Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

consoles are (unfortunatly) starting to look good...

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 26, 2007 7:36:49 PM

after the devastating news of the 2900xtx cock up, i'm seriously starting to consider grabbing a ps3 or 360, i mean these monstrous dx10 cards barely seem up to the task of rendering DX9 GAMES at max in HD (oblivion, barely gets 30fps, battelfield 2142 just scraping 60) let alone the(presumably) more demanding dx10 titles to come out! seems that if anyone wants crisis at full hd, it'll take either 2 very expensive graphics cards or you'll need to turn the graphics down so much it'll end up looking like farcry... such a shame for only a few select rich people see beautiful games in all their glory.

whereas if i was to get a ps3 i would have full hd garrented (can't spell) out of the box, for all future titles too. I know what i'm saying will annoy a lot of you, i annoy myself if saying it but it in my opinion it seems that if you have any sort of hd screen, consoles are the way to go
April 26, 2007 7:45:20 PM

There was devastating 2900XTX news?
April 26, 2007 7:49:32 PM

Quote:
There was devastating 2900XTX news?


That's what I was thinking.

To the OP: Do tell us of this "devastating" news. :roll:
Related resources
April 26, 2007 7:52:05 PM

Quote:
There was devastating 2900XTX news?


That's what I was thinking.

To the OP: Do tell us of this "devastating" news. :roll:

OMG 8O Don't tell me it lost the baby?!?

Sorry. Been watching too many soaps.
April 26, 2007 7:52:18 PM

according to dailytech (don;t have a link) it's barely better than a gts, 8800gtx wipes it out in everything, even the 2900xt beats it in half the benchmarks! how does a card that had 6 months more development into it still not beat its competitor?!!
p.s you'll find the link somewhere, theres a few threads about it open now
April 26, 2007 8:00:31 PM

The website cleary said 2800, not 2900.

Edit

nvm...
April 26, 2007 8:01:42 PM

Ohh you must mean this BLOG "article".

Seriously, you're not living up to your name Jordan.
April 26, 2007 8:12:08 PM

nope, definatly says 2900 and it seems believable, i heard dailytech's an affiliate of anandtech and i haven't seen an incorrect article from them in the short time i've been reading them


edit: accounts for the ridiculous delays aswell, although i suppose they're not unheard of in this industry
a b U Graphics card
April 26, 2007 8:25:52 PM

Hey, I wouldn't trust this preliminary benchmark. Their numbers have been all over the place. Not to mention Anand is blocked by the NDA, so this is purely Daily's doing. Someone who seemed to be "in the know" (he said he was also blocked by the NDA) said dailytech's stuff was garbage. Wait for the official reviews. These sad results may prove true, but these tests aren't that proof.

As to your PS3 comment, you realize that it is just a 7000 series NVidia with the graphics turned down. It's not that great.
April 26, 2007 8:34:11 PM

As much as i love the playstation brand, the whole HD thing is a bit of a joke,

hardly any PS3 games will run at full hd (1080p) for a hell of a long time, i think the only thing that has come close is the Gran turismo tech demo,

so HD is not a reason to get a ps3, (although there are many others)
April 26, 2007 8:42:14 PM

first of all, omnislash- what a fantastic name! i cant believe no-one has thought up that, awesome, cloud rules! secondly, i was unaware that no game had achieved full hd yet, i presumed that because it could do full hd, they would ship every game with that capability.

and ext64, i was ignorant to what you said aswell. i'll think again before i believe dailytech, and i hope to hell that they're wrong.

Does anyone know when everyone's going to get back from tunisia and start publishing some facts?
a b U Graphics card
April 26, 2007 8:46:34 PM

Daily may be a good site, but when they posted a day or two ago that a 2900XT was 47.9FPS in Oblivion and today it is 100+, I wonder if they rushed to publish these results and messed up a little.

I believe Tunisia is over, however the NDA is far from over.
April 26, 2007 8:49:03 PM

Quote:
As to your PS3 comment, you realize that it is just a 7000 series NVidia with the graphics turned down. It's not that great.


