Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Xbox 360 will be raped by this system..

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Playstation
  • Xbox 360
  • Graphics
  • Product
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 21, 2005 1:04:36 AM

I've read a few posts about people who are saying the Xbox 360 and PS3 will destroy the PC. But they are soo wrong. As other's have mentioned the PC has survived the Xbox, PS2 and all other consoles what were so great, but now the PC is a billion times faster. Now the next gen comes out, and they are faster than PC, but wait there's more. By the time the Xbox 360 and PS3 come out the next gen cards will be out. So the R500 chip on the Xbxo 360 is 2x faster than an 6800 Ultra and about as fast at 2 ultras in SLi. Gee anyone ever though of dual dual core opterons with G70's in SLI and 2gb or ram or 2 R520s in MVP? That's 1gb or memory just on the videocards and 4 computer class CPU (2 cores per CPU)cores of cpu power and 2 GPU's each as fast as the single in a Xbxo 360. So which is faster? That is just when the consoles are released or short after that someone could build that system. Imagine in the next year or two after what could be built....Its mind boggling how people get so worried over a console or two. I like consoles, shure they are great gaming systems, I have an Xbox, PS2, and when the Xbox came out its game did look better than any PC games at the time, but now look at it, the best looking Xbox game looks like a stone age game compared to HL2, D3, Farcry and upcoming games like stalker, fear and others. No one system is going to whipe out the other. Each has advantages. Consoles are relatively inexpensive, reliable and very fast when they first come out, PCs will always be faster after the first 6 months to a year and have superior FPS and RTS games. Plus you can do and mod just about anything you can think of on a PC. So for those of you who are worried, just think of my beast future system i mentioned and put your minds at ease. If your that worried, get a 360 when it comes out, i'm going to,but i wil l never give up PC gaming. Its almost like CPU's and GPU's one minute Intel is ahead the next AMD, same with console and PC, console is better looking when they first come out, but when the next gen hardware comes out PC looks better, then it starts all over again.

Asus A8V Deluxe(rev. 2.00) / A64 3200 (winchester) / 1024mb OCZ DDR500 (2.5-3-3-8) / BFG 6800GT@stock / Baracuda 120GB / Lian-Li PC-65 / Syncmaster 700NF / OCZ Power Stream 520

More about : xbox 360 raped system

May 21, 2005 1:10:11 AM

Here's something else to calm you down. Creative's X-Fi audio chip. Its as fast as a friken 3.2ghz P4!!! Xbox doesn't have one. So a computer's high end sound card is as powerful as 1 of the 3 cores in the xbox 360. And its only a sound card....

Asus A8V Deluxe(rev. 2.00) / A64 3200 (winchester) / 1024mb OCZ DDR500 (2.5-3-3-8) / BFG 6800GT@stock / Baracuda 120GB / Lian-Li PC-65 / Syncmaster 700NF / OCZ Power Stream 520
May 21, 2005 1:25:58 AM

There is a possibility that the consoles might perform better because of the fact games will be utilizing multithreads, and games will be better designed, since there is a set standard. Remember the system you mentioned will cost a good 4 times more than the consoles. But consoles aren't going to change for 4 years or more, while PC's would have had many generation changes. PC games won't be utilizing multhread CPU's for a long time. And the reason why consoles can never destroy PC gaming, RTS games! are you going to play a strategy game on the console with a controller?!
Related resources
May 21, 2005 6:33:54 AM

think prices.

harder to imagine what your saying, when you consider sinking 2000$ into a box

-------
<b>It's a man's obligation to stick his boneration in a women's separation; this sort of penetration will increase the population of the younger generation.</b>
May 21, 2005 3:16:15 PM

Theoretically, since XBox uses a Media Center sort of interface and OS, there is no doubt you can eventually mod it, and you know what? If you do, you'll have the PC killer.

No one here can claim to have even half the processing power of 3 PowerPC 3.2GHZ cores let alone own an R520 derivate (which features something not presumed to be included in the R520, and is exclusive to X360, the 10MB EDRAM on-die daughter unit for almost free antialiasing).

I'm really excited to see if someone will crack these new systems down and see what they can extract from them. A PS3 PC or X360 PC would be freakin' amazing. They all trump the components we have in our PCs, save for RAM, possibly. (but then again the Revolution will have 512MB of Flash memory on board)
And yet they will cost less than 1/4rth of a powerful PC. This argument is becoming more powerful every new console generation, when you think about spec evolution in each, relative to PC systems at the time. (i.e., when Xbox was out, the P3 733MHZ WAS outdated against the Athlon XP, today the X360 holds 9.6GHZ theoretical processing power against 3.8GHZ Pentium 4s)

--
The <b><A HREF="http://snipurl.com/blsb" target="_new"><font color=red>THGC Photo Album</font color=red></A></b>, send in your pics, get your own webpage and view other members' sites.
May 21, 2005 3:18:59 PM

When you think about it, it could be true that if GFX card companies tried to adopt the console metaphor, they might find something that works well on consoles for performance and use it on the PC world, to develop GFX cards that are even more efficient. I mean, the R500 is using things that would likely be holy grails for PC cards, such as the 10MB EDRAM. Gives us, the AA freaks, awesome IQ at a fraction of the cost of current cards' penalty!

Perhaps that's where they needed to get their muse from all along.

--
The <b><A HREF="http://snipurl.com/blsb" target="_new"><font color=red>THGC Photo Album</font color=red></A></b>, send in your pics, get your own webpage and view other members' sites.
May 21, 2005 5:30:42 PM

I agree more with Eden here. While you could potentially build a system for $3000 that will be close to the xbox 360/ps3, you still won't get the power of a 3 core PowerPC/Cell. They're designed solely for gaming. You'll probably get better performance out of a computer in most tasks, but gaming wise, short of spending a rediculous amount of money you won't get the performance levels of these consoles. I can't imagine how sony/ms intend to sell these consoles at your normal console prices.

