Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Gaming consoles VS PC

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
November 24, 2003 3:32:33 AM

Here's something I've been wondering for a very long time: how is it that gaming consoles like ps2, xbox and gamecube can produce higher quality graphics at higher framerates than most PCs, even though they run on much slower CPUs?(for example, xbox is only 700mhz or something, and that's the fastest one)

Life is but a sexually transmitted disease

More about : gaming consoles

November 24, 2003 3:50:12 AM

Deja Vu??
November 24, 2003 3:59:19 AM

Your mistaken. They don't run at higher graphic quality. Resolutions for consoles are pitifull in comparison to computers. TVs cant support very good res. Also consoles don't have near the detail level of computer versions of the same games but because of the bad res its not very obvious. Also because consoles support the latest special effects it can seem as if they look better then they really are. Additionally consoles are specificly built for games where as computers are not so an equivelant computer spec may do a little less performance wise compared to a console but not by much.

Needless to say Computers are deffinitly superior to consoles when it comes to graphic quality AND speed. However not always are PCs as up-to-date for special effects as consoles.
Related resources
November 24, 2003 5:53:53 AM

That was my post, but I didn't mean for it to be a PC vs. Console. I was trying to say that there should be a new OS for PCs that are made specifically for games, like that of a consoles OS.

Anyways, some of the things mentioned are not true. Consoles generally run at lower res, but HD TVs are capable of 1900 * 1080 and some games for Xbox support that, so it's not that they look good cause of lower res anymore. Also, some games are programmed better for console than for PC. For instance Splinter Cell has much better lighting and shadow effects on XBox on PC because the PC port was somewhat sloppy and doesn't take as much advantage of PC graphic cards as it does the Xbox (this is not true for the other consoles, PC does look better than PS2 and GC).
Overall, IMO PCs have the potential for better graphics, but games generally look better on XBox.
November 24, 2003 9:19:42 AM

A PC has more class :) 
November 24, 2003 11:30:26 AM

It has nothing to do with the os. Well yah it does, but very little. The reason console games generally get better performance on the same hardware as a pc is because: ITS A NON MOVING HARDWARE PLATFORM. You don't have to program for ati, nvidia, matrox, generic, bobsvidcard, and ancient tnt2 cards. You don't have to worry, "Is this going to work with x cd-rom?" or will this asm opt work on amd and intel? Thus you get more time to write asm opts and you have less bugs in the long run since there are less possible conflicts in platform.

Do Consoles look better? Yes at release.
Would a new "game" OS fix computers? Not a bit.

Shadus
November 24, 2003 1:21:19 PM

You're wrong - games take a huge overhead hit on the PC, specifically running on Windows, because they have to run in protected mode and because the platform has alot of [-peep-] running in the background all the time taking up resources. An OS on the PC specifically written for games would make a big difference in performance.
November 24, 2003 3:41:14 PM

Without a non-moving hardware target it isn't going to do as much as you'd think. Shutdown everything unneeded in windows and see what kinda performance you gain, yes you would gain more from a game specific os, but not a tremendous ammount more unless you had a single hardware platform to optimize for. Take a look at y1 ps1 games and take a look at ps1 games out this year... hardware is same, but the games look *ALOT* better because programers have had years to come up with reuseable asm routines for tasks that take to long because they dont have to worry about several hundred thousand possible hardware combinations.

Shadus
November 24, 2003 4:46:24 PM

I guess that's why a machine with a 700Mhz P3 and 64Mb of RAM (X-box) running in real mode can match a PC with a 2Ghz+ CPU and 256MB+ of RAM running on Windows (protected mode) when running games huh?
November 24, 2003 5:10:27 PM

Remember that the Xbox is running natively at 640*480.

That helps alot with the speed...

