Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

PC Graphics Faster Than "PS3" ?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 14, 2006 10:27:13 PM

In the past couple of years we have seen graphic cards coming out in the range of $500-$600, however all of these card prices have eventually dropped and droppped to very low levels after new technologies have come out.
Now we are now in the year 2006, and with the release of such Gaming machines like the Microsft Xbox 360 and the soon to be released, Playstation 3, many Pc Gamers are second guesing about buying that $600 7900gtx that'll give you 100fps in Oblivion. Because it doesnt really make sense to buy that card, cuz right after buying that Graphic card, you need to couple with at least a $300 Cpu, and 1-2gb of top of the line Ram.

So since these current graphic cards are single handedly costing more than a fully loaded Xbox 360 and almost as much as the projected Ps3 reatil price. Do they provide more Graphical power? Does 2 7900Gtx's in SLI provide better graphics than the Xbox 360? I just hope that someone knows the answer.

More about : graphics faster ps3

May 14, 2006 10:33:19 PM

I was going to make a post here, but I simply cant do it without being an ass.

cheers
May 14, 2006 10:46:04 PM

Id like to put in my 2 cents: The graphics for Oblivion on the 360 are good, but a single 7900gtx can do just as well, more than likely better....especially after it is more optimized with newer drivers and such. (My 6800GS looks as good as the 360's not on HD mode)

Of course graphics will get better for the 360 and ps3...but really the top of the line gfx cards out right now have similar qualities to those in the consoles...so this next generation of Video cards should be able to do anything that the consoles can do.

In my opinion, building a PC for gaming is very expensive, and if you only need it for gaming, i would recommend buying a console if you worry about the price, unless the biggest draw for you for PC gaming is the freedom (mods, online play that is not as restrictive, etc.)

And, as always, PCs can be expanded, or upgraded. Example: x-fi sound card or physics cards, or brand new vid cards.
Related resources
May 14, 2006 11:07:34 PM

The PS3's RSX GPU is nothing more than a G71 at 550MHz.
May 14, 2006 11:11:30 PM

Quote:
I was going to make a post here, but I simply cant do it without being an ass.

cheers


Hear hear
May 14, 2006 11:21:43 PM

From what I can tell, the RSX is very similar to a G70 Nvidia card such as the 7800. Maybe this new generation of consoles will be more advanced then computers but from what I have seen in the past comparing my PC to my Xbox the graphics are always better on my PC. Plus you have the option to upgrade your PC. The only time I truely hate a PC is for some sports games and fighting games like Street fighter becaue the game pads for a PC never seem to be as efficient and responsive. As for PCs all first person shooters I enjoy way more on a PC with keyboard etc then console. So I guess to sum it up, if you have a tight budget and don't like upgrading then a console would be your best bet.
May 14, 2006 11:34:25 PM

I think the new systems are much different from the past.
They're a lot closer to computer hardware out at the time then the past say PS2 and XBOX were.
Thats the reason for the much higher price on them.
They're close to the same right now as far as power but you have to spend much more to get the same power out of a pc then you do for a gaming system.
May 15, 2006 12:02:27 AM

Consoles do not have the same overheads as PCs i.e. an OS like XP so they will always perform foaster on like for like hardware. MS have bucked the trend in consoles by upgrading quite quickly, so possibly consoles will overtake PCs in the future.
May 15, 2006 12:48:26 AM

Quote:
I think the new systems are much different from the past.
They're a lot closer to computer hardware out at the time then the past say PS2 and XBOX were.
Thats the reason for the much higher price on them.
They're close to the same right now as far as power but you have to spend much more to get the same power out of a pc then you do for a gaming system.


the xbox was a pc in a smaller case, that was still really big... :roll:
May 15, 2006 1:29:52 AM

LMFAO i 2nd that :?
May 15, 2006 1:39:45 AM

At least its good to know that Im not wasting my money on a $400 graphic card....................At least not yet. lol
May 15, 2006 1:44:22 AM

Quote:
I was going to make a post here, but I simply cant do it without being an ass.

cheers


I applaud your self -restraint. I guess since you held you tongue, I must do the same. :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
May 15, 2006 2:02:41 AM

In the past couple of years we have seen graphic cards coming out in the range of $500-$600, however all of these card prices have eventually dropped and droppped to very low levels after new technologies have come out.
Now we are now in the year 2006, and with the release of such Gaming machines like the Microsft Xbox 360 and the soon to be released, Playstation 3, many Pc Gamers are second guesing about buying that $600 7900gtx that'll give you 100fps in Oblivion. Because it doesnt really make sense to buy that card, cuz right after buying that Graphic card, you need to couple with at least a $300 Cpu, and 1-2gb of top of the line Ram. So since these current graphic cards are single handedly costing more than a fully loaded Xbox 360 and almost as much as the projected Ps3 reatil price. Do they provide more Graphical power? Does 2 7900Gtx's in SLI provide better graphics than the Xbox 360? I just hope that someone knows the answer.
Quote:


Completely agreed. I dont know how you pc gamers can just sit back and say "i dont mind paying 500 bucks for a graphics card to get a max 30fps in oblivion" it makes no sense. im a pc gamer, and have been one for a long time, never owned a consol, but i can atleast admit when pc has been beat. and it has been in gaming. you will not get the same power out of pc, wtf are you nuts? Play oblivion on the 360, then play it on a pc with a 7900 gtx or 1900xtx. You get constant smooth frames with AA and HDR on at the same time with the 360..pc..good luck getting a max35 fps on outside environments.

(My 6800GS looks as good as the 360's not on HD mode...Yes, but you didnt state how much fps you get, if i get 20 fps in outside environmenst with a 7800gtx overclocked..id love to see how smooth yours is. sure The pc looks just as good as the 360 version, if you are completely still and dont move at all. then its just horrid. Ps3 looks absolutely amazing. the games are photorealistic, and you never see a single frame drop in any of the demos played. just fantastic. I give pc 3-4 years before it catches up IMO..ibut by then who knows whats going to be out...if the prices get anymore higher than they are now for top of the line hardware...i dont see alot of people building pc's anymore for games.The only thing that hasnt made me take the transistion to consols, is that awesome fact that i get to use a keyboard and mouse...if ps3 makes all first person shooters keyboard and mouse compatible...say goodbye to pc's for gaming
May 15, 2006 3:07:38 AM

That's strange. My brother's 7900 GT can handle max settings with 4xAA and Bloom perfectly in Oblivion. Of course I used the NGO optimized drivers (84.56 I believe), and I set the max frames to render ahead to 0. That grass is awfully pretty, let me tell you. Oh yeah - that gpu cost $300. The machine cost $1300 in all, but that's with 2 DVD Burners and 2 Hard Drives. What consoles do they do well, but the right PC can do just as good a job.
May 15, 2006 3:18:06 AM

Quote:


8O 8O 8O 8O 8O 8O 8O Simply Amazing answer-
8O 8O
Couldn't agree more 8)
May 15, 2006 3:37:50 AM

Quote:
I applaud your self -restraint. I guess since you held you tongue, I must do the same.