At the local gamestop they have a PS3 running some ATV vs Dirtbikes or some crap like that, and it looks amazing, if it's only a 7000 series then either it's optimized to hell and back, or they have it running in HD

Curious, does 780 look any better then standard television, all i ever hear is 1080, but my tv. only supports 780 :( 
April 26, 2007 9:00:39 PM

Regular analog television has a bunch of crappy standards. Standard digital is from 704x480 to 640x480 I believe, all interlaced.

EDTV - enhanced definition TV is 720x480 progressive (480p)

HDTV - High Definiiton TV is 1280x720 (720i or 720p) or 1920x1080 (1080i or 1080p)
April 26, 2007 9:03:50 PM

Quote:
after the devastating news of the 2900xtx **** up, i'm seriously starting to consider grabbing a ps3 or 360, i mean these monstrous dx10 cards barely seem up to the task of rendering DX9 GAMES at max in HD (oblivion, barely gets 30fps, battelfield 2142 just scraping 60) let alone the(presumably) more demanding dx10 titles to come out! seems that if anyone wants crisis at full hd, it'll take either 2 very expensive graphics cards or you'll need to turn the graphics down so much it'll end up looking like farcry... such a shame for only a few select rich people see beautiful games in all their glory.

whereas if i was to get a ps3 i would have full hd garrented (can't spell) out of the box, for all future titles too. I know what i'm saying will annoy a lot of you, i annoy myself if saying it but it in my opinion it seems that if you have any sort of hd screen, consoles are the way to go


moron,

first of all, oblivion is VASTLY superior in terms of graphics to any game on the X360 or PS3. Secondly, both the 360 and PS3 have a maximum resolution of 1920x1080. When you consider that 1600x1200 is quickly becoming the standard in gaming AND that your monitor is already HD, they both suck. since most u console losers still game on 480i, of couse it looks better. it looks better because ur TV looks like shi*t. Go hook up ur PC to ur shite TV and see how oblivion looks. i think you'll find it makes the PS3 and X360 look like junk.

go off and get ur lame console. PC gaming will ALWAYS be more advanced and more engaging. next generation games don't get released on consoles, they get released on PC. consoles and console games emulate PC's.
April 26, 2007 9:13:44 PM

and here we go yet again... :roll: :roll:
April 26, 2007 9:14:45 PM

If you get a 360, 26 or so inch samsung wide screen lcd, and a the keyboard/mouse adapter for the 360 you've got yourself a very pc-like set up, not to mention you'll be beating the crap out of everyone on xbox live with the mouse and keyboard.
April 26, 2007 9:21:14 PM

I think consoles are great, my 8 year old boy has one. :D 
April 26, 2007 9:31:52 PM

Have you showed him Oblivion maxed out on a 30" LCD display? He'll never go near a console again...
April 26, 2007 9:37:53 PM

Quote:
Regular analog television has a bunch of crappy standards. Standard digital is from 704x480 to 640x480 I believe, all interlaced.

EDTV - enhanced definition TV is 720x480 progressive (480p)

HDTV - High Definiiton TV is 1280x720 (720i or 720p) or 1920x1080 (1080i or 1080p)


so would it be better to play games on my HDTV or my LCD ?

Assuming the graphics card was able to pull off HD

(i have the 720i or 720p, not sure which)
April 26, 2007 9:45:26 PM

Well my screen is only 22 inches. Though my 4yr old boy is often kicking me off of my computer so he can drive an ultralight on the road with the cars in FSX.
April 26, 2007 9:45:30 PM

I love this guys logic -- "The latest graphics card from ATI isn't performing better then the G80, therefore consoles must look better in terms of graphics!" No, consoles shouldn't be compared to PCs, for whatever reason. They are COMPLETELY different platforms with different targeted markets.