------------------
Radeon 9500 (hardmodded to PRO, o/c to 322/322)
AMD AthlonXP 2400+ (o/c to 2600+ with 143 fsb)
3dMark03: 4055
November 24, 2003 5:15:44 PM

If I run my games at 512x400 (or whatever the freaky low-res is) they scream too (I might weep, but they'd scream as far as speed goes). Not to mention look better than xbox/ps2/gc. Like I said, *MOST* of the effect your are seeing is being able to optimize for a single hardware platform. It has much less to do with software. What I really miss on my pc is the loading times. Those are so nice.

Shadus
November 24, 2003 8:11:16 PM

If you're talking solely about rendering speed, then yes you are right. However, the actual game logic is a load on the cpu/memory part of the platform and this is the part that suffers from running in protected mode on Windows.
November 24, 2003 8:17:18 PM

If you have a TV-out, try running a low quality DIVx or Halo through it on your TV. Looks much better.

My brother programmed for PSX and he says that their OS sucks arse. Huge amounts of bugs and limitations. A gaming OS would be like a DOS with a specific hardware configuration.

<font color=blue>"As you journey through life take a minute every now and then to give a thought
for the other fellow. He could be plotting something."
----Hagar the Horrible</font color=blue>
November 25, 2003 3:28:07 AM

heh god, dos... i have alot of good memories there... trying to eek that extra 3k of base memory out. memmaker, custom config, and optimized defrags oh my! :)  Linux would actually make a good modern gaming os really. You can par the kernel down to just support the hardware in your machine specifically. If you know what you are doing or are running a version like gentoo (or a bsd with ports) you can custom compile all the software on the machine to take advantage of all the hardware opts on your machine also... bout as close to a completely custom os as you can get.

Shadus
November 25, 2003 9:42:46 PM

I agree with most comments here. TV cant support hi-res so game are in lower res and run faster. detail level is lower too. another reason consoles seem faster is the fact that hardware (ie GPU etc is hardwired to the silicon and is specifically built for gaming, there are lower latencies, ottlenecks etc. data doesnt have to go through bus X to reach part blah blah. + developers are getting lazier in general. they will concentrate efforts on a console version and then go "Hmm, I know lets give them the option to change resolution and use a keyboard/mouse control method and not optimize a single bit of code because console version is out and ok and thats al that matters...do people still play games on PC?"

<i>Mmmm Dawn AND Eve at the same time...Drroooooll
-------------------------------------------------
<b>XP2800 Barton, 2x512Mb PC2700, ASUS A7N8X, Hercules 9800Pro 128Mb. :cool:
November 25, 2003 10:36:52 PM

I guess no one here has heard of HDTV??? FYI, XBox supports resolutions up to 1900*1080, Hardly low-res.
Also, all this talk about developing games for diff specs isn't a strong argument as to why consoles look better. Properly coded PC games run in different codepaths so they are optimized for different vid cards. They aren't limited by low-end cards, they just have to turn certain features off for those ones. Otherwise, all games would look the same regardless of the graphic card the user has.
November 25, 2003 11:09:53 PM

If you think console games look better then pc games, then you need to leave now and never come back.....seriously....go.

<b>I help because you suck</b>
November 25, 2003 11:43:53 PM

To quote myself "Overall, IMO PCs have the potential for better graphics, but games generally look better on XBox"

Try reading all posts...
And how could you say that all PC games have better graphics than Console??? Have you seen the Xbox version of Rainbow Six 3 or Splinter Cell or even Tiger Woods, definately better than PC. I used to hold you in pretty high regard GW, but your ignorant comment about console graphics really surprises me. Maybe you should get your facts straight before you comment next time.
November 26, 2003 12:35:43 AM

Wow, that bums me out...especially since I have <b>no freakin' idea who you are</b>..... :tongue:


<b>I help because you suck</b>
November 26, 2003 1:09:11 AM

agreed.
no console has caught me alight since the dreamcast, (which noone bought, silly buggars.... after playing on my bros PS2 for a coupla years, and my housemates Xbox for 2 years.....) nothing has moved, tech wise, since the SEGA DC days on the console platform.
Anyone who thinks that a pc game is inferior to a console game misses a LOT of major rendering/code features.

