xbox 360

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
As swell as the graphics system is, it shares 512MB RAM with the system so is likely not suitable for modern PC games that require 1024MB to prevent degradation from paging.

Consoles are quite comfortable using data streaming. Check out the PS2's GT4 and take a few laps on the Nurburgring track. It doesn't come close to fitting in the PS2's meager 32MB of RAM- but due to the ability of developers to code for fixed platforms data streaming makes it a non issue. 60FPS rock solid.
 

carlosd

Senior member
Aug 3, 2004
782
0
0
Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
As swell as the graphics system is, it shares 512MB RAM with the system so is likely not suitable for modern PC games that require 1024MB to prevent degradation from paging.

Consoles are quite comfortable using data streaming. Check out the PS2's GT4 and take a few laps on the Nurburgring track. It doesn't come close to fitting in the PS2's meager 32MB of RAM- but due to the ability of developers to code for fixed platforms data streaming makes it a non issue. 60FPS rock solid.

60FPS rock solid??? what are you talking about, have you seen NFSU2 or GTA3 or GTA SA in PS2, it serious slowdowns and certainly doen't run at 60 FPS, 30-35 FPS max. The same for the XboX where various games suffers serious slowdowns (specially the crappy Halo saga not even near to 60FPSs), and the gamecube!!!! is a piece of crap, the NFSU I and II runs like crap.
 

Slaimus

Senior member
Sep 24, 2000
985
0
76
Embedded DRAM is nothing new. Remember the PS2's graphics chip has 16 pipelines and a 2560-bit (not a typo) interface to its embedded DRAM. It just does not have HW T&L or shaders.
 

carlosd

Senior member
Aug 3, 2004
782
0
0
Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
What exactly leads you to believe this? Feel free to discuss it on any level and explain what elements keep the NV2A from being superior to the NV20.
Is just that a slow PC with a Geforce 3 Ti 500 could run similar games smoother and with higher details. also RESOLUTION.

Why would I believe you? Why wouldn't I believe the specs listed by the parts suppliers and the manufacturer?

Microsoft says the have the better OS with minimun errors but in the demostrations even them get bluescreens.

This shows your level of ignorance more then anything else in your post. There is no chance that the machine will cost more then or even $500 even.
They are using third party components, "with high end parts" which are not cheap friend. You have no idea about the costs of electronics fabrication. Do you think that fabricating a 48 pipelines (according to microsoft specs, which is not really true) GPU is cheap? Do you think that 22GB/s bandwidth RAM is cheap? Do you think that a CPU with 3 cores at 3.2GHz using liquid cooling is cheap?? You are lost.

1920x1080 is a decent amount higher resolution then most computer monitors. It's lower then my monitor, but certainly higher then most.
Not higher than mine.

The eDRAM on the R500 utilized in the XB360 is plenty large enough for the back buffer, which is where all you major writes/reads are dealt with in terms of framebuffer, with room to spare for some texture cache running HDTV resolutions. This pool of ram has 250GB/sec bandwidth.

We will have to see that.

Amount of RAM != bandwidth.
Not talking about amount o RAM, I am saying that the very low amount is in someway compensated by the high system memory bandwitdth, also the bandwith of the famebuffer of high end of actual GPUs is more than enough, and will be more than enough in also in the next gen GPUs which surely will be superior to Xbox360. The important memory in PC system for graphics performance is the GPU framebuffer which is in the card.
And regarding the system memory bandwith and latency, What is the superpipelined L2 cache with super advanced prediction branches present in actual PC CPUs for? That's right, to compensate the slow system memory. So what did you learn today? HIGH end videocards load all the graphics from main memory to display and process in the video card memory, no matter if the system memory is much slower, that is what the framebuffer is for.
What is different in the Xbox 360? They have a very little and superfast framebuffer which is compensated for by a high bandwidth system memory, but no dedicated to graphics, it will have to deal with data streams from 3 cores with only 1 cache block for all 3 CPUs, sound streams, video streams,ect,ect. So now I have explained why you can't compare both architectures directly because they do the work but in a different way, and the PC having always more resourses.
To sumarize. PC: high amount of framebuffer, and slow system memory. XboX 360: Low amount of frame buffer but very fast, the low amount of frame buffer may be compensated in some way by the high memory bandwidth.


