xbox 360

[imported_Rampage]

Originally posted by: Tsosczb

Originally posted by: southpawuni

Originally posted by: Tsosczb

Originally posted by: southpawuni

Originally posted by: Tsosczb

Originally posted by: Therk
A console is a poor mans PC.

Or so they're becoming.

Blah blah blah

Blah blah blah usuc.

Uhh, so people can run out buy an Xbox360, go buy a Xbox360 compatible version of Quicken and do their taxes?
The hardware might be there, but its not very useful without the software. Nor the printer.
And, like MS said: Don't be counting on a hard drive for your software development.. so theres yet another blow to this nonexistent PC replacement.
They dont have 1/10th of the capabilities. Need a Quadro class video card for work? Can't pop it in your Xbox360. Need a firewire port for your digital camera? Oops no way to add ANY add-in cards to it.

Not to mention Adobe Photoshop is not programmed to work with a PS3.

Add all the functionality to a console to actually match the PC and you merely have created a cheap PC competitor.. with a massive task on its hands to take over the PC market that is extremely deep rooted.

Basically a 360, IF given the vast extensions it needs to do all of this stuff, would probably slow down as a result and become a much less appealing gaming platform for gamers AND devs.
You basically have something like the old Macintoshes (at best, at least Mac had popular useful software constantly available like Photoshop ect).


Its an uphill task taking on Intel, Dell and AMD with a PowerPC/ATI/NV powered box.. the market saturation of PC software is indomitable.

And MS is not going to kill their true cash cow, the PC market by putting the Xbox in direct competition with PCs.. and as stated, even if they wanted to it'd be an uphill battle in gaining software support and user acceptance.



So in conclusion, you are merely referring to a very small modder community putting Linux on their Xboxes.. and even those guys are probably using another PC right now reading this. Its a hobbyist thing, and it wont ever be anythign else for the reasons outlined in this post.


Your argument has been slain.
PCs, conquer, all.

Way to be ignorant. To end this argument, I just need to go back to my original quote.

Or so they're becoming

Hmm, now lets look back at the NES or any other system from back in the day. What did they do? They played a game. That was it. They didn't do ANYTHING else. Then ever since the Playstation, and other CD based systems, they started playing music CDs, out of convenience. Then they had internal clocks, could read CD-RWs, had memory cards and even hard drives... etc.

See what I meant? The point is that gaming consoles are becoming more like PCs with every generation. I didn't say they were any kind of PC replacement, and it would be stupid to think I did. Notice how the word "becoming" implies progress and uses a future tense.

I even already mentioned you could install Linux or media center applicatons, so you basically could have most of the utilities included in a PC except proprietary Windows programs. I guess you haven't been keeping up on console technology. <snip>

I'm stopping there. You didnt even read my post.
Like I said, its a hobbyist thing.. and even those hobbyists arent on their Xbox typing on Anandtech forums right now.

You also mention the printer. Come on, that's not even part of the PC. You're naming all this extra stuff that are peripherals, and that could probably even work on a Linux hacked console.

Ok, where is the Xbox360 printer?

And by the way, who gives a crap about tax programs...

Adults? People with small businesses? People with responsibility and drive beyond pownzoring in Halo3 the rest of their life?

Its an uphill task taking on Intel, Dell and AMD with a PowerPC/ATI/NV powered box.. the market saturation of PC software is indomitable.

I thought I would give this its own section, simply because it's so profoundly retarded. Why mention those companies? First off, didn't you know that Intel made the processors for the XBox? And do you even know of all the other competition out there? You must not know all of the ways Intel and even AMD use their technology, either. No one is even saying anything remotely close to "Consoles are taking over."

You are saying that consoles are some kind of cheap alternative to a PC.. and they arent even close.

Its a $300 console. Maybe you've never heard of "there aint no such thing as a free lunch".
Keep dreaming. MS will never put the 360 up against the PC industry.. even if they do the software support will be pathetic compared to the PC industry of today.

Its a little game box. Nothing more. Never will be.

Its a joke. While the Xbox 360 is a COMPLETE waste of money and time.. at least if you buy a PC and game on it, the thing can run that tax software that you dont care about (probably because your a dumb kid).

 

[supastar1568]

Originally posted by: southpawuni

Originally posted by: supastar1568

Originally posted by: southpawuni
Who mentioned a GTX?
Do you even think?

You dont need a GTX for that stuff. But if you do happen to want one, and buy one.. at least its useful for those things as well.

I am comparing a PC for GAMING and a console for GAMING

nothing else.

obviously a PC can do more, but from a gaming perspective i think a console is a wiser choice for those who don't want/or have the money to update every year or so.

At first you try telling me how a Xbox has "all the hardware" needed to do computer task.. I show you it does indeed NOT.
And that its not even close, without a chance in hell of becoming a comp.. and never will be due to the reasons I've already told you.

Now you go back to "just comparing a gaming device to a gaming device".
Nice try. But I already covered the fact that you do not need a 7800GTX every year to play games on the PC.

Theres not a single game that requires a 7800GTX, nor anything even close to that.


Quit comparing a top of the line PC to a stupid little Xbox.
You are taking the cheapest piece of crap possible that plays games and does nothing else at all.. to a machine that not only games, but you can go to college online with, make a living with, save tons of cash with..