Actually, I would have prefered you to lash out at him :lol: 
a b U Graphics card
May 15, 2006 4:08:20 AM

Quote:
I give pc 3-4 years before it catches up IMO
You're kidding right?

In forming this opinion, did you at all take into consideration the change in pc gaming over the past 3-4 years? 4 Years ago today the GF4 ti4600 was the best gaming card money could buy. The R9700 pro and UT2003 weren't available for months after that, which would be the best GPU/graphical game of the 3-4 year ago period.
May 15, 2006 4:11:37 AM

Yes, PCs and new consoles are pretty close now. But a consoles life cycle is what? Like 5 years. So ask us in 4 years if PCs are better than PS3 :) 
May 15, 2006 4:13:48 AM

My 6800gs is running at a variance of settings...most textures are all on high except for landscape, and grass is on low, but my view distance is 100%, HDR on...i get about 57fps outside.

You have to tweak it some figure out what your hardware likes...i bet oblivion will be even smoother when new drivers come out.

Also... have you seen 360 Oblivion? The only graphics that look really good are the character models, and lighting, the draw distance isnt great and everything pops into the frame...my 6800gs does fairly well copying performance from 360.

By the time PS3 actually comes out...there will be next gen cards that give better performance....Last generation, there was no contest for a few years as the xbox when realeased with Halo blew PCs out of the water, and held its position for a year or more. THis gen consoles arent holding on for very long.
a c 355 U Graphics card
May 15, 2006 4:15:35 AM

1. PCs are more than just for gaming.

2. Game consoles are sold at a loss. Money is made by selling games.
May 15, 2006 4:22:54 AM

well you really cant say anything about the 360 or ps3 because they set them to at max 30 fps because simply tvs arent made to render at extremely high frame rates because the fps on a tv in europe is 30 and here in america is only 24 so it really doesnt matter how many freaking fps you get in oblivion it is more on the detail of it and how well you percieve in on a larger tv compared to a computer monitor. One other thing is that Sony and Microsoft are acctually losing money when they sell their consoles because they know people will be spending $60 on games that costs them like a dollar to produce, all their profit comes from game sales. and all the consoles are based off pc, hell the 360 only has 512 mb of ddr3, fast but now our graphics cards have that and most people now have 2 gigs of system memory. im sorry if im a little biast but i have owned a lot of consoles and i am not impressed by them. o and i can get 30fps with hdr on full and 8xAA from a freaking X850XT so shut up.
May 15, 2006 4:39:25 AM

Quote:
1. PCs are more than just for gaming.

2. Game consoles are sold at a loss. Money is made by selling games.


I think that right there is one of the best statements. ATI and Nvidia dont sell games, therefore they cant sell there cards below cost, expecting games to make them money like sony and MS can. (i.e. isnt ps3 worth like a grand but selling at 500?)
May 15, 2006 4:46:48 AM

Quote:
1. PCs are more than just for gaming.

2. Game consoles are sold at a loss. Money is made by selling games.


I think that right there is one of the best statements. ATI and Nvidia dont sell games, therefore they cant sell there cards below cost, expecting games to make them money like sony and MS can. (i.e. isnt ps3 worth like a grand but selling at 500?)

Very good points, never thought about it like that.

I didnt know the new top of the line TVs couldnt go over 27 fps? What about when you hook up your PC to an HDTV to game? Seems like its over 27 fps then?
May 15, 2006 4:49:10 AM

Well you're in a computer hardware forum on a computer hardware site, so don't be surprised by the answers you're going to get.

Consoles are always, at BEST, even with current tech. That's because sony doesn't have the knowhow to develop a graphics chip that is better than what ati or nvidia can. I was watching someone play some sort of golf game on the 360, running in "HD" mode, and the thing studdered on the outdoor scenes. And its ALWAYS going to do that, you can't swap anything out and make it not do that.

Plus you're not taking into consideration the total cost. Sure its a $400 piece of hardware, but you need a $1,000+ TV to get the most out of it. So the prices really aren't that different if you're going to compare the two things at full capability. You can build a pretty decent performing gaming PC for 1400.
a b U Graphics card
May 15, 2006 4:57:42 AM

And typically it seems to me PC games cost less. I bought Oblivion for $39.99 right when it was released. I don't recall seeing the Xbox360 version for near that price yet. And often with a little searching, many to most 6 month old PC games can be found for $20-30 and 1+ year old games for $10.

I like gogamer for their cheap deals. Lots of good games like UT2004 show up for $5-8. Here is the new Rise of Legends for $35. http://www.gogamer.com/cgi-bin/GoGamer.storefront/SESSI...
May 15, 2006 4:58:10 AM

Quote:
That's strange. My brother's 7900 GT can handle max settings with 4xAA and Bloom perfectly in Oblivion. Of course I used the NGO optimized drivers (84.56 I believe), and I set the max frames to render ahead to 0. That grass is awfully pretty, let me tell you. Oh yeah - that gpu cost $300. The machine cost $1300 in all, but that's with 2 DVD Burners and 2 Hard Drives. What consoles do they do well, but the right PC can do just as good a job.


Its like you guys are in denial, or getting away from my point. What im pointing out, yes, im sure your brothers 7900 can handle it max settings, just like my card can..but you guys leave out how slow it starts to run in outside environments. how can you be happy with that? They can do just as good as job, maybe in about a year or 2. As of now, looking at the unreal 3 engine on ps3 for brothers in arms Hells Highway and such, i really, honestly, cant see how you can get much better than that. everyone always says "just wait 3-4 years, PC will fly past that...but cmon, enough is enough. It seems like the ps3, will be good enough for years and years and years graphically wise. You really cant get any better than that. Why are you guys backing up the pc so much now a days? Like i said, im a pc gamer, but when you start takling like your protecting your children from insults, thats getting out of hand.


Quote:
1. PCs are more than just for gaming.