For that matter, Oblivion on a PS3 or Xbox 360 doesn't look better on a PC. Grab a decent 22" widescreen monitor running at 1680x1050, a few mods from TES Source, and you'll have FAR superior video quality then what either the PS3 or Xbox 360 can offer.
April 26, 2007 9:48:13 PM

first of all the cards have not been released yet so its foolish to say anything about them till we see actual benchmarks. and the ps3 isnt that amazing. a ps3 doesnt show nearly as much detail in oblivion as an 8800gtx. last time i checked it needed a workaround to reach 1080p. stop throwing around hd. its getting annoying. hd only means that it outputs to a high resolution. a resolution that computers have long since passed 2560x1600.

p.s. i remember reading about an interview with the developers of crysis. unoptimized it was able to run on what ppl here would consider mid-high end just fine.

p.p.s. i'd rather hook up my microfly to a "hd screen" than buy a ps3.
April 26, 2007 9:56:28 PM

lmao, you guys have some funny sig quotes P4 core duo and wat not, lmao, class

Any recent GPU can handle HD no problem, its whether or not its powerful to make it look good or not is the question

Problem with PC games is theyre not optimised and are very generic so they can run on most PC hardware

Oblivion on my rig with AA disabled and @ 1680x1050 with everything turned up is pants in the outdoor scenes, apparently the PS3 version suffers from framerate issues also, just think if Oblivion was written specifically for my rig, on outdoor sceens they could reduce texture sizes and quality slightly, balance the load on 2 cores and a bit of funky programming and id be running at 50FPS in the outdoor scenes

I reckon for high settings Crysis will run fine @1680x1050 on a 650Meg 8800GTS and will require something from next year to run on very high, with the GTX being somewhere between high and very high, even running on a 8800GTX it makes bits of any 'next gen' consoles gfx( going from the videos they've released )
a b U Graphics card
April 26, 2007 10:07:13 PM

Quote:
i'm seriously starting to consider grabbing a ps3 or 360, i mean these monstrous dx10 cards barely seem up to the task of rendering DX9 GAMES at max in HD (oblivion, barely gets 30fps, battelfield 2142 just scraping 60) let alone the(presumably) more demanding dx10 titles to come out! seems that if anyone wants crisis at full hd, it'll take either 2 very expensive graphics cards or you'll need to turn the graphics down so much it'll end up looking like farcry... such a shame for only a few select rich people see beautiful games in all their glory.

How many fps do you think the 360 or PS3 get in Oblivion? How many do they get in BF2142? And how many will they get in Crysis? LOL, It seems to me you mentioned 2 PC only games, and a third that a high end PC is better at. Why is it the consoles are looking good? :tongue:
April 26, 2007 10:13:25 PM

:?: :?: :?:

wtf

:?: :?: :?:

April 27, 2007 12:14:05 AM

lol, nice pic
April 27, 2007 12:28:53 AM

Do what you think is best...................


All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse.
a b U Graphics card
April 27, 2007 12:50:10 AM

In reply to the original post. The PS3 is only good at ONE thing and that is crunching numbers (look at foldings@home) this is thanks to its custom Cell architecture. PC's are capable of doing multi tasking(burn dvd's, gaming, web,etc) so in turn the PC's are better.
April 27, 2007 1:02:51 AM

its all based on your opinions, really. but for anyone who wants flexibility in a system, computers really seem like the only logical choice. to me. as in that is my opinion.
a b U Graphics card
April 27, 2007 2:03:23 AM

Quote:
In reply to the original post. The PS3 is only good at ONE thing and that is crunching numbers (look at foldings@home) this is thanks to its custom Cell architecture.


The ATi X1900 crunches F@H numbers better, look at their folding results in comparison. :twisted:

If nV could get the G80 to fold properly it'd probably pummel the PS3 even further, and then the HD2900 even more so.
April 27, 2007 2:24:11 AM

My 104" projection screen is limited to 1280 by 720, both the Xbox and PC look the same. A 20" monitor can't come close to the 104" experience no matter what resolution it can play at. I choose the platform that has better gameplay, not which one has the better FPS or resolution. Most of the time it's the Xbox.

Declaring the PC as a no contest winner may be fine if all you want to do is brag to your friends about how fast your rig is with the newest game. When you mature and actually care about the enjoyment of the experience, not just how it looks, I have 3 extra seats and controllers in the theater room (try that with a PC).
April 27, 2007 2:35:56 AM

Quote:
I have 3 extra seats and controllers in the theater room (try that with a PC).

ehh??????????????? hold on 'till i look in my impossible hat for that on PC, ohh look there it is, ohhh and it can support as many controllers as i have USB ports, ohh also i can have a better resolution, ohh and sound, hymph

Im all for gameplay too but you've just negated yourself, the gameplay is identical on oblivion, i still use a few emulators and play my old favourites, so im not about gfx and what not, bottom line is PC's are a lot more capable than consoles and always will be, it absolutely is stupid to disagree, however consoles are good at what they do( although theyre getting worse in my opinion ), and thats throw in a disc and youre playing in a minute or two in your living room, the experience is much better with a few mates coming back from the pub.