Theres no comparison at all besides to you stupid kids that just care about games. I dont mind spending $800 on a PC and getting something that is actually useful.

Yes, some of us have lifes beyond gaming. And our PC games are pretty damn good too.

haha so your saying anything lower than a 7800GTX can compare to the xbox 360?? (in terms of gaming)

so since your a little igonorant, lets do some math, shall we??

say i want to use word processing, use the internet, do grapic design, AND game.

Lets see. I could build a 500 dollar PC that will do the word processing, internet, and grapic design for me, and when I play games I can use my 400 dollar xbox 360.

500 + 400 = $900 to play games and word process, use the internet, and do whatever else a PC does.

OR

I say xbox 360 is ghey (like your impling) and want to use my PC for word processing, internet, grapich design AND play games. Now my 500 dollar PC will no longer do because it may do all of that stuff, but it probably wont be able to play games. For a PC to do everything it probably has to be in the 1200-2000 dollar range.

1200-2000 > 900








Ohhhh and also. Back in 2001 when i bought my PS2 I had a pretty nice computer that I paid about 1400 for. Back then my PS2 was 300. Guess what?

Im looking at my 300 dollar PS2 as we speak???

Where is my 1400 dollar computer that I had at the same time?? Gone, it has been gone for a while

 

[supastar1568]

Originally posted by: southpawuni

Originally posted by: supastar1568

Originally posted by: southpawuni
Who mentioned a GTX?
Do you even think?

You dont need a GTX for that stuff. But if you do happen to want one, and buy one.. at least its useful for those things as well.

I am comparing a PC for GAMING and a console for GAMING

nothing else.

obviously a PC can do more, but from a gaming perspective i think a console is a wiser choice for those who don't want/or have the money to update every year or so.

At first you try telling me how a Xbox has "all the hardware" needed to do computer task.. I show you it does indeed NOT.
And that its not even close, without a chance in hell of becoming a comp.. and never will be due to the reasons I've already told you.

Now you go back to "just comparing a gaming device to a gaming device".
Nice try. But I already covered the fact that you do not need a 7800GTX every year to play games on the PC.

Theres not a single game that requires a 7800GTX, nor anything even close to that.


Quit comparing a top of the line PC to a stupid little Xbox.
You are taking the cheapest piece of crap possible that plays games and does nothing else at all.. to a machine that not only games, but you can go to college online with, make a living with, save tons of cash with..

Theres no comparison at all besides to you stupid kids that just care about games. I dont mind spending $800 on a PC and getting something that is actually useful.

Yes, some of us have lifes beyond gaming. And our PC games are pretty damn good too.

can you quote me supastar1568 on where is said that?

 

[supastar1568]

Originally posted by: southpawuni

Originally posted by: supastar1568

Originally posted by: southpawuni
Who mentioned a GTX?
Do you even think?

You dont need a GTX for that stuff. But if you do happen to want one, and buy one.. at least its useful for those things as well.

I am comparing a PC for GAMING and a console for GAMING

nothing else.

obviously a PC can do more, but from a gaming perspective i think a console is a wiser choice for those who don't want/or have the money to update every year or so.

At first you try telling me how a Xbox has "all the hardware" needed to do computer task.. I show you it does indeed NOT.
And that its not even close, without a chance in hell of becoming a comp.. and never will be due to the reasons I've already told you.

Now you go back to "just comparing a gaming device to a gaming device".
Nice try. But I already covered the fact that you do not need a 7800GTX every year to play games on the PC.

Theres not a single game that requires a 7800GTX, nor anything even close to that.


Quit comparing a top of the line PC to a stupid little Xbox.
You are taking the cheapest piece of crap possible that plays games and does nothing else at all.. to a machine that not only games, but you can go to college online with, make a living with, save tons of cash with..

Theres no comparison at all besides to you stupid kids that just care about games. I dont mind spending $800 on a PC and getting something that is actually useful.

Yes, some of us have lifes beyond gaming.

apparently not much of one since you have doubled my post counts and been here 2 months less

 

[Slicedbread]

You guys take it so seriously, like its offended you or something. The console wont die, the personal computer wont die.

BTW, no one outside of the developers can really tell how powerful the xbox360 is yet since only developers got the beta kits like a month ago. The pc hardware will be more advanced, if it isnt already, eventually so whats the point of arguing?

 

[imported_Rampage]

Originally posted by: supastar1568

Originally posted by: southpawuni

Originally posted by: supastar1568

Originally posted by: southpawuni
Who mentioned a GTX?
Do you even think?

You dont need a GTX for that stuff. But if you do happen to want one, and buy one.. at least its useful for those things as well.

I am comparing a PC for GAMING and a console for GAMING

nothing else.

obviously a PC can do more, but from a gaming perspective i think a console is a wiser choice for those who don't want/or have the money to update every year or so.

At first you try telling me how a Xbox has "all the hardware" needed to do computer task.. I show you it does indeed NOT.
And that its not even close, without a chance in hell of becoming a comp.. and never will be due to the reasons I've already told you.

Now you go back to "just comparing a gaming device to a gaming device".
Nice try. But I already covered the fact that you do not need a 7800GTX every year to play games on the PC.

Theres not a single game that requires a 7800GTX, nor anything even close to that.


