• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

At what point will console graphics be outdated?

I'm actually glad the PC market is in sync with the console world in terms of graphics. Cause games like Crysis paint an unrealistic picture of the PC market so everyone thinks you need a 2000$ PC to PC game. Id rather play l4d2 or cod4 @ 60fps vs playing Crysis barely at 30fps. Playable game > pretty gfx. I mean you wouldn't watch a movie at 10fps would you?
 
Lets see, crysis came out over 2 years ago and blows away anything the consoles could do, so I'm going to go with 6 months after they're release.
 
I like my xbox360 and PS3, but they have been dated graphically for about 2 years now.
 
By late 2006 the consoles were outdated graphically. Which is an accomplishment because up to that point no console had ever had better graphics than a PC at its launch.

Do I think the consoles are holding back graphics on PC games today? Perhaps a little bit because of the ports and less than steller optimization for the much more powerful PC hardware. Almost like they can get away with brute forcing their way through problems.

Plus the lack of motivation to graph DX10/DX11 features to their very outdated DX9c engine. We are getting the max out of a DirectX standard that was released back in 2002-2004. We should probably have progressed a lot by now.
 
This guy is either a brilliant troll or a complete retard. I don't know which. Either way, thanks for the good laugh.
 
Trepidati0n said:
This guy is either a brilliant troll or a complete retard. I don't know which. Either way, thanks for the good laugh.
Click to expand...

It really is kind of amazing how much laughable material came out of a couple not very large posts from the same person.
 
s_s256 said:
Plus the lack of motivation to graph DX10/DX11 features to their very outdated DX9c engine. We are getting the max out of a DirectX standard that was released back in 2002-2004. We should probably have progressed a lot by now.
Click to expand...

The XBox 360 actually uses a more advanced API than DX9.0c, even if it was DX-inspired. The PS3 uses OpenGL ES, which ideally would result in more OpenGL-based PC games as well. Sadly this isn't the case. If the XBox 360 supported OpenGL ES too it'd have been much easier to upgrade the graphics for PC games to OpenGL 3.2 standards.
 
yep, they have been outdated for a couple of years now. Anyone that can't spot the difference between 720p and 1080p+ not to mention the texture and quality differences is either blind or stupid. I was playing borderland on my mediocre PC when a friend of mine wanted to come over to play on his console. I was amazed at how different it was not only graphic wise, but performance and load times. It took for freakin ever to load an area on his Xbox. I booted up my PC and after a few seconds of load time it was complete. He was stunned.
 
PowersGaming said:
Sry, didn't mean to mislead you guys.. What I was trying to say is that computing power in consoles is greater than in PC's, which effects graphics. For instance, my son has a PS3 that he uses to play Blu-ray on his 50" plasma. I've got a decent PC rig here, but it simply can't compete. Just seems like PC rigs are always playing "catch up" with consoles...
Click to expand...

if you look at the bandwidth available to the console components, and compare them to PC parts of the last 4 years, you will find your incorrect. Graphics are also years behind (for maybe the first month or so of release they were ahead but that was it), I have a PS3, when I compare it to my PC playing Batman AA, Fall Out 3, or Dragon Age, the PS3 is way behind.

I don't understand how playing a Blu-Ray disc is any kind of comparison against how a PC plays a Blu-Ray disc (since they both can do that quite easily)?

It has always been the other way around, the console comes out with jaw dropping technology, and then the PC has brand new stuff the next month or two later such as the Quad core and nVidia 8800 showing up about two months after the PS3.
 
s_s256 said:
We should probably have progressed a lot by now.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's all very well that some console port will (or should) run well on a mediocre PC, but we could have much more graphically sophisticated games if major developers were still pushing the limits rather than "making do" at some pathetic, scaled, sub-HD resolution because that's all the consoles can cope with. And the fact that there aren't any graphical monsters like Crysis on the PC any more to compare with just helps to disguise how limited the console hardware really is.
 
nullzero said:
However I feel that this console generation has just driven the gaming market to stagnation, due to the graphics and processing power restrictions of consoles.
Click to expand...