<A HREF="http://nfiniti.blogspot.com" target="_new">nfiniti plus one - my blog</A>
May 21, 2005 11:37:32 PM

And I still have a hard time understand how people here can even justify that after a few months, these consoles will be beaten by PCs. Not this time buddies, not if you got your homework done and know your damn PC components!

I didn't wanna speak out on that, because I hate those long debate threads, not enough time these days. Though I will gladly take on whoever wants to challenge that.

--
The <b><A HREF="http://snipurl.com/blsb" target="_new"><font color=red>THGC Photo Album</font color=red></A></b>, send in your pics, get your own webpage and view other members' sites.
May 21, 2005 11:47:22 PM

Hehehehe, I lub j00 wusy. :wink:

You can come out, I have Wingy and Neddy waiting for a night out!

--
The <b><A HREF="http://snipurl.com/blsb" target="_new"><font color=red>THGC Photo Album</font color=red></A></b>, send in your pics, get your own webpage and view other members' sites.
May 21, 2005 11:49:41 PM

I recommend to all of you that you download the <A HREF="http://media.ps3.ign.com/articles/615/615091/vids_1.htm..." target="_new">E3 PS3 unveiling</A>. I'm not just talking about graphics demos; I'm talking about the in-game footage that is shown. Especially that game <b>Killzone</b>. These are by far the best graphics I've ever seen. Period. Imagine Unreal 3 running flawlessly on a big HD screen.



<A HREF="http://atomfilms.shockwave.com/landing/landingIndex.jsp..." target="_new">DumbLand</A>
May 22, 2005 12:04:59 AM

I agree with the original post. People act like Xbox 360 and PS3 are out NOW. Both ATI and Nvidia will have their cards out by the time Xbox 360 is released. The PS3 isn't out till next spring so a refresh card could be out similar to how the X800XL was. So I see the graphics being very similar for PC's. Now the big difference will be the CPU power of the consoles versus PC's. It's not the big a deal to me because I like FPS mostly and those suck with a controller. The main problem with PC's is if game companies concentrate too much on consoles.
May 22, 2005 12:27:53 AM

sh1t that is a amazing point. 9 gighz console vs a 3.6ghz pc.

The only reasen how this could happen is that PC can only procced to next generations in a step by step movement.

PC`s cannot radically change the way they are built or constructed, also there would be problems through software support for a pc to have more than 2 pro e,t,c.

Consoles can change dramatically generation to generation, and not feel the effects of a dramatic change to what pcs have.

Consoles really could easily surpass PC gaming power, Hollysh1t, this has deff changed the way how i see these new consoles.

<font color=purple> MY FINGER IS ON THE BUTTON! </font color=purple>
May 22, 2005 1:30:56 AM

I agree that these debates are pointless... But you do seem to think that the consoles are out already. They aren't, and honestly with dual core for PC announced, Intel planning to push for dual core softwares, by keeping dual core prices low, odds are we might start seeing PC softwares/games utilizing multithreads before PS3 even hits retail.

I do expect the CPU's on the PS3 to beat the PC counterpart in Q2 2006, but I don't think either consoles has the graphics power to beat SLI G70 or MVP R520. I must give console credit for its price, it's priced at price lower than a single high-end PC video card. The other problem i have with consoles is the lack of a mouse, so that makes RTS games impossible, i'm a huge fan of strategy games, and with controllers on consoles it's impossible to play RTS games on them.


LOL but i have to laugh at your comment of theoretical 9.6Ghz, we really should question the efficiency first, would a single threaded Dothan at 3.2Ghz totally destroy it? Let's just see it when it comes out.
May 22, 2005 1:35:12 AM

Speaking of Dothans, anybody heard anything on release date of Yonah's yet?
a b U Graphics card
May 22, 2005 4:07:24 AM

Funny Eden forgetting it's and R500 inside not R520 derivative [they're completely different, Eden the othe thing it has is Unified Shader architecture, unforgiveable errors in the Graphics Card section, 12 laps of the waiting area!]).

The thing about the 3 3GHZ PwoerPcs is that they are Hypethreaded PowerPC chips, unlike anything out there now, so who knows how the Dothan would do. An whether or not this power can be used is still debatable. For most games out there my second CPU on my editing rig would go completely unused, so saying that it's not possible to make something similar is somewhat shortsighted. Tyan has dual Opteron MoBos (Supporting AMD X2s [thus 4 cores]) with full SLI, and they probably could add it to their Quad opteron boards, and thus have 8 CPUs + 2 VPUs, versus the Xbox's 3 HTed cores. Even Sony's cell design is more closely related to IBM's Power5 design which spawned this old discussion a long while ago;

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

Sony's is 1+8 and more on chip than on board, but still a good way to picture it to make it easier to understand.

The reality is none of us will know how they stack up until both PC and Consoles Architecture is properly exploited.

I just hope all these new concoles improve the multi-threading/core programing in the PC world.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com/" target="_new"><font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil: 
May 22, 2005 10:26:48 PM

Quote:
Funny Eden forgetting it's and R500 inside not R520 derivative [they're completely different, Eden the othe thing it has is Unified Shader architecture, unforgiveable errors in the Graphics Card section, 12 laps of the waiting area!]).

I dunno, I could've sworn they were both similar architectures, except for that shader issue and some of the extras like the onboard EDRAM. I doubt ATi worked on the R500 without considering the R520 into the mix, and instead doing an independant new architecture that has no bearing on the first of the R5xx serie.
Otherwise they would never have called it R500, ya know?