2. Game consoles are sold at a loss. Money is made by selling games.


I get that same line everytime i talk about a topic like this...We all know pcs are more than just for gaming....but what are we talking about here? games. nothing more. nothing less. and 2. who cares where the money is made, im a consumer, i want amazing graphics + smooth playability

Quote:
well you really cant say anything about the 360 or ps3 because they set them to at max 30 fps because simply tvs arent made to render at extremely high frame rates because the fps on a tv in europe is 30 and here in america is only 24 so it really doesnt matter how many freaking fps you get in oblivion it is more on the detail of it and how well you percieve in on a larger tv compared to a computer monitor. One other thing is that Sony and Microsoft are acctually losing money when they sell their consoles because they know people will be spending $60 on games that costs them like a dollar to produce, all their profit comes from game sales. and all the consoles are based off pc, hell the 360 only has 512 mb of ddr3, fast but now our graphics cards have that and most people now have 2 gigs of system memory. im sorry if im a little biast but i have owned a lot of consoles and i am not impressed by them. o and i can get 30fps with hdr on full and 8xAA from a freaking X850XT so shut up.


and again with the technical jargon, i dont care what a tv can do, I see what i see, and what i see is next gen consols have amazing graphics + smooth game play... and telling me to shut up because your angry that im stating a fact that pcs are getting out of hand with prices vs weak hardware is taking it over the top.

Quote:
I think that right there is one of the best statements. ATI and Nvidia dont sell games, therefore they cant sell there cards below cost, expecting games to make them money like sony and MS can. (i.e. isnt ps3 worth like a grand but selling at 500?)


So, you work for nvidia, this is how you know all this? THey have all the technology and money in the wolrd to create a nuclear bomb. How do you expect they have onstage demos of games coming out in 2007 like CRSYS, one of the best looking games iv ever seen in my life, probably THE best looking game. With completely ultra smooth gameplay, almost like your watching a movie. You know thats no 7800 running that nor a 1900xtx. the game would eat those cards for breakfast. So , if they have the technology to run these games that are more than a year in advanced graphically..why not release it then?BECAUSE, thats marketing for you, which is why they have us spending 500 bucks on video cards now. They arnt stupid, consumers are.

Quote:
Sure its a $400 piece of hardware, but you need a $1,000+ TV to get the most out of it.


again another statement i see in every single forum with a topic like this...i have a monitor, i intend to use it.
a b U Graphics card
May 15, 2006 5:06:22 AM

Quote:
How do you expect they have onstage demos of games coming out in 2007 like CRSYS, one of the best looking games iv ever seen in my life, probably THE best looking game. With completely ultra smooth gameplay, almost like your watching a movie. You know thats no 7800 running that nor a 1900xtx. the game would eat those cards for breakfast
Hmm, we were just talking about how IGN saw Crysis being demo'ed on a single Radeon X1900. "Best looking game"- So much for 3-4 years for PC to catch up. :wink:

And don't forget by the time we get our hands on crysis, the next gen cards will be out even.
May 15, 2006 5:13:33 AM

I could care less what they say they used..if i get frame drops in graphically "ok" games like call of duty 2 with my set up, i dont beleive that for a second.
a b U Graphics card
May 15, 2006 5:21:26 AM

That makes perfect sense, they were just lying and it was probably quad SLI GF8900 GTX Ultra Extreme Platinum Editions. :roll: I'm not doubting developers get their hands on unreleased hardware...of course they do. But I still say that pre-e3 crysis demo was probably a X1900XTX just as they said.

Edit: the version being played at E3, if that is what you are talking about seeing, is said to be on DX10 hardware.
http://pc.ign.com/articles/707/707522p1.html
May 15, 2006 7:33:44 AM

The biggest reason why consoles are supposedly faster than pcs is that everything is built onto the motherboard, so there is almost no latency going inbetween the processor and the graphics card and such. Having everything integrated makes it so much faster. That's why the graphics chip in the xbox or the ps3 seems to be so much more powerful than its corresponding pc graphics card. For that reason, it's not really comparing apples to apples here. although the consoles only have to work for 26 frames per second, while lots of people complain about stuttering when it gets lower than 40 on their computer.

The reasons why I have a computer rather than an xbox 360 (i do have a ps2) is because I can use this computer for so much more than just playing games. I dont see a 160 gig hard drive out for the 360 yet, and I haven't heard from adobe or autodesk that they're making photoshop and 3dsmax for the ps3. I have my own computer because i can do homework on it, i can screw around with pictures and models, i can do my protein folding, and mod this thing out.

Imagine going to a LAN party and everyone there has their high def tvs and xboxs. What if you had a ps3 or a wii, well then you couldn't play. Your console would become no better than everyone elses, there wouldn't be much that you could do to make it yours. You've all got the same cpu, gpu, everything so the only thing you can do to make it special is put on some fancy stickers and faceplates. Lugging that big tv around would suck big time as well, lol.

Also, I like having a keyboard and mouse for most of my games. I find that in first person shooters, joysticks are often too inaccurate and slow. I also find that there are a lack of buttons to spell out "headshot" or "pwned u n00b", a must have for a good fps. While I do think that some games belong on the consoles, there are some which cannot thrive as much as on a pc (read: bf2 and bf2:modern combat(read:failure)). Also, pc games are much cheaper than console games, hands down.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go play some gary's mod, with all those other mods and crap only avaliable on pc and build myself a tank or something.

then later i'm going to burn some project onto a dvd, and watch some funny videos online and then do some more replying on the forums and crap i can only do with a computer.

laters,
bigsby
May 15, 2006 7:57:33 AM

Quote:
The biggest reason why consoles are supposedly faster than pcs is that everything is built onto the motherboard, so there is almost no latency going inbetween the processor and the graphics card and such.


Nope.

Quote:
That's why the graphics chip in the xbox or the ps3 seems to be so much more powerful than its corresponding pc graphics card.


WTF, we know its just a G71 with far less bandwidth.

Quote:
although the consoles only have to work for 26 frames per second


I don't know where you got 26 frames from. They can choose 30 or 60.

Quote:
I haven't heard from adobe or autodesk that they're making photoshop and 3dsmax for the ps3.


I'm also quite pissed that they haven't released a version for my toaster yet.

Quote:
What if you had a ps3 or a wii, well then you couldn't play. Your console would become no better than everyone elses, there wouldn't be much that you could do to make it yours.


That's one of the most retarded things I've ever heard.

Quote:
Lugging that big tv around would suck big time as well, lol.


Ever hear of a projector?

Quote:
I also find that there are a lack of buttons to spell out "headshot" or "pwned u n00b", a must have for a good fps.


Ever hear of a headset?

Quote:
Also, pc games are much cheaper than console games, hands down.


Since when?