The market is stagnating due to lack of variety in game content. Graphics are plenty advanced right now, allowing art teams to do quite a lot. Art direction is stagnating because of all the me too space marine if they can sell it we can sell it.

http://www.gossipgamers.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/1237687236272.jpg

some of those examples are for Lawls, but about half of that is a good example of what I'm talking about.
 
chameleoneel said:
The market is stagnating due to lack of variety in game content. Graphics are plenty advanced right now, allowing art teams to do quite a lot. Art direction is stagnating because of all the me too space marine if they can sell it we can sell it.

http://www.gossipgamers.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/1237687236272.jpg

some of those examples are for Lawls, but about half of that is a good example of what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

Idea's are created from idea's. Its been this way for thousands of years. And isn't subjective to just games.
 
PowersGaming said:
I'm not a console gamer, but I believe that consoles run 128bit or higher, while PC's are just now reaching the 64bit plateau. Wish it were the other way around...
Click to expand...


Sry, didn't mean to mislead you guys.. What I was trying to say is that computing power in consoles is greater than in PC's, which effects graphics. For instance, my son has a PS3 that he uses to play Blu-ray on his 50" plasma. I've got a decent PC rig here, but it simply can't compete. Just seems like PC rigs are always playing "catch up" with consoles...
Click to expand...

This is why console gaming defeats PC gaming. Because gamers are too lazy to take more than 5 minutes to try anything, and instead memorize headline facts that they can regurgitate blindly, and complain about the littlest things as being world-ending problems. They live in ignorance and give-up their freedoms because it's easier.

The reason nobody is whining for a new console to be released is entirely thanks to the wonder of the graphics scaling circuit. People are playing games running at sub-720p on their monster 1080p sets (not to mention paying for Comcast "HD Lite" and liking it), and they just don't care because they can't see the difference. And somebody out there thinks people will shell-out for 2k-resolution sets - how are they going to sell when people can't even tell the difference between HD and well-scaled SD?

And just FYI, so you don't sound like an idiot in the future:

The word size of CPUs no-longer matters as much as it used to. And while we're on the subject, the word size for modern processors can get as wide as 128-bit (using SSE2/SSE3). The widest word size of the PS3 is also a 128-bit vector, but it gains performance because it offers 2 of those in every SPU, and 6 of those SPUs available to the programmer. This can result in very high performance, if the programmer can figure out how to use it properly.

Your Blu-Ray playback problems are because you don't have a clue, not because your system lacks playback capability. If your system can play modern games, the video card can accelerate h.264. If you had ASKED how to make this work instead of being an ignorant know-it-all, I would have gone out of my way to show you how to use DXVA to play your Blu-Ray.
 
Last edited:
There really is no discernible difference in image quality or game play between between a 360 hooked up to a 1080p TV and a $2000 gaming computer hooked up to a 1080p TV. I mean they both output at 1080p with anti-aliasing so I don't see the big deal about PC gaming. The only difference in PC gaming and console gaming is you're paying thousands more to game on a PC.
 
SixtyWattMan said:
There really is no discernible difference in image quality or game play between between a 360 hooked up to a 1080p TV and a $2000 gaming computer hooked up to a 1080p TV. I mean they both output at 1080p with anti-aliasing so I don't see the big deal about PC gaming. The only difference in PC gaming and console gaming is you're paying thousands more to game on a PC.
Click to expand...

I paid $355,909.99 for my PC, it only gets 8 fps in minesweeper.
 
SixtyWattMan said:
There really is no discernible difference in image quality or game play between between a 360 hooked up to a 1080p TV and a $2000 gaming computer hooked up to a 1080p TV. I mean they both output at 1080p with anti-aliasing so I don't see the big deal about PC gaming. The only difference in PC gaming and console gaming is you're paying thousands more to game on a PC.
Click to expand...

Why? Because the blame solely lies at the feet of developers and their management. It's easier to create console content first, then do a quick 'n' dirty port to PC for a cash in, so they do just that rather than putting in extra effects and details that used to be the icing on the cake for PC games. Not to mention you can charge for DLC and console gamers just lap it up, begging for more, just like my man Oliver here:

oliver-twist.jpg


With game budgets going through the roof, piracy being a major problem to publishers and developers, and console gamers begging for more, who do you really think they are going to listen to? Like P Diddy said, it's all about the Benjamins.

In the end, console gamers think they win, publishers laugh all the way to the bank, and we lose. BIG TIME.

Oh, and I think consoles have been really outdated for about the past 3 years or so.
 