Now are you asking me to go do 12 laps? Cuz I am hella tired now! :tongue:

Quote:
The thing about the 3 3GHZ PwoerPcs is that they are Hypethreaded PowerPC chips, unlike anything out there now, so who knows how the Dothan would do.

It is presumed a Dothan is still not as strong as an Opteron per clock. And I personally do not doubt that, AMD made sure their new generation becomes a serious IPC powerhouse. With that said, the PowerPC is no slouch, though it lacks efficiency in its combined performance setups (dual). It seems everytime Apple makes dual CPU systems, they look like they only go about 40% faster. Whereas the NUMA architecture of the K8 with HyperTransport, have helped it become almost more efficient than the SLI architecture.
The PPC G5 is quite performant though, however with Apple's limited reach, they may never exploit that CPU's full power. They seem to be really powerful when you see the specs. And Apple has a pretty good grab in vector handling too. I've always admired how usable OSX was under the 866MHZ MACs we have, with all its eye candy glory and effects.

I'd be very interested in seeing a per clock comparison of the G5 1.8 versus an Athlon 64 3000+ (1.8GHZ). If anyone finds anything, please let me know. It would definitely help us make a more informed comparison of how Dothan would stack up, and how (very much wild guesses and by extrapolating) 3 3.2GHZ PPC cores would do versus our systems now.
My guess is they are powerful beasts. Especially if they even are multithreaded. But like I said before, just WHAT in the world is MS expecting that will require 3 CPU cores than more VPUs? Same applies to Sony with their 8 cores.

Quote:
I just hope all these new concoles improve the multi-threading/core programing in the PC world.

I will take a wild stab and say: now more than ever.
They are more and more approaching common architecture, and a much more ressemblant one to what we have. All of the makers of the chips inside each console are in some way related to the PC hardware business.

Quote:
The reality is none of us will know how they stack up until both PC and Consoles Architecture is properly exploited.

Interestingly nothing is fully exploited yet. The best proof I can give is how nVidia locks your OpenGL performance by so much, unless you buy the Quadro with its special drivers. So if such drivers were optimized on a global software scale, are we assuming we can win over twice the performance in games? And what about heat? How come these rendering softwares push the OGL cards by a factor of 2 and over, and yet the heat seems very well managed? Is it just inefficiency on the part of regular functioning cards without optimized drivers?

--
The <b><A HREF="http://snipurl.com/blsb" target="_new"><font color=red>THGC Photo Album</font color=red></A></b>, send in your pics, get your own webpage and view other members' sites.
May 22, 2005 10:37:12 PM

Quote:
They aren't, and honestly with dual core for PC announced, Intel planning to push for dual core softwares, by keeping dual core prices low, odds are we might start seeing PC softwares/games utilizing multithreads before PS3 even hits retail.

Yes and? You still have a huge amount of cores working on the PS3. Multithreading is not the biggest performance booster either, it's cramming several cores on one die that does.
And for the X360, even if we see multithreaded games before it, the fact it's multithreaded means even more power to it against the current PC hardware.
I think right now, based on what we have seen with IBM's CPUs, these systems will no doubt sport serious power. Again I refer you to the phenomenal computational power of the Cell, in the specs. Which P4 or A64 even touches that?

I'm not however trying to say consoles are better than PCs in usage. (heck otherwise I couldn't justify the many PC games I buy each year, and I pay hard cash for them) I am just trying to show a new perspective on the performance side, which this time will have shifted in a whole new way.

Quote:
LOL but i have to laugh at your comment of theoretical 9.6Ghz, we really should question the efficiency first, would a single threaded Dothan at 3.2Ghz totally destroy it?


Efficiency or not, I have outlined in my previous post to GGA why the Dothan thing is almost pointless. It is true if they are not used, they will suck, and they might as well have just thrown a Celery 340 in there. But in the contest of a true fair benchmark utilizing the resources available to it, thinking a PowerPC trio of MULTITHREADED 3.2GHZ cores would be smoked by a single 3.2GHZ Dothan is foolishness times 3!

Quote:
The other problem i have with consoles is the lack of a mouse, so that makes RTS games impossible, i'm a huge fan of strategy games, and with controllers on consoles it's impossible to play RTS games on them.

And that's why the console vs PC (which is better) is a pointless argument. Each has its genres it dominates in. I still dare anyone to find me a better means to enjoy party games than with consoles, rather than online multiplay or LAN. (party games like Mario Kart, Mario Party, etc.) Sometimes having your buds near you with all the excitement of winning a round is just the best feeling of fun.
In the same way, a 64-way round of Counterstrike is never old. The rush of having so many commanding 2 teams with a goal, with communications at their hand is awesome, it is great for adrenaline rushes.

--
The <b><A HREF="http://snipurl.com/blsb" target="_new"><font color=red>THGC Photo Album</font color=red></A></b>, send in your pics, get your own webpage and view other members' sites.
May 22, 2005 10:40:10 PM

Quote:

PC`s cannot radically change the way they are built or constructed, also there would be problems through software support for a pc to have more than 2 pro e,t,c.

Don't forget heat problems to be expected on PCs too. Though I have no clue how Sony cooled the PS3 with 8 cores like that. Or MS with their watercooling in such a small box, covering 9.6GHZ of clocks generated each second and a massive VPU with 48 pipes. (geez how big must be this core?) (it could be even worse on the PS3 too, with over 22GHZ of clocks generated and one new generation VPU too)

--
The <b><A HREF="http://snipurl.com/blsb" target="_new"><font color=red>THGC Photo Album</font color=red></A></b>, send in your pics, get your own webpage and view other members' sites.
May 22, 2005 10:42:25 PM

I wish there was a way to navigate the stream. I sure as hell will not sit for an hour and 49 minutes to find out where they show the GFX!

