add it without jacking up their prices, it should aid immensely in raising the popularity of PC gaming.

pauldh said:
Yeah, $20 cheaper on the CPU and $40 cheaper on the GPU:
9600GSO for $50 shipped AR.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

The card is a steal for $50. Nice find!
If they still sold E2140s or E2160s, this could have easily been below the $400 mark.

September 14, 2008 5:52:05 PM

Interesting that everyone here talks about price, while the original poster asked about size and power consumption.
September 14, 2008 11:29:01 PM

^Lol.
I think that one of the many reasons that pc gaming isnt as popular is because its simply "harder" to do.

With a console i simply plug in the power cable, hdmi cable, and thats pretty much it. Nothing to install. With a pc, you have to maintan windows, update games ie. patches, have a decent video card witch most people dont have, get used to using a mouse/keyboard, INSTALL the game, ect.

All thats just to much for the average consumer to do. They would much rather just pop in there favirote game and play without having to worry about video settins, and all the other things that the average pc gamer does.

Pc gaming ftw :D 
September 15, 2008 12:24:45 AM

MxM said:
Interesting that everyone here talks about price, while the original poster asked about size and power consumption.

Out of 23 posts before your own, only 7 were related to price discussion, three of which were mine. The cost debate always comes up in a PC vs. console discussion, so it's only natural to find it here.
The OP didn't ask anything, he only made an incorrect statement, and most of the posts here were in reply to that (including the thread's title). His comments regarding card sizes and power consumption are useless to reply to since they're obviously blown out of proportion, exaggerated and/or mistaken to make his point. There is no card the size of console itself, and most cards (excluding dual-GPU solutions) do not consume 150W or more.

September 15, 2008 3:00:05 PM

the one thing that ppl have forgotton to mention is that games for the PC are cheaper....

so if a game costs $50 for a console but $30 for the PC then you are saving $20 dollars a game, then say you buy 20 games in 4 years(life of the console/upgrade period of pc) youve spent $1000 pounds on games..... then say you buy the same amount of games for the PC in 4 years and put away the money you save for an upgrade... thats $600 on games, and $400 saved up for a GFX upgrade :) 
September 15, 2008 5:27:13 PM

take also for the fact that the level of detail on a pc is unmatched by any console.

i mean come on, Grid on the 360 is like medium/2xAA on a PC, for hardcore PC gamers, that's vomit.
September 15, 2008 8:21:31 PM

Flakes the prices are $60 for consoles and $50 for PCs in America.
September 15, 2008 9:55:01 PM

Typical is $50, but you rarely have to spend $50 for a PC version. Someone typically has them for $40 at/ near release. Retail chains like BB or CC will occasionally spring nice $30 sales soon after a release. Plus even the good ones drop dirt cheap a lot sooner.

Looking at CC ad for this week as an example: Crysis Warhead $25 instead of $30 at launch. Gears of War $15. Age of Conan $35. COD4 $30.
September 16, 2008 7:05:25 AM

lol, thanks Pauldh, so its $60 on consoles and $35 or less for PC... sounds even better to me, pc games never stay there release price for long...
January 28, 2009 4:52:47 PM

Also, I've never had to subscribe to xbox live or the ps3 equivalent to play multi-player first person shooters on my pc! My son bought the xbox live 12 months for like 60.00! and also paid some 30.00 to buy points to dounload stuff....Plus it's hard to find true pc developed games (short of WoW, or Flight Sim X) most are average quality port-overs others are crappy at best!
!