Man, i love console games... but for sheer GRAPHICS?!!!
ah [-peep-] i forget.... i only have a DEGREE in 3D studies!!!

............................................
Render times? You'll find me down the pub...
November 26, 2003 1:17:20 AM

My dreamcast is hooked up in front of my TV as we speak :smile:

<b>I help because you suck</b>
November 26, 2003 1:33:41 AM

thats because YOU have taste ;) 

............................................
Render times? You'll find me down the pub...
November 26, 2003 1:47:10 AM

:smile:

<b>I help because you suck</b>
November 26, 2003 11:19:51 AM

I have all 4 systems, but nothing compares to playing soulcaliber 1 on the dreamcast with the bigass green arcade sticks that are actually microswitched... I have SC2 on the xbox but it's just not as good :( 

Shadus
November 26, 2003 11:54:36 AM

Many console to PC conversions are simple ports with very little optimisation hence the PC version often looks worse - especially when compared to other platform specific PC games. Also some features might be missing because they were easy to implement on a certain console but take longer on PC and hence are left out to rush through the PC conversion for extra cash. I think if you compare the PC version of Halo to the Xbox version you will see the true nature of the graphical comparison that you are trying to make since Halo for the PC has been heavily optimised for the PC rather than being a straight port.

Also from a theoretical point of view, the Xbox uses a Geforce 3.5 and now we have moved on to the FX (a DX9 part) so purely from that point of view, the PC can produce superior image quality.

These points are really obvious, but actually seeing games run is the real test - I was round my mates house yesterday and saw his new copy of TOCA Race Driver running on PS2 and this really brought home to me how low quality the graphics were even when compared to Colin McRae rally 2 on PC which is years old. No shadows on cars when they go under trees and very heavy pop-up even for middle distance scenery plus the low resolution.

The posters talking about the OS are of course right - your PC resources are going to be heavily impacted by having Windows running the background - I have been round to houses for people having major problems only to find that some of them only have 54% system resources free just after booting!

This debate will never go away of course, but my question is why do many console games never get converted to the PC at all - the PC never gets fighting games like Soul Caliber and has to put up with crap like Fighting Force....

4.77MHz to 4.0GHz in 10 years. Imagine the space year 2020 :) 
a b U Graphics card
November 26, 2003 12:07:18 PM

Spitoon, you can go back even further for a look at this discussion. Check this OLD thread about the Xbox and D]|[;

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?nam..." target="_new">http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?nam...;/A>


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <b>RED GREEN</b> GA to SK :evil: 

<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/" target="_new">-NEW PIC IN THGC ALBUM-</A>
November 26, 2003 12:14:43 PM

A lot of people in this psot refer to HALO as an example for porting games over from console to PC. However HALO was first meant to be a PC game and was only held back for the Xbox after microsoft bought them. For this reason HALO2 will have far better grafics than HALO even if it is on the same system. HALO2 will be completely optimilized for the Xbox.
On the other hand there was quite a time between bungie beeing bought by m$ and the release so some of the PC port will have been lost there. However the porting of HALO to the PC is not really comparable to other games.
Just wanted to clear that one out

I'm really anxious to see starcraft ghost next year it is being optimized for each console separately (not for PC :mad:  ) but it will be goo to see the differences between the consoles.

If all else fails: Read The Manual
a b U Graphics card
November 26, 2003 1:08:26 PM

I was going to skip this re-hash of the bi-monthly question, but then I was blindsided by the following invitation to comment;

Quote:
Maybe you should get your facts straight before you comment next time.

Ohh, the irony that you should be so ignorant of the facts and post <b>that</b>.