--
The <b><A HREF="http://snipurl.com/blsb" target="_new"><font color=red>THGC Photo Album</font color=red></A></b>, send in your pics, get your own webpage and view other members' sites.
May 22, 2005 10:57:25 PM

Buying PC games? That's a new concept to me... what does that mean?
May 23, 2005 12:33:48 AM

I just press the download button, and nobody asks me for my credit card or anything:D 


Wish I had a printer that could print PCB's, then wish i had a burner that could make "bakup copies" of CPU/GPU/Chipsets...
May 23, 2005 1:34:44 PM

i still dont think that consoles will be "PC killers" hats impossible because of one reason;

the ability to upgrade. in you PC you can upgrade almost everything, including flashin bioses and sh|t like that.

they come out with consoles what every 5-6yrs or so? with no upgrade capabilities? by that time of course the pc's will be back on top. the market ebbs and flows you know that.

I <font color=red>KILL</font color=red> butterflies.
<A HREF="http://www.cameronwilliamson.com" target="_new">-={Psychotic Sociopath.}=-</A>
May 23, 2005 2:26:28 PM

I'd presume it would be faily difficult to get a proper benchmark between a PPC and a A64 due to the software that they run. I don't think you could find one piece of software that would run on both in its native form without one being favored over the other.

As for the overall discussion. Yes new computers out will become faster than these consoles but you're talking about getting dual processors with SLI and the whole shebang. Say these consoles come in at $500, can you make a comparable system for that? I think not. Whether the potential will be fully used by these games is another story. I truly doubt they will at first but as multiprocessing grows both in PCs and in consoles, I'm sure they'll exploit more of the abilities of these advanced processors. Just look at the current xbox say. The graphics have become better since it was released but the hardware specs remain that same. They've just been able to better optimize for it now.

<A HREF="http://nfiniti.blogspot.com" target="_new">nfiniti plus one - my blog</A>
May 23, 2005 4:27:19 PM

Oh I never claimed otherwise. All I am saying is that consoles are going to be stronger this time when they are released and may hold on for a little bit longer than ever before. Having APIs similar to the PC also makes it even more nice, because you can make a PC game become so easy to run on these consoles (think DOOM III at high res).

No doubt PCs will overthrow consoles' performance eventually, but this time around, the companies are loading the consoles with so much firepower, like 3 cores, that they will no doubt be powerful and may even be stronger at first and stay that way for the following months.

Quote:
including flashin bioses and sh|t like that.

Heheh the funny part is I think the next Xbox will likely have such possibilities. PC hardware has a tendency to have bugs. :lol: 

--
The <b><A HREF="http://snipurl.com/blsb" target="_new"><font color=red>THGC Photo Album</font color=red></A></b>, send in your pics, get your own webpage and view other members' sites.
May 23, 2005 4:49:45 PM

Quote:
I'd presume it would be faily difficult to get a proper benchmark between a PPC and a A64 due to the software that they run.

Not necessarily. Mac vs PC benchmarks work by using a common benchmark like Adobe Photoshop filter application time. So all we need is a G5 1.8GHZ and a 1.8GHZ Athlon 64!
Of course since Photoshop is dual processor aware, the G5 system will need to be run as a uniprocessor system.

Quote:
The graphics have become better since it was released but the hardware specs remain that same. They've just been able to better optimize for it now.

That's true, look at the SNES and PSX for the best examples of advancements over the first generation. However because programmers have easier APIs now (or so it seems), they might exploit the best graphics right from the beginning, with the best optimisations, especially if they want Cell and PS3 games to perform well.

--
The <b><A HREF="http://snipurl.com/blsb" target="_new"><font color=red>THGC Photo Album</font color=red></A></b>, send in your pics, get your own webpage and view other members' sites.
May 23, 2005 4:49:59 PM

Quote:

(think DOOM III at high res).

didnt think about that, good [point.
Quote:

Heheh the funny part is I think the next Xbox will likely have such possibilities

that would be sweet if they did,

***imagines hacks already***
Quote:

PC hardware has a tendency to have bugs.

yup thats the downfall of most pc systems; the problem really lies in the producer of the products though, alot of times they try to hard to get stuff out first then make a good product to begin with.


<A HREF="http://www.cameronwilliamson.com" target="_new">-={Psychotic Sociopath.}=-</A>
May 23, 2005 5:02:34 PM

Yes these machines WILL destroy PC's for now, all this talk of comparisons is pointless "Oh, In a few months time I can build a dual this and that system with SLI G70's etc...". Lets look at the facts: To do this would cost an absolute fortune. Regardless of the power, games will not be as optimized as they are for consoles due to the very nature of PC's. Just over 1 TFLOP for X360 and over 2 TFLOPS of power in PS3! + the fact that consoles are on dedicated hardware that doesnt have to run through this bus and that bus this bridge that bridge and the distance between the hardware components is much smaller and this does make a difference.They dont have to work on windows and share resources, they arent dependant on new drivers every month to up performance a bit and so on and so forth. When the Xbox was released, I had a XP2100, Ti4200 64Mb, 512Mb Ram etc BUT! whilst this was more powerful than the Xbox, The games STILL looked better and ran smoother on Microsofts ugly box in 80% of cases.

Yes PC's will eventually be more powerful, especially if the lifecycle of the consoles remains at 5-6 years+ but that wont be in 6 months, try a good couple of years! yes dual core is around the corner but who is really gonna have 3xdual cores in their rig?(ala X360 & Fcuk knows how many cores on a single die for the PS3...8+1? 9?). + 2gig of wonder RAM and SLI G70's and PowerRanger megasaur TM motherboard . I can assure you that it is different this time around. High Def RTS/FPS on these consoles is easy, they have usb2 ports...keyboards & mice or even wireless Keyboards and mice woudl be a doddle to implement.