Quit comparing a top of the line PC to a stupid little Xbox.
You are taking the cheapest piece of crap possible that plays games and does nothing else at all.. to a machine that not only games, but you can go to college online with, make a living with, save tons of cash with..

Theres no comparison at all besides to you stupid kids that just care about games. I dont mind spending $800 on a PC and getting something that is actually useful.

Yes, some of us have lifes beyond gaming.

apparently not much of one since you have doubled my post counts and been here 2 months less

Yes. On Anandtech Forums I have the high score.
I'm pretty good at this game. :disgust:

 

[imported_Rampage]

Originally posted by: supastar1568

Originally posted by: southpawuni

Originally posted by: supastar1568

Originally posted by: southpawuni
Who mentioned a GTX?
Do you even think?

You dont need a GTX for that stuff. But if you do happen to want one, and buy one.. at least its useful for those things as well.

I am comparing a PC for GAMING and a console for GAMING

nothing else.

obviously a PC can do more, but from a gaming perspective i think a console is a wiser choice for those who don't want/or have the money to update every year or so.

At first you try telling me how a Xbox has "all the hardware" needed to do computer task.. I show you it does indeed NOT.
And that its not even close, without a chance in hell of becoming a comp.. and never will be due to the reasons I've already told you.

Now you go back to "just comparing a gaming device to a gaming device".
Nice try. But I already covered the fact that you do not need a 7800GTX every year to play games on the PC.

Theres not a single game that requires a 7800GTX, nor anything even close to that.


Quit comparing a top of the line PC to a stupid little Xbox.
You are taking the cheapest piece of crap possible that plays games and does nothing else at all.. to a machine that not only games, but you can go to college online with, make a living with, save tons of cash with..

Theres no comparison at all besides to you stupid kids that just care about games. I dont mind spending $800 on a PC and getting something that is actually useful.

Yes, some of us have lifes beyond gaming. And our PC games are pretty damn good too.

haha so your saying anything lower than a 7800GTX can compare to the xbox 360?? (in terms of gaming)

so since your a little igonorant, lets do some math, shall we??

say i want to use word processing, use the internet, do grapic design, AND game.

Lets see. I could build a 500 dollar PC that will do the word processing, internet, and grapic design for me, and when I play games I can use my 400 dollar xbox 360.

500 + 400 = $900 to play games and word process, use the internet, and do whatever else a PC does.

OR

I say xbox 360 is ghey (like your impling) and want to use my PC for word processing, internet, grapich design AND play games. Now my 500 dollar PC will no longer do because it may do all of that stuff, but it probably wont be able to play games. For a PC to do everything it probably has to be in the 1200-2000 dollar range.

1200-2000 > 900








Ohhhh and also. Back in 2001 when i bought my PS2 I had a pretty nice computer that I paid about 1400 for. Back then my PS2 was 300. Guess what?

Im looking at my 300 dollar PS2 as we speak???

Where is my 1400 dollar computer that I had at the same time?? Gone, it has been gone for a while

It may cost more, but you can game with less.
The point is, that a PC costs more because it does infinitely more than a console. Yes, infinitely.
Theres absolutely no comparison.
/thread

 

[Sonikku]

Is all of this bitter debate really necessary?

 

[tuteja1986]

Originally posted by: Preti9cboi
I wonder if it's possible to hook up the xbox 360 to my dell 2005fpw. heh

Hell yeah man : )

I have my PC/XBOX/PS2 hooked up to Dell 2005FPW.
PC > DVI slot on my X850XT PE
XBOX/PS2 > Dual Composite BOX which pluged to RGB port on the back to Dell 2005FPW. XBOX i am using Advance cable.

 

[compgeek89]

I love my PC, I can do a whole lot more han game on it... like come to these forums. My 7800 GTX eats FEAR np and FEAR looks as good as any 360 game coming out. In 9 mos I'll have an 8800, leaving the 360 in the dust.

PC Games just have all the little extras, like intense physics end extra effects that a console's small amount of memory cantd do.

I mean think about it, my current PC has 2.25GB total for video and system, the 360/PS3 have 0.5gb, so lets give 512mb of my PC RAM to background stuff that the console doesnt have, thats still .75GB more useable RAM. That RAM doesnt go to waste, it goes toward making bodies and wallmarks stay longer/forever. I'd like to see you tweak the .cfg files for maximum quality on a 360 game <rollingeyes>

PC is stronger than ever imho, it certainly is in my view.

 

[The Green Bean]

What? Its gonna be launched before Christmas?? 2005 or 2006?

 

[Tsosczb]

Originally posted by: compgeek89
I love my PC, I can do a whole lot more han game on it... like come to these forums. My 7800 GTX eats FEAR np and FEAR looks as good as any 360 game coming out. In 9 mos I'll have an 8800, leaving the 360 in the dust.

PC Games just have all the little extras, like intense physics end extra effects that a console's small amount of memory cantd do.

I mean think about it, my current PC has 2.25GB total for video and system, the 360/PS3 have 0.5gb, so lets give 512mb of my PC RAM to background stuff that the console doesnt have, thats still .75GB more useable RAM. That RAM doesnt go to waste, it goes toward making bodies and wallmarks stay longer/forever. I'd like to see you tweak the .cfg files for maximum quality on a 360 game :rollingeyes:

PC is stronger than ever imho, it certainly is in my view.