I don't know what I'm talking about? You explain to me how it isn't a staggering performance advantage to have eDRAM running at roughly a quarter TB/sec versus the PC parts extremely limited bandwidth. You explain how having a UMA is not superior to segmented memory pools in a gaming application. Explain how reading and writing data to numerous pools of data across the system is a benefit and requires less bandwidth then a UMA. Obviously the XB's architecture is completely different then PCs, it needs considerably less bandwidth for comparable performance- even though it has considerably more.

Ok, maybe the next gen GPUs for PC will have also the eDRAM , and also the videocard memory, which will act as an intermediate superfast buffer. Actual high end videocard memory bandwidths are in the order of dedicated 30GB/s, which is higher than the system memory from XboX 360. Which in the end will make the PC graphic subsystem more powerfull. Most the graphics processing of the PC are up the graphic subsystem. In the Xbox 360 the things are unified.


Name them, I'll write out a brief list-

Forza Motorsports
Gran Turisimo 4
God of War
Resident Evil 4

You go ahead and find something comparable on the PC to those titles. Post the names of the games.

Those games are your personal preferences. Personally I don't like those games, specially GT4, I would rather to play NFSU2, which is much realistic experience. Don't play moto games so I don't have nothing to compare with it. Resident evil 4, I dont like to kill slow and stupid zombies, I prefer HL2 in which the enemies are much smart. God of War I haven't 'y played it so I don't have nothing to compare with.

Use consensus and Halo is one of the best games ever made(according to GR.com). Your oppinion is in the minority. It is VERY easy to find hundreds of games for the consoles that aren't on the PC- if you have the slightest bit of problem with it I have to wonder if you have ever walked in to a gaming store.
O c'mon Halo is a PIECE of crap, it is for stupid kids having the xbox and that have not played the best FPS games which are for the PC, it is boring, with a crappy visual engine, and runs like at 25FPS in the Xbox. Those who say that halo is a good game is because they have the crappy Xbox. In concensus HL2 is infiniltely superior to any Halo, just lets make a poll in this forum.

Also there are hundred of PC games no presen consoles. Maybe beacuse they are limited.
Only the best console games evolve to a PC improved version.
 

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
Wow, you have been registered on this forum for almost a year now..... perhaps you should read it a bit more often.

Is just that a slow PC with a Geforce 3 Ti 500 could run similar games smoother and with higher details.

No, it couldn't. Check out how PCs with the specs you list handle the original SplinterCell- or how one with comparable specs runs D3 at the settings used on the XBox- it isn't remotely close. According to John Carmack you can expect a roughly 100% performance improvement coding for the XBox compared to a comparably equipped PC.

Microsoft says the have the better OS with minimun errors but in the demostrations even them get bluescreens.

The parts suppliers for the XBox are the same parts suppliers for PC hardware- think real hard and it may dawn on you why what you are saying makes no sense.

You have no idea about the costs of electronics fabrication.

Civility is lost, oh well, I'll go with it.

If you are to take into consideration the console business model and exactly what it entails then you familiar with the fact that the money is made entirely on software sales- the licensing kickbacks to the first parties are how they stay in business. Furthermore- if you are familiar with fabrication costs then you will realize that in reality it is a pittance compared to the research and development associated with developing the parts being made.

