Is my rig better than an xbox 360?

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dutt1113

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
1,601
i was thinking about getting an xbox 360 in the future (not right now obviously unless I want to stand in line over night) I think not, I actually have a life. I like playing console games, but probably pc games more for sure. What I'm wondering is if my rig would be better than an xbox 360. In other words, would the same game look better on my computer than an xbox 360? Would my rig outperform an xbox 360? Here's my rig:

amd xp 3000+
BFG 6800gt oc (410/1100)
1gb geil ultra pc3200
Abit NF7-S v2.0
160gb WD sata 2.0
Antec Neopower 480 v2.0

I went to walmart and played the xbox 360 on display and it didn't seem all that great. I played king kong and there were jaggies up the ass. Don't get me wrong, it still looked good, but it didn't seem like it was better looking than a descent to high end gaming pc.

What do you think?
 
Just about any computer rig is going to be faster/have better graphics than the XBox 360.

Let me repeat for any future posters.

Just about any computer rig is going to be faster/have better graphics than the XBox 360. It's a @$!^% computer! It folds for the [H]orde, converts Xvid video and plays Quake 4 at the same time.

DO NOT BUY A CONSOLE BASED ON SPECS! Buy a platform based on the games you'll play. Now get out of my forum...
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rig in my sig is old.. Just built a new one:

AMD64 FX-57
2x BFG 7800GTX in SLi
2GB Crucial Ballistic PC3200 RAM
DFI Ultra D mobo
Enermax 600Watt SLi certified PSU
Thermaltake Shark Case (yes, another one.. i love this case)
NEC 19" LCD Monitor, 8MS, 400cd/m2,700:1

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually the xbox 360 spanks your computer. There isn't a desktop out there that is more powerful than this console. And seeing as it's a dedicated gaming platform it will be able to play games that PC's can't for years. The video chip won't be surpassed by desktop cards until late 2006 according to ATI sources.

I would just buy the Xbox 360; and to have two sources of HD Gaming.
You play the computer; while your friend/family/girlfriend plays the Xbox 360.
 
technically speaking the x360 is alot more powerful, however they are intended for completly different markets, consoles and computers are completly seprate, and should not be compared, combined or likewise assimilated.

if you like console games get one to go with your computer, each has their own advanges which have been discussed over eleventybillion times, so in the future please use the search function

[if this is a mod this is the part were i would have the joy/honor/privlage what ever you want to call it of closing this thread]
 
Well I just played Call of Duty 2 and King Kong, and if that is all XBox 360 can offer in graphics, that is pretty bad.

Call of Duty 2 didn't look that bad, but it did have serious jaggies. King Kong ran that crap. It was probably 20 frames per second. And it didn't look as good as it's computer counterpart.

Both games were being run on 720p.
 
look at the original xbox games compared to the latest ones (still xbox 1). they quality of the graphics have improved over time as developers find ways to take advantage of the new hardware and use it to its fullest.

as time goes on the graphics will improve just as they did with the last generation of consoles
 
We have heard all this before. If you want an Xbox 360 get one...if you want to upgrade your computer do so...different strokes for different folks.
 
You can see the jaggies when you stand 2 ft. in front of the monitor, consols are designed to be played on a TV. When you watch TV you need to be at least 10 feet away remember?

To the OP: The X360 specs are better than yours. This is not a topic about the word processing capabilities of the X360.
 
Let me put it this way, since you and I are in similiar situations. Would it be better to upgrade your computer or get the XBOX360. I would say get the 360, and here is why.

With your current setup, AGP videocard, athlon XP processor, and AGP Mobo, for you to upgrade it is going to cost a pretty penny. To upgrade, and keep your rig future friendly, you are looking at a new Mobo - PCI-E, videocard PCI-E, processor - Athlon 64, heatsink and fan.

For you to upgrade it is going to cost a lot more then it would cost to purchase an XBOX360. So you could keep your current rig, which will still play current and future games just fine, and get an XBOX360, which would allow you to play games on a new platform as well. It is the best of both worlds.
 
Actually the xbox 360 spanks your computer. There isn't a desktop out there that is more powerful than this console. And seeing as it's a dedicated gaming platform it will be able to play games that PC's can't for years. The video chip won't be surpassed by desktop cards until late 2006 according to ATI sources
Click to expand...

At this point I wouldn't exactly take ATi's words for truth when it comes to gpu's, given that nvidia has been handing them their ass for over a year now. Also, just because the x360's cpu has 3 cores does not mean they will all be used. I'm betting a lot of the first gen games will only use one core, two at most. If you want new console games to play, pick up a dreamcast for $20 and wait to see if any good x360 games come out :)
 
The hardware in the 360 is cutting edge today, but it will be surpassed in normal PC parts by early next year at the rate things are going. NVidia alone is pushing video card development faster than anyone previously did, and AMD is doing the same for CPU's.

For me a console is a waste, as it wont do what my PC can, so I wont be buying a 360 or a PS3 or a Revolution. My last console was a N64, and shall remain so.

They are pushing HDTV on the 360 so much it almost gags me, and HDTVis a moot point to most of america still. Someday it will be standard, but not yet.

One of my biggest issues is the almost dictator like grip that MS, SONY, and others try to keep on their machines and what you can and cannot do with them, and how much they gouge you for certain things. ($25 for an 8MB PS2 memory card??? Give me a break)

For me my PC is better, for others, the cost of a console is something they can easily justify, but if it was me, even if it cost more, I'd upgrade my PC before buying a console.

Gotta be a black sheep in every group I guess. ;)
 
HDBox2d1 said:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rig in my sig is old.. Just built a new one:

AMD64 FX-57
2x BFG 7800GTX in SLi
2GB Crucial Ballistic PC3200 RAM
DFI Ultra D mobo
Enermax 600Watt SLi certified PSU
Thermaltake Shark Case (yes, another one.. i love this case)
NEC 19" LCD Monitor, 8MS, 400cd/m2,700:1

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually the xbox 360 spanks your computer. There isn't a desktop out there that is more powerful than this console. And seeing as it's a dedicated gaming platform it will be able to play games that PC's can't for years. The video chip won't be surpassed by desktop cards until late 2006 according to ATI sources.

I would just buy the Xbox 360; and to have two sources of HD Gaming.
You play the computer; while your friend/family/girlfriend plays the Xbox 360.
Click to expand...

Please. The 7800 GTX 512, and X1800XT spank the 360s graphics without SLI or CrossedWires. The Xbox360 may have a superior processor, although an overclocked 4800+ or dual core opteron may be able to beat it
 
Oline61 said:
Please. The 7800 GTX 512, and X1800XT spank the 360s graphics without SLI or CrossedWires. The Xbox360 may have a superior processor, although an overclocked 4800+ or dual core opteron may be able to beat it
Click to expand...

Im not sure where you are getting your info from, but its flat out wrong. You have to take into account the architecture of the 360, and one hardware configuration that will allow developers to take advantage of the hardware, and not cater to the lowest common denominator of graphics cards.
 
Im not sure where you are getting your info from, but its flat out wrong. You have to take into account the architecture of the 360, and one hardware configuration that will allow developers to take advantage of the hardware, and not cater to the lowest common denominator of graphics cards.
Click to expand...

This is getting into a gray area. This is definitely the biggest advantage to developing on a console but it does not mean the console is more powerful, it just means that it's easier to optimize for it. I'm not totally up to date on my specs but even if the raw power of the x360 is more powerful than the best pc, which I doubt, it will not be for long. You have to weigh software optimization against versatility, too.
 
Xbox 360: 512 MB RAM (DDR3 doesn't make up for it having 1/4 of the memory of PC)
PC: 2GB RAM + 512MB DDR3 graphics memory

Xbox 360: equivalent R420 GPU
PC: R520 GPU or faster.

Look at games like FEAR, HL2, Doom 3, Serious Sam, Far Cry and Quake 4. Those weren't made for the "lowest common denominator of graphics cars"
 
Slartibartfast said:
This is getting into a gray area. This is definitely the biggest advantage to developing on a console but it does not mean the console is more powerful, it just means that it's easier to optimize for it. I'm not totally up to date on my specs but even if the raw power of the x360 is more powerful than the best pc, which I doubt, it will not be for long. You have to weigh software optimization against versatility, too.
Click to expand...

Well considering that the XBOX360 has a GPU in it, which is more power then even the next gen ATI card, I think its safe to say it is more powerful.

Oline61 said:
Xbox 360: 512 MB RAM (DDR3 doesn't make up for it having 1/4 of the memory of PC)
PC: 2GB RAM + 512MB DDR3 graphics memory

Xbox 360: equivalent R420 GPU
PC: R520 GPU or faster.

Look at games like FEAR, HL2, Doom 3, Serious Sam, Far Cry and Quake 4. Those weren't made for the "lowest common denominator of graphics cars"
Click to expand...


The XBOX360 actually has an R500 equivelent which is more powerful then the current top of the line R520. In addition the GPU has on die memory which is not even present in current GPUs, and greatly reduces the memory needed, since things like AA are handeled this way.
 
Xbox 360: 512 MB RAM (DDR3 doesn't make up for it having 1/4 of the memory of PC)
PC: 2GB RAM + 512MB DDR3 graphics memory

Xbox 360: equivalent R420 GPU
PC: R520 GPU or faster.

Look at games like FEAR, HL2, Doom 3, Serious Sam, Far Cry and Quake 4. Those weren't made for the "lowest common denominator of graphics cars"
Click to expand...

On the other side of the coin, x360 games aren't running on top of a crappy, bloated OS
 
Originally Posted by Drax:
Well considering that the XBOX360 has a GPU in it, which is more power then even the next gen ATI card, I think its safe to say it is more powerful.
Click to expand...
Wait, I think you said it has R500 equivalent, yet ATIs current gen is R520. R500<R520.

Originally Posted by Drax:
The XBOX360 actually has an R500 equivelent which is more powerful then the current top of the line R520. In addition the GPU has on die memory which is not even present in current GPUs, and greatly reduces the memory needed, since things like AA are handeled this way.
Click to expand...
FROM ANANDTECH:
There are 48 shader units in the Xbox 360 GPU, but given that we're dealing with a unified shader architecture, you can't compare that number directly to the 24 shader pipelines of the GeForce 7800 GTX for example. We roughly estimated the shader processing power of the Xbox 360 GPU to be similar to that of a 24-pipeline ATI R420 GPU.
Click to expand...
 
Isnt it about time people start getting banned for this non-sense?

Is my rig better than an xbox 360?


No dude, your rig isnt better. In fact not even close.

Nothing else to see here folks move along. ;)
 
i guess in my situation, which is better does not really matter....my wife and i won a 360 from the mountain dew contest, so now she has something to learn to play games on, and we can both play games together whenever we want. my favorite platform is still my pc, but i'm willing to give the 360 a shot, and from what i've seen so far, it doesn't look half bad.
 
Torgo said:
Just about any computer rig is going to be faster/have better graphics than the XBox 360.

Let me repeat for any future posters.

Just about any computer rig is going to be faster/have better graphics than the XBox 360. It's a @$!^% computer! It folds for the [H]orde, converts Xvid video and plays Quake 4 at the same time.

DO NOT BUY A CONSOLE BASED ON SPECS! Buy a platform based on the games you'll play. Now get out of my forum...
Click to expand...
so your saying that all those $599 -$150 mail in rebate emachines (or slap on anyother computer name) is bettter than a 360? you are sadly mistaken
 
Torgo said:
Just about any computer rig is going to be faster/have better graphics than the XBox 360.

Let me repeat for any future posters.

Just about any computer rig is going to be faster/have better graphics than the XBox 360. It's a @$!^% computer! It folds for the [H]orde, converts Xvid video and plays Quake 4 at the same time.

DO NOT BUY A CONSOLE BASED ON SPECS! Buy a platform based on the games you'll play. Now get out of my forum...
Click to expand...
lol so by your reasoning, hordeing and converting xvid video makes better graphics



where have i been
 
Torgo said:
Just about any computer rig is going to be faster/have better graphics than the XBox 360.

Let me repeat for any future posters.

Just about any computer rig is going to be faster/have better graphics than the XBox 360. It's a @$!^% computer! It folds for the [H]orde, converts Xvid video and plays Quake 4 at the same time.

DO NOT BUY A CONSOLE BASED ON SPECS! Buy a platform based on the games you'll play. Now get out of my forum...
Click to expand...


It's about time someone said this.
Being a hardcore console gamer all my life I WAS about to get one. Instead I chose to get a better video card and more ram which cost me less in the end. I took one look at the launch line-up and was SO unimpressed. There is NOTHING on that launch line-up that is worth dropping a penny for the 360......right NOW that is.

I've just been laughing at different sites all flipping out about some supposed shortage and OMG! "Zero hour!"...gimme a fucking break!! As if it was WORTH all the hype!
People are so fucking stupid...nothing but stupid fucking lemmings. If you have a computer...ANY computer...it's just clearly not worth getting.
Plus, Oblivion got pushed back till next year; that and PGR3 were the only things going for it. But who wants to drop 500 bucks for PGR3 only?

Whatevah....

sorry for all the harsh language, but I've just been so teed(sp?) off lately with all the hype about the 360 and how stupid sites are adding to it as if it was the most awesome next generation console evah. *pfft*
 
HDBox2d1 said:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually the xbox 360 spanks your computer. There isn't a desktop out there that is more powerful than this console. And seeing as it's a dedicated gaming platform it will be able to play games that PC's can't for years. The video chip won't be surpassed by desktop cards until late 2006 according to ATI sources.
Click to expand...


umm..yeah right. You're telling me that COD2 and Oblivion, etc etc are going to look better on the 360??

HA!
don't think so buddy.
 
Oline61 said:
Wait, I think you said it has R500 equivalent, yet ATIs current gen is R520. R500<R520.
Click to expand...

I hope you know you are wrong. In terms of which has a higher number yes the 520 does have that extra 20. It terms of performance and power the R500 > R520. :rolleyes:
 
Geez... I've seen this before.

Christ: Hey, I'm here to teach you a better way!
Jews: Booo! You're wrong!

Torgo: Hey, the newest PC is always going to be better than the latest console in terms of hardware.
Hard|Forum: Booo! You're wrong!

Those who think that the XBox 360 is better than a dual-core Athlon X2 is smoking crack from a crackwhore's crack. Yes, the specs look nice and neat and they are impressive. Ask any IEEE engineer and they'll pick the PC everytime. Go over to Ars (one of the few places to get knee deep in the core of the CPU) and read up on the architecture being used. Here's a quote from the conclusion:

Rumors and some game developer comments (on the record and off the record) have Xenon's performance on branch-intensive game control, AI, and physics code as ranging from mediocre to downright bad. Xenon will be a streaming media monster, but the parts of the game engine that have to do with making the game fun to play (and not just pretty to look at) are probably going to suffer. Even if the PPE's branch prediction is significantly better than I think it is, the relatively meager 1MB L2 cache that the game control, AI, and physics code will have to share with procedural synthesis and other graphics code will ensure that programmers have a hard time getting good performance out of non-graphics parts of the game.

Furthermore, the Xenon may be capable of running six threads at once, but the three types of branch-intensive code listed above are not as amenable to high levels of thread-level parallelization as graphics code. On the other hand, these types of code do benefit greatly from out-of-order execution, which Xenon lacks completely, a decent amount of execution core width, which Xenon also lacks; branch prediction hardware, which Xenon is probably short on; and large caches, which Xenon is definitely short on. The end result is a recipe for a console that provides developers with a wealth of graphics resources but that asks them to do more with less on the non-graphical side of gaming.
Click to expand...

I'm only touching on the CPU here. The GPU has already been eclipsed by the latest generation of video cards and it has to share many, many resources in the 360. The 512 megs of memory isn't much, and the core systems will lack a hard drive for any disk caching. Don't get me wrong, it's a killer gaming console. I want one. I want one badly (just not bad enough to camp out for one). But performance wise, the Xbox360 does not stack up well against the PC.

As I have always stated, performance isn't the benchmark that gaming should be judged