You are confusing better graphics with a better medium. The consoles themselves aren't better, nor do they make the games look better. In fact the consoles have TERRIBLE graphics when compared to any PC. The difference is the TV, <b>NOT</b> the console. TV's have a property called adge blending/bleeding which makes the lower res. frames look better because like someone else said they have a native characteristic similar to AA. And I doubt you've seen the Xbox play at high res. I have played it at work in our lounge, and no it's not smooth when you switch to HDTV. It's noticeably slower. We leave it on 480i simply to ensure no hiccups. If you were to output the signal straight to a much less forgiving CRT which has crisp edges (benificial to TEXT and precise work) you would see just how poor the output of the Xbox is when compared to a PC.
What you are seeing the end result of the Xbox as viewed through the beer-goggles of your TV and coming to the same unfortunate conclusion many of us do at 4am. Man she looks Awesome! IOW an Xbox is Coyote Ugly!

Also, to quote THYSELF;
"<i>Anyways, some of the things mentioned are not true.</i>" like "<i>I just think that as powerful and great my computer (and all graphic cards) are, they are still extremely limited by the design of the software for today's PC and <b>the XBox is simply proof of that</b></i>"

and I just love this;

"<i>I'm not saying that XBox or other consoles graphics are superior to PC...</i>"

in relation to this very statement above;

"<i>And how could you say that all PC games have better graphics than Console??? Have you seen the Xbox version of..</i>"



Seriously organize your arguments into something that doesn't contradict itself.

Your statements are ignorant an uninformed. You've come to a personal conclusion based on little 'facts' and mainly observation and you've decided to try and force people to share your view.

Once you have done some actual research into this, you may realize just how wrong you are.

Spenda = artificial sweetner or artificial intelligence? Hmmm?


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <b>RED GREEN</b> GA to SK :evil: 

<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/" target="_new">-NEW PIC IN THGC ALBUM-</A>
a b U Graphics card
November 26, 2003 1:45:30 PM

Yeah the funniest part. HALO was originally scheduled to be released on the MAC first (very revolutionary for 'PC' gaming). Of course M$ and the Legion of doom needed a game to promote their new console, and now it won't hit the MAC until LAST (scheduled for DEC.).

I'd love to see what that original Bungie stripped down version would've looked like on current rigs/cards before it got the MS treatment.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <b>RED GREEN</b> GA to SK :evil: 

<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/" target="_new">-NEW PIC IN THGC ALBUM-</A>
November 26, 2003 3:07:25 PM

To The GreatGrapeApe- Extremely well said. So much so that I'll overlook the "Coyote ugly" part. ;) 

XP 2000+
MSI KT3 ULTRA-2 KT333
Maxtor 60GB ATA 133 7200RPM
512MB PC2700
ABIT G4 Ti4200 OTES 64MB
Win98SE
November 26, 2003 4:04:50 PM

Quote:
Spitoon, you can go back even further for a look at this discussion. Check this OLD thread about the Xbox and D]|[;

Thanks Man,

Love ya like a brother!!

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by spitoon on 11/26/03 11:06 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
November 26, 2003 4:31:46 PM

I'm not trying to start anything here or anything, so I'll just clarify and restate my opinions seeing as these quotes were taken from different posts stating different things. It seems some things were taken out of context.

One: PCs are capable of better graphics than consoles. No doubt about that. But, some game developers spend more time working on a game for one system or another, that's why sometimes a game may look better on a console vs PC, or vice versa. The example I used of Rainbow Six, the reason it looks better on XBox is because they overhauled the engine to support dynamic lighting and shadows. They optimized it for Xbox. The same thing happens with PC ports sometimes.

Two: I think PCs would have better graphics if they didn't have to run under Windows because of the high overhead of sys resources used. A similar OS like the one for Xbox would make PC games look ten times better. What I mean by this is that XBox games look great running on inferior hardware, part of the reason the games can look so good is because of the tiny OS (it's under 5 megs in size and is included on each game disc).

