Last message on previous page:
I agree that the Xenos has some interesting features that are in a sense better than current desktop offerings, but if you actually see how these new features are being used, you'll realize they're simply are not. Quake4 for the Xbox360 is plagued with slowdown. Rumors had it that even games such as Elder's scroll 4 were having a hard time running on the 360. Wouldn't you think Xenos' shader architecture would finally be in use for later titles like Oblivion?

Well, From what I hear, PS3 is looking more lke 2007 now anyway, which may render this whole discussion pointless.

Why do you people always make topics like these when one side is nothing but specs yet. Stop these PS3 vs. whatever topics till you actually get to see it in action instead of speculating if it is better or not because these topics can just go on forever till there is any proof.

Now that's probably the most truthful post in this thread.

Damn.

YOUR CELL PHONE IS BETTER THAN MY MONITOR!

Agree 100%. for this sily debate, I've always said, When code for Consoles Cnsole SHOULD outperform a PC simply because it has non of the extre OS/Driver/Etc overhead, only exactly what it needs. However it's rare that we would ever get to that level, and even more so at the launch of alll this new (even to developers) hardware. Also half the time launch titles are PC ports anyways so even worse. If some way you could get 100% efficiency from day one for all the components of the Xbox, it would theoretically kick but of any PC for quite some time, but the reality is far from that point, heck I'd be surprised if we're getting 20-30% efficientcy from the CPU and 50% efficiency from the VPU.

Funny thing is originally Oblivion was to have a few Xbox 360-only features based on the advantages of the Xnos, alot were dropped IIRC. Also I've seen previews about both versions saying Xbox>PC anthen the very next review PC>Xbox. So eventhey can't stop arguing.

Unfortunately no. Oblivion was too late to truely be fully optimized IMO, heck it was built on PC for PC and then adapted (probably very well though) for Xbox. It will add features unlike others, but developement time is so SO long I think you won't see a truely optimized for Xenos title 'til at least next year. Best if it's built from the groud up for the X360, maybe Halo3 or some similar "Xbox-centric PC as an afterthought" title will do just that.

Great comments Grape, you very eloquently capsolize my thoughts from a broad range of console/PC comparisons and why they are weak/irrelevant, and the issue of launch software, and porting across the industry.

In a lot of ways we are in the golden age of PC and Console hardware. GPUs are well designed for their PC limitations (and DX10 solves a couple more problems) and we are seeing a 2x increase in power every couple years with increased complexity/features.

We have never had it this good

I want it Better! 8)

This is rather a pointless discussion but here are my thoughts.

Consoles are designed purely for gaming hence you can expect to have better performance in games then pcs. But there is one thing that is very important in performance comparision. That is the release date of the hardware!...

The GPU structure of the consoles are most of the time 1-2 years ahead of the current PC technology. Because the firms simply don't want the consoles to be outdated easily. So if you compare a PS3 and a high performance PC at the time of the release you will probably see that PS3 simply outperforms in games.

Some may say that this is stupid since the cost of the console and the fastest card on the market are nearly the same. But the point is the main profit in console gaming comes from the game sales instead of the machine that's why the profit on the machines is kept minimum.

Someone said GTA san Andreas is not as good as the pc version. Well the PS2 you are talking about is 5-6 years old if I am not mistaken. Can you show me any PC giving that quality 5-6 years ago(the best you got was gforce2 or maybe Gforce3 TI)?


But if you ask me what do you prefer? I definitely answer PC. First of all I don't paly games only . PCs are flexible, upgradable, customizable. Even if you are talking about only gaming mouse, keyboard and modding make me to choose pc.

Again it is pointless to compare the two other then gaming. At least that is what I think .

That's the case for the Xbox, since the R520 is far ahead of what's out there, but considering that the PS3 uses the RSX chip which is basically the GF7900, whichis a 90nm shrink of the GF7800, which is really the NV47 we were expecting over a year ago., the PS3 from the start was destined to have a graphics core that is equal to or behind the best desktop.

Except that the PS3 in particular has been pushed back SO FAR that a 2xdual-core (ie 4 core) desktop running 2 G80 or 2R600 will likely blow it away. Even by the time the PS3 is finally released the Xbox360 will likely be 3rd fiddle feature wise to the two chips I just mentioned.

Agreed to some extent. We can discuss and debate the features, but not the overall effect of the gaming experience.

High end PCs will "always" be superior to their console counterparts. Where does the hardware come from that makes it faster? I wish that they made that special magical console technology available for custom built computers.

You are wrong. The Xbox has what Nvidia calls the X-chip, which is a tweaked Geforce 3 card, not a Geforce 2. It lies somewhere inbetween the GF3 and GF4 GPU's. Also, that 7 core cell CPU is no better than the dual core processor that are in production today.

what ur all forgetting is that up til the xbox 360 consoles wer unlike pcs.. they were definitely inferior. They required much less powerfu; hardware since you only outputing a low resolution (640 x 480 ish) image and from what i see thers no AA or AF.. you dont really need AA anyway cos the low res TV blurrs any sharp lines anyway. Any pc would massacre them, as we know, play most games at TV resolution and ul get immense performance.

