2006 PC hardware vs. XBOX Next...

R

redrocksout

Weaksauce
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
107
how will PC hardware compare with XBOX Next's hardware by the time it comes out?

Will the PC have some catching up to do? If so, how long do you think it'll take?

If not, what superior PC hardware will be out by then?
 
......

Xbox is like a pc, it's a weaker PC.... The thing is the games know the parameters for quality gameplay so they can make the games best to the extent, like if valve knew everyone had a Athlon 64 3400+, 6800 GT, a gigabyte of ram, K8N boards, then the games would be AMAZING, but game companies don't put full graphics into the game so that people with worse systems can still play.
 
Seeing that consoles are for the younger crowd and PCs are usually for the older crowd since they cost $$$, the PCs will ALWAYS be better at the time of the release of the console. Sure the games may seem to be "great" on the console but thats just because they are programmed just for ONE type of system. Though when i had my xbox for a bit i wasen't impressed with the 20-30 fps on some games that was "normal" to most people...
 
while i'm not disputing that pc's are better than consoles, i've noticed the general trend of consoles looking a wee bit better than pc's for about three to six months after their release and then the pc just tramples it for four and a half years afterward. I'm willing to bet that this will most likely be the case.
 
Let us look into a our crystal ball....all I see is MS and even Sony bridging the gap between consoles and pc's. We no longer here things like this..."Seeing that consoles are for the younger crowd and PCs are usually for the older crowd since they cost $$$". Rest easy, the future is bright for both console and PC gamers. The smart ones will embrace and learn the benefits of both, the fools will continue to scorn one. :D
 
LiquidX said:
Let us look into a our crystal ball....all I see is MS and even Sony bridging the gap between consoles and pc's. We no longer here things like this..."Seeing that consoles are for the younger crowd and PCs are usually for the older crowd since they cost $$$". Rest easy, the future is bright for both console and PC gamers. The smart ones will embrace and learn the benefits of both, the fools will continue to scorn one. :D
Click to expand...

hear hear
 
i imagine we'll start to see a seperation between PCgaming rigs, and PCs in general.
 
HRslammR said:
i imagine we'll start to see a seperation between PCgaming rigs, and PCs in general.
Click to expand...

There already is one.
 
I wonder how my current system will stack up to the new consoles. It would be cool if we could just plug in my current computer monitor, keyboard, and mouse to the new consoles and pretend like it is my computer. :D Gotta have the widescreen :D
 
IMO, the Xbox2 will be state of the art and faster than most PC when it comes out. However, it wouldn't take long before PCs catch up and surpass it in power. But either way i will always buy consoles because some uber awesome games (MGS, RE4 etc) just never make it to the PC.
 
It still won't have sufficient onboard memory to do textures or game environments as well as a last generation PC.
 
earthscore said:
......

Xbox is like a pc, it's a weaker PC.... The thing is the games know the parameters for quality gameplay so they can make the games best to the extent, like if valve knew everyone had a Athlon 64 3400+, 6800 GT, a gigabyte of ram, K8N boards, then the games would be AMAZING, but game companies don't put full graphics into the game so that people with worse systems can still play.
Click to expand...

Yes, but thats not the only reason why, It's got to do with a PC has alot more to do. Game consoles focus on one thing and one thing only "gaming". Whereas PC's run many different tasks and the OS takes up alot more CPU and mem.
 
How many more of these threads are we going to get? I understand you invested four digits into your shiny PC, and are worried that some console coming out in 10 months will be more powerful, but this is getting a bit redundant...
 
What looks better, 800x600 on a TV, or 1600x1200 on a beautiful 22" crt?

Thank you have a nice day.

Also, for all you hdtv owners out there, a pc can do that better to.
 
Jiffylush said:
What looks better, 800x600 on a TV, or 1600x1200 on a beautiful 22" crt?

Thank you have a nice day.

Also, for all you hdtv owners out there, a pc can do that better to.
Click to expand...


It's all about the games man. Who cares if you run 1600x1200 if you can't play games like Resident Evil 4, Metroid Prime 1+2. There are great games on PC, but if you don't also play consoles, you're missing out on some great games. Not to mention that it's way more fun to have friends over playing multiplayer games on a big TV versus the pain of setting up a lan.
 