Three: Yes, one reason games also look good on an Xbox is because of the lower res, but some games do support higher res. One reason you may have seen hiccups Great Ape, is because if you try a game that doesn't support it, it won't work properly. Less than 6 games support 1080i, another dozen or so support 780p and most games support 480p. So if you tried any game other than Enter the Matrix, Dragon's Lair or True Crime: SofLA (i think), then it's only normal you'd notice hiccups.
November 26, 2003 8:31:45 PM

Dude...think of High Res on a television...the dpi are hardly even close to that of a monitor. Enough said...TV vs. CRT = CRT victory each and every time.

----------
<b>It is always brave to say what everyone thinks. </b> <i>Georges Duhamel</i>

TKS
November 26, 2003 10:32:33 PM

I'm certainly not arguing that HDTV is as clear as a CRT. I never said that.
November 26, 2003 10:37:10 PM

Console better than pc eh? Tell u what, sit 1 foot from your TV next time u play a console (around the same distance you would with a pc-monitor and see what the graphics look like. Then play a game on a pc, but sit 10 feet away (as you would with an Xbox/TV combo), what looks best now? Getting the point? the x-box and other consoles run low res on a TV and look pretty crap but this is hidden by the fact that your too far away to see the nasty jagged edges etc. you just cant compare technology that’s years old (Xbox) to any pc over 1ghz with a half decent vid card, let alone a modern gaming rig with dx9 capabilities. I’m sure anyone with half a mind and ANY knowledge of computer systems will agree with this post.
Oh and thanks a lot guys, was going to buy a NVIDIA 5950u soon, but the posts about ati cards changed my mind. Viva la ati 9800xt
a b U Graphics card
November 27, 2003 12:53:08 AM

Your quotes are not taken out of context. They may be from two RELATED threads, but not taken out of context. Or do you change your stance from thread to thread?

ONE: The reality is that game developers usually spend more time trying to acheive the SAME effects on lesser systems that are EASIER on better systems. Take a Look at Any title for the PS2 versus the time that they spend on the Xbox, versus the PC. That's usually their order of complexity, and all that extra time spent on the PS2 does not equate to better graphics. As for the features the options are richer on a PC, whether or not they will be practical at 1280x1024 versus 480x640 is their biggest concern. You would be hard pressed to find a single PC title that offers you option like Dynamic lighting at 800x600 but removes the option for resolutions above 1280x1024. These same options ARE availible on the PC and even more so, since the Xbox doesn't have the capabilities of the modern cards and their simplified instruction sets. IT's all a matter of practicality, not superiority. As for porting it, the perfect example of that would be the game you mentioned (and I will address later) Enter the Matrix. The XBOX version is the original and the PC version is the ported one. It's about lazy/rushed/payed-off/pressured(ahh-hu-huh Bungie!) developers and not the quality of the platform itself. This is less about the console vs PC than a game to game concern.

TWO: PCs would definitely benifit from having less overhead, just look at some of the W98SE performance figures over those of W2K/XP for a good idea of that. But it doesn't necessarily lead to better graphics. And at this time, I doubt that a 3Ghz system running dual channel DDR400 is suffering terrible overhead issues that would severely compromise the graphics. Sure you could squeeze more FPS out of it, but not a better picture since significant increases in resolution come at a much higher penalty. And the PC has the ability to run different and new compression and rendering methods while the XBOX (and of course the rest) are very limited in that respect, and limited in the updates/upgrades (no DX9/9.1 there). Also things like AA and AF would give you much better return than simply freeing up system resources. Although everyone would love a leaner XP. And remember that Windows isn't the only way to run a PC.