To draw on a couple of historical examples- the 'Emotion Engine' in the PS2 is a MIPS based processor. MIPS was formerly part of the SGI family of products and was used in their workstations along with another one of their former products- Cray Supercomputers. Obviously the hype around EE exceeded its actual capabilities, and the Cray machines used a he!l of a lot more then a single processor but the fact remains that MIPS chips such as those utilized in the PS2 were exceedingly expensive- far more costly to produce then the highest end PC parts available at the time of its launch. Then there was the GS, including 2MB of eDRAM. The complexity of the chip in relation to its desktop peers was daunting for its era- as was its fillrate coming in more then 300% higher then the fastest desktop part. Add to that a DVD drive, which was still a fairly new technology, and lesser costs(mobo, RAM etc) and under any normal electronics pricing scheme the price would have exceeded $500 rather easily. It launched at $299. Sony makes their money on the games, if the can sell their new hardware without taking a huge loss then they are doing quite well for themselves.

Do you think that fabricating a 48 pipelines GPU is cheap?

48 ALUs, 8 pipelines.

Do you think that 250GB/s bandwidth RAM is cheap?

eDRAM- its on the same die as the GPU.

Do you think that a CPU with 3 cores at 3.2GHz using watercooling is cheap??

Liquid cooling(heatpipe), not watercooling. The tri core PPC chip is a lot less expensive for them then you are thinking, although they are not concerned with losing money on hardware in the least as they have proven without a shadow of a doubt over the last several years.

Using max levels of AA and AS it won't nor fast neither

AF has no impact in regard to the eDRAM- for AA at maximum settings none of the PC parts are fast either- and even then 'max settings' is relative as there is no reason that the current parts couldn't handle their current limits except for speed.

also the bandwith of the famebuffer of high end of actual GPUs is more than enough, and will be more than enough in also in the next gen GPUs which surely will be superior to Xbox360.

For back buffer the XB360 is packing a quarter TB/sec- there is nothing resembling a vague chance that the PC parts will come close to that. The bandwidth of current PC parts isn't enough either- if it was then there would be no performance hit for any level of MSAA.

And regarding the system memory bandwith and latency, what is the superpipelined L2 cache with super advanced prediction branches present in actual PC CPUs for? That's right, to compensate the slow system memory.

And why are you under the impression that the consoles don't have this...? In total Cell is packing 2.25MB of cache- it dwarfs PCs and has significantly more bandwidth.

HIGH end videocards load all the graphics from main memory to display and process in the video card memory, no matter if the system memory is much slower, that is what the framebuffer is for.

Move to main memory- move to video memory.... chewing up bandwidth. Also- video cards don't simply use their onboard memory for framebuffer, that is only a small portion of their on board memory. The majority of it is utilized for caching various types of data(be it texture data, shader programs or whatever else).

They have a very little framebuffer which is compensated for by a high bandwidth system memory, but no dedicated to graphics, it will have to deal with data streams from 3 cores with only 1 cahe block for all 3 CPUs, sound streams, video streams,ect,ect. So you now I have explained why you can't compare the both architectures directly because both do the work but in a different way, and the PC having always more resourses.

First, the PC overall has significantly less resources. Next- how do you think all the data for the video card gets there? You think it's magic? It has to move there from system memory(write-read-write). Same thing with sound streams and all the data that the processor needs. Big difference? PCs at their peak have less then a quarter of the bandwidth that the XB360 has- and that is comparing the highest end possible PC right now.

Those games are your personal preferences. Personally I don't like those games, specially GT4, I would rather to play NFSU2, which is much realistic experience.

NFSU2 more realistic then GT4....... that is likely the dumbest thing in your post(which is saying a lot). This isn't a matter or opinion either- NFSU2 makes no qualms about the fact that it is a very unrealistic arcade style racer- GT4 is a sim. I don't really know where to start in breaking that one down- it is akin to saying Tetris is a better first person shooter then Half-Life2- it is too moronic to truly comprehend.

Don't play moto games so I don't have nothing to compare with it. Resident evil 4, I dont like to kill slow and stupid zombies, I prefer HL2 in which the enemies are much smart.