HRslammR said:
i imagine we'll start to see a seperation between PCgaming rigs, and PCs in general.
Click to expand...
Dell has a deal for a $450 computer with a 17" LCD (special ad in mail). I paid more than that for just my video card, so I think the separation is there :)

We'll have to see what kind of hardware they can afford to put in it. Aren't the first set of consoles of a production run usually made as a loss-leader until expenses come down?
 
This has probally been posted but I was just excited when I came across...

http://money.cnn.com/2005/01/06/commentary/game_over/column_gaming/?cnn=yes

Whether that happens or not, the next Xbox will definitely communicate with home PCs. Bill Gates has talked glowingly about bringing music and media to the Xbox as well as connecting Xbox Live to MSN Messenger. And nine months ago, the company unveiled a new development platform for game makers called XNA, which will allow PC and Xbox gamers to play together online – and plug the Xbox 2 controller into the PC.
Click to expand...
 
Well the XBOX 2 will supposedly use 3 processors, as per the tech specs released in the last few weeks, but these are not concrete.

I would have to say the original XBOX, sure managed to squeeze a whole lof of power out of the hardware it had.

Hell the graphics in Halo 2 are superiour to many FPS titles for the PC currently. I am always amased by the graphic quality commin out of the XBOX. And I look forward to the XBOX 2 as it will no doubt ruin anything on the market for the PC when it comes out.
 
Doom3, BF:VN, EQ2, etc. The XBox2 or any other console developers would cringe in fear at even the assumption of trying to run those games on par with PCs. Games are being created that play on average PCs, but also have the capability to run on future hardware. While this continues, the separation of consoles and PCs will continue.

That being said, it's interesting what Gates is trying to do with the XBox line. Should he one day make it so it can be easily upgraded, and produce a market of XBox hardware, then, that separation will shrink.
 
Badger_sly said:
Doom3, BF:VN, EQ2, etc. The XBox2 or any other console developers would cringe in fear at even the assumption of trying to run those games on par with PCs. Games are being created that play on average PCs, but also have the capability to run on future hardware. While this continues, the separation of consoles and PCs will continue.

That being said, it's interesting what Gates is trying to do with the XBox line. Should he one day make it so it can be easily upgraded, and produce a market of XBox hardware, then, that separation will shrink.
Click to expand...

I think Bill Gates is headed in the opposite direction. A company such as Microsoft stands to gain a lot more revenue if they can remove people from being able to upgrade their hardware, and instead sell products with a limited life span.

This may be bad in some respects ... but what it allows for is an identical component set across all XBOXs which allows game developers to push the hardware to the limit and not have to worry about it running on legacy hardware.

I do see home computers and consoles becomming one in the not so distant future. It would just make sence really. Why have two machines for double the price when you can have one machine do everything.

Sure game developers make software to run on future systems ... but Honestly ... when is the last time you installed a legacy game on your new system ? By the time new hardware comes into the PC market there is a whole crop of new games just calling your name, and older games get thrown aside. There was a plugin for the SNES a while back that allows you to play GameBoy games on it. The sales of this device did so poorly because no one wanted to play an old game they have already gone through on the gameboy.
 
bonkrowave said:
...............
Sure game developers make software to run on future systems ... but Honestly ... when is the last time you installed a legacy game on your new system ? By the time new hardware comes into the PC market there is a whole crop of new games just calling your name, and older games get thrown aside. ............
Click to expand...

EQ2, which I mentioned previously, will be around and played by a big fanbase for many years. Which, for myself and probably many others, would be run on several computer upgrades. And as it is transferred to a faster system, the games settings can be bumped up to take advantage of the new hardware.

D3, depends on expansions.

BF1942, BF:VN, BF2, current games running strong fanbase, BF2 likely will follow, because of good patches/expansions.

Q4, if it's anywhere close to the level of Q3's fame, it could easily run through 2-5 system upgrades.

Those are some examples of what consoles will not be able to catch up to, for quite a while.
 
Badger_sly said:
EQ2, which I mentioned previously, will be around and played by a big fanbase for many years. Which, for myself and probably many others, would be run on several computer upgrades. And as it is transferred to a faster system, the games settings can be bumped up to take advantage of the new hardware.

D3, depends on expansions.

BF1942, BF:VN, BF2, current games running strong fanbase, BF2 likely will follow, because of good patches/expansions.

Q4, if it's anywhere close to the level of Q3's fame, it could easily run through 2-5 system upgrades.

Those are some examples of what consoles will not be able to catch up to, for quite a while.
Click to expand...