I love my PC and it pains me to admit that it will be well an truly licked for a while. Never the less this is my opinion and is based on facts that I believe appear to be quite obvious. A lot of the people here appear to have some kind of Console related phobia and are living in denial that this time round the PC will not make such a swift come back against the next-gen consoles.

I am in neither "camp" console or PC, I go where the games are good! Sorry to have ranted for some time I now expect a whole host of abuse...



<i>Mmmm Dawn AND Eve at the same time...Drroooooll
-------------------------------------------------
<b>XP2800 Barton, 2x512Mb PC2700, ASUS A7N8X, Hercules 9800Pro 128Mb. :cool:
May 23, 2005 5:07:51 PM

About the DOOM III example, D3 uses a perspective-based rendering engine, which explains why from far, models look ultra realistic, but when you get very close, the polygons seem seriously less numerous than previously perceived. That is something Carmack used to get the graphics technology effect to be better. It's a weird form of post-processing, I'll say. But, now with these new consoles, with so much processing power at their hands (not just the GPU), they can spare many cycles to add many more polygons and create a powerful rendering engine, which would result in Doom III looking far more realistic than ever perceived. I'm drooling at that very idea, which currently is a far reach on PCs. (even with my system, at 1600*1200, it chugs in that game)

Quote:
yup thats the downfall of most pc systems; the problem really lies in the producer of the products though, alot of times they try to hard to get stuff out first then make a good product to begin with.

And that's another thing with consoles. It is very rare one will be released without a perfection of its hardware. (it's a long term investment) It was especially crucial back in the day, because you couldn't patch an SNES, nor a PSX, really. Or not easily anyways. Let's hope the perfection remains like that now.

--
The <b><A HREF="http://snipurl.com/blsb" target="_new"><font color=red>THGC Photo Album</font color=red></A></b>, send in your pics, get your own webpage and view other members' sites.
May 23, 2005 5:10:40 PM

Have I ever mentionned how much I love you? :lol: 



PS: X360 uses 3 cores with 2 threads each, not cores.

--
The <b><A HREF="http://snipurl.com/blsb" target="_new"><font color=red>THGC Photo Album</font color=red></A></b>, send in your pics, get your own webpage and view other members' sites.
May 23, 2005 5:55:06 PM

Has there been any RTS announed for the consoles? Because if there has i'll stop spending thousands on my PC, and just get a good notebook and both consoles.
May 23, 2005 5:56:30 PM

Both consoles have 512mb of ram shared, is that enough for RTS games? I'm sure the consoles has a lot of CPU power, but not so sure in the ram department.
May 23, 2005 7:46:17 PM

How would you play a RTS with a gamepad-type controller? :|

<A HREF="http://nfiniti.blogspot.com" target="_new">nfiniti plus one - my blog</A>
May 23, 2005 8:06:11 PM

That has always been a problem with PC gaming. The hardware is do freakin expensive. I think that if you can use a keyboard and mouse(the best FPS interface that RAPES ANALLY a gayass game pad) then i will switch over to xbox 360 for the majority of my gaming, but still keep my comp for other PC only games and the classics. It will be nice to have both, thatway in 2 or 3 years when PCs significantly surpass Xbox 360 then i can just upgrade. I think that it is true that Xbox 360 has much more processing power than a PC, but it's graphics will not rape a PC. Think about this, how much graphics work can a processor really do? Not much even 3 3.2ghz cores cannot render as much as a R500/520(PC version) gpu or G70, why? Because they are NOT designed for rendering the ultra specialezed software that a game engine is comprised of. So the graphics will be about the same as a R520/G70 equipped computer, but the console has Much more processing power, i think it will have BIG advancements in AI, physics like the phyics in HL2. That's what CPU's are conventionally used for. So that is where its going to be used i think. Maybe one core will be dedicated to preparing the graphics data for the GPU the rest for AI and other stuff. I will not give up PC gaming unless it totaly dies in the FPS arena. I started out gaming on both, my first console as a Super Nintendo and i also a an old PC i played BZ1, Comanche and other games on. I liked both.

Asus A8V Deluxe(rev. 2.00) / A64 3200 (winchester) / 1024mb OCZ DDR500 (2.5-3-3-8) / BFG 6800GT@stock / Baracuda 120GB / Lian-Li PC-65 / Syncmaster 700NF / OCZ Power Stream 520
May 23, 2005 8:17:53 PM

There are few things that are missing from this discussions

1 Hidden prices for next gen consoles
1.a You need big screen HDTV in order to see all the glory that they can offer. And unless you want to sit really close to the screen, you need them large, 40+ diagonal at least. Now how much does that cost? More than $1000. Good models cost even multiple times more than $1000. And do not try to say that you can use HDTV that for other things as well such as watching regular TV, because computer can be used for MANY other things as well. And the computer monitor is much cheaper, because you do not need it as big!
1.b The game price. The consoles sales at loss, this is why so good consoles will cost so little. But you pay for this through games. If you say buy 100 games over the life of the console, this will be $1500 more than PC games, assuming that one PC game is 15$ cheaper (give or take). Overall, I think it as expensive to have console as you gaming platform as PC.

2. I had to recently upgrade my computer memory from 512KB to 1GB, and I see huge improvements in FPS, RTS, MMORPG. And this is in addition to 256MB on my video card. Good resolution = need good textures = need more memory. And X360 has already less memory than you need for many PC games. In my book the amount of memory is much more important then the processor, especially when you have good video card.

4. Part of the reason why we do not see super-duper processors in PC is that they are not actually required for good gaming. The video card with GPU is where you need all the horsepower, not the processor. The good sound also requires lots of calculations, but it is handled by separate card in PC. (X360 though may need to use the processor for that). The only time when you actually need a powerful processor (and memory as well) is for the things as path-finding in RTS games, but there are no good RTS in consoles anyhow.