Your post is full of ignorance, bias and stupidity.
May 15, 2006 9:00:25 AM

Ugh, this thread finally set me off to finally register. I visit this forum every day and had never done os until now. Anyway, as was previously said, the "RSX GPU" is a G71 chip. The Xbox 360 GPU is the ATI R500 Core, which is FAR more advanced than ANY PC graphics card you will own for a while. A 48 pixel pipeline ATI card pretty much owns all. Nvidia concentrates on pixel count while ATI focuses on pixel operations, which is why when you open ATI pipes you see such a difference in performace and not such a huge different in Nvidia cards. The RSX GPU has 24 pipes, and the X1900XTX (a faster and better card . . . except that first gen crossfire crap) only has 16. Now, imagine unlocking, ya know, 4X the amount of pixel pipelines on a GPU that pretty much owns everything in pixel OPERATIONS.

This is why Xbox 360 will be and already IS superior to PS3, not to mention it doesn't come with Blu-Ray, a format which will quickly fail without Microsoft support. It is already unfavorable, not to mention the ridiculous price of the discs and players. Xbox 360 will have MORE and BETTER games because porting to/from 360 to/from PC is like nothing. They're basically the same thing, no strange and mysterious hardware. The PS3 essentially requires a game developer to restart the game from scratch.

So, game developers have to ask themselves a hard question: Do we go into an already established Xbox 360 console market, do we spedn twice as much and get it for PS3, a higher-priced console which can and WILL have SEVERELY limited quanitities, pissing off the press and consumers with a weak paper launch, requiring us to buy expensive Blu-Ray discs which we don't need, or do we get the advantage of 2 platforms in virtually the same dev time as one, not to mention launching into an already successful and popular format and online gaming service, keeping loyal customers and creating new ones from the additional features and low price of the only available next-gen console which has the best capabilities of any system?

WOW What a tough call. PS3 is bound to be an utter failure in the accounting department over at Sony. They're using it only as a cheap way to get Blu-Ray into people's homes, where the only other option is a $1,000 or the oh-so-terrible Intel and Microsoft backed HD-DVD.

There are virtually no redeeming qualities about PS3 except that if you WANT to get DRM raped via the Blu-Ray, you'll buy it.

Oh and for the record, I am NOT an MS fan by ANY means, and I've made about a thousand anti-Microsoft sites to boot. I just can't take the nubbingness anymore, I had to speak up.
May 15, 2006 10:01:20 AM

Quote:
I was going to make a post here, but I simply cant do it without being an ass.

cheers

some self-restraint is always a good thing :wink:

Now I suppose you are not at all surprised by the kinda answers you get!
Let me say that if a "tupical" consumer is to decide between a console and a pc solely for gaming then the choice favours a console.
But that statement means nothing. No matter how much of a gamer you are you'r never going to buy a pc whose only purpose in this world is to play games.
As far as the hardware is concerned, I thought the gfx chip of the xb360 is simmilar to the G70(aka 7800 series) (not G71, 7900). And the thing also has (a very small ammount of) some faster memory. So what? It certainly doesn't outperform any over-1500$ gaming pc (and the comparison is unfair and pointless) Now about the PS3 you've actually never seen one and know little of its capabilities.
But the gfx performance of a console is constant whereas pc games get (visually) better by the month. Consoles bet on gameplay wich far too uncertain a value for me to take into account. Both sides have quite devoted fans and that's understandable, but really, LordBelial, the fact that your computer has a small ram and lags while playing oblivion doesnt really indicate much about pc performance (while it does speak about your will and ability to set up the game settings right).
By the way djkrypplephite you certainly found the wrong place to compare ps3 and xb360 :lol:  and Action_Man, it occurs to me that "ignorance, bias and stupidity" are part of your toy-identity - your post is a disgrace to yourself :p  I think bigsby's points are obvious to most members of this forum
As far as demos are concerned I thought anyone in this forum knew better than to believe in them. Their value is limmited to giving a "first impression" and they usually lie in favour of what they present, while they certainly don't give you enough data for the type of comparisson you guys do.
May 15, 2006 10:03:56 AM

That's the opposite: NTSC displays at 29.97 fps(make that 30) while PAL (Europe) displays at 25 fps.

However, the actual number of rendered frames is 50 (Europe) or 60 (US) interleaved - meaning that geometry rendering is done in full every 1/50 - 1/60 second, but pixel rendering is split between each frame. That's slightly higher in use of rendering power, but all in all you're right.
May 15, 2006 10:20:08 AM

Quote:
I was going to make a post here, but I simply cant do it without being an ass.

cheers

some self-restraint is always a good thing :wink:

Now I suppose you are not at all surprised by the kinda answers you get!
Let me say that if a "tupical" consumer is to decide between a console and a pc solely for gaming then the choice favours a console.
But that statement means nothing. No matter how much of a gamer you are you'r never going to buy a pc whose only purpose in this world is to play games.
As far as the hardware is concerned, I thought the gfx chip of the xb360 is simmilar to the G70(aka 7800 series) (not G71, 7900). And the thing also has (a very small ammount of) some faster memory. So what? It certainly doesn't outperform any over-1500$ gaming pc (and the comparison is unfair and pointless) Now about the PS3 you've actually never seen one and know little of its capabilities.
But the gfx performance of a console is constant whereas pc games get (visually) better by the month. Consoles bet on gameplay wich far too uncertain a value for me to take into account. Both sides have quite devoted fans and that's understandable, but really, LordBelial, the fact that your computer has a small ram and lags while playing oblivion doesnt really indicate much about pc performance (while it does speak about your will and ability to set up the game settings right).
By the way djkrypplephite you certainly found the wrong place to compare ps3 and xb360 :lol:  and Action_Man, it occurs to me that "ignorance, bias and stupidity" are part of your toy-identity - your post is a disgrace to yourself :p  I think bigsby's points are obvious to most members of this forum
As far as demos are concerned I thought anyone in this forum knew better than to believe in them. Their value is limmited to giving a "first impression" and they usually lie in favour of what they present, while they certainly don't give you enough data for the type of comparisson you guys do.

The chip in Xbox 360 is VERY different from the G70/71. That's what PS3 uses. You find me a 48-pipelined ATI GPU that performs, ya know, pretty much the same as any PC card and then we'll talk identical performance.

We don't have to SEE a PS3 if we have the hardware specifications. Nvidia THEMSELVES stated that it was only a G71 GPU. Shame that the mid-range PC graphics cards will already be ahead of PS3 when it comes out.

Get a game that demands ridiculous amounts of pixel operations and WHAM you've owned any PC card. Xbox 360 can handle it. Don't argue if you don't even know the basic architecture of it, much less the BRAND of GPU that it uses.