Last edited:
SixtyWattMan said:
There really is no discernible difference in image quality or game play between between a 360 hooked up to a 1080p TV and a $2000 gaming computer hooked up to a 1080p TV. I mean they both output at 1080p with anti-aliasing so I don't see the big deal about PC gaming. The only difference in PC gaming and console gaming is you're paying thousands more to game on a PC.
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWB9vsgmtyM
 
SixtyWattMan said:
There really is no discernible difference in image quality or game play between between a 360 hooked up to a 1080p TV and a $2000 gaming computer hooked up to a 1080p TV. I mean they both output at 1080p with anti-aliasing so I don't see the big deal about PC gaming. The only difference in PC gaming and console gaming is you're paying thousands more to game on a PC.
Click to expand...

How many 360 games are actually 1080P with AA? Any?
 
Forceman said:
How many 360 games are actually 1080P with AA? Any?
Click to expand...

I don't think many (if any) actually run at 1080p... I believe it's usually unscaled from 720p (or lower)

however, if I remember correctly, the 360 has a dedicated chip for anti-aliasing so it's essentially free. That could of been a marketing gimmick, but I recall reading about it back in 05

edit: taken from here

The logic and embedded DRAM on the daughter die is what allows the Xbox 360 GPU to essentially offer "free" anti-aliasing, which Microsoft enforces through requiring developers to support a minimum of 2X AA in all Xbox 360 titles. Although we were originally told back at E3 that all Xbox 360 titles would support 4X AA, it seems that the statement has since been revised to 2X or 4X AA. We're not certain why the change was made, as 2X and 4X are both effectively "free" on the GPU, but there may be something we're missing.
Click to expand...
 
Forceman said:
How many 360 games are actually 1080P with AA? Any?
Click to expand...

None. All are 720p or 600p and upscaled. Most games use 2x MSAA. The PS3 does have a couple 1080p games (Lair, and Wip3out HD) but I'm not sure of the full list.
 
Last edited:
SixtyWattMan said:
There really is no discernible difference in image quality or game play between between a 360 hooked up to a 1080p TV and a $2000 gaming computer hooked up to a 1080p TV. I mean they both output at 1080p with anti-aliasing so I don't see the big deal about PC gaming. The only difference in PC gaming and console gaming is you're paying thousands more to game on a PC.
Click to expand...

I've spent more time in the month since I obtained my PS3 playing Prophunt, a free mod for TF2 than I have spent total playing the 6 games I own on the PS3. A simple hide-and-seek mod for a PC game offers more fun than Uncharted 1 and 2, Killzone 2, Assassin's Creed 2, MGS4 and Infamous combined. I can scarcely bring myself to play the ones that aren't AC2 or Infamous for fear of my head exploding from playing shooter games with analog sticks.
 
PowersGaming said:
I'm not a console gamer, but I believe that consoles run 128bit or higher, while PC's are just now reaching the 64bit plateau. Wish it were the other way around...
Click to expand...

Ugh, I know not everyone is a computer science major(even if they are, many are quite clueless), but 128 bit is marketing. As mentioned previously word size doesn't matter as much as it used to.


SixtyWattMan said:
There really is no discernible difference in image quality or game play between between a 360 hooked up to a 1080p TV and a $2000 gaming computer hooked up to a 1080p TV. I mean they both output at 1080p with anti-aliasing so I don't see the big deal about PC gaming. The only difference in PC gaming and console gaming is you're paying thousands more to game on a PC.
Click to expand...
Yes there is, consoles don't do 1080p natively, they upscale. Internally they're 720p, and in modern warfare 2, halo 3, and some other games 600p. src.
 
SixtyWattMan said:
There really is no discernible difference in image quality or game play between between a 360 hooked up to a 1080p TV and a $2000 gaming computer hooked up to a 1080p TV. I mean they both output at 1080p with anti-aliasing so I don't see the big deal about PC gaming. The only difference in PC gaming and console gaming is you're paying thousands more to game on a PC.
Click to expand...

Unless I'm blind, your sig says you have a 4870. Have you ever installed and played a single game? Are you just trolling?
 
For the "HardCore", games consoles have been outdated since about a year after launch. Sooner for the Wii.

For the mass market, I think 360 and PS3 will do just fine for the foreseeable future.
 