Survival horror != fast paced shooter.

O c'mon Halo is a PIECE of crap, it is for stupid kids having the xbox and that have not played the best FPS games which are for the PC

Halo for the PC average review score- 85.1%

Personally I thought HL2 was inferior to Halo(although I know that I'm in the minority) the AI was a major step back from numerous other titles, the levels were extremely poorly designed and relied too much on the heavy gimmick physics(sorry Gabe, in my world hand grenads can take out plywood) the story was a joke and it was an overall poorly handled sequel to what I consider to be the actual best FPS ever made- the original Half-Life.

In concensus HL2 is infiniltely superior to any Halo, just lets make a poll in this forum.

I realize the overwhelming majority of people will pick HL2, you are on a PC forum though. I stated that GameRankings has Halo listed as one of the best games ever and that is point of fact(that is what they say- Halo ranked 7th, HL2 ranked 9th).
 

carlosd

Senior member
Aug 3, 2004
782
0
0
Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
Wow, you have been registered on this forum for almost a year now..... perhaps you should read it a bit more often.

No, it couldn't. Check out how PCs with the specs you list handle the original SplinterCell- or how one with comparable specs runs D3 at the settings used on the XBox- it isn't remotely close. According to John Carmack you can expect a roughly 100% performance improvement coding for the XBox compared to a comparably equipped PC.
Haven't seen it, DOOM 3 Xbox version is signifivcantly lower quality than in a GF3 Ti500 also not so good framerates.


Microsoft says the have the better OS with minimun errors but in the demostrations even them get bluescreens.

The parts suppliers for the XBox are the same parts suppliers for PC hardware- think real hard and it may dawn on you why what you are saying makes no sense.

Civility is lost, oh well, I'll go with it.

If you are to take into consideration the console business model and exactly what it entails then you familiar with the fact that the money is made entirely on software sales- the licensing kickbacks to the first parties are how they stay in business. Furthermore- if you are familiar with fabrication costs then you will realize that in reality it is a pittance compared to the research and development associated with developing the parts being made.

To draw on a couple of historical examples- the 'Emotion Engine' in the PS2 is a MIPS based processor. MIPS was formerly part of the SGI family of products and was used in their workstations along with another one of their former products- Cray Supercomputers. Obviously the hype around EE exceeded its actual capabilities, and the Cray machines used a he!l of a lot more then a single processor but the fact remains that MIPS chips such as those utilized in the PS2 were exceedingly expensive- far more costly to produce then the highest end PC parts available at the time of its launch. Then there was the GS, including 2MB of eDRAM. The complexity of the chip in relation to its desktop peers was daunting for its era- as was its fillrate coming in more then 300% higher then the fastest desktop part. Add to that a DVD drive, which was still a fairly new technology, and lesser costs(mobo, RAM etc) and under any normal electronics pricing scheme the price would have exceeded $500 rather easily. It launched at $299. Sony makes their money on the games, if the can sell their new hardware without taking a huge loss then they are doing quite well for themselves.
I doubt microsoft will make money from the games, since most of the games for XboX are crap. I don't think things change this time.


48 ALUs, 8 pipelines.
According to Microsoft specs those are 48 pipelines. And you still believe in microsoft specs!!

Do you think that 250GB/s bandwidth RAM is cheap?
My mistake i wanted to say 22GB/s which is system memory BW.


Liquid cooling(heatpipe), not watercooling. The tri core PPC chip is a lot less expensive for them then you are thinking, although they are not concerned with losing money on hardware in the least as they have proven without a shadow of a doubt over the last several years.

The water is liquid, or not?

For back buffer the XB360 is packing a quarter TB/sec- there is nothing resembling a vague chance that the PC parts will come close to that. The bandwidth of current PC parts isn't enough either- if it was then there would be no performance hit for any level of MSAA.