Actually Quake 4 is supposed to be a title for XBOX 2.

And the consoles dont have to catch up to anything ... when consoles are first released it is always the PC that does the catching up.
 
bonkrowave said:
Actually Quake 4 is supposed to be a title for XBOX 2.

And the consoles dont have to catch up to anything ... when consoles are first released it is always the PC that does the catching up.
Click to expand...

As D3 came out, neutered, for consoles, Q4 will be the same, as compared to the PC versions.
 
PC will of course be more powerful but as always you will have to pay for it. As for bang for the buck the XBOX 2 will of course not be beaten by any than other consoles.

But if you pay 3000$ you get a PC that easily outperform XBOX 2 ;).
 
Badger_sly said:
As D3 came out, neutered, for consoles, Q4 will be the same, as compared to the PC versions.
Click to expand...

I think the difference here is that D3 was released at the end of a products life cycle. Where as Quake 4 will be released at the start of the XBOX 2's lifecycle (by all reports) which would more then likely mean Quake 4 is not neutered down, and at that point the XBOX 2 will out perform PCs, much like the XBOX did when it was first released.
 
What do you mean XBOX never did. Turn down computers to use 512x384 as res and it went orbit around XBOX in fps ;)

True for some months the XBOX had a bit more powerful video card but the limitation on CPU and memory made it a bit slower even at launch.

But it all depends on how you look at it? It´s not fair to compare a 3000$ computer vs a 300$ console.
 
oqvist said:
What do you mean XBOX never did. Turn down computers to use 512x384 as res and it went orbit around XBOX in fps ;)

True for some months the XBOX had a bit more powerful video card but the limitation on CPU and memory made it a bit slower even at launch.

But it all depends on how you look at it? It´s not fair to compare a 3000$ computer vs a 300$ console.
Click to expand...

I think it is fair ... when the 300$ console can compete on many levels with a 3000 computer.

Halo 2 is using the XBOXs hardware, which is getting long in the tooth now, and it has better level design, better plot, graphics that are on par with todays FPS. It blows my mind the power that developers can squeeze outta the XBOX.

Lets not forget the XBOX was microsofts first attempt at a console ... and look how bad in pwned everything. For a first attempt ... thats pretty dang amazing.

*attempts to squeeze his BFG tech 6800 GT to eek out performance. (no Halo 2 came out ... only a piss poor Halo 1 port) :D
 
I really think that what they will show us will be amazing. What video card does anyone here know that exists that has 3 processors? The power and absolute flexibility of that fact alone will make it extraordinarily powerful. Traditionally, home console graphicsare usually leaps and bounds ahead of their predecessors, so this ones a no-brainer: the graphics will be amazing. Nothing coming out this fall by Nvidia or ATI or anyone will come close to what Microsoft is going to release. The system will no doubt have less than 512mb RAM when it hits shelves. That's more than enough to render the most powerful games. Sure some computers have 2gigs of RAM for gaming, but that much isn't even close to being used up by the graphics. Remember about 300mb of that is used for the primary OS functions, and still more for background tasks, maybe a skinned GUI, or icons. I beleive this console will overpower anything available for the PC at that time. See, also, the PCI-E bus, and the AGP bus can't last forever. While they are fairly future safe, a console will always have it's own thing going on, so it's not bound by the restrictions that those platforms will hold in the future for PC video cards. Where console graphics can simply get more powerful, PC graphics will have to depend on a new bus every decade or so.
 
Badger_sly said:
As D3 came out, neutered, for consoles, Q4 will be the same, as compared to the PC versions.
Click to expand...

Let's assume that Quake 4 can run on a dual G5 with half a gig of RAM and a X800. That's a safe assumption, right? Say, 1024x768, high quality? I mean, Doom ran just fine on my machine, which would be about as fast as a single 2.0 G5 (see sig for machine specs).

So, why couldn't a console with the same amount of computing power handle Quake 4 just fine?

For a prediction, I think both Sony and Microsoft's consoles will have about the same amount of power, both will be about as fast as current top-notch PCs, and next-gen PCs will leapfrog them in capabilities. I also think that, while processor speeds and GPU designs are already fairly fixed (maybe a little flexibility in Nvidia's part, since the NV50's not done yet), the amount of memory and the hard drive being in-box or add-on are probably still up in the air. If Sony launches the PS3 with a hard drive and 512MB of RAM, I don't think MS would have locked themselves out of doing the same thing.
 