MiG31_Foxhound said:
Unless I'm blind, your sig says you have a 4870. Have you ever installed and played a single game? Are you just trolling?
Click to expand...

He uses the 4870 for main card and the 285 for PhysX :p

...

on Win 7 with latest driver without special hacked patch.




PowersGaming, if you think you have a point and aren't pulling our chain, and that you think you don't deserve the flaming you are getting... you have to realize that you have a LOT of explaining to do to make such an assertion. Are you thinking Half Life 2 on Xbox is better than on PC?
 
Parmenides said:
Are you thinking Half Life 2 on Xbox is better than on PC?
Click to expand...

Well in his defense, the Xbox 360 version of HL2 did get a bit of a face lift when Valve decided to use the updated Source engine from Episode 2 for its foundation, though there is no way in hell that game will run at any higher resolution than 720p as opposed to the PC version.

But goddamn, I haven't heard people talk about word size on consoles ever since the release of the Dreamcast.
 
GushpinBob said:
But goddamn, I haven't heard people talk about word size on consoles ever since the release of the Dreamcast.
Click to expand...

The first 32-bit and 64-bit consoles :p Man, that was quite a PR/fanboy war :D
 
PowersGaming said:
Figured I'd get flamed over this. I don't own a console, nor do I even like consoles; I run a 285 here on this PC and the graphics are great, but consoles seem to have an (graphics) edge in certain games.
Click to expand...

"PowersGaming (PG) was a professional Counter-Strike:Source clan based in the United States. PowersGaming was formed by Jason Powers and his son, Jordan.[1] Powersgaming was considered to be the top Counter-Strike:Source team in the world.[c"

Yeah.... Pretty sure this guy's trollin'.
 
No one wants to hear this but it comes down to ease of use. Console players see good graphics and on large screen HDTV's and love it. And quite frankly when people see me play games on my PC at the highest settings they don't fall out and think I'm playing a movie or something. I think Graphics aren't the question I think performance is really the issue. Mass Effect for example looks good on the 360 but better at 1900x1200 on my PC and performs much better! Thats the key it performs better but the graphics is the difference that will matter to most people. See most people will not care for the 15% upshot in graphic fidelity or the 20% performance boost (just random numbers guys) it's just not a big enough difference than the hassle can be of fooling with a PC.They want to put in a disk and play. That's it. Not sit around a fool with settings and editing files and so forth for an hour before they even shoot the first alien! PC gaming is a hobby and as a hobby we wonder why people don't want to do that. Because to them it's not a hobby it's a game to blow off some steam and then move on.
 
Commander0Zero said:
No one wants to hear this but it comes down to ease of use. Console players see good graphics and on large screen HDTV's and love it. And quite frankly when people see me play games on my PC at the highest settings they don't fall out and think I'm playing a movie or something. I think Graphics aren't the question I think performance is really the issue. Mass Effect for example looks good on the 360 but better at 1900x1200 on my PC and performs much better! Thats the key it performs better but the graphics is the difference that will matter to most people. See most people will not care for the 15% upshot in graphic fidelity or the 20% performance boost (just random numbers guys) it's just not a big enough difference than the hassle can be of fooling with a PC.They want to put in a disk and play. That's it. Not sit around a fool with settings and editing files and so forth for an hour before they even shoot the first alien! PC gaming is a hobby and as a hobby we wonder why people don't want to do that. Because to them it's not a hobby it's a game to blow off some steam and then move on.
Click to expand...

Back in the days of the GC and PS2 you may have had a point, but today, at least with PS3 and XBox 360 games a significant amount of patches have to be installed to make things work correctly, or even to be allowed online. And not just games, the console's firmware keeps getting new updates all the time, which are far too often a requirement if you want to experience online gaming.

Even the Wii doesn't fully escape this, but at least its updates are mostly optional.

Optical media also sucks big time. I'd much rather have the game on a HDD or SDD or even a RAM drive instead of having to wait a full minute for a level to get shoveled in from the shiny disc with the DVD drive sounding like a small animal getting choked to death (thanks, Microsoft, for finding the noisiest DVD-drives in existence!).

Yeah, console gaming is great. In 1998 :p
 
To add to that, PC gaming has gotten simpler with installs. Most newer games you don't have to fiddle around. You can just install a game and go. The messing around with settings and files are for those who want to get as much as they can get. Really, an optional thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top