Your view sucks. You're comparing PC parts to gaming console parts. That in itself is a logical fallacy.

You don't even have any real XBox360 games to compare to, so please spare us the benchmarks in your head.

Oh, and the memory the consoles will have is going to be much better than the standard DDR/2 RAM you have. Plus, it will probably be efficient enough to the point where it wouldn't need so much to waste like your 2GB. Remember, most PC games don't even benefit from having more video memory.

 

[compgeek89]

Originally posted by: Tsosczb

Originally posted by: compgeek89
I love my PC, I can do a whole lot more han game on it... like come to these forums. My 7800 GTX eats FEAR np and FEAR looks as good as any 360 game coming out. In 9 mos I'll have an 8800, leaving the 360 in the dust.

PC Games just have all the little extras, like intense physics end extra effects that a console's small amount of memory cantd do.

I mean think about it, my current PC has 2.25GB total for video and system, the 360/PS3 have 0.5gb, so lets give 512mb of my PC RAM to background stuff that the console doesnt have, thats still .75GB more useable RAM. That RAM doesnt go to waste, it goes toward making bodies and wallmarks stay longer/forever. I'd like to see you tweak the .cfg files for maximum quality on a 360 game :rollingeyes:

PC is stronger than ever imho, it certainly is in my view.

Your view sucks. You're comparing PC parts to gaming console parts. That in itself is a logical fallacy.

You don't even have any real XBox360 games to compare to, so please spare us the benchmarks in your head.

Oh, and the memory the consoles will have is going to be much better than the standard DDR/2 RAM you have. Plus, it will probably be efficient enough to the point where it wouldn't need so much to waste like your 2GB. Remember, most PC games don't even benefit from having more video memory.

OK console fanboy, My 7800 GTX's DDR3 is running at 1200, and yours will be at 700...
Sure your system RAM will be at 700mhz too, but wth 256mb of it... pfft

 

[Tsosczb]

Originally posted by: compgeek89

Originally posted by: Tsosczb
Your view sucks. You're comparing PC parts to gaming console parts. That in itself is a logical fallacy.

You don't even have any real XBox360 games to compare to, so please spare us the benchmarks in your head.

Oh, and the memory the consoles will have is going to be much better than the standard DDR/2 RAM you have. Plus, it will probably be efficient enough to the point where it wouldn't need so much to waste like your 2GB. Remember, most PC games don't even benefit from having more video memory.

OK console fanboy, My 7800 GTX's DDR3 is running at 1200, and yours will be at 700...
Sure your system RAM will be at 700mhz too, but wth 256mb of it... pfft

Way to miss the whole first line in my post. Either you just don't get it, or don't want to. Try comparing an XBox or PS2 to a PC from the same time with similar numbers. I guarantee you won't find performance or visual quality to be equal, especially with the newer console games.

 

[imported_Rampage]

Originally posted by: Tsosczb

Originally posted by: compgeek89

Originally posted by: Tsosczb
Your view sucks. You're comparing PC parts to gaming console parts. That in itself is a logical fallacy.

You don't even have any real XBox360 games to compare to, so please spare us the benchmarks in your head.

Oh, and the memory the consoles will have is going to be much better than the standard DDR/2 RAM you have. Plus, it will probably be efficient enough to the point where it wouldn't need so much to waste like your 2GB. Remember, most PC games don't even benefit from having more video memory.

OK console fanboy, My 7800 GTX's DDR3 is running at 1200, and yours will be at 700...
Sure your system RAM will be at 700mhz too, but wth 256mb of it... pfft

Way to miss the whole first line in my post. Either you just don't get it, or don't want to. Try comparing an XBox or PS2 to a PC from the same time with similar numbers. I guarantee you won't find performance or visual quality to be equal, especially with the newer console games.

If all you do is sit around playing video games all day, then sounds like an Xbox360 is right up your alley.

I'll be enjoying my 6800GT, and also making money with my PC and getting productive things done. Oh, and still have plenty of games that are the envy of console gamers.

Obviously, you are not a very productive person as you seem to be obsessed with a gaming box that is limited to activitys that only waste time and life.
Good for you. :thumbsup: I hope that works well for you.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: Tsosczb

Originally posted by: compgeek89

Originally posted by: Tsosczb
Your view sucks. You're comparing PC parts to gaming console parts. That in itself is a logical fallacy.

You don't even have any real XBox360 games to compare to, so please spare us the benchmarks in your head.

Oh, and the memory the consoles will have is going to be much better than the standard DDR/2 RAM you have. Plus, it will probably be efficient enough to the point where it wouldn't need so much to waste like your 2GB. Remember, most PC games don't even benefit from having more video memory.

OK console fanboy, My 7800 GTX's DDR3 is running at 1200, and yours will be at 700...
Sure your system RAM will be at 700mhz too, but wth 256mb of it... pfft

Way to miss the whole first line in my post. Either you just don't get it, or don't want to. Try comparing an XBox or PS2 to a PC from the same time with similar numbers. I guarantee you won't find performance or visual quality to be equal, especially with the newer console games.

How can you garantee something when it is speculation?
You quote the following

My point was that you are speculating and going off opinions. I don't see how it's so hard to understand that.

I find it commical how you have double standards riddled throughout this forum...