Its only since the XBOX 360 that as far as i can tell, the graphics actully come close to looking as detaioled and gd as those on a PC.. thatsi if u have a hi res monitor to display it all on.

So, the pc is always ahead, since as was mentioned ati and nvidia make the gpus anyway, and they r not gonna loose out on selling their high end gpus to hardcore computer freaks as well as for use in pcs.. it just wouldnt make sense.. I think its games consoles that are the inferor things, always playing catchup with PC technoogy

bt anyway who cares they do different things, specialsed in differnt areas, but as i say its the games console that unsure of itself, and gradually morphing into a PC!

erm.. sorry about the revive of old post. but can i know why the emulation of console game are damn slow on PC?
is it because the emulator just s*ck or?
playstation 1 emulator are ok with P3 but playstation 2 emulator are damn slow...

I personally think you are a crack head console fanboy and I also personally think that the games on the PS3 as of right now look like complete ass with very simple textures, no bump mapping, no amount of AF and no AA is even being used.


Any high end system of today would easily surpass what a PS3 is capable of, now when the DX10 cards hit its really gonna be game over for the consoles.

The PS3 was outdated as of jan, feb of this past year.

You have bitten into the hype of 3 core or 7 cell cpu's and theoretical performance. A single core A64 > the multicore / cells in the Xbox 360 and PS3.

read this thread for info snagged off of Anandtech before the article was pulled:
http://forumz.tomshardware.com/har [...] os&start=0

Note some quotes that were in that article:

"The most ironic bit of it all is that according to developers, if either manufacturer had decided to use an Athlon 64 or a Pentium D in their next-gen console, they would be significantly ahead of the competition in terms of CPU performance."

"We already know that's not the case as game developers have already told us that the Xenon CPU isn't even in the same realm of performance as the Pentium 4 or Athlon 64. "

"The Cell processor is no different; given that its PPE is identical to one of the PowerPC cores in Xenon, it must derive its floating point performance superiority from its array of SPEs. So what's the issue with 218 GFLOPs number (2 TFLOPs for the whole system)? Well, from what we've heard, game developers are finding that they can't use the SPEs for a lot of tasks. So in the end, it doesn't matter what peak theoretical performance of Cell's SPE array is, if those SPEs aren't being used all the time."

"Right now, from what we’ve heard, the real-world performance of the Xenon CPU is about twice that of the 733MHz processor in the first Xbox. Considering that this CPU is supposed to power the Xbox 360 for the next 4 - 5 years, it’s nothing short of disappointing. To put it in perspective, floating point multiplies are apparently 1/3 as fast on Xenon as on a Pentium 4.
The reason for the poor performance? The very narrow 2-issue in-order core also happens to be very deeply pipelined, apparently with a branch predictor that’s not the best in the business. In the end, you get what you pay for, and with such a small core, it’s no surprise that performance isn’t anywhere near the Athlon 64 or Pentium 4 class.
The Cell processor doesn’t get off the hook just because it only uses a single one of these horribly slow cores; the SPE array ends up being fairly useless in the majority of situations, making it little more than a waste of die space. "

"Although both manufacturers royally screwed up their CPUs, all developers have agreed that they are quite pleased with the GPU power of the next-generation consoles. "

"Just because these CPUs and GPUs are in a console doesn't mean that we should throw away years of knowledge from the PC industry - performance doesn't come out of thin air, and peak performance is almost never achieved. Clever marketing however, will always try to fool the consumer."

Edit: forgot this one in the conclusion:
"And that's what we have here today, with the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. Both consoles are marketed to be much more powerful than they actually are, and from talking to numerous game developers it seems that the real world performance of these platforms isn't anywhere near what it was supposed to be. "

And it's that marketting and hype that you bit into. The GPU's in both consoles are nice to see, but the cpu's don't live up to the hype. Don't expect the PS3 to pawn a high end PC.


Very very well said.

Here is something funny to look at. It is a little off topic as it deals with the 360 but it shouldnt matter since these next gen consoles are supposed to like UBER DUBER STRONGER THAN A HIGH END PC!



Oblivion 360





Oblivion on my PC














Notice the lack of AF and other details missing on the 360 version. Textures are even of lower resolution.

Consoles are nice for what they are but I absolutley despise these stupid little brats who think their toy boxes are superior to a high end PC. You people truely disgust me.

@ Grape.

I finally see somebody (besides me) happen to catch that NV47/G70 thing.

You have no idea the emotions I was experiencing over a year ago.
I get a 7800, I'm toying with Rivatuner, the core name displayed as NV47 before the news broke.....i was a little confused at the time.