Three: You don't really get it, even the Xbox's 'Hi Res.' is not equivalent to High res. on a pc, nor the task required by the system. A PC game's usual max is 1600x1200 progressive scan (although sometimes higher is also offered). While the Xbox only has to display alternating FIELDS of 540lines 540x1900. So still the workload is less, and even at 1080x1900 the refresh is still only 30 FPS compared to a computer's much higher refresh. Now if it were 1080P/60 (yes that's also another format, but far from being standard/common, just like 540P and 960i) then you'd have a much closer comparison to work loads.
The game I was talking about is Enter the Matrix (only game in the Lounge that supports HDTV [and was played to death at the release of Revolutions]), the only one we had that made us change HDTV connectors which are usually reserved for the Digital converter box, and it wasn't worth it (picture wise) and yes it hiccuped. Heck even Morrowind hiccups sometimes when I play it (and no that's not just the loading).
As for Dragon's Lair it is not a good example. I have the original DVD version (yes a game that you play on your DVD), and I've seen the new 3D version, and it doesn't involve complex graphics. It's a cell-shader game like XIII and doesn't have a very complex engine, I doubt it would make a difference if DL were up-converted from 480P (which is the reference image res. for most Xbox games). It is based on a full HD reference image but it doesn't require high FPS to play either. But remember that an up-converted image is NOT as good as a TRUE reference HD image. That is one reason why I think that Enter the Matrix WAS so much of a problem. It WASN'T upconverted and it pushed the boundaries of the XBOX's hardware limits, and obviously a bit too far. Prefered it at 480i (don't run 480P cause DVD is hooked to the other component connectors) through the SVideo inputs.


OH yeah, and one last thing;

Quote:
another dozen or so support 780p and most games support 480p

WTF is 780P?
Do you mean 720P?

Of course it supports 480P, most of the XBOX games are rendered 480p and then their output is converted to 480i.

In the end you will NEVER get the same quality of graphics out of an XBOX (best of the consoles right now) that you do out of a PC given the same programming resources. The only advantage the consoles have is that your method of viewing their poorer output helps cover up the difference. But you're equating the benifit to the wrong aspect.
My main reason for stepping into this (against my better judgement, because I knew I'd be spending too much time explaining something we've already covered a dozen times) was your statement about the consoles, when in fact you missed the most important part of the equation the TV.
This is taking to much of my time to edit (don't mind my $pelleng Foaks!) or to go on further and explain the advanatages of the after image effect on TVs.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <b>RED GREEN</b> GA to SK :evil: 

<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/" target="_new">-NEW PIC IN THGC ALBUM-</A>
November 27, 2003 1:37:39 AM

Let's all just shut up and agree:

There is no winner gaming-wise (screw you fanboys), each have their appropriate games. Consoles are WEAKER than PCs, they TECHNICALLY look worse. Do they look bad in practice? No. Would they on high res TVs? YES.

Period.

(wasn't directing it to your TGGA)

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol: 
November 27, 2003 2:06:05 AM

Ewww yea....man-handle me Eden....

<b>I help because you suck</b>
November 27, 2003 2:10:07 AM

I still stay what you quoted was taken out of context, but whatever, doesn't matter.

I do agree with you about the quality of ports depending on dev more than platform. I think I mentioned that before, I'm not sure?

As for overhead windows causes, you're right about no problems for high-end PCs. My argument is that it wouldn't affect today's games too much, just the low-end PCs. But in the future, if the OS wasn't such a resource hog, games could be developed to look better and have more bells and whistles etc... Again, it wouldn't have much effect on today's high-end, but future games could be better.

Even at 540*1900 interlaced, the workload of an Xbox is close to that of a PC at 1280*1024. Granted, not as high as 1600*1200, but still pretty good considering its specs. Enter the Matrix is probably not the best example I could have mentioned, seeing as the game was rushed for the movie and was buggy on all systems. I didn't try the PC version, but I heard it chugged on high end PCs too, even though the graphics weren't great, bad programming I guess.

BTW, I obviously meant 720P, not 780.

Yes, again I'll state PCs are capable of better graphics, just like I've said all along. I still just wonder what games could look like on PC if they had an OS as efficient as the one for Xbox. Try taking a PC with the same specs as an XBox and playing games with it. It would be a joke on PC, even at the lower resolutions and on a TV. The Xbox does quite a bit with it's shared 64Megs of RAM.