ALSO just so you know: The G71 and G70 are IDENTICAL chips. There is virtually no difference other than the fact one is 110 and the other 90 nm. It is the EXACT same chip, only smaller. Think of it as a 920 vs. 820 Intel chip. Since they're smaller and the yields are a bit better, they are also cheaper. The 7800 and 7900 series cards have the exact same architecture. Don't even try to argue that. The PS3 uses this architecture, and once somebody will code a game that will use the full capabilities of Xbox 360, you'll be amazed how much worse it looks on PS3 (that's pushing a big IF it gets ported over in the first place).

gg
May 15, 2006 10:30:20 AM

Are consoles catching up to PCs?? yes, they do every time a new generation of console comes out. Sure they are even closer now than in the past, but as ssf computers become more popular it just goes to show what console can be and pretty much are sff computers.

Bottom line is just about everyone that is going to go out and spend the money on a console owns a computer, whether it is a top of the line several thousand dollar gaming machine or an Emachine you just picked up at Best Buy for $600. Now, lets look at all those people that have a PC that wont run Oblivion. Most people in that boat are lacking in the video card area, maybe RAM. Now they can go out and spend $500 on a new vid card and maybe another 512 stick of ramto put into the computer they already have, or go buy a console to play the game on. Then you factor in the game which if it is like most games it is cheaper for the pc and your better off with a new video card. Very few games are specific to one platform or the other anymore and the PC is so much more versitile.

Now that you have read my silly and pointless rambling that probably made little to no sense, here is the real bottom line.

You want to compare the pc to consoles based on games alone, which is completely unfair, because yes it is a better value on games alone, but tell me, can you name one person that owns a pc for nothing but games?? They don;t check email, or browse the web, no spending all their money on ebay. They boot up, start a game and shut down when done. I don't think so.
May 15, 2006 10:40:25 AM

Quote:
Are consoles catching up to PCs?? yes, they do every time a new generation of console comes out. Sure they are even closer now than in the past, but as ssf computers become more popular it just goes to show what console can be and pretty much are sff computers.

Bottom line is just about everyone that is going to go out and spend the money on a console owns a computer, whether it is a top of the line several thousand dollar gaming machine or an Emachine you just picked up at Best Buy for $600. Now, lets look at all those people that have a PC that wont run Oblivion. Most people in that boat are lacking in the video card area, maybe RAM. Now they can go out and spend $500 on a new vid card and maybe another 512 stick of ramto put into the computer they already have, or go buy a console to play the game on. Then you factor in the game which if it is like most games it is cheaper for the pc and your better off with a new video card. Very few games are specific to one platform or the other anymore and the PC is so much more versitile.

Now that you have read my silly and pointless rambling that probably made little to no sense, here is the real bottom line.

You want to compare the pc to consoles based on games alone, which is completely unfair, because yes it is a better value on games alone, but tell me, can you name one person that owns a pc for nothing but games?? They don;t check email, or browse the web, no spending all their money on ebay. They boot up, start a game and shut down when done. I don't think so.


also hence why most if not all three next-gen consoles have all that extra multimedia crap like card readers, file sharing, etc. etc. MS did with Xbox 360 what they did with Xbox. They designe dit to have the best GPU on the market (including PCs), and Xbox did for a while. This time around, They had ATI enhance, well, totally jack up their next-gen hardware to have pipes that let through the ops so they can render a TON of pixels, AND get them out all in a TINY amount of time.

There won't be any GPU's coming out for a while that will match or surpass the Xbox 360.

The problem behind your theory of "just buying a new video card" is that the 360 is equipped to last for a LONG time, not to mention FSAA and HDR simultaneously, a feat which neither Nvidia or PS3 have managed, and which PS3 WON'T manage. There's no catch-up game for next-gen consoles. The beloved gaming PC has been beaten down mercilessly in the war of kick-ass graphics, and the Xbox 360 has claimed the title for Redmondia.
May 15, 2006 10:43:54 AM

Quote:
and which PS3 WON'T manage.


Actually it can with hacks. Heavenly sword has it. It has a couple of drawbacks, forget the details.
May 15, 2006 10:52:48 AM

Hi, also a first time poster here. I consider myself a game enthusist so I decided I'd give my 2 cents. =)

The last post seemed incredibly biased so I'd like to add some clarifcations for all of you to derive your own ideas. The xbox 360 does have a GPU based on the R500 core. The descrepency in information is in the 48 pipelines. I believe he meant 48 unified shaders. The unified shaders allow the GPU to dynamically shift load from different type of texture or pixel operations. This is quite similar to the x1900xtx that also has 48 unified pixel shaders.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/01/24/ati_radeon_x1900...

Nvidia decided to use a more traditional approach with independent pixel/texture shaders. I believe the total number of shaders in the G7* core is about 48. I'll try to find the article I read that in. The difference in the architecture is that ATI architecture can dynamically allocate its resources to handle the load of the operations it must perform. This particular fact does not necessarily mean one architecture will out perform the other. Game developers can always write code to optimally use the architecture they using.
Ati's architecture seems a little more flexible than Nvidia's right now and it no secret that the developer tools for the xbox 360 are a lot easier to use than whatever tools are available to develop on the ps3; However, I must disagree with the statement that porting games will be a unbelievably daunting task for the ps3. We can see that many companies are still planning on providing cross platform releases. EA will continue to release their sports titles on both systems and Rockstar announced a dual release of the next GTA video game on both xbox360 and ps3.

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/playstation-three....

How stuff works has an article on the ps3 and states that there is a power PC based core inside the cell processor. Its main objective isn't to do the number crunching, but to conduct the usage of the SPE's for multiple data processing. I'm no expert on the cell processor so I hope someone else can help me out on the finer operations of the architecture, but I assume the difficulty in using the cell would be to optimally translate traditional instructions to utilize the parallel architecture. Otherwise, the PS3 just has 1 cpu whereas the xbox has 3.

This may seem like a huge digression from the original topic, but I wanted to make sure we knew what consoles are capable of so that we can compare them with our PCs.

The point about TV's having low FPS output is slowly becoming a moot point. LCD's are making their way into the tv market and some of them tout response times as fast as 12 ms. I understand this is probably an ideal response time and doesn't reflect the average response time or the performance of the monitor we will be seeing, but if taken with a grain of salt, we do have TV's that can output 1000/12 frames per second or about 83.3 FPS. Microsoft has announced that they are aiming to develop games with a minimum of 30 FPS where as Sony has initially announced trying to achieve 120FPS and I believe replacing that statement with a more modest, but still very impressive 60 FPS.