 

[supastar1568]

Originally posted by: southpawuni

Originally posted by: Tsosczb

Originally posted by: compgeek89

Originally posted by: Tsosczb
Your view sucks. You're comparing PC parts to gaming console parts. That in itself is a logical fallacy.

You don't even have any real XBox360 games to compare to, so please spare us the benchmarks in your head.

Oh, and the memory the consoles will have is going to be much better than the standard DDR/2 RAM you have. Plus, it will probably be efficient enough to the point where it wouldn't need so much to waste like your 2GB. Remember, most PC games don't even benefit from having more video memory.

OK console fanboy, My 7800 GTX's DDR3 is running at 1200, and yours will be at 700...
Sure your system RAM will be at 700mhz too, but wth 256mb of it... pfft

Way to miss the whole first line in my post. Either you just don't get it, or don't want to. Try comparing an XBox or PS2 to a PC from the same time with similar numbers. I guarantee you won't find performance or visual quality to be equal, especially with the newer console games.

If all you do is sit around playing video games all day, then sounds like an Xbox360 is right up your alley.
I'll be enjoying my 6800GT, and also making money with my PC and getting productive things done. Oh, and still have plenty of games that are the envy of console gamers.

Obviously, you are not a very productive person as you seem to be obsessed with a gaming box that is limited to activitys that only waste time and life.
Good for you. :thumbsup: I hope that works well for you.

well this is what i meant w/ our arguement. Most kids that play video games don't really do anything else. I never had a computer untill i turned 18, but i had console systems since i was like 14.

I am now 21 and like to do both. I can no longer just use a console for my needs, but if someone wants to just game then they can go with a console.

13-17 years olds really dont need all of the things a PC has to offer nor can they afford it. So I 400 dollar gaming system seems more suffice as it is easier to ask for something like that for Christmas or birthday rather than ask for a 1500 dollar PC.

I perfer both. I only play First Person Shooters and Sports and racing games.

I use the PC for FPS and the console for sports and racing

 

[Tsosczb]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: Tsosczb

Originally posted by: compgeek89

Originally posted by: Tsosczb
Your view sucks. You're comparing PC parts to gaming console parts. That in itself is a logical fallacy.

You don't even have any real XBox360 games to compare to, so please spare us the benchmarks in your head.

Oh, and the memory the consoles will have is going to be much better than the standard DDR/2 RAM you have. Plus, it will probably be efficient enough to the point where it wouldn't need so much to waste like your 2GB. Remember, most PC games don't even benefit from having more video memory.

OK console fanboy, My 7800 GTX's DDR3 is running at 1200, and yours will be at 700...
Sure your system RAM will be at 700mhz too, but wth 256mb of it... pfft

Way to miss the whole first line in my post. Either you just don't get it, or don't want to. Try comparing an XBox or PS2 to a PC from the same time with similar numbers. I guarantee you won't find performance or visual quality to be equal, especially with the newer console games.

How can you garantee something when it is speculation?

How is it speculation? Do you even know what the word means? I mentioned systems that have already been around for several years, and if you're saying I'm wrong there then you have mental issues you need to sort out before speaking to me again.

You quote the following

My point was that you are speculating and going off opinions. I don't see how it's so hard to understand that.

I find it commical how you have double standards riddled throughout this forum...

Jesus christ, can't you just follow the text on the screen? I said you can't compare PC to console performance by simple numbers. I never said any of the systems that aren't out yet are definitively anything, but past patterns show that the efficiency level of consoles makes it so you absolutely can't compare them to PCs. That part is a simple fact.

And I might as well paste this response I made now:

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: Tsosczb
Again you miss the point. You can speculate all you want and it wouldn't bother me, the problem is when you get to retarded conclusions like "Consoles sux0rz PC 4 lief !!!" You can't get to any sort of complete conclusion yet, so talking that way is pointless and just trying to inanely support your side.

I am pretty sure, beyond any doubt that I never said anything like that. If others said it, take your beef with them. Be specific, because I have not seen anyone post what you have written.

Oh?

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
Pretty much any top of the line rig right now will be able to keep up with it. Two 7800 GTX in SLI mode is on par with it in terms of graphics bandwidth and memory. Not to mention that the console is a snapshot of 2005 technology... In will take about 1 year and the average gamers machine will dominate it, give it another year and even grandma's machine will be on par with it.

Consoles are somewhat impressive when they debut... But, after about 6 months nothing is cool about them and they look like crap. Halo 2? Everyone raved about it, but when I seen it, I couldn't help but notice the textures that were being rendered before my own eyes! I could not believe the game released like that... In some parts of the game, the textures cannot keep up.

Asside from that, in my opinion, games will always be better on the PC. With the ability to customize, use a keyboard and mouse, pretty much every game plays better on a PC. There is no disputing the fact that keyboard and mouse dominates a controller for FPS, MMO and RTS.

Condensed: "PCs win, consoles fail." Just try and tell me you don't sound just a bit biased here. You tried to compare a <$500 system to a multi-thousand dollar PC, and you did it without comparing actual facts.

Oh, and there's also this now:

Originally posted by: southpawuni
Quit comparing a top of the line PC to a stupid little Xbox. [...blah blah blah... rant rant rant...]

