Ps3 video card = what in pc video card? - Page 2

I really wasnt going to respond to this stupid thread but this post is making me do it. Preffering a PC over a limited console does not mean you dont have friends that is the stupidest thing i have ever heard in my life. People who use pc's for games dont want to be limited by hte limited hardware in it or by the games for it. If you want to fit 4 boxs on your tv in its limited resalution and you find that fun go for it some people dont however i personaly dont care to wait 5 years to get a new graphics "card" for a console so i can play graphics that everyone on a computer has been playing the whole time. I play games for the whole effect not cuz its cheap and can be transported to my friends low res tv so i can quad screen it with them. Yes i find sports games "if i played them" better on a console mearly becuase its one of the few games that seems to play better on a controler course if i wanted to play one i would just buy a controler for my computer and do it. Personaly i dont care what you use i just preffer to not be limited so i use my computer.

and where was i bashing PC's? i seem to remember even saying i love pc gaming...my whole point to this...which you seem to have lost...is that console buyers have there reasons for doing so...so what if its artificially controlled...thats the way it is

The way it is being artificially generated by the companies doesn't make consoles better it makes their creators better marketers, not the consoles better tools.

Your points are based on misonceptions, all of which have nothing to do with the consoles themselves so much as the fact that users aren't smart enough or organized enough to change the status quo. And what you are trying to refute is the concept that console users and their consoles are simple, none of your comments do that properly, and then you do the console way of thinking 'that's the way it is'.

But seriously, you talk about controllers as a difference, which they arne't then the artificially controlled aspects. So if there's nothing else, then I guess your done other than your red cheeks.

to no one in partucular:

let this one die please. let people play what they want. simple fact remains pc's performance wise are and always will be better than consoles except for the part where 6 months before they are released when the manufacturers releae theoretical specs. sorry but the xbox and ps3 especially sounded ok about a year ago when they were first announced but as always pc's have advanced so that they are again behind.

oh why do i drone on, let this thread burn in hell.

The primary thing I dislike about consoles compared to PCs is the relative lack of range of controllability. The controllers on consoles are limiting to me. There's no equivalent of the mouse in consoles when used to "look around" in first person games. The second joystick is just too slow and not intuitive enough for me, when considering the ability to guage speed and accuracy of how you're looking around.

3rd person is more OK, but it's not as immersive enough for me. I like first person better.

Other than that, I've enjoyed a few console games, especially right after I bought my 61in big screen. I just planted a comfy chair in the middle of my living room and played for a couple days...

The PC one looks much sharper.

The 360 does not get any sliders to adjust in Oblivion. No console games ever do. And as you can tell Oblivion on the 360 was greatly dumbed down from its PC counter part with less grass and vegitation. Plus it has no AF fitlering period which is just lame. I played the 360 version of Oblivion and even with all these things taken out the darn thing still struggled on outside locations alot. LMAO.


Any way as for the PC version you can only use AF in Oblivion by forcing it in control panel. And for the textures Im not sure what your complaing about but there is a mod you can download to increase the texture resolution even more.

hmm, i heard the game was nerfed for the pc in terms of visula quality due to how it was done on the console but i may be wrong.

what i meant was the horrible textures in the distance. i have downloaded the higher res textures for my own although they still don't look that great. i hope the 360 ain't stuck with the original distant textures.

sorry, i know its been discussed before but i think that oblivion has a few flaws which should have been eradicated before its release and the devs should not have been influenced by consoles potential sales and nvidia( or so i presume)

I didnt mean to imply PC gamers have no friends what I'm saying is that if you and your friends play videogames most are easier on a console.

Most sports games (just about all but soccer) are better on consoles flatout. Playing on a PC with a gamepad doesnt make it better or even just as good as the console.


And comparing the most graphics intensive game on the PC to the console counterpart isn't even fair, but i'll agree that games of that and certain other genres are better on the PC.

Bullshit, I have played hitman bloodmoney on both the 360 and my PC with a X900XT and on my PC its just like that comparison shot above with Oblivion.

The PC version kills it.

i only wished they had things small then increase in size rather than the pop up nature which can sometimes lead to stutters. perhaps i need to turn down some settings but i feel it is more the method they use than my comps power that is the cause.

I first looked at those screen shots. first one i thought didnt know console graphics were that blurry then i saw the second one and thought ok maybe they arent then noticed it was from a pc screen shot lol. Anyways sports games arent exactly the fun to play by your self games and internet play would just be silly IMO same with racing games. Probly the only games i would ever play on a console cuz there isnt alot of point to playing on a computer. For the guy who says his xbox has better graphics on that one game i never heard of. Try using a resalution on your computer that doesnt suck like 1600x1200+ my personal fave is 1920x1440 however my new monitor only does 1920x1200.

Granted they have to take out a good chunk of graphics to port it to a console but with the hardware currently available in the xbox i would have expected something better looking. Funny thing is most of the PC graphic quality alot of people dont see alot of times (like my friends who play consoles) because they havent seen what the top graphics look like. alot of it is more subtle then textures its the ammount of things in the sceen like people mentioned before like the shrubs. Dunno doesnt really matter if you can see it or not fact is consoles are and always will be behind when it comes to hardware. And the person who mentioned hte noise in a PC (not that i could care about it) you can build a computer thats quiet not to mention how loud consoles are now they even make liquid cooling for them not to mention the external fans you can now buy for htem to cool them mini computers down which is all a console is anymore a computer stripped down to do one thing.

LOL, okay im reading this and wonder were this topic went. Im just doing a essay on this subject. Yes im buying a 360 so they can play , Games, like what i intended the pc to be for, but lets face it, most of the games on the pc aren't really ment for my younger brothers. Now to mention you can be far more comftroble on you bed playing a game vs. sitting at a computer chair. Well, have to go finish my essay.

I agree generally with Godfather....

Maybe not in this example... but in some other games (im talkin xbox regular here... i dont have any experience with this gen), it does seem that the textures (player modeling) are better on the consoles with the low resolutions...even on the PC if you bump the res up the texture sizes/quality dont get that much better.

I think its strange too... ive just now in the past 2 years notice PCs really get ahead notabley with all the effects being added...

unless ur an idoit, u play for the games not the hardware

pcs will always be technilogically better and consoles will always hav more variety of games. and for the big noobs, instead of spending over a grand for a high end comp and jus getting a nxt gen console, lets hate someone jus cuz he bought a console, great logic

who cares wat kind of hardware he/she is plaing a game on as long as they arent pumping big rigs it shouldnt really matter

About LCDs, ofcourse you dont just throw it into a bag carelessly like a 5 year old, but protecting it from damage is not exactly rocket science either.
About the price thing, which i never touched, consoles have an advantage for sure, no doubt about that, but what they lack is upgradeability and have less things to tinker arround with which appeals to people like me.
A laptop that games like a console would cost you a shitload, a mini pc would be less expensive and a bit larger.

Yes but Zelda looks much better on the Cube than on the original NES now doesn't it, so how much is hardware driven? Games can't be better without better hardware. Anyone, but an idiot, should understand that.

Technically speaking the Xbox 360 is still technologically superior to PCs in the graphics department and was superior at launch in the CPU department, however it still depends on whether anyone can exploit those advantgages.

Care to prove that?
I doubt you could with even just retail games, let alone shareware games.

And then spending equally more for games...

It's not about hate, it's about the fasehoods and fantasies of console supporters.

Like peiple who mention, sport and controllers as advantages, I played EA's NHL 98-2k2, TigerWoods, and F1 2000 on my 27" screen with friends and various controllers from the Logitech rumbe pad to the USB versions of the Xbox controllers.

If consoles were so standalone great why do they try to lock developers into exlusivity deals?

Without those, there'd likely be alot less consoles and alot less console gamers.

Overall both are enjoyable, but when comparing the two there is no comparison. As hs already been mentioned far too many features and options are missing on Consoles, the only thing they win at is ease of use, and that's mainly because they are so limited and restricted that an on/off button is all you need.

i meant the argument over comp vs console hardware, all nxt gen consoles and a new pc are great, but for me anyways i dont buy it to get an xb360, obviously i look at hardware and features, but i look at the games coming out for each system and decide wat i want more based off that first instead should i side with microsoft or sony or nintendo. for pcs im talking scalability of games and the fact that new parts are released every 6 months

i was being a little too vague with that variety of games thing, but a lot of big titles, rpgs for example the shadow hearts series, valkerie profile, mass effect. games that wont come out on pc because developers jus dont make them for pcs, but i kno that this is a pointless argument and yet ppl stil side with something like its the end of the world

Not true at all. I use owned one up until a couple of weeks ago and recently sold it on Ebay because I just didnt see the need in having it along with my PC.

I have pretty much played every game thats available for both on the 360 and the PC. COD2, Prey, Condemned, Oblivion, Hitman Bloodmoney. ETC...

The PC versions have a good lead over the 360 counter parts with higher res textures, the PC does AA better and AF plus even with these added features I get far better framerates on my PC.

I dont know why but when it comes to AF filtering the 360 games seriously lack in that department which leads to muddy looking textures which just kills the whole experience for me.

The best thing about the 360 is its GPU with Unified shaders, the only draw back however is the low clock speed of only 500mhz. The X1900XTX might not have a unified shader engine but it makes up for that deficiency in sheer speed and processing power over the 360's GPU. Plus dont forget we can overclock, I have my X1900XT@730mhz core and 832mem. 360's GPU cant touch that.

And as for the CPU in the 360 it was actually outdone by PC Cpu's a good while before it even came out. It has been explained in tech articles about the 360's CPU being able to only read inorder code vs out of order code on your typical intel or amd cpu. The performance of the 360 CPU is about equivilant to a pentium 4 1.5ghz cpu.