LiquidX said:
Let us look into a our crystal ball....all I see is MS and even Sony bridging the gap between consoles and pc's. We no longer here things like this..."Seeing that consoles are for the younger crowd and PCs are usually for the older crowd since they cost $$$". Rest easy, the future is bright for both console and PC gamers. The smart ones will embrace and learn the benefits of both, the fools will continue to scorn one. :D
Click to expand...

nicely put...
And I'm hopin that XBOX2 and the PC could really play together online in the future. I don't care that much how the graphics would look on PC(altho nicer the better) as long as I'm havin fun with others, I'll be happy...
 
bonkrowave said:
I think it is fair ... when the 300$ console can compete on many levels with a 3000 computer.

Halo 2 is using the XBOXs hardware, which is getting long in the tooth now, and it has better level design, better plot, graphics that are on par with todays FPS. It blows my mind the power that developers can squeeze outta the XBOX.

Lets not forget the XBOX was microsofts first attempt at a console ... and look how bad in pwned everything. For a first attempt ... thats pretty dang amazing.

*attempts to squeeze his BFG tech 6800 GT to eek out performance. (no Halo 2 came out ... only a piss poor Halo 1 port) :D
Click to expand...

I am sorry but HALO was very average and HALO 2 just shows that I was right about HALO.

Tell me how HALO 2 even can be mentioned in the same sentence as Far Cry and Half Life 2 is beyond me. You should really take Chronicles of Riddick or Doom 3 instead of HALO 2 to compare.

But yeah it´s impressive only have to pay 300$ instead of 3000$ but in the end you get max 75 % of the graphics you get on PC but crappy controls just make consoles 50 % of the fun really.

But the thing is consoles is you massproduce them and then you have stupid gamers buy games for 70$ a piece ;). Computer users are smarter than that ;)

Now I am kidding but some am also serious about this ;)

In the end you get what you pay for. As for plot and such you can have as great of a plot on a SNES really so don´t know what that got to do with anything. Also why take fps as an example of what is possible. The genre where consoles have nothing at all to brag about.
 
oqvist said:
I am sorry but HALO was very average and HALO 2 just shows that I was right about HALO.
Click to expand...

This is only your opinion ... not fact. In my Opinion Halo was very good and Halo 2 was as well.

Tell me how HALO 2 even can be mentioned in the same sentence as Far Cry and Half Life 2 is beyond me. You should really take Chronicles of Riddick or Doom 3 instead of HALO 2 to compare.
Click to expand...
You choose the two newest graphics engines which only came out at the very end of the XBOXs product life cycle. Halo 2 easily beats all FPS shooters in its product cycle apex.


But yeah it´s impressive only have to pay 300$ instead of 3000$ but in the end you get max 75 % of the graphics you get on PC but crappy controls just make consoles 50 % of the fun really.
Click to expand...
Mouse and Keyboard have there advantages for certain games, as do controllers. If this was not true then you would not see any gamepads on the market for the PC. Plus the games are designed around the controls so to say crappy controls is your opinion. Once you get used to them they are second nature ... just like the mouse / keyboard combo.

Also the XBOX, when it first came out has better graphics capability then any PC. The PC hsa just recently overtaken the XBOX on this front. And judging on the XBOX 2 specs it will be the same way when the XBOX2 is released.

But the thing is consoles is you massproduce them and then you have stupid gamers buy games for 70$ a piece ;). Computer users are smarter than that ;)
Click to expand...
I wouldn't stay stupid. I have both a computer and XBOX. I like to get the best of both worlds rather then shun one of them.
Now I am kidding but some am also serious about this ;)

In the end you get what you pay for. As for plot and such you can have as great of a plot on a SNES really so don´t know what that got to do with anything. Also why take fps as an example of what is possible. The genre where consoles have nothing at all to brag about.
Click to expand...

When is the last time a PC game had a half decent plot ? In My experience and Opinion, it is always the console games that have the better plot.
 
Jiffylush said:
What looks better, 800x600 on a TV, or 1600x1200 on a beautiful 22" crt?
Click to expand...

A triangle in 1600x1200, 8xAA 16xAF is still that, a triangle.