Response #2:

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
Yes and no... That is debatable about the performance of both. There is "theory" and "actual" often times they do not coincide. But I fully understand that the console should be more effecient, but to what extent in this case? Who knows. Hardware still has it's limitation no matter how carefully it is coded, it has a limit and that is why I do not put a lot of weight into the so called "efficiency" of consoles.

It's always been the case. You can't even get a PC that would seemingly appear more than 10 times as capable as a GBA to get decent performance with an emulator. Coincidence? The only problem with emulators is that, well, it's emulating, but even after years of optimizations, even something like a SNES emulator needs something that's many times more powerful than the original system.

Even besides that example, take any system with the same specs as a console, and comparably it will run like dog shit. It's always been the case.

 

[compgeek89]

Originally posted by: supastar1568

Originally posted by: southpawuni

Originally posted by: Tsosczb

Originally posted by: compgeek89

Originally posted by: Tsosczb
Your view sucks. You're comparing PC parts to gaming console parts. That in itself is a logical fallacy.

You don't even have any real XBox360 games to compare to, so please spare us the benchmarks in your head.

Oh, and the memory the consoles will have is going to be much better than the standard DDR/2 RAM you have. Plus, it will probably be efficient enough to the point where it wouldn't need so much to waste like your 2GB. Remember, most PC games don't even benefit from having more video memory.

OK console fanboy, My 7800 GTX's DDR3 is running at 1200, and yours will be at 700...
Sure your system RAM will be at 700mhz too, but wth 256mb of it... pfft

Way to miss the whole first line in my post. Either you just don't get it, or don't want to. Try comparing an XBox or PS2 to a PC from the same time with similar numbers. I guarantee you won't find performance or visual quality to be equal, especially with the newer console games.

If all you do is sit around playing video games all day, then sounds like an Xbox360 is right up your alley.
I'll be enjoying my 6800GT, and also making money with my PC and getting productive things done. Oh, and still have plenty of games that are the envy of console gamers.

Obviously, you are not a very productive person as you seem to be obsessed with a gaming box that is limited to activitys that only waste time and life.
Good for you. :thumbsup: I hope that works well for you.

well this is what i meant w/ our arguement. Most kids that play video games don't really do anything else. I never had a computer untill i turned 18, but i had console systems since i was like 14.

I am now 21 and like to do both. I can no longer just use a console for my needs, but if someone wants to just game then they can go with a console.

13-17 years olds really dont need all of the things a PC has to offer nor can they afford it. So I 400 dollar gaming system seems more suffice as it is easier to ask for something like that for Christmas or birthday rather than ask for a 1500 dollar PC.

I perfer both. I only play First Person Shooters and Sports and racing games.

I use the PC for FPS and the console for sports and racing

But some 16-17 year olds (Me for one) have... A JOB

We buy a fully upgradeable s939 rig in january and upgrade it to 2GB RAM and a 7800 GTX in september

I cant stand consoels as my main system, the PC is what I love.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: southpawuni
Quit comparing a top of the line PC to a stupid little Xbox. [...blah blah blah... rant rant rant...]

Response #2:

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
Yes and no... That is debatable about the performance of both. There is "theory" and "actual" often times they do not coincide. But I fully understand that the console should be more effecient, but to what extent in this case? Who knows. Hardware still has it's limitation no matter how carefully it is coded, it has a limit and that is why I do not put a lot of weight into the so called "efficiency" of consoles.

It's always been the case. You can't even get a PC that would seemingly appear more than 10 times as capable as a GBA to get decent performance with an emulator. Coincidence? The only problem with emulators is that, well, it's emulating, but even after years of optimizations, even something like a SNES emulator needs something that's many times more powerful than the original system.

Even besides that example, take any system with the same specs as a console, and comparably it will run like dog sh*t. It's always been the case.[/quote]

You are using emulators as your evidence that consoles are faster? With that kind of logic, I can prove that the Pentium 3 - 1Ghz is faster than Intel's top of the line Itanium. Because when the Itanium runs in X86 mode, it takes a gigantic performance hit. Therefore, we can conclude that the Pentium 3 - 1 Ghz is faster? I think not...

You need to understand how emulators work and why they are slower. Go read up on that and then, hopefully, you will stop using that as evidence for a console being faster than a PC.

XBox can run Doom3 only at 480P (640 X 480) and I can tell you with confidence that a Athlon XP 1800 + & GeForce3 Ti 500 can run Doom3 @ 640 X 480 just as well. Both were in the same time frame and both perform similarly. Yet you would make it seem that the Xbox would run circles around it... You are dead wrong and will realize that when you stop using emulation as your evidence.

 

[Tsosczb]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
You are using emulators as your evidence that consoles are faster? With that kind of logic, I can prove that the Pentium 3 - 1Ghz is faster than Intel's top of the line Itanium. Because when the Itanium runs in X86 mode, it takes a gigantic performance hit. Therefore, we can conclude that the Pentium 3 - 1 Ghz is faster? I think not...

You need to understand how emulators work and why they are slower. Go read up on that and then, hopefully, you will stop using that as evidence for a console being faster than a PC.

Uhh...

Originally posted by: Tsosczb
The only problem with emulators is that, well, it's emulating, but even after years of optimizations, even something like a SNES emulator needs something that's many times more powerful than the original system.