Just to add one more thing. I for one, don't care if games look better because of the medium or because they genuinly are better looking. I want whatever looks best for my eyes. and sometimes that means an Xbox game and sometimes that means the PC version. I said it before, to me, Splinter Cell LOOKS better on my XBox, even though the resolution isn't as high as PC. I find the lighting and shadow effects to be more prevalent on the XBox. I know that technically the PC is more powerful and runs the game at resolutions the XBOX can't do for that game, but my EYES tell me it looks better on my TV, and that's all that matters to me. This is just for Splinter Cell, not all games, some do look much better on PC. Isn't it more important to see that something looks good, rather than be told it does?


<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by splenda20 on 11/26/03 11:14 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
November 27, 2003 2:21:44 AM

It's been a while, but I hoped my post would call you on...

You're on, hot stuff...

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol: 
November 27, 2003 2:32:26 AM

Your sweet pheromone scent beckons to me with the same longing lustfullness that it had when we first posted to one another eons ago..... :cool:

<b>I help because you suck</b>
a b U Graphics card
November 27, 2003 3:31:20 AM

I feel so used!

My name in the RE: line, but it's not directed at me.

And all this time I thought you cared!

:tongue:


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <b>RED GREEN</b> GA to SK :evil: 

<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/" target="_new">-NEW PIC IN THGC ALBUM-</A>
a b U Graphics card
November 27, 2003 3:36:44 AM

I think I need to take a shower and wash of the Stench of Man Lust that has permeated the thread! :tongue:

BTW, I'm glad you saw the 'It Burns..' reference as I didn't want to completely steal your line, so I added a little 'fire' to it.

Ciaola people, off to study!


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <b>RED GREEN</b> GA to SK :evil: 

<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/" target="_new">-NEW PIC IN THGC ALBUM-</A>
November 27, 2003 4:12:02 AM

:wink:

<b>I help because you suck</b>
November 27, 2003 5:19:10 AM

pssshh u people yelling around arguing that

Xbox(700mhz, GeForce 3) OWNs PC (3.0ghz, 9800XT)
VS
PC (3.0ghz, 9800XT) OWNS Xbox(700mhz, GeForce 3)

Why dont u guys argue why PS2 (300mhz)'s graphic is on par with X BOX?


You people

PS3 will own all, you guys dont need to argue~~~~~~~~


RIP Block Heater....HELLO P4~~~~~
120% nVidia Fanboy
FX5700Ultra, the next Ti4200? seems so
November 27, 2003 6:48:50 AM

Not that this arguement belongs in this forum. But how much cheap crack have you been smoking.
I don't know how you can possible say that???
Please, please tell me what games you can say look as good on a PS2 as they do on XBox. I dare you to try???
I can think of just one and that's only because of different devs for the diff systems and that's NFS: HP2. The PS2 version was better than all others, including PC. But again, only cause of crappy devs for the other versions. Please try to tell me one more and I'll give you a huge list of games that are ten times better on XBox, PC and even Gamecube for that matter.
November 27, 2003 7:54:31 AM

CS is a well respected member of this forum. We are aware that he has a love of nvidia and sony as a mother has for her child. He sees no flaws.
You, are in the throws of a love hate relationship with Micro$oft, but, well we just dont care.
November 27, 2003 8:41:35 AM

Personally, I think the consoles and PCs of the last 20 years are still playing catchup with my Atari 2600. The square in Adventure was more square than any square I've seen on any graphics system on any platform.

although the recent ATI cards come close...

<i>SCO is to Linux what a flea is to a dog.</i>
November 27, 2003 1:31:16 PM

BTW I thought that the XBox ran on a special version of the Windows 2000 kernel. Obvousely with less gumf in the background.

I have viewed this site on my Am386DX-40! it works!!
!