So i decided to pay the premium and was updating to mewer parts, mainly my 4870 x2. But i was wondering, ive been a console gamer for 10 yrs and still play. Getting used to the mouse and keyboard is weird, but im getting used to, and i can always hook up a controller. But my main concern is, do games look better on a PC with high end graphics like the 4870 x2, or on a console. So lets say, CoD4 on x360 vs CoD4 on PC with all max settings at a high res, which one is visually better?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Console Gaming VS PC Gaming - Visuals
- Thread starter speedy523
- Start date
Darth Bobo
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2007
- Messages
- 1,057
IMO there's really no comparison, with the PC's superior resolution, better textures and options for AA af AF (in your case to the extreme) it's a completely different game.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
Yeah, CoD4 maxed out on a PC is far better looking than on any console. Period. There's just no debate about that.
haha CoD4 is quite the hassle for the 4870 x2. But mostly its for future games, i want to know is a premium system worth it for future games im getting like Fallout3, like will it justify, and yes, PC games do look spectactular at high res, so ill probably give pc gaming another chance
PC is much better looking. It's funny you make reference to the controller because I've kinda been shifting from PC gaming to Console gaming and the transition has been awkward. I feel the keyboard and mouse are much more precise and accurate whereas the console controller is clumsey and clunkey (but maybe I'll get use to it too).
Godmachine
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2003
- Messages
- 10,472
Not even close , consoles suffer from slow down, jaggs and just general choppyness. Not to mention you cant upgrade anything ..hell now Sony is doing a 10 year per major console release . ALOT can happen in 10 years to PC graphics , that means in what like 2014 when the PS4 is about to come out .. we will be light years ahead .
That being said , consoles have games that just dont translate well to the PC and vice versa, so its not just graphics but gameplay that is important to consider.
That being said , consoles have games that just dont translate well to the PC and vice versa, so its not just graphics but gameplay that is important to consider.
haha i 2nd the pc updates. a yr ago i shelled out like $715 for my OC2E 8800 GTX since it was all the rage and brand new, here i am again doing the same thing with the 4870 x2.
Nenu
[H]ardened
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 20,315
I agree with the above.
Consoles dont hold a candle to PC image quality and resolution.
Consoles dont hold a candle to PC image quality and resolution.
agreed. i just cant play any FPS or RTS competitively on the console, the controller is too clumsy for that. on the other side I wont ever play sports games on the PC. each one has it's own niche and so I play both.
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
thats NOT what Sony means by 10 year cycles. it means the PS2 will coexist with the PS3 until its ten years old or so. that means 2 more years for the PS2 if it came out in 2000. if Sony has a new console in 2 to 3 years then the PS3 will still be around for its 10 year cycle and you will be able to buy a PS4 or PS3 just like you can the PS3 or PS2. duh
They do look better on a PC at this point. Basically, consoles look better for only a short while. The reason is consoles actually get their hardware technology from PC accelerators. It should be no surprise that nVidia and ATi don't spend the money to develop a whole different kind of technology just for consoles.
Basically what happens is the console maker approaches them and works out a deal to get hardware customized for their new console. This involves things like making it use integrated memory, hitting specific thermal targets, etc. Generally, the timeline is such that it is a pretty high priority delivery, and beats the PC part to market by a little bit.
So, when a console first comes out, it can be more powerful than anything you find in the PC space. However, that doesn't last. The console's hardware is never upgraded in terms of capabilities. So it isn't long before the equivalent PC part comes out. Sometimes it even happens first, like in the case of the PS3 and nVidia 7900. Because of the PS3's delays, the 7900 launched before it got to market.
Then there's the simple fact that PC hardware keeps trudging along. The graphics companies always want more of your dollars, so they keep rolling out new hardware. Thus this hardware will be farther and farther ahead of the consoles.
Makes sense. I mean I spent $400 on a graphics card. Just a graphics card, that's not the system to support it. You can get a 360 for less than that, the whole deal. Not only that, I will be able to spend that $400 again next year and upgrade, if I wish.
PCs cost a good deal more, at least if you want to keep up with the new tech, and thus they do end up looking better as you'd expect.
In general, when a console first comes out, they look as good or better than even high end PC. However, by the time a new one is getting ready to come out, even lower end PCs are better.
Basically what happens is the console maker approaches them and works out a deal to get hardware customized for their new console. This involves things like making it use integrated memory, hitting specific thermal targets, etc. Generally, the timeline is such that it is a pretty high priority delivery, and beats the PC part to market by a little bit.
So, when a console first comes out, it can be more powerful than anything you find in the PC space. However, that doesn't last. The console's hardware is never upgraded in terms of capabilities. So it isn't long before the equivalent PC part comes out. Sometimes it even happens first, like in the case of the PS3 and nVidia 7900. Because of the PS3's delays, the 7900 launched before it got to market.
Then there's the simple fact that PC hardware keeps trudging along. The graphics companies always want more of your dollars, so they keep rolling out new hardware. Thus this hardware will be farther and farther ahead of the consoles.
Makes sense. I mean I spent $400 on a graphics card. Just a graphics card, that's not the system to support it. You can get a 360 for less than that, the whole deal. Not only that, I will be able to spend that $400 again next year and upgrade, if I wish.
PCs cost a good deal more, at least if you want to keep up with the new tech, and thus they do end up looking better as you'd expect.
In general, when a console first comes out, they look as good or better than even high end PC. However, by the time a new one is getting ready to come out, even lower end PCs are better.
discobiscuits
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2007
- Messages
- 432
Quit plugging in a controller to substitute for the oh, so powerful mouse and keyboard combo. Nothing can touch the fragging capabilities of the mouse, and the flexibility of the keyboard.
Every time I see someone playing an FPS other than Halo on a console, I die inside, ya know?
Every time I see someone playing an FPS other than Halo on a console, I die inside, ya know?
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
@Sycraft...they do NOT look better at this point so I dont know why you would even say that. every game that has been released on the pc that came out on the console looks better on the pc. most of these games already include better textures right out of the box not to mention the enhanced graphical options to make them even better looking. whether you have a system that is strong enough to run it is a whole other issue but the graphics themselves are better on pc versions.
jonneymendoza
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2004
- Messages
- 6,395
some pc games are even dumbed down because they are ports from the console version. take oblivion for example. install some mods on the pc version and the graphics are like night and day. i hope far cry 2 and fallout 3 will be similar
There you go, that's unfortunately future of PC gaming. All of our games are going to be dumbed down because consoles can't keep up, unless devs take some time and make proper ports that PC deserves. I hope they make next gen consoles so powerful that us, PC gamers, don't suffer because of them.
BX_TECH_GOD
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 772
I agree 100%. I do all my FPS and RTS gaming on my PC and all my sports, action-adventure and racing games on my XBOX 360.
pigwalk
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2004
- Messages
- 8,396
There's something about playing on a TV screen a few feet away that really softens up the jaggies and gives a nice IQ over playing on a monitor 12 inches in front of your face. Yes PC gaming is definitely sharper, but it seems the jaggies are sharper than on consoles.
Kind of like watching porn in HD. There are certain parts of the female genitalia that I'd rather not see crystal clear.
I have always had both, and to be honest generally PC gaming is better visually. But you will never have games like Final Fantasy Tactics on the PC which leaves me spending money to stay in between bothworlds trying to get a bit of everything. HL2 hands down the definitive version was PC, but Gears of War I think was better on the XBAWX.
jonneymendoza
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2004
- Messages
- 6,395
yea i mean my 4 year old pc with a p4 3.2ghz and a 7800gtx agp card can run oblivion on mid/high settings looks exactly like the ps3/360 version and my pc is 2+ years older then those consoles.
its why a 8800gtx still doesnt break sweat on any gam except crysis. these new 280's/4850's are a waste. all that power not being used. These new cards are"idle" when gaming on some of the latest pc games
CrimsonKnight13
Lord Stabington of [H]ard|Fortress
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2008
- Messages
- 8,439
jonneymendoza, I don't know what you're talking about. At 1920x1200 w/ an 8800GTX at max settings on most games, I wound up making it sweat. Even now, with a GTX 280, I still see slowdown when I push the max with AF & AA on top of max settings for newer games. It is possible to push your system to the limits, no matter how powerful your hardware is. It's just a matter of diving into game config files & going beyond the casual graphic settings in a game.
Higher the resolution & settings, the rougher it gets on any system. If you want max visual quality, don't settle for an underpowered PC & lower-res monitor.
Higher the resolution & settings, the rougher it gets on any system. If you want max visual quality, don't settle for an underpowered PC & lower-res monitor.
jonneymendoza
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2004
- Messages
- 6,395
i dont know what your talking about either. most games can run on a 8800gtx fine at very highs ettings except crysis at 1080p res
what games do you struggle on?
haha
2012....
the new XBox 720 was just released and it is astounding. it is a power house capable of producing image better than the current high end pcs.
2 weeks later....
nVidia and ATi have just released there latest quad-gpu graphics cards while Intel just announced there newest 8-core line up.
1 yr later....
Why are console graphics crap?
haha
2012....
the new XBox 720 was just released and it is astounding. it is a power house capable of producing image better than the current high end pcs.
2 weeks later....
nVidia and ATi have just released there latest quad-gpu graphics cards while Intel just announced there newest 8-core line up.
1 yr later....
Why are console graphics crap?
Lol, yes, the never ending cycle
Then they are going to show off new Nvidia cards on brand new CryEngine3, and then we can argue how unoptimized/powerful it really is
.Basically boils down to this:
Consoles are much much cheaper than PC's.
You can buy an entire functioning console for about the prices of an HD4870x2.
Consoles, however, will never be as powerful or better looking than PC's.
One of my buddy has an XBox360 on a 50+" Bravia (sorry don't know the exact size) and plays CoD4. And then he saw me playing CoD4 on my rig on a 1680x1050 and he said "wow that looks amazing." You know how some console players are the most stubborn ones? One look at a CoD4 on a PC changed his entire view on PC gaming. =p
Consoles are much much cheaper than PC's.
You can buy an entire functioning console for about the prices of an HD4870x2.
Consoles, however, will never be as powerful or better looking than PC's.
One of my buddy has an XBox360 on a 50+" Bravia (sorry don't know the exact size) and plays CoD4. And then he saw me playing CoD4 on my rig on a 1680x1050 and he said "wow that looks amazing." You know how some console players are the most stubborn ones? One look at a CoD4 on a PC changed his entire view on PC gaming. =p
and most games, like halo 3, arent even true hd. there actually render at a smaller res and then stretch it. while the powerful pc renders at those high res to make it beautiful
BX_TECH_GOD
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 772
pigwalk
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2004
- Messages
- 8,396
Well you know you can just add AA to a PC game right?
I haven't played anything new-ish in a while, but there were a whole bunch of games that couldn't do AA and have HDR simultaneously (didn't Bioshock not have AA?), or were just so demanding (crysis) that AA wasn't viable without going out and spending another 500 bucks on video cards. Still looks good, but the TV just seems to soften everything up.
For the record I'm not even gaming next gen, I'm still rockin the PS2.
No, consoles are better looking when they first come out
Also unless you plan on spending heaps on a top end rig, console graphics hold up for quite a while, probably a year or so after release. Look at oblivion, people say it was held back on PC visuals because of the consoles... but when it actually came out you'd have needed an awesome PC to get graphics better than the xbox 360 which was a fraction of the price of your uber PC.
I bought my PC mid last year, which is a year and a half after than the xbox 360 came out. My PC only just looks better than a console, not a lot better, just a bit better, and it cost me $1300 for the system + $120 for windows. The xbox 360 at release was, from memory, about $700 (I honestly can't remember that far back
). So even a year and a half after release the xbox 360 was competing with a computer that cost twice as much as it did at release (and by then the xbox 360 itself would have dropped in cost).Even now, what sort of gaming PC could you buy for the cost of a console? You can buy a bare bones xbox 360 for the same cost as a single 4870. So even though PC looks better now, price/performance the consoles are doing pretty good for themselves.
The way I see it, if you want to game but only want to upgrade once every 3 or so years, console is a good way to go. If you want gaming on the cheap, console is a good way to go. If you want social gaming (ie. friends coming round to play), again, console is a good way to go.
If you want uber graphics and to sit at a desk pwning noobs in some FPS or RTS game, obviously PC is the way to go.
Only because you have nothing to reference it to. Console exclusives look best on consoles...No, consoles are better looking when they first come out
Hey, if worse graphics, low resolution, stuttering, dramatic drops in framerates, and long loading times is your fancy, then enjoy consoles. My friends and I will stick to PCs and LAN parties.No, consoles ... way to go.
LAN parties are fun and all that, but heaps of times at 7pm my mates have rung me up, lets grab a movie, a slab of beer, a playstation game (or try out a new game we just bought) and waste a a few hours. Then of course we end up doing whatever, walking around like idiots at 2am, watching some crappy subtitled movie, going to the cinema to see something, whatever...
The key point here being we play console games... I dont pack up my PC a carry it across to his house and play games. We sit on the couch watching a big screen TV with controllers playing fighting games or split screen games or passing the controller around on a single player game.
LAN parties are fun and all, but not nearly as convenient or casual. Then take into account most my friends (most of which I've known forever) never have good computers all at the same time. Up until last year my PC was crap, then my PC was good and someone else's was starting to get old, now mine is starting to get a bit old and a couple of other guys just bought new PCs.
LAN parties are good and we try and organise them, but far more often we just end up grabbing a slab and playing whatever console is at whoever's house we go to, can't beat that for convience. Half the time we end up playing PS2 or PS1 or sometimes even N64 (revolt and MK4 ftw!).
The key point here being we play console games... I dont pack up my PC a carry it across to his house and play games. We sit on the couch watching a big screen TV with controllers playing fighting games or split screen games or passing the controller around on a single player game.
LAN parties are fun and all, but not nearly as convenient or casual. Then take into account most my friends (most of which I've known forever) never have good computers all at the same time. Up until last year my PC was crap, then my PC was good and someone else's was starting to get old, now mine is starting to get a bit old and a couple of other guys just bought new PCs.
LAN parties are good and we try and organise them, but far more often we just end up grabbing a slab and playing whatever console is at whoever's house we go to, can't beat that for convience. Half the time we end up playing PS2 or PS1 or sometimes even N64 (revolt and MK4 ftw!).
pigwalk
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2004
- Messages
- 8,396
That's the big one there. I LOVE having a Lan party with friends. But some friends don't have good machines, some friends don't even have computers period, most aren't vehement gamers and first a foremost, lugging your PC around blows ass. Period. (queue up someone with a fragbox piping in).
With the consoles we can just go to one house, stop on the way to get drinks, turn on the TV and go. And for those who don't game, there's always Soulcalibur and a plethora of noob friendly button mashers available to keep things fun for everyone.
And no drunken PC teardown and load up.
Personally I'm stuck in between these two also, but I have a couple of things to mention that you guys skipped out on...
STRATEGY GAMES!!!
Red Alert 3
Starcraft 2
C&C Tiberium Wars(I'm aware that is on consoles as well)
These games are honestly not as fun and easy to play on consoles as they are on PCs
You also forget that when you do purchase a PC you have the power to Mod the games and do whatever you want with them, and you dont have to worry about warranty like you would on an XBOX or PS3...
I believe XBOX's and PS3's are made for simple minded people, now don't get me wrong, their is nothing wrong with being simple minded.
STRATEGY GAMES!!!
Red Alert 3
Starcraft 2
C&C Tiberium Wars(I'm aware that is on consoles as well)
These games are honestly not as fun and easy to play on consoles as they are on PCs
You also forget that when you do purchase a PC you have the power to Mod the games and do whatever you want with them, and you dont have to worry about warranty like you would on an XBOX or PS3...
I believe XBOX's and PS3's are made for simple minded people, now don't get me wrong, their is nothing wrong with being simple minded.
Well how many games looked better than gears of war when it came out? From memory it was pretty much the sexiest game available at the time, on any platform, and that was a year into the 360s life. Oblivion only started looking better on PC than console when computers got more powerful (unless you could afford an awesomely powerful PC which cost 4 times as much as a console).
DIRT looked about as good on console as it did on my PC, which I bought 1 year ago (1.5 years after the xbox 360 release) for twice the price of an xbox 360. GRID looks better on a high end PC than on console, but we're now more than 2 and a half years into the life of these consoles, what do you expect? Even COD4 is a good 2 years into the life of the consoles, and it doesn't look THAT much better on PC.
I wouldn't call them simple, if they aren't interested in making the bloody thing work, worrying about drivers, worrying about random crashing, worrying about setting up graphics settings and config files... that doesn't make them simple minded, it just means they aren't PC enthusiasts.
I don't know if I'd say simple-minded as much as I would say uninvolved. It was the same with the old Mac vs. PC arguments (although that line is starting to get blurry
):
In this case, the console is the trike and the PC is the motorcycle. Consoles are good to sit down, fire up and have a little fun. PC's are for enthusiasts, I agree, and that's where things get great (in my book). In the end I think it all boils down to what kind of gamer you are, as it's really a personal preference. Each has it's pros and cons, and it's all up to each individual to decide what works best
.Explain to me why you can't hook a PC up to a TV?