Oh, hey, and other processors do emulation, too, and they don't have the same performance hit. 64-bit XP also emulates 32-bit programs, without such a performance it.

XBox can run Doom3 only at 480P (640 X 480) and I can tell you with confidence that a Athlon XP 1800 + & GeForce3 Ti 500 can run Doom3 @ 640 X 480 just as well. Both were in the same time frame and both perform similarly. Yet you would make it seem that the Xbox would run circles around it... You are dead wrong and will realize that when you stop using emulation as your evidence.

Uh huh...

[XBox] Detailed specifications

• -CPU: 733 MHz Intel Pentium III processor, with a 133 MHz Front Side Bus
  -Graphics Processor: 250 MHz custom chip named the NV2A, developed by Microsoft and nVIDIA (based off of the GeForce 3 but with 2 vertex shaders to the GeForce 3's single vertex shader)
  -Total Memory: 64 MB DDR SDRAM running at 200 MHz, supplied by Micron

 

[supastar1568]

Originally posted by: compgeek89

Originally posted by: supastar1568

Originally posted by: southpawuni

Originally posted by: Tsosczb

Originally posted by: compgeek89

Originally posted by: Tsosczb
Your view sucks. You're comparing PC parts to gaming console parts. That in itself is a logical fallacy.

You don't even have any real XBox360 games to compare to, so please spare us the benchmarks in your head.

Oh, and the memory the consoles will have is going to be much better than the standard DDR/2 RAM you have. Plus, it will probably be efficient enough to the point where it wouldn't need so much to waste like your 2GB. Remember, most PC games don't even benefit from having more video memory.

OK console fanboy, My 7800 GTX's DDR3 is running at 1200, and yours will be at 700...
Sure your system RAM will be at 700mhz too, but wth 256mb of it... pfft

Way to miss the whole first line in my post. Either you just don't get it, or don't want to. Try comparing an XBox or PS2 to a PC from the same time with similar numbers. I guarantee you won't find performance or visual quality to be equal, especially with the newer console games.

If all you do is sit around playing video games all day, then sounds like an Xbox360 is right up your alley.
I'll be enjoying my 6800GT, and also making money with my PC and getting productive things done. Oh, and still have plenty of games that are the envy of console gamers.

Obviously, you are not a very productive person as you seem to be obsessed with a gaming box that is limited to activitys that only waste time and life.
Good for you. :thumbsup: I hope that works well for you.

well this is what i meant w/ our arguement. Most kids that play video games don't really do anything else. I never had a computer untill i turned 18, but i had console systems since i was like 14.

I am now 21 and like to do both. I can no longer just use a console for my needs, but if someone wants to just game then they can go with a console.

13-17 years olds really dont need all of the things a PC has to offer nor can they afford it. So I 400 dollar gaming system seems more suffice as it is easier to ask for something like that for Christmas or birthday rather than ask for a 1500 dollar PC.

I perfer both. I only play First Person Shooters and Sports and racing games.

I use the PC for FPS and the console for sports and racing

But some 16-17 year olds (Me for one) have... A JOB

We buy a fully upgradeable s939 rig in january and upgrade it to 2GB RAM and a 7800 GTX in september

I cant stand consoels as my main system, the PC is what I love.

ok, being 16-17 instead of saving up for a car....

save up for a computer so you can be antisocial ...

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: Tsosczb

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
You are using emulators as your evidence that consoles are faster? With that kind of logic, I can prove that the Pentium 3 - 1Ghz is faster than Intel's top of the line Itanium. Because when the Itanium runs in X86 mode, it takes a gigantic performance hit. Therefore, we can conclude that the Pentium 3 - 1 Ghz is faster? I think not...

You need to understand how emulators work and why they are slower. Go read up on that and then, hopefully, you will stop using that as evidence for a console being faster than a PC.

Uhh...

Originally posted by: Tsosczb
The only problem with emulators is that, well, it's emulating, but even after years of optimizations, even something like a SNES emulator needs something that's many times more powerful than the original system.

Oh, hey, and other processors do emulation, too, and they don't have the same performance hit. 64-bit XP also emulates 32-bit programs, without such a performance it.

XBox can run Doom3 only at 480P (640 X 480) and I can tell you with confidence that a Athlon XP 1800 + & GeForce3 Ti 500 can run Doom3 @ 640 X 480 just as well. Both were in the same time frame and both perform similarly. Yet you would make it seem that the Xbox would run circles around it... You are dead wrong and will realize that when you stop using emulation as your evidence.

Uh huh...

[XBox] Detailed specifications

• -CPU: 733 MHz Intel Pentium III processor, with a 133 MHz Front Side Bus
  -Graphics Processor: 250 MHz custom chip named the NV2A, developed by Microsoft and nVIDIA (based off of the GeForce 3 but with 2 vertex shaders to the GeForce 3's single vertex shader)
  -Total Memory: 64 MB DDR SDRAM running at 200 MHz, supplied by Micron

I was just quoting what was out at the time. Which was an AMD XP 1800+. Since the Xbox runs at 480p, it does not require a fast processor to feed it information. In this case, the 733 was the right CPU for the job.

I would not exactly consider that emulation. In addition, emulation is different depending on the architecture... Notice that the comparison you made was between two X86 chips. The Itanium isn't an X86 chip. The term emulation, IMO doesn't apply to a 64bit X86 CPU being backwards compatible with X86 32bit.

Go, on, keep up with your incredible extremely twisted examples... Fact is, emulation between two different architectures takes an extremely large performance hit. You can either believe that or not. But the facts are there.

 

[compgeek89]

Originally posted by: supastar1568

Originally posted by: compgeek89

Originally posted by: supastar1568

Originally posted by: southpawuni

Originally posted by: Tsosczb

Originally posted by: compgeek89

Originally posted by: Tsosczb
Your view sucks. You're comparing PC parts to gaming console parts. That in itself is a logical fallacy.

You don't even have any real XBox360 games to compare to, so please spare us the benchmarks in your head.

Oh, and the memory the consoles will have is going to be much better than the standard DDR/2 RAM you have. Plus, it will probably be efficient enough to the point where it wouldn't need so much to waste like your 2GB. Remember, most PC games don't even benefit from having more video memory.

OK console fanboy, My 7800 GTX's DDR3 is running at 1200, and yours will be at 700...
Sure your system RAM will be at 700mhz too, but wth 256mb of it... pfft

Way to miss the whole first line in my post. Either you just don't get it, or don't want to. Try comparing an XBox or PS2 to a PC from the same time with similar numbers. I guarantee you won't find performance or visual quality to be equal, especially with the newer console games.

If all you do is sit around playing video games all day, then sounds like an Xbox360 is right up your alley.
I'll be enjoying my 6800GT, and also making money with my PC and getting productive things done. Oh, and still have plenty of games that are the envy of console gamers.

Obviously, you are not a very productive person as you seem to be obsessed with a gaming box that is limited to activitys that only waste time and life.
Good for you. :thumbsup: I hope that works well for you.

well this is what i meant w/ our arguement. Most kids that play video games don't really do anything else. I never had a computer untill i turned 18, but i had console systems since i was like 14.

I am now 21 and like to do both. I can no longer just use a console for my needs, but if someone wants to just game then they can go with a console.

13-17 years olds really dont need all of the things a PC has to offer nor can they afford it. So I 400 dollar gaming system seems more suffice as it is easier to ask for something like that for Christmas or birthday rather than ask for a 1500 dollar PC.

I perfer both. I only play First Person Shooters and Sports and racing games.

I use the PC for FPS and the console for sports and racing

But some 16-17 year olds (Me for one) have... A JOB

We buy a fully upgradeable s939 rig in january and upgrade it to 2GB RAM and a 7800 GTX in september

I cant stand consoels as my main system, the PC is what I love.

ok, being 16-17 instead of saving up for a car....

save up for a computer so you can be antisocial ...

My family has 3 cars, I dont have a car called "mine" but I have a car to use whenever I need one.

 

[supastar1568]

Originally posted by: compgeek89

Originally posted by: supastar1568

Originally posted by: compgeek89

Originally posted by: supastar1568

Originally posted by: southpawuni

Originally posted by: Tsosczb

Originally posted by: compgeek89

Originally posted by: Tsosczb
Your view sucks. You're comparing PC parts to gaming console parts. That in itself is a logical fallacy.

You don't even have any real XBox360 games to compare to, so please spare us the benchmarks in your head.

Oh, and the memory the consoles will have is going to be much better than the standard DDR/2 RAM you have. Plus, it will probably be efficient enough to the point where it wouldn't need so much to waste like your 2GB. Remember, most PC games don't even benefit from having more video memory.

OK console fanboy, My 7800 GTX's DDR3 is running at 1200, and yours will be at 700...
Sure your system RAM will be at 700mhz too, but wth 256mb of it... pfft

Way to miss the whole first line in my post. Either you just don't get it, or don't want to. Try comparing an XBox or PS2 to a PC from the same time with similar numbers. I guarantee you won't find performance or visual quality to be equal, especially with the newer console games.

If all you do is sit around playing video games all day, then sounds like an Xbox360 is right up your alley.
I'll be enjoying my 6800GT, and also making money with my PC and getting productive things done. Oh, and still have plenty of games that are the envy of console gamers.

Obviously, you are not a very productive person as you seem to be obsessed with a gaming box that is limited to activitys that only waste time and life.
Good for you. :thumbsup: I hope that works well for you.

well this is what i meant w/ our arguement. Most kids that play video games don't really do anything else. I never had a computer untill i turned 18, but i had console systems since i was like 14.

I am now 21 and like to do both. I can no longer just use a console for my needs, but if someone wants to just game then they can go with a console.

13-17 years olds really dont need all of the things a PC has to offer nor can they afford it. So I 400 dollar gaming system seems more suffice as it is easier to ask for something like that for Christmas or birthday rather than ask for a 1500 dollar PC.

I perfer both. I only play First Person Shooters and Sports and racing games.

I use the PC for FPS and the console for sports and racing

But some 16-17 year olds (Me for one) have... A JOB

We buy a fully upgradeable s939 rig in january and upgrade it to 2GB RAM and a 7800 GTX in september

I cant stand consoels as my main system, the PC is what I love.

ok, being 16-17 instead of saving up for a car....

save up for a computer so you can be antisocial ...

My family has 3 cars, I dont have a car called "mine" but I have a car to use whenever I need one.

yea, i was just playin




yall are a bunch of nerds arquing which is better