I have a PS1 & PS2 so im not in any way anti console and ive been playing FF12 for the past while, some games and situations are better on PC, others are better on console, the world is big enough for both, although i dont like the direction xbox360 & Praystation 3 are taking with downloadable patches, some installation to harddrive and what not
Its reducing the need for devs to release near perfect non crashing games to releasing software thats not quite ready and if it keeps going the same will happen as with the PC world, release unfinished software and patch later

I dont want to come back from the pub, decide to take on others in tekken online to find out i need to download then install a patch first
a b U Graphics card
April 27, 2007 2:54:04 AM

Quote:
I have 3 extra seats and controllers in the theater room (try that with a PC).

That's great for sports games. Which while I'll admit goes to the consoles, I have still done the same with FIFA soccer or NHL Hockey on the PC with my HTPC. Otherwise split screen multiplayer sux on consoles IMO, a LAN is so much better. I lack space now, but used to have 9 computers running on my home LAN, setup for 8 players and a dedicated host. Took up a ton of space, but it's a blast when friends come over. Try that with consoles. :wink:
a b U Graphics card
April 27, 2007 3:05:16 AM

Umm, try this on a console.



:twisted:


Oh and PS, Consoles and Console threads SUCK around these parts.
Elsewhere they may be tolerable, probably in the place they belong. :wink:
April 27, 2007 3:09:05 AM

The real issue here isn't what is better. The issue is this is the pc gpu forum. The console forum is here. The last post was 5 days ago. Consoles and pc's are two different things.


Starting these threads is useless. While you're at it why not head over to this forum to tell them you are unhappy with your powerstroke diesel and are making the switch to go-carts.
a b U Graphics card
April 27, 2007 3:18:36 AM

LOL, you need to photshop the TDT #'s, or get somebody to snap another pic on a GF8! :wink:
a b U Graphics card
April 27, 2007 3:23:05 AM

Yeah I could get an update, but I doubt anyone but the original player would notice. :twisted:
April 27, 2007 3:26:15 AM

Halo is great 4 player, as well as splinter cell 2 player co-op.
Quote:
9 computers running on my home LAN, setup for 8 players and a dedicated host. Took up a ton of space, but it's a blast when friends come over. Try that with consoles.
I regularly have my friends over and have 4 or more xboxes networked, that's 16 players (though usually only about 10) all networked, and I don't need 10 top of the line gaming rigs.

Quote:
Im all for gameplay too but you've just negated yourself, the gameplay is identical on oblivion
and in my theater they look identical too.... so am I gonna get a $400 xbox or a $1200 computer?
Quote:
it can support as many controllers as i have USB ports
how many PC games can use all those controllers?
Quote:
ohh also i can have a better resolution
that was my whole argument, If I want 104" screen the resolution is the same.
Quote:
ohh and sound, hymph
Is your PC hooked up to 600 watts of 7.1 channel surround in a perfectly tuned room?

I'm not saying I don't like computers or don't use them to play games and everything else as well. My point is that if you want ultra high resolution you're limited to about 32" of vision, not an immersive theater gameplay experience. Most of the posts on here sound like consoles were invented by the devil and should be melted down.
Consoles have a focus and that is gameplay. Computers are always going to be more advanced but too often games are thrown together just to show off the latest DirectX bells and whistles until the next tech comes out. consoles have more stable hardware so developers concentrate more on the game not the tech.