3. The interface. There is no way to have good RTS with controller without mouse. There is no way to have good aiming in FPS without mouse. There is no way to have good experience in MMORPG without keyboard. And I personally do not play sport games. Sure, the console is quite different experience, but it works for both ways. I do not see next generation consoles as killers for PC games. They just exist in parallel universes in some sense.
May 24, 2005 3:05:39 AM

First of all i've already explained my points in previous posts.

I'm not buying games, i'm going to either flash bios or modchip to enable the use of "legally" downloaded full version games. And I already have a 26" LCD HDTV/monitor, the 512mb ram, i admit is kinda low, but for PC remember windows xp eats about 300mb by itself.

I replied to a post that said the xbox360 had usb ports, so it's possible to plug in keyboard/mouse. I know it's impossible to play RTS without a mouse.
May 24, 2005 3:32:30 AM

Odd... Windows XP on my machine hardly uses 75mb... At least thats what it tells me.

There is one big downfall to consoles, and it is that they only play games and watch movies. 75% of the time I use my PC for more than games... I know its hard to believe!

Realy now... Have you ever en\decoded a DVD on an Xbox!?!? How about run a fileserver on a PS? I'd like to see a GC run adobe and edit my home videos!

Ok... Lets imagine here... You spend $2000 on a PC to do everything you need it to except play games. Thats not to bad for top notch gear here. How nice is it to unzip files super fast and anything else you can think of! Now lets add a $400 videocard to play games... Wait just a moment! Thats probably the cost of a console! And now they both play games!

The way I see it is that people spend $2000 on a computer to do just that, compute! Then you factor in $400 for a videocard to play games.

Console $400
Videocard $400

Looks pretty close to me considering the $2000 left out for the PC that is for every other thing it does too...

My logic may be a bit flawed here, but I think there is a point some where in there :smile:

"If youre paddling upstream in a canoe and a
wheel falls off, how many pancakes fit in a doghouse? None! Icecream doesn't have bones!!!"

"Battling Gimps and Dimbulbs HERE at THGC"
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Clob on 05/23/05 05:34 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
May 24, 2005 4:18:42 AM

I know Scott mentioned that debates like this are pointless but for a new-to-pc-hardware guy like me these discussions are brilliant.

Its a good thing that sees you guys take the time to put your thoughts down.

<b><font color=green> "America is full of vociferous minorities and silent majorities". Richard Nixon on the Progressive Party's failed presidential candidate, Henry Wallace. </b> </font color=green>
May 24, 2005 4:23:28 AM

I need a better notebook for university, been planning to get one for a while now, so if i could save some money on my PC then i could get a notebook with a high end video card:D  I'm not arguing for consoles, but in terms of gaming, it seems that PC's do cost a lot more. But I'm still having doubts about the idea of using something with a Macintosh processor. I've been putting too much cash in my PC so if i could cut down a bit and replace it with a console and a good notebook, i'm fine with that.
May 24, 2005 4:24:40 AM

Fine let's end this debate now

We'll start it again once we actually see xbox360 on the market!




GO PC's!!!!!!! AND GO Athlon64 X2's!!!!!!!!!!!!!
May 24, 2005 4:27:09 AM

But I will say this, if you're one of those people with morals against piracy, then odds are PC is a better choice because games are half price. For people who enjoys a challenge to mod something once in a while to get downloaded games working on a console, then one of the consoles may be a great choice. But you'll still need a good PC for everything else you just don't need a high end 400-500 dollars video card.
a b U Graphics card
May 24, 2005 6:55:23 AM

Quote:
I doubt ATi worked on the R500 without considering the R520 into the mix, and instead doing an independant new architecture that has no bearing on the first of the R5xx serie.
Otherwise they would never have called it R500, ya know?

Well the R500 is supposedly what the R400 was going to be (only better of course, thanks to time) and supposedly ATi dropped plans to make an R500 style card for this next generation due to wanting to make a more simple DX9+ (WGF 1.0) card. They are different in design, how different depends on whether there is truth to the 24+8/8 rumours which would bring some of the R500 unified shader technology into the R520 architecture without threatening the 'usual' design.

Quote:
But like I said before, just WHAT in the world is MS expecting that will require 3 CPU cores than more VPUs? Same applies to Sony with their 8 cores.

Well for that I'd say a few things: AI, Maps, Networking and Physics. These are well suited for multi core and multi-threading. The Xbox does have virtually multi VPUs with the R500 having 3 sets of 16 pipelines. Even if thought of in simplistic terms (P+V / F+G) it's like having 2 X800/GF6800s on a single chip without the inefficiencies of SLi/MVP. And when it comes down to it really, it's better to have them all on one chip than trying to have a bunch of chips communicate with each other.

Quote:
So if such drivers were optimized on a global software scale, are we assuming we can win over twice the performance in games? And what about heat?

Well really they aren't doing the same things (often workstation cards stress the geometry/vertex part of the cards more than games do and memory compression is handled differently IIRC) and the truely optimized drivers are secondary add-ons that are often detrimental to the performance of other applications. There is no way that eiter nV nor ATi would let any performance stone go un-turned, but if you want similar performance boosts for gaming you'd need to have different driver packages for each set of games.

As for heat, it's just a question of clock speeds, workstation cards are usually clocked lower, and in the past they had the big blower-fan coolers (which are now standard on the GF6800 series).


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com/" target="_new"><font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil: 
May 24, 2005 7:26:48 AM

thank you eden i stand corrected on that front.

Also, a note to Captain Insano: Apperently there was a tech demo rendering a hugely detailed landscape to an extremly high level of quality on the cell alone with no input from the GPU (all on the fly). I dont know about the X360 but this is impressive. and CPU's can be used to render images by the way :-)

<i>Mmmm Dawn AND Eve at the same time...Drroooooll
-------------------------------------------------
<b>XP2800 Barton, 2x512Mb PC2700, ASUS A7N8X, Hercules 9800Pro 128Mb. :cool:
a b U Graphics card
May 24, 2005 7:37:50 AM

Quote:
Lets look at the facts: To do this would cost an absolute fortune.

That's true but that's not the issue. Also compairing prices isn't fair when the consoles are sold at a loss, not at the current PC price gouging profits, so we'd never be able to figure out the relative performance/value ratio, although it should favour consoles up front since they don't have to pay for all the extras PCs have. Once you factor in all the cost of games you may start to approach a mid-range PC though.

Quote:
When the Xbox was released, I had a XP2100, Ti4200 64Mb, 512Mb Ram etc BUT! whilst this was more powerful than the Xbox, The games STILL looked better and ran smoother on Microsofts ugly box in 80% of cases.

What games would you be refering to that ran on both?
As for the comparison, the GF4ti is really not that much different feature wise than the GF3 found inside the Xbox (PS 1.3 vs 1.1 [but who uses 1.3?]), whereas versus the best of the day the R300 cards (R9500/9700) it was night and day. Comparing even to the R8500/9000 with it's PS1.4 effects games like Morrowind (which I played on the Xbox first) looked far better on PC than on the Xbox. The other thing to consider is the relative advantage of the viewing medium where the 640x480 resolution of the Xbox is helped by the natural edge-bleeding/blending of TV, which is something they lose this time around with HighDef.

Quote:
A lot of the people here appear to have some kind of Console related phobia and are living in denial that this time round the PC will not make such a swift come back against the next-gen consoles.

Well there's no way to know that for sure, if the Gamecube shows us anything it's that it's not about the power of the system but the power of the titles that moves consoles. PCs will always be there, what will decide their fate/us for gaming will be more in the hands of Micro$oft in the form of Longhorn/WGF/etc. than any other single player. While consoles will come out strong remember they won't be out for another 6+ months and we still haven't seen the power of the next gen PC components, so the gap may not be as dramatic if no one can optimize for the consoles until well into their ownership cycle. We'll have to see. And considering that the consoles are programmed for on PCs, anything the consoles can do 'PC's will be able to do, althought you may need those quad X2 opterons (and even more so the emulator) to make it playable.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com/" target="_new"><font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil: 
a b U Graphics card
May 24, 2005 7:50:14 AM

Quote:
Also, a note to Captain Insano: Apperently there was a tech demo rendering a hugely detailed landscape to an extremly high level of quality on the cell alone with no input from the GPU (all on the fly). I dont know about the X360 but this is impressive. and CPU's can be used to render images by the way :-)

Yeah but that's a tech demo, not a playable game. You can render far FAR better images on a server, but it doesn't mean you can make it real time playable. Just about every demo (especially the most impressive ones) shown on the PS3 were all pre-rendered / pre-determined demos to spark people's imaginations (some of which weren't even done by the game developers :eek:  ), there was very little in game demos. Alot of people have been talking about the KillZone demo, but none of it was actual game play.

Sofar the only impressive demo from either has been UT2K7, even the Oblivion clips were very brief and the character motion was terrible. Of course it's still early, and the consoles are a long way off from being retailed, but if all they have are 'artists conceptions' then really there's little to go on just yet.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com/" target="_new"><font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil: 
May 24, 2005 12:40:50 PM

Dear god GGA, now your asking! ;-0 that was a looong time ago, I couldnt give you specific game examples right now. Morrowind did spring to mind, which actually ran like a snail on my machine at the time (may have been my own fault through lack of knowledge at the time). Rallisport challenge is another example, whilst yes it did look better on the PC, to get it to run as well as and look equal or better than the xbox took quite a bit of doing. Although like you say, the nature of current TV's lends to a smother edged look at lower resolutions than those found in PC gaming.

I appreciate your comment on price comparrison. Although I didnt intend my comments to sound like I was comparing them. it was intended more along the lines of: yes PC's will be more powerful than the consoles eventually but at quite a substantial cost to us.

6 months till X360 and a good year till PS3 - looking back at it, yes I think time will lessen the performance gap but we will still have a little way to go.

I'm just concerned as to what is going to be needed to run games using the Unreal 3 engine and new games looking as good as it does (to a decent degree) as in visual terms the graphics are quite litterally a huge step from what we are running now. Doom 3 @ 1600x1200 etc still requires a monster PC to get running smoothly and that doesnt look a patch on Unreal 3 technology. Does this mean the next GPU's (G70 etc) are going to be a massive step forward from what we are using now?, then what kind of CPU's are going to be needed for the supposed AI and physics?

Sigh, Im tiring of this thread...

<i>Mmmm Dawn AND Eve at the same time...Drroooooll
-------------------------------------------------
<b>XP2800 Barton, 2x512Mb PC2700, ASUS A7N8X, Hercules 9800Pro 128Mb. :cool:
May 24, 2005 1:52:55 PM