So are the consoles being released faster than PC graphics? I can't agree. The GPU architectures are incredibly similar to the PC cards. The console processors may be slightly ahead of what is available to the mainstream PC processor market, but games are often bottlenecked at the graphics card, not the processor. Another interesting read which I googled compared the graphics for King Kong on the xbox 360 against a PC. There were noticeable differences in the graphics that were being rendered. Even though both systems were on max settings, there seemed to be less objects on the xbox port. again, I didn't do the analysis so don't rip me a new one please. I'm just reporting because it could explain why some xbox games seem so much more smoother.

I think that consoles are definitely the bargain if you're looking for a piece of gaming hardware because as previously stated, consoles are sold at a loss. You do get more for your dollar here, but there is something that concerns me. People who have stated that consoles aren't upgradeable have hit a huge point because as IGN reports from the latest E3 convention, physics is a popular new trend in video games and whether or not we have stand alone PPU's handling our physical calculations or if we're offloading the calculations to another GPU (the two solutions I've read about so far), PC's have the advantage of upgrading.

Thus this leads us to the longevity of the next generation systems. I'm sure they will last just as long as their ancestors and will probably enjoy similar success, but any talk of the PC's performance slowing down is simply naive. Innovations in how we create our next video game are taking place in all sectors of the market. Stand along physics, multi-core GPU's/multiple GPU's, parallel programming, and improvements in computer architecture are some of the things going on right now. To state that the performance/graphics that are currently possible can not get any better is absurd.


Anyway, I'm pretty sure I've given out a little more than my 2 cents worth. I apologize for the long post, but i hope I helped straighten some things out.
-- the_guy

PS There will always be developers willing to work on difficult architectures. You must realize that Sony has dominated the console market in the previous console generation. Also, the fact that Xbox 360 made absolutely no noise in japan means there is still a huge market where PS can (and probably will...) dominate. To declare microsoft a clear cut winner before Sony even throws a punch is like claiming Conroe will... ok lets not go there :wink:
May 15, 2006 11:10:17 AM

Hi, here to own you.
To quote the Wiki:
Quote:
Graphics processing unit

The "Xenos" graphics processing unit (GPU) is a custom chip designed by ATI. (Developed under the name "C1", sometimes "R500")[21] The chip contains two separate silicon dies: the parent GPU and the daughter eDRAM.

* 315 million transistors total
* 500 MHz parent GPU (90 nm TSMC process, 235 million transistors)
* 300 MHz 10 MB daughter embedded DRAM framebuffer (90 nm process, 50 million transistors)
o NEC designed eDRAM die includes additional logic for color, alpha blending, Z/stencil buffering, and anti-aliasing.
o 7 Render Output units
* 48-way parallel floating-point dynamically-scheduled shader pipelines
o 3 groups of 16 arithmetic logic units
o 1 ALU per fragmentpipe for vertex or pixel shader processing
o Unified shader architecture (This means that each pipeline is capable of running either pixel or vertex shaders.)
o Support for DirectX 9.0 Shader Model 3.0, support for future Windows Graphics Foundation 2.0 shader models
o 2 Shader operations per pipe per cycle
o 40 Shader operations per cycle across the entire shader array
o Shader performance: 48 billion (48,000 million) shader operations per second (96 shader operations x 500 MHz)
* 14 Filtered & 16 unfiltered texture samples per clock
* Maximum polygon performance: 500 million triangles per second
* Texel fillrate: 8 gigatexel per second fillrate (16 textures x 500 MHz)
* Pixel fillrate: 4 gigasamples per second fillrate using 4X multisample anti aliasing (MSAA) or 1 gigapixel per second without multisample anti aliasing (8 ROPs x 500 MHz)
* Dot product operations: 24 billion per second or 33.6 billion per second theoretical maximum when summed with CPU operations
* 1 TFLOPS theoretical peak performance of CPU and GPU combined


You can think I'm biased all you want, but I still just owned you hardcore. Facts are facts, the Xbox 360 GPU owns anything on PS3 or PCs for a while to come.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26945

Quote:
The sentiment is that many software developers will step towards the Xbox 360. Thanks to their inherent similarities 360 developers could also develop PC titles without incurring high R&D costs.


http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31162

Quote:
One thing he did say was that porting from Windows to the 360 was a fairly quick task. However PS3 versions required redeveloping the game almost from scratch. As an aside, this means that there will be no chance of anyone seeing Final Fantasy XI on the PS3.


Sony does not develop operating systems and hardware to work together beautifully. Microsoft grabbed a PC with some kick-ass hardware, and slapped their label on it. PS3 was built from scratch to include the oh-so-mighty "Cell" processor, which is good for absolutely nothing outside of gaming, (not to mention the HORRIBLE wafer yields, thus resulting in a limited and EXPENSIVE supply).

They so clumsily forgot that, oh, right . . . on consoles with a dedicated GPU, your 9-core CPU with insane multithreading won't make a damned difference. It's like running an FX-60 processor with an MX4000 graphics card and expecting some miracle to happen.

Quote:
Rockstar announced a dual release of the next GTA video game on both xbox360 and ps3.


It will not in fact be a dual-release. GTA 4 will come as an Xbox 360 release many months before PS3.

Quote:
While each of the nine processing cores can sustain 25.6 GB/s read and write concurrently, the memory interface controller (MIC) is tied to a pair of XDR memory channels permitting a maximum flow of 25.6 GB/s for reads and writes combined and the two IO controllers are documented as supporting a peak combined input speed of 25.6 GB/s and a peak combined output speed of 35 GB/s.


The cell processor is a lot of fun for games . . . and pretty much otherwise worthless. 9 cores? Yeah the engineers just got bored on that one.

Quote:
Both the PPE and SPE are RISC architectures with a fixed-width 32-bit instruction format. The PPE contains a 64-bit general purpose register set (GPR), a 64-bit floating point register set (FPR), and a 128-bit VMX register set. The SPE contains 128-bit registers only. These can be used for scalar data types ranging from 8-bits to 128-bits in size or for SIMD computations on a variety of integer and floating point formats. System memory addresses for both the PPE and SPE are expressed as 64-bit values for a theoretic address range of 2^64 bytes. In practice, not all of these bits are implemented in hardware; the address space is extremely large nevertheless. Local store addresses internal to the SPU processor are expressed as a 32-bit word. In documentation relating to Cell a word is always taken to mean 32 bits, a doubleword means 64 bits, and a quadword means 128 bits.


Again, as fun as a RISC architecture sounds . . . it's a BITCH to port from x86 to RISC. That's why IA64 failed as an architecture in the face of AMD's x86-64. What Sony is asking is like asking for an IA32 port to an IA64 port. It's just stupid.

The processor is essentially a CRAY piece of 9-cored RISC hardware with a crappy graphics card that requires different software and is not as capable as the Xbox 360. Dual-platform release for Xbox 360 and PC will be common. Dev's pretty much hate having to recode shit for RISC architectures, from x86 which is why I'm telling you unless they can get Cell yields up and supply there for the demand those n00bs will have for it and can show a significant marketshare of the PS3, it's going straight downhill, not to mention, by the way, that the graphics suck. Sure the PowerPC architecture is RISC, however due to its inherent similarities to current x86 designs, it's extremely easy to port over since it qualifies similar instruction sets. I wouldn't doubt a 3 core RISC CPU woul dhave a core dedicated to processing x86 instructions directly to RISC. This is what Intel could, and SHOULD have done with Itanium. Yeah, an x86 fully IA32 compatible Itanium would pretty much rock the house.

Quote:
That's strange. My brother's 7900 GT can handle max settings with 4xAA and Bloom perfectly in Oblivion. Of course I used the NGO optimized drivers (84.56 I believe), and I set the max frames to render ahead to 0. That grass is awfully pretty, let me tell you. Oh yeah - that gpu cost $300. The machine cost $1300 in all, but that's with 2 DVD Burners and 2 Hard Drives. What consoles do they do well, but the right PC can do just as good a job.


LOL you find me one Nvidia card that has the technical capability to run full HDR and FSAA simultaneously, I'll send you $100 via paypal, buddy.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30885

Quote:
We tried it with X1800 GTO and X1900XTX and it worked perfectly, but is naturally much better on X1900XTX. Right now, none of the Nvidia Geforce six or seven series support HDR + FSAA which is a huge quality loss for the big green camp.


It is a hardware limitation. In an effort to save transistors in the die, nVidia implemented fewer ALUs than necessary to run all features simultaneously. In this case, a single ALU would be contended for MSAA and for HDR when using the fp32 pixel format. Consequently the necessary choice is one or the other feature, or fp16 format instead if you want both. Most games are not programmed to work around this limitation because it creates extra work for the developer.

The functions that would usually be accomplished by the missing ALU can be duplicated by other ALUs used for executing pixel shaders. However this means that instead of a hardware implementation the process is accomplished using a shader program which adds extra overhead to the procedure and consequently makes it slower than it would be in the preferred full-hardware implementation.

Your GPU gets the buttseckzed via the software, killing your FPS. Modified drivers will do it, but technically, Nvidia DOES NOT have the capability to do it.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Boo hoo "the_guy". You people need to get your shit straightened out before you start saying I'm wrong. There's a total of about 4 other people I've seen here so far that actually get into these discussions and KNOW what they're talking about. Why argue something you don't know anything about? Don't give into fanboyism, it's a load of crap. I'm right, you're wrong, and PS3 still sucks, so suck on that.
May 15, 2006 11:40:29 AM

Quote:
That's strange. My brother's 7900 GT can handle max settings with 4xAA and Bloom perfectly in Oblivion. Of course I used the NGO optimized drivers (84.56 I believe), and I set the max frames to render ahead to 0. That grass is awfully pretty, let me tell you. Oh yeah - that gpu cost $300. The machine cost $1300 in all, but that's with 2 DVD Burners and 2 Hard Drives. What consoles do they do well, but the right PC can do just as good a job.


Its like you guys are in denial, or getting away from my point. What im pointing out, yes, im sure your brothers 7900 can handle it max settings, just like my card can..but you guys leave out how slow it starts to run in outside environments. how can you be happy with that? They can do just as good as job, maybe in about a year or 2. As of now, looking at the unreal 3 engine on ps3 for brothers in arms Hells Highway and such, i really, honestly, cant see how you can get much better than that. everyone always says "just wait 3-4 years, PC will fly past that...but cmon, enough is enough. It seems like the ps3, will be good enough for years and years and years graphically wise. You really cant get any better than that. Why are you guys backing up the pc so much now a days? Like i said, im a pc gamer, but when you start takling like your protecting your children from insults, thats getting out of hand.


Quote:
1. PCs are more than just for gaming.

2. Game consoles are sold at a loss. Money is made by selling games.


I get that same line everytime i talk about a topic like this...We all know pcs are more than just for gaming....but what are we talking about here? games. nothing more. nothing less. and 2. who cares where the money is made, im a consumer, i want amazing graphics + smooth playability

Quote:
well you really cant say anything about the 360 or ps3 because they set them to at max 30 fps because simply tvs arent made to render at extremely high frame rates because the fps on a tv in europe is 30 and here in america is only 24 so it really doesnt matter how many freaking fps you get in oblivion it is more on the detail of it and how well you percieve in on a larger tv compared to a computer monitor. One other thing is that Sony and Microsoft are acctually losing money when they sell their consoles because they know people will be spending $60 on games that costs them like a dollar to produce, all their profit comes from game sales. and all the consoles are based off pc, hell the 360 only has 512 mb of ddr3, fast but now our graphics cards have that and most people now have 2 gigs of system memory. im sorry if im a little biast but i have owned a lot of consoles and i am not impressed by them. o and i can get 30fps with hdr on full and 8xAA from a freaking X850XT so shut up.


and again with the technical jargon, i dont care what a tv can do, I see what i see, and what i see is next gen consols have amazing graphics + smooth game play... and telling me to shut up because your angry that im stating a fact that pcs are getting out of hand with prices vs weak hardware is taking it over the top.

Quote:
I think that right there is one of the best statements. ATI and Nvidia dont sell games, therefore they cant sell there cards below cost, expecting games to make them money like sony and MS can. (i.e. isnt ps3 worth like a grand but selling at 500?)


So, you work for nvidia, this is how you know all this? THey have all the technology and money in the wolrd to create a nuclear bomb. How do you expect they have onstage demos of games coming out in 2007 like CRSYS, one of the best looking games iv ever seen in my life, probably THE best looking game. With completely ultra smooth gameplay, almost like your watching a movie. You know thats no 7800 running that nor a 1900xtx. the game would eat those cards for breakfast. So , if they have the technology to run these games that are more than a year in advanced graphically..why not release it then?BECAUSE, thats marketing for you, which is why they have us spending 500 bucks on video cards now. They arnt stupid, consumers are.

Quote:
Sure its a $400 piece of hardware, but you need a $1,000+ TV to get the most out of it.


again another statement i see in every single forum with a topic like this...i have a monitor, i intend to use it.

you just took so many people out of context.