Another article also proved it to be only roughly 2 times the power of the Xbox CPU.

Not true at all. I use owned one up until a couple of weeks ago and recently sold it on Ebay because I just didnt see the need in having it along with my PC.

I have pretty much played every game thats available for both on the 360 and the PC. COD2, Prey, Condemned, Oblivion, Hitman Bloodmoney. ETC...

The PC versions have a good lead over the 360 counter parts with higher res textures, the PC does AA better and AF plus even with these added features I get far better framerates on my PC.

You're missing my point, and yes I know it was kinda unclear, but I tried to focus on the specific aspect.
Something can be technologically superior, without actually exploiting the full capabilities, AF being a perfect example, Xenos+CPU could do it, but is not. Don't get me wrong there's little I've seen on the X360 to say X360>X1900, in fact nothing, but techologically speaking Xenos>X1900 in most aspect with a few small exceptions like AF (which isn't necessary if the devs specifically gear their games for the consoles, but since they're lazy you notice the lack of AF).

B3D's feature list does a good job of exposing the differences;
http://www.beyond3d.com/articles/xenos/index.php?p=09

No support for Trillinear AF in hardware (billinear only IIRC) for the Xenos, but if the devs did a better job with the textures at the same res it would look the same, what AF also does is enhance beyond reference, so high AF can make a good picture look better, but occasionally make them slightly artificially worked up.

Well it's a question of use, for what it's geared to do it was way ahead on the technical side, but as a general purpose CPU it wasn't as flexible, but it was using far more advanced techniques at the time of launch, which are now being carried over into other areas.

And this is the thing I was trying to stress, not power but technology superiority, speed is a slightly different function and I easily grant it's not very powerful in raw power, just like the Xenos, but they were the cutting edge of technology at the time.

I'm in no way saying Xbox360>PC nor Xenos more powerful than X1900 (in fact usually argue the opposite) but the Xenos is definitely technologically more advanced, but that's not the same as better or more powerful.

It's like the GMA965/3000 may be SM4.0 compliant and may have some tehnological advantages over many current VPUs, but it likely won't game near an SM2.0 X700 let alone a GF7600/X1650 or higher, and can't use SM4.0 features in games any more than as a slide show feature. Sorta same thing IMO.

this may be extremely arrogant but how many of the majority of people who buy consoles would even know better exists. would they even know theres such thing as image filtering and what it actually looks like.

arrogant i know but might be true. ignorance is bliss as they say.

Trinilear anisotropic filtering? Isn't trinilear filtering and anisotropic two different methods of texture filtering? :?

They're progressive methods, but full AF uses Trillinear filtering in the process. When talking of AF it's a question of methodology, and the point is that there is filtering options available, but with only Billinear in hardware Full AF is not an option, but texture filtering is, and that was sorta my point. When trying to type while working things just mash together. But AF NEEDS Trillinear Filtering to function at normal AF. You can do BiAF but that ends up as nV's Brillinear filtering, and then you still need a portion of Trillinear. They are all a subset of texture/texel filtering, but you're right they are technically different.

For this I was simplifying to: Bi<Tri<FullAF

Actually and angular-biased AF < Full/HQ AF.

Sorry should've been more specific.

Yes, but it's already been answered and covered, now we're onto our own concerns. IF you want the answer click the '1' at the top/bottom of your screen.

i must agree i cant fit 8 people in front of my pc like i can my ps2 and just rumble.Everything has its place.

Not true at all. I use owned one up until a couple of weeks ago and recently sold it on Ebay because I just didnt see the need in having it along with my PC.

I have pretty much played every game thats available for both on the 360 and the PC. COD2, Prey, Condemned, Oblivion, Hitman Bloodmoney. ETC...

The PC versions have a good lead over the 360 counter parts with higher res textures, the PC does AA better and AF plus even with these added features I get far better framerates on my PC.

I dont know why but when it comes to AF filtering the 360 games seriously lack in that department which leads to muddy looking textures which just kills the whole experience for me.

The best thing about the 360 is its GPU with Unified shaders, the only draw back however is the low clock speed of only 500mhz. The X1900XTX might not have a unified shader engine but it makes up for that deficiency in sheer speed and processing power over the 360's GPU. Plus dont forget we can overclock, I have my X1900XT@730mhz core and 832mem. 360's GPU cant touch that.

And as for the CPU in the 360 it was actually outdone by PC Cpu's a good while before it even came out. It has been explained in tech articles about the 360's CPU being able to only read inorder code vs out of order code on your typical intel or amd cpu. The performance of the 360 CPU is about equivilant to a pentium 4 1.5ghz cpu.

Another article also proved it to be only roughly 2 times the power of the Xbox CPU.
exactly, I've had this argument with fanboys on gamespot mant times and they all say that 3 cores and unifed shaders make it better. so does oblivion run much better on pc?