How do you nknow that next gen CPU won't use the same kind of back buffer, using the videocard memory which BW is superioir to 30GB/s as an intermediate buffer.

And why are you under the impression that the consoles don't have this...? In total Cell is packing 2.25MB of cache- it dwarfs PCs and has significantly more bandwidth.

I don't think the cache of cell processor dwarf PC's. Do you have proves? AMD A64 Architecture have demostrated being competitive to PowerPC architecture, and some cases superioir.

Move to main memory- move to video memory.... chewing up bandwidth. Also- video cards don't simply use their onboard memory for framebuffer, that is only a small portion of their on board memory. The majority of it is utilized for caching various types of data(be it texture data, shader programs or whatever else).

That is why the amount of frame buffer in the videocard is high and very fast, to compensate the slow memory, understand??

First, the PC overall has significantly less resources. Next- how do you think all the data for the video card gets there? You think it's magic? It has to move there from system memory(write-read-write). Same thing with sound streams and all the data that the processor needs. Big difference? PCs at their peak have less then a quarter of the bandwidth that the XB360 has- and that is comparing the highest end possible PC right now.
The data gets to video memory through AGP or PCi-e buses from main memory, that's is what the high amount and fast dedicated video memory is for , for BUFFERING those data and not losing smoothness while gaming.

NFSU2 more realistic then GT4....... that is likely the dumbest thing in your post(which is saying a lot). This isn't a matter or opinion either- NFSU2 makes no qualms about the fact that it is a very unrealistic arcade style racer- GT4 is a sim. I don't really know where to start in breaking that one down- it is akin to saying Tetris is a better first person shooter then Half-Life2- it is too moronic to truly comprehend.
I am talking about the phisysc and video engine of NFSU which is clearly superioir to that of GT4. Half Life 2 is one of the games best ever, at least much bette than the ultra crappy Halo. Maybe you wasn't able to play it , that is why you hate , too hard for you, I understand.


Halo for the PC average review score- 85.1%
yes and It's over-over-rated.

Personally I thought HL2 was inferior to Halo(although I know that I'm in the minority) the AI was a major step back from numerous other titles, the levels were extremely poorly designed and relied too much on the heavy gimmick physics(sorry Gabe, in my world hand grenads can take out plywood) the story was a joke and it was an overall poorly handled sequel to what I consider to be the actual best FPS ever made- the original Half-Life.
You contradict yourself, wasn't halo the best game ever. Now you say it is HL. And Halo is inferior in every aspect to HL2, your poor review of the game is not valid.


I realize the overwhelming majority of people will pick HL2, you are on a PC forum though. I stated that GameRankings has Halo listed as one of the best games ever and that is point of fact(that is what they say- Halo ranked 7th, HL2 ranked 9th).

People with high level of knowledge vote here, stupid kids with video consoles vote in gamerankings.
 

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
Ben, it's just not worth it.

It's dumbfounding some of the stuff he's posting- I'm giving up on the technical data as obviously it is way over his head- but even looking at the games it is shocking how little he knows.

I am talking about the phisysc and video engine of NFSU which is clearly superioir to that of GT4.

You have neither seen nor played GT4- clearly.

Maybe you wasn't able to play it , that is why you hate , too hard for you, I understand.

HL2 on its highest difficulty is extremely easy compared to Halo on Legendary. It wasn't that good of a game either.

You contradict yourself, wasn't halo the best game ever. Now you say it is HL.

Is English your 3rd or 4th language? I ask because I never stated Halo was the best game made nor anything remotely like it. I'll quote myself-

Use consensus and Halo is one of the best games ever made(according to GR.com).

If you can't understand English that's fine- you certainly should learn to read it a bit better before flaming someone for something you don't understand.

People with high level of knowledge vote here, stupid kids with video consoles vote in gamerankings.

GameRankings is the database that includes all professional reviews. All you had to do was go to the site and you would have known this. I can't discuss the technical elements with you any further- to say they are over your head is an enormous understatement.
 