I've seen screen shots of all the of the new releases for Xbox 360, they look awesome, as good as todays best PC games BUT they will look soo shitty even on HD compared to a monitor, i know cause i have a 61 inch Sam Sung DLP HD tv and an Xbox and 2 gaming comps. So you get the affects but not the clarity. Sort of like watching the Matrix movies or StarWars(new ones) with all the cool computer animation on a VSH compared to DVD HD. ITs a huge difference. Anyway, the PC ports didn't look any better, in fact they looked a bit worse, but its too early to tell for sure. Anyway, what do you think the game industy is driven by? Us, the people who build these uber expensive computers. So games are being made more and more to run on the high end stuff, like chronicles of riddick, it has requirements that would make your average PC cry. So do you not think that we will be running dual cores and R520's/G70's in the next 6 months to a year? Once dual cores are out, how long will it take for tripple cores? I don't think long since there is a clock speed bariar, look at the CPU boom of recent. A pair of 6800 U's or X850XT's in SLI/MVP have the same graphics rendering power as the Xbox's chip, and these are OLD cards by computer standards, i've had my 6800 GT for almost a year now, it will be a year and 1 half by the time Xbox 360 comes out. And to your answer about rendering in real time on CPU's its NO. CPU's can render all the same stuff a GPU can, but Not in the quality a gpu can if its real time. Graphics is still more based on GPU than CPU. Do you thin that a tripple core 3.2ghz appleish CPU can render what the R500 with its 48 unified shaders can in real time? That's why sony has 8 cpu's in their sysem. Those extra 4 or 5 take the place of the GPU. I grant that its a very intelligent idea, the programming possibilities are almost endless, but then again they are stupid at the same time, they keep trying to use their own programming language which takes forever for them to figure out and exploit, which is why i think Xbox360 will pown the PS3, it can have awesome graphics right away, the first games are already about the quality of the better PC games, minuse the clearity of a PC game.

Asus A8V Deluxe(rev. 2.00) / A64 3200 (winchester) / 1024mb OCZ DDR500 (2.5-3-3-8) / BFG 6800GT@stock / Baracuda 120GB / Lian-Li PC-65 / Syncmaster 700NF / OCZ Power Stream 520
a b U Graphics card
May 24, 2005 5:06:43 PM

Quote:
Does this mean the next GPU's (G70 etc) are going to be a massive step forward from what we are using now?, then what kind of CPU's are going to be needed for the supposed AI and physics?

Well the thing is I think that the Xbox's VPU will be better than anything from the PC world for at least 1 year. The PS3's is the standards fair stuff, nothing revolutionary (supposedly). Now this may give the Xbox certain fundemental advanatages for effects, and the embeded DRAM that is optimized to support HiDef (1200x720+)w/ 4xAA on die is pretty impressive. But of course the SLi/MVP idea is the interesting side of PCs (which of course, like you said, is mucho dinero). The G70 doesn't 'seem' to be a massive leap forward, and the R520 seems like a big leap from the R420, but about an equal leap when seen from the feature set of the GF6800. There is little truely revolutionary from those VPUs unlike the R500.

On the physics front at least there's the PhysX cards for PCs, and this should take that burden off the CPUs. And the strong push for dual core should at least allow similarities between console platforms and PCs, especially if the dual core HT procs.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com/" target="_new"><font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil: 
a b U Graphics card
May 24, 2005 7:28:41 PM

The thing about CPUs and rendering is that with a predefined path they could smoothly render a scene if you have enough power and you don't make it too intense or at too high a res. What likely they did was render it using a render farm and then simply display the 'movie' created. There's alot of talk about who did the demo and I think Red Star is on of the top names being bandied about (haven't checked in a while).

The thing that cell may help with is vector calculation for culling and such, which would take soe of the strain off the GPUs, however I'm not sure how much stress that would relieve, but with the number of sub procs available they could do fairly complex interactive calculations for things like reflections, the biggest problem would be feeding the info to/from the VPU/CPU.

As much as we debate and banter this around the biggest thing about this comparison will be the level to which the companies lock in titles and devlopers. Exclusive titles is what usually push the consoles, not so much that one is better than the other IMO.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com/" target="_new"><font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil: 
May 25, 2005 3:13:12 AM

Quote:
Has there been any RTS announed for the consoles? Because if there has i'll stop spending thousands on my PC, and just get a good notebook and both consoles.

Even with a damn keyboard and mouse, has anyone even THOUGHT of how to handle them in front of you? This isn't a desk with a monitor and a keyboard area with a mouse zone. This is a couch with a TV about 3 meters away and a table in front of ya. How on Earth can you even have any decent comfort playing RTS games or FPS' without discomfort?

That is yet another reason why consoles will be consoles, and PCs will be PCs. None of them is going to step on the other's specialty, because each is defined by the placement of their use and the method of gameplay they provide.

--
The <b><A HREF="http://snipurl.com/blsb" target="_new"><font color=red>THGC Photo Album</font color=red></A></b>, send in your pics, get your own webpage and view other members' sites.
May 25, 2005 3:21:03 AM

Quote:
Both consoles have 512mb of ram shared, is that enough for RTS games? I'm sure the consoles has a lot of CPU power, but not so sure in the ram department.


Specs for Halo:
Recommended system with 256MB RAM and a 1.4GHZ CPU. (the minimum are 128MB and a 733MHZ, however anyone who tried the PC version knows it's literally impossible to play it right like that, at least to compare with smooth frame rates)

Xbox specs for Halo:
64MB RAM, 733MHZ Intel CPU (not exactly IDed, but presumed P3).

If the Xbox could run Halo or even Halo 2 with all its mighty graphics, while the PC chugged badly even though both use a DirectX 8 platform, then clearly the console's dedicated power and targetted programming allows it to run even the worst programmed games on PC with so much less RAM, even up to 1/4rth of it. So your question is rather moot. The X360 and all the other consoles are likely to have more than enough RAM.
In fact all the previous consoles have abysmal amounts of RAM and can run games arguably using very heavy graphics files that go in the gigs, all being loaded and rendered live in front of you. It seems RAM matters little when you know how to play with the amount you got.

--
The <b><A HREF="http://snipurl.com/blsb" target="_new"><font color=red>THGC Photo Album</font color=red></A></b>, send in your pics, get your own webpage and view other members' sites.
      • 1 / 3
      • 2
      • 3
      • Newest
!