And the TV FPS thing is partially correct, I think most Cathode Ray TV's max out at the equivelant of 40 or 50fps. The 30 and 27fps the other guy posted is just what the images are transmitted at.
May 15, 2006 12:20:35 PM

Hey, hey, between you and me, I'm pretty sure this thread is done for, hehehe, oh and by the way, those of you that argued with me,
May 15, 2006 12:29:36 PM

Quote:
40 Shader operations per cycle across the entire shader array
o Shader performance: 48 billion (48,000 million) shader operations per second (96 shader operations x 500 MHz)


So one second they're saying it can only handle 40 shader operations per clock, the next they're claiming 96 per clock?

If the Xbox-360 GPU is so wonderful, why don't ATI stick it on a PCI-Express card and sell it for PCs? After all, since no PC card will catch up to it for years, they'd totally own the PC GPU market by doing so, right?

Or maybe it's rather less powerful than the console fans keep making it out to be. I'm sure those of us over twelve years old remember exactly the same claims being made about previous consoles, which turned out to be nonsense as expected.
May 15, 2006 12:56:51 PM

Quote:
40 Shader operations per cycle across the entire shader array
o Shader performance: 48 billion (48,000 million) shader operations per second (96 shader operations x 500 MHz)


So one second they're saying it can only handle 40 shader operations per clock, the next they're claiming 96 per clock?

If the Xbox-360 GPU is so wonderful, why don't ATI stick it on a PCI-Express card and sell it for PCs? After all, since no PC card will catch up to it for years, they'd totally own the PC GPU market by doing so, right?

Or maybe it's rather less powerful than the console fans keep making it out to be. I'm sure those of us over twelve years old remember exactly the same claims being made about previous consoles, which turned out to be nonsense as expected.

You're kidding, right? Both Nvidia and ATI have the technology to outrun even the Xbox 360 GPU. It's a matter of marketing. They already spent R&D money on this tech, they're getting what we call RIO, or Return on Investment.

40 ops is non-redundant shader calls. Redundancy, (which is pretty much what happens all the time in games, so it's basically what counts) gives you 96/sec. However if you were to call each individual one non-repeating, you would have 40 per cycle.

You can't seriously be suggesting that a company release the best product just because they have it. Know how much money they'd make? they'd have an incredible Q1, and then they'd go horribly into debt and bankrupt because they can't pay for additional R&D since they have to cover the costs of R&D for previous gen GPU tech and current gen GPU tech. DER.

If you require further clarification on the GPU:
http://www.beyond3d.com/articles/xenos/index.php?p=02
May 15, 2006 1:22:40 PM

LOL, people kill me with the Console vs PC war..
FACT NUMBER 1. I can get a 21inch crt monitor, that will blow the resolution of ANY tv away, for $300.
Fact number 2. BOTH the consoles , however powerful they are, still cannot play mmogs online, like my pc.
Fact number 3. The KILLER,, I can always upgrade my pc, when it slows down, or when new tech comes out..

Myth number 1. CONSOLES are faster, well yah, they are if you have a noob computer.
Myth number 2. Consoles you can go online, WHOPPDDII do, so i can see nba live stats????
If you buy a PC, just to game on it, then yah, you are a rich guy, BUT then again, you may want the most indepth, gaming experience avaliable.
Consoles have their place, as well as pc's...

BUT as far as graphics, lol,, if i turned down my resoultion to what a console produces, then yah, they are even, HDTV, blah, who cares, you are still at 1280x1024 (I tHINK), IE< WHAT a native resolution is for a cheappooo lcd..

me, what i see in 4 years, is
1., Surround gaming finally hitting really hard.
2. Physix's or havok, or whoever hitting hard with the physics...
(1 and 2) are now, but should be killer in 1-2 years..

3. I can forsee more hightech, IO devices, IT , smart headsets. 3rd screen gaming, for stats, comm, etccc..
4. The sound of pc gamming, is gonna get even more indepth..

LAST BUT NOT LEAST. if 4 years ago a gf 4200 was the top dog, and now we have the 7900 gtx (not to mention sli, and quad sli).
Can you even imagine what we will have in gpus by then, LET ALONE CPU's.. 2k2 i believe was the p3 era, with p4's JUST comming on, now we are at the dual cores, 3+ghz??
please, console has its market, pc has its..

But you cannot honestly say a console looks better resolution vs resolution than a pc.. I mean oblivion, yah, ok, but how about BF2. THat single game, caused many of people to go buy new gpu's, just like oblivion is.. EVERY single xbox360, and ps3, title, i have seen, is a remake, (OTHER THAN obliviion).. I am sure after 17 john madden footballs, they should have good graphics..

Next year, the console is gonna be obsolite just like they predict..
Sure the ps3, will have all its bells and whistles, but do you think the pc, is gonna just stop, being madE?
May 15, 2006 1:48:13 PM

Quote:

8O Another Exact Thought, I think, people who fight his/her console against the Computer, is because they realised, their investment was WRONG.-
I Have a PS2, and the only reason for me to bought it, was FF, MK and GT Series, where only on that Plataform, But for me to say, that NFSU Series from 1 to MW, Where better on the PS2 just because I Have one, is nonesense, even when they where new, I Have a nice PC Setup, and NOTHING is better than that, when it comes to be inmerse in Something, Consoles had its time, when buying a Nice PC was like Buying a Car, but NOW, please give me a Breake, Even I, that I live in Argentina, can afford to buy a Dual Core and a 7900 GT, with 2GBRAM, Oblivion Maxed Out at 1280x1024 in my 19LCD 8) is Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than in a 360 at 720P, (almost half the resolution)

Long Live the SNES.- :D 
May 15, 2006 2:25:55 PM

Why the super crazy insanely long posts? I'm not going to read all that!

Heck, just get both a PC and an XBox 360 plus a HD projector and you're all set :lol: 
May 15, 2006 3:20:01 PM

You're annoying 8)
May 15, 2006 3:21:47 PM

Quote:
And typically it seems to me PC games cost less. I bought Oblivion for $39.99 right when it was released.


Same but I got the Collector's Edition for PC for $39.99. 8)
May 15, 2006 3:30:50 PM

Quote:
RIO, or Return on Investment


quoted for hilarity.

What you've got to understand is that WE DON'T GIVE A DAMN. We like building PCs, upgrading, getting the most out of them, tinkering with them. If you want to get your black box and just take what you get, have at it. We're going to keep spending some of our time learning about how things actually work and how to improve them. We really, REALLY don't give a sh*t where you spend your money.

I'm a little sorry that the consoles have come to this though. I liked buying console ports because they ran well on midrange hardware (which I've always owned) because consoles were midrange hardware. The games were made efficient because they had to be.
!