Insomniak

Banned
Sep 11, 2003
4,836
0
0
Originally posted by: doublejbass
Metacritic is where I'd turn to to compare HL2 to Halo.



HL2 edges Halo 2 by 1 point. Frankly, I though HL2 had a lot more innovation where Halo 2 had more of the same, but maybe that's just me....
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,444
5,848
146
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Preti9cboi
http://www.bit-tech.net/columns/2005/05/13/xbox_360_pc_enthusiasts/1.html


With 48 pipelines and a 3 PowerPC core at a possible 300 dallor msrp.
Where does that leave the pc community? Namely the pc gaming community.

Guessing it leaves the PC community behind for 12 months, by the end of its lifespan it will be like the current xBox. A low grade computer worth 50 bucks.

The next consoles will likely have longer lifespans in terms of graphics prowess because of the fact that thing are moving to the hi-def standard (including PC games). Since they'll be able to push out 1080p from the get go, and because its taken mass consumers so long to even start to move to hi-def that I'm gonna say they'll be adequate for a good little while.

I honestly don't know why so many PC gamers get so defensive and angry over this stuff, especially if its going to end up the same way as PC vs console gaming with the current gen stuff, which is what I constantly hear. Only time will tell what the truth is. Personally I think its going to be a little different this time around (for better or worse).

But it looks like this thread has turned into yet another Video thread to make baby jesus cry, so thats all I'll be saying in here. So sad that things have changed so much...
 

Emultra

Golden Member
Jul 6, 2002
1,166
0
0
Well, I'm (nowadays/so far) a PC only gamer, but I'll say this:

Perhaps now that the consoles seem to be getting some juice, we'll finally be getting adequate ports of their games. So that's a good thing as far as I'm concerned. And maybe we can play together too, it's a third multiplayer market for free, save some coding on behalf of the developers.
 

carlosd

Senior member
Aug 3, 2004
782
0
0
Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Preti9cboi
http://www.bit-tech.net/columns/2005/05/13/xbox_360_pc_enthusiasts/1.html


With 48 pipelines and a 3 PowerPC core at a possible 300 dallor msrp.
Where does that leave the pc community? Namely the pc gaming community.

Guessing it leaves the PC community behind for 12 months, by the end of its lifespan it will be like the current xBox. A low grade computer worth 50 bucks.

The next consoles will likely have longer lifespans in terms of graphics prowess because of the fact that thing are moving to the hi-def standard (including PC games). Since they'll be able to push out 1080p from the get go, and because its taken mass consumers so long to even start to move to hi-def that I'm gonna say they'll be adequate for a good little while.

I honestly don't know why so many PC gamers get so defensive and angry over this stuff, especially if its going to end up the same way as PC vs console gaming with the current gen stuff, which is what I constantly hear. Only time will tell what the truth is. Personally I think its going to be a little different this time around (for better or worse).

But it looks like this thread has turned into yet another Video thread to make baby jesus cry, so thats all I'll be saying in here. So sad that things have changed so much...

PC gamers gets angry because of console fans saying that Xbox 360 is going to end the PC as a gaming machine, which is obviously a ridiculous statement. They forget that PC will be evolving constanly and will surpass even the most powerful gaming console quickly.
 

Drayvn

Golden Member
Jun 23, 2004
1,008
0
0
Originally posted by: Emultra
Well, I'm (nowadays/so far) a PC only gamer, but I'll say this:

Perhaps now that the consoles seem to be getting some juice, we'll finally be getting adequate ports of their games. So that's a good thing as far as I'm concerned. And maybe we can play together too, it's a third multiplayer market for free, save some coding on behalf of the developers.

Im with ya on that one.

There are some really good games out there for consoles that never get to PC. And some really good games which have the worst porting ever!

I hope with all the power and Microsofts XNA they will be able to port games better.