I own two gaming machines, a ('99) PS2 and 3.4G P4C, 1GB, 6800 GT PC. With today's rates I think my PC gaming rig costs about 10x as much as a new PS2 would. Often times I am still left wondering, how on earth can the PC games be so low-poly. Many PS2 games push more polygons than most modern PC games. Granted, high resolution and detailed textures are nice and all, but a low-poly object looks ass no matter how high resolution it is drawn to.

Jiffylush said:
Thank you have a nice day.
Click to expand...

You too!
 
Kevin Lowe said:
............
So, why couldn't a console with the same amount of computing power handle Quake 4 just fine?
...........
Click to expand...

In reality, we're talking about them, at best, packing the equivalent of the minimum PC spec requirements for something like Q4 or D3, into the console. There are two reasons for that: 1) They have to sell the things for $300(ish) 2) Probably 80%+ of household TVs can't do anything over 800x600 resolution, so there's no point.
 
I'm definitely in the "get both be happy" group here.

Ultimately it doesnt matter to me which is more powerful. But if its worth anything IMO the PC is and will always be more powerful than the console. Purely for one reason really. A console is a mass market product and as such needs to priced accordingly. This means the console makers are limited (by costings) to which components they can use, how much RAM etc. But if I go and decide i want a PC I can spend as much (or as little) as I like and as such get faster/higher quality parts.

The only way console could ever hope to compete is to increase their costs to be on a par with a PC (say £1500 for arguments sake).
 
bonkrowave said:
Mouse and Keyboard have there advantages for certain games, as do controllers. If this was not true then you would not see any gamepads on the market for the PC. Plus the games are designed around the controls so to say crappy controls is your opinion. Once you get used to them they are second nature ... just like the mouse / keyboard combo.

Also the XBOX, when it first came out has better graphics capability then any PC. The PC hsa just recently overtaken the XBOX on this front. And judging on the XBOX 2 specs it will be the same way when the XBOX2 is released.
Click to expand...

When XBOX was released there was PC:s that was faster yes. When Geforce 4 arrived XBOX was really showing it´s age already.

I am not saying that XBOX aren´t good but it´s for those who can´t afford a real high end computer in my eyes.

As for controls I am talking more than keyboard and mice. I am talking TrackIR, Vector expansion. Better force feedback. Better joysticks. Free choosing of gamepads. Yokes jadajada you get the picture. Everything is available for computers very little for consoles.

As for fps games story system shock 2, just all thief games have stories that are miles ahead of any of the fps seen today. Shodan need I say more? As for HALO it only got recognition because it was so unusual with a fps that also had a decent story on consoles. Still no secret that the control sucked for that too as expected. Was better with the PC port though that port wasn´t very well done.

But really you will see when XBOX 2 arrives or "The Cell" which seem to be even more powerful computers by then is a fair bit faster as was the case with XBOX. Kind of natural because you can´t put overheating 4 gig CPU:s in those tiny boxes just aren´t practical ;). Then it´s easier to implement a powerful video card that can compete better against the PC offerings.
 
I no longer own a console, and I know zilch about the next generation of them, but there is no way in hell M$ or Sony can sell a product for $300-400 and it contain hardware that is even in the same zip code as higher-end PC's. That's not say games can't look amazing on the things, but they are absolutely NOT going to have the horsepower of a PC.
 
ATW said:
I no longer own a console, and I know zilch about the next generation of them, but there is no way in hell M$ or Sony can sell a product for $300-400 and it contain hardware that is even in the same zip code as higher-end PC's. That's not say games can't look amazing on the things, but they are absolutely NOT going to have the horsepower of a PC.
Click to expand...
That "horsepower of a PC" doesn't apply to only games. That extra horsepower you are talking about is meant for other things: background services, GUI, the OS itself-those things. The horsepower that will be included in the next gen of consoles is more than powerful and more than overpowers what a PC will be capable of graphics wise.
 
I don't want to get into a debate over Halo vs Computer FPS, other than to say I've beaten Halo 1 and 2 and the best of the computer FPS genre, and I never spent 20 minutes running around a level in HL2 or Doom3 looking for the exit like I did in Halo 2. Still, I liked both Halo games.
What I want to know is how the Xbox2 is going to have such high end parts for so cheap. How is it going to have 2-3 2.5-3 GHz processors and a videocard that's faster than my X800 XT for less than 500 bucks? If microsoft can pull it off, I'd love to get one. I can just see people buying them for folding if they could figure out a way to get the program to run on an Xbox.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top