If you like the newest DirectX mumbo jumbo and the way your games play, fine....I'm not going to tell you not to play on your newest greatest fastest triple vid card 1000W wonder. I would just appreciate you not telling me or anyone else that there's no reason to play our consoles.
April 27, 2007 3:37:14 AM

Not all of us have a theatre room with a 104" projector :o 

I do agree with the poster on his point that, an 8800GTX can reach about 50 frames in oblivion, correct? I'm not saying that it's any better on a console, but for a next generation GPU, it should destroy today's games. And yes, oblivion is something else compared to games out now, but so will these new games starting to appear. I don't own an 8800, and I am an FPS gamer so I do need to a certain extent, very good hardware. I don't want to run around in crysis with 50fps. Any other FPS player would know what I'm talking about.
April 27, 2007 3:44:53 AM

....... the ps3 and 360 versions of oblivion still have performance issues......

the 360 version puts out 30fps max and same with the ps3
a b U Graphics card
April 27, 2007 3:47:13 AM

Quote:
and in my theater they look identical too....


Then either your theatre or computer suck. :roll:

Quote:
that was my whole argument, If I want 104" screen the resolution is the same.


Only a console hack would think that. :roll:

Remember we're not talking about upscaling or downscaling we're talking about per pixel resolution.

BTW, when was the last time you played a game in 3840x1024 or 3072x768 resolution? Ever?

Quote:
My point is that if you want ultra high resolution you're limited to about 32" of vision, not an immersive theater gameplay experience.


32" of vision? Only if you're looking through a hole in the box the console came in. You must be thinking of 32' , might be worth commenting on, but resolution and features are the trump card every time.

Quote:
Most of the posts on here sound like consoles were invented by the devil and should be melted down.


Nah, they just don't belong in a graphics forum, where there is no console that can match the capabilities of the GF80, so the issue is dead and buried and these discussions belong in their rightful place console land, where people don't know about things like AF and Shader Effects, and Texture mods.

Quote:
Consoles have a focus and that is gameplay.


My laptop's a better gamer than my Xbox, and I bet my next Laptop will be better than all the current consoles out there too. The only advantage that consoles have are titles that are locked in and not allowed to be ported to PCs.

Quote:
consoles have more stable hardware


Tell that to Crashing X360 and PS3 owners.

Quote:
so developers concentrate more on the game not the tech.


Nah it's the singularity of the hardware that was once their strong point, they weren't more stable, they just had to design for one model, but now you have many models, and also you have this wonderful thing like cross-platform development tools from M$ and nV that make it so games can be develped just as easily for both.

Quote:
If you like the newest DirectX mumbo jumbo and the way your games play, fine....


DirectX mumbo jumbo and especially gameplay, are what it's all about. If not about 'the way your games play' then what else is there? The way they sit quietly on the shelf when not in use? Stack neatly in their Green or Black boxes?

Quote:
I would just appreciate you not telling me or anyone else that there's no reason to play our consoles.


And I appreciate you and your console friends taking this to the appropriate forum, because in this one there is no debate Top PC graphics Cards > Top Console Graphics chips, PERIOD!

I love my consoles, but I don't come down to the console forum and spam you lot about how much better Oblivion and other games look on a PC, so I'd appreciate you not do that in this forum.

SOUND FAIR?!? :?:
a b U Graphics card
April 27, 2007 3:50:58 AM

Quote:
Halo is great 4 player, as well as splinter cell 2 player co-op.

How can split screen be great? I have never tried Halo, but other shooters I have tried on split screen define lame IMO. (at least compared to a PC LAN)

Quote:
I regularly have my friends over and have 4 or more xboxes networked, that's 16 players (though usually only about 10) all networked, and I don't need 10 top of the line gaming rigs.
4 on 4 or 8 on 8 with two or four xbox's sounds like it could be alot of fun. I myself could never get over the gamepad feel though. (shooters need a KB and mouse for me) Plus there is a benfit to having the entire screen image to yourself. But I can see if only teammates shared your screeen, it could be fun. You don't need 10 top of the line PC gamers though. SHoot, splitscreen gaming on the 360 isn't top of the line graphics either. So 7600GT X1650XT caliber cards do quite well.

The rest was quoted from someone else, so I won't repsond.
April 27, 2007 6:13:31 AM

Quote:
Im all for gameplay too but you've just negated yourself, the gameplay is identical on oblivion
and in my theater they look identical too.... so am I gonna get a $400 xbox or a $1200 computer?


hmm lets see.

shuttle bare bones sff for about $130.
amd x2 3600 for about $70.
120 gig hdd for about $40.
dvd drive for about $20. (could get fancy and go with a burner)
1 gig of ram for about $50.
7900gs for about $135.

thats about $450 and will give you similar performance. where'd you get $1200?
April 27, 2007 6:42:06 AM

first off, the 360 and ps3 have a few cons

games are 60 bucks- then you have to shell out extra for DLC

2nd, max res is 720p, that's 1280x720 which is pretty weak.. my current monitor that i use for both my pc and 360 is 1680x1050p...

the 360 looks a little blurry when running on it compared to my pc games.

second, the benchy fps you mentioned were with everything set at max, the ps3 and 360 absolutely do not have max settings, and the game looks much much better on a high end pc- i know this first hand :) 

also, that's will the AA cranked all the way up, way way up, far higher than consoles go.

to be honest, the ps3 and 360 would probably only get 5 fps in battlefield running at that high of a resolution with the jaggie reducers set that high.

if you want halo 3, you'll have to get a 360...

if you want lair you'll have to get a ps3.

basically, if you're a hardcore gamer, you have to buy a new pc at least every 2 years, and you have to own all the game consoles if you want to play all the games.

but... i guarantee you, oblivion on a 7 month old 600$ 8800 will look much much better than on the ps3 or 360.

you are forced to buy them all, and i'm sorry :) 
April 27, 2007 7:02:45 AM

consoles suck pc rulezs and is the last word brother.... :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
April 27, 2007 7:38:34 AM

Could someone please kill this stupid thread?
April 27, 2007 10:34:59 AM

Quote:
Im all for gameplay too but you've just negated yourself, the gameplay is identical on oblivion
and in my theater they look identical too.... so am I gonna get a $400 xbox or a $1200 computer?


hmm lets see.

shuttle bare bones sff for about $130.
amd x2 3600 for about $70.
120 gig hdd for about $40.
dvd drive for about $20. (could get fancy and go with a burner)
1 gig of ram for about $50.
7900gs for about $135.

thats about $450 and will give you similar performance. where'd you get $1200?

seem to have forgotten the 120 os.

you also forgot the mouse and the keyboard.

120 gig HDD? for 40? lolz. wtf. try 70 minimum, on sale.

if you think the pc you just listed would run a pc version of gears of war or oblivion at 720p with the same quality as the 360, you're out of your mind.

PC's are way fucking more expensive than consoles for a host of reasons.

first, developers all work with the exact same version of a console. the 360 is the same machine, with 3 different storage options.

it's still the same hardware in every meaningful way to a dev.

this means that they can push each consoles individual abilities to the max.

with pc's the game has to run on millions of possible configurations.

secondly, the 360 and ps3 are being sold at a loss by the console makers, the pc parts you buy all make profit, the vendor, the maker.

3rd, when ms or sony contracts IBM to make a chip for them, IBM gives them a huge discount for their volume business, which they obviously want to have.

if you were to try to buy the individual pieces of a 360 on newegg (which you'd never be able to find, obviously) the prices would be 2 times as much, because you aren't buying them in bulk.

to recap, even despite the huge discount a console maker gets on every single component of their console, the consoles are still sold at a loss of profit.

the money the consumer spends on a game console, is 5 times more efficient than the money spent on a pc.

when the 360 released, you got call of duty 2.

1 year later you got gears of war.

day and night difference.

the reason is because of the uniformity of the hardware.

as time progress, game graphics on a console continue to get better.

2 years from now, the 8800 and the R600 won't be able to run games that look as good as console games do, because consoles are constantly pushed and exploited further, while pc hardware can't be.

now, i do own a high end computer, and i buy a new one to replace my old one every year, so i'm not against pc gaming....

i'm simply saying, it costs a fuck of a lot more, and is the epitome of 'rip off' to try and be a pc gamer, being that you have to replace your stuff once a year to run with all the bells and whistles.

console? once every 5 years, and it's 1/6 the price as well... not to mention the graphics of your games get better and better as the years pass.

if you want the best of the best, you have to pay the price.

lets be real, with no bullshit- pc gaming is way way way more expensive, and high end pc gaming, out of the ball park expensive.

i bought a wii, a 360, and a ps3 for the same amount of money i spent on my PC... so don't fuck around, pc's aren't cheap :) 
April 27, 2007 10:52:08 AM

I have both a monster PC and X360/PS3.

I preffer playing gamis on the gaming systems before the PC. It it more fun to sit in you easy chair and playing oblivion on a 47inch HD screen.
No problems with viruses, drivers... NOTHING.

Just play the games.

The drawback is highend graphics. If you spend 4000 dollar om a PC, you get better graphics then a PS3. Is it worth it? It is just GAMES.

PC gaming is dying out. There are far more consoll games then PC games.
How about Grand theft auto 4? Assassins Creed? They seems to be consoll exclusive.

If you really want to play games. You need a consoll.

I have a chipped X360, chipped Wii and a PS3.

My favorite of these systems are the PS3. It has superiour hardware. (sorry X360 fanboys)

X360 is like the dreamcast. It was released before the other gen hardware. It sold good in the beginning. Later in its life cykle, it was a problem that they had CDs instead of DVDS. They had only 1gig vs 4.7 gig on PS2/Xbox.

The same now. Games today is ok on 9gig.
Already good games use more then that. Resistance fall of men is 18 gig.
You need bluray then.

And last. The X360 is not cheaper then PS3. If you ad HDDVD and a wireless network, it costs more then PS3. Why was not the elite with wireless and a buildin HDDVD? Xbox BIll Gatez edition will have it next spring...
April 27, 2007 10:58:11 AM

Quote:
I have both a monster PC and X360/PS3.

I preffer playing gamis on the gaming systems before the PC. It it more fun to sit in you easy chair and playing oblivion on a 47inch HD screen.
No problems with viruses, drivers... NOTHING.

Just play the games.

The drawback is highend graphics. If you spend 4000 dollar om a PC, you get better graphics then a PS3. Is it worth it? It is just GAMES.

PC gaming is dying out. There are far more consoll games then PC games.
How about Grand theft auto 4? Assassins Creed? They seems to be consoll exclusive.

If you really want to play games. You need a consoll.

I have a chipped X360, chipped Wii and a PS3.

My favorite of these systems are the PS3. It has superiour hardware. (sorry X360 fanboys)

X360 is like the dreamcast. It was released before the other gen hardware. It sold good in the beginning. Later in its life cykle, it was a problem that they had CDs instead of DVDS. They had only 1gig vs 4.7 gig on PS2/Xbox.

The same now. Games today is ok on 9gig.
Already good games use more then that. Resistance fall of men is 18 gig.
You need bluray then.

And last. The X360 is not cheaper then PS3. If you ad HDDVD and a wireless network, it costs more then PS3. Why was not the elite with wireless and a buildin HDDVD? Xbox BIll Gatez edition will have it next spring...


you said-

'pc's are dying out'

and while that would seem to be true, it's not.

pc's are becoming game consoles :) 

they're getting internet browsing, multimedia functionality, keyboards... and soon, they'll have mice...

by next gen, i promise you, all consoles will have hard drives standard just like pc's, and at least one console will let you plug in a mouse and keyboard...

not only that, but they'll be running at 1080p, a resolution higher than 95% of all the monitors for pc, that currently are only being used for business purposes.

by next gen, game consoles will have all the features pc gamers want, without the cons.

no driver problems, compatible with pc monitors out of the box, mouse and keyboard support, standard hard drives (to allow patching, updates), online functionality with dedicated servers better than on pc, etc. no installing games to your hard disk, it all streams off the disc, and not only that, when you buy it, 4 years later, you can expect the games running on it to look even better than when you first got it. when did you last get that out of a pc?

5 years from now, i'll be buying a game console, and use my dvi cable that came with my 1680x1050p widescreen computer monitor to connect my console to my pc monitor, and be running games at it's native resolution, then i'll just plug my windows mouse and keyboard in, and wallah. it was cheaper, it was easier, there were no viruses, and nobody has any unfair advantages because their 3k rig runs at a faster fps :) 

that's the future :)  and pc gamers are going to like consoles sooner than they think.
!