And does anyone notice how console games get much, much better FMV sequences?

 

scsi drv1

Member
Mar 17, 2005
190
0
0
Originally posted by: Drayvn
Originally posted by: Pete
Originally posted by: Preti9cboi
I wonder if it's possible to hook up the xbox 360 to my dell 2005fpw. heh
Sure, if not via DVI, then via component cables.

Originally posted by: scsi drv1
To say that the console selling dwarfs pc number is shearly a matter of statistics.
That's one way to state the obvious. The original Nintendo sold 50 million units. PS2 sold 80M. Have there even been 50M 3D cards sold? And console game sales are on another level from PC games.

How many computers do you think there are working all over the world, as in single station desktops or laptops even?

Far more than any console i would imagine. And then there are CAD workstations and CGI workstations which have racks and racks of vid cards.

So at this point in time, i would say there are far more 3D cards in PCs than there are in consoles. Even if the 3D card is a Geforce 4 Ti4200 or a Radeon 8500 as they are still 3D Cards. And even if they are only in a bank managers desktop.

Once again ur hearing but ur not listening. You can throw out numbers all day but in the end the evoloution of pc's was due to gamers. So as i said before, you cant compare the numbers, the type of cruching you would have to do is astronomical but needless to say that pc's would beat out consoles by far.

Just remember that the console itself was made in the hopes that bringing a personal computer into the home would become cheaper so there in essence its the same market divided. Pay attention to ur gaming history dude!
 

scsi drv1

Member
Mar 17, 2005
190
0
0
Originally posted by: Pete
Originally posted by: Preti9cboi
I wonder if it's possible to hook up the xbox 360 to my dell 2005fpw. heh
Sure, if not via DVI, then via component cables.

Originally posted by: scsi drv1
To say that the console selling dwarfs pc number is shearly a matter of statistics.
That's one way to state the obvious. The original Nintendo sold 50 million units. PS2 sold 80M. Have there even been 50M 3D cards sold? And console game sales are on another level from PC games.

If console games are on another level then why have they been using pc technology since their conception? Think about it!
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: darkswordsman17


The next consoles will likely have longer lifespans in terms of graphics prowess because of the fact that thing are moving to the hi-def standard (including PC games). Since they'll be able to push out 1080p from the get go, and because its taken mass consumers so long to even start to move to hi-def that I'm gonna say they'll be adequate for a good little while.

I honestly don't know why so many PC gamers get so defensive and angry over this stuff, especially if its going to end up the same way as PC vs console gaming with the current gen stuff, which is what I constantly hear. Only time will tell what the truth is. Personally I think its going to be a little different this time around (for better or worse).

But it looks like this thread has turned into yet another Video thread to make baby jesus cry, so thats all I'll be saying in here. So sad that things have changed so much...

the baby jesus grew up - finally, after 2 thousand years
[and i hear he is kinda angry - not sad]

WHY PC gamers get defensive is that their beloved and expensive machines are gonna take a backseat to console gaming for a couple of years.

to just keep up with a next gen console you're gonna NEED sli'd r620s/g80s - IF there were games that could use their power - we won't see that till '06 [at least when Unreal 3 is released]

i say don't worry about it . . . PCs will eventually catch up.

in the meantime - IF i can hook my monitor up to a next gen console with a KB and a mouse for additional controllers - i may buy my first sonsole since Genesis [and forget upgrading my computer till 07]
:thumbsup:
 

Pete

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
4,953
0
0
Originally posted by: scsi drv1
Originally posted by: Pete
Originally posted by: scsi drv1
To say that the console selling dwarfs pc number is shearly a matter of statistics.
That's one way to state the obvious. The original Nintendo sold 50 million units. PS2 sold 80M. Have there even been 50M 3D cards sold? And console game sales are on another level from PC games.
If console games are on another level then why have they been using pc technology since their conception? Think about it!
You lost me there. How does your reply follow from your original post and my answer? The best-selling console games are statistically on another level than basically every PC best-seller but The Sims. Consoles themselves sell probably more than all the gaming GPUs in their lifespan.

Now, how do those numbers relate to consoles using "PC technology?" Even if you want to say that consoles are PCs because they also happen to use transistors, I still don't see the relevance to our previous posts. I'm not dissing the PC's importance--indirectly and now ever more directly--in the current field of electronic gaming, but it's not at all related to my confirming that, yes, the mere fact that we know that consoles outsell PCs is a result of analyzing sales stats.
 

QueBert

Lifer
Jan 6, 2002
22,909
1,111
126
GT4 is average at best. PC has had TONS of far better racing sims.

Collin McRae 2.0 & especially 2005 come to mind. Saying GT is the king of racing sims, is like saying Halo is the greatest FPS ever.


I've played RE4, and it was really sweet, but I had MUCH more fun playing the original Alone In The Dark, and Estatica on the PC. No, the PC doesn't have a graphical matchup for RE4 *yet* but I'll still take Estatica for the cool factor.

The ONLY place a Console can claim total owange, fighting games. They have Tekkens, Soul Calibures, Wrestling games, boxing games etc. Those are the only reason I play consoles (but don't own one...)
 

Emultra

Golden Member
Jul 6, 2002
1,166
0
0
Without modern computers, that fancy GPU of the Xbox 360 would be a Voodoo 2 with 8MB VRAM. But if the console GPU's (and maybe CPU's?) will create extra drive and push, we're all better off.

Keep makin' bacon.
 

Drayvn

Golden Member
Jun 23, 2004
1,008
0
0
Originally posted by: Pete
Originally posted by: scsi drv1
Originally posted by: Pete
Originally posted by: scsi drv1
To say that the console selling dwarfs pc number is shearly a matter of statistics.
That's one way to state the obvious. The original Nintendo sold 50 million units. PS2 sold 80M. Have there even been 50M 3D cards sold? And console game sales are on another level from PC games.
If console games are on another level then why have they been using pc technology since their conception? Think about it!
You lost me there. How does your reply follow from your original post and my answer? The best-selling console games are statistically on another level than basically every PC best-seller but The Sims. Consoles themselves sell probably more than all the gaming GPUs in their lifespan.

Now, how do those numbers relate to consoles using "PC technology?" Even if you want to say that consoles are PCs because they also happen to use transistors, I still don't see the relevance to our previous posts. I'm not dissing the PC's importance--indirectly and now ever more directly--in the current field of electronic gaming, but it's not at all related to my confirming that, yes, the mere fact that we know that consoles outsell PCs is a result of analyzing sales stats.

The consoles sell more games, is because of the fact that most of the console users are casual gamers who dont have enough income to afford a good computer to play their games or in fact they have the money but are not a full time gamer which means there is no need for them to buy an uber computer to play games once in a while.

I dont know which type of graphics card your referring to, either Gaming or 3D cards. Which are different. But in the PCs lifetime i think there have been more 3D cards (any kind) sold than any console.

I also think that what he means about PC technology used in consoles is like the fact that the GPUs in the Xbox and PS are going to be used in the next gen of PCs. And thats how it is relevant. Because really essentially it is a 3D card.

 

Pete

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
4,953
0
0
Intel's IGPs are 3D cards. The X300SEs and previous similar cards are 3D cards. I'm not sure I'd consider them gaming cards, though, especially if their buyer doesn't intend to game with them.

Again, still don't get how console sales being on another level than PC sales is related to console graphics becoming more like custom versions of "off-the-shelf" PC GPUs. It was bound to happen simply due to more 3D GPU expertise in the PC arena. It's always harder (time and/or money) to develop your own GPU rather than just buying one from someone else.

Heh, Emultra, I've heard the PS2's EE described as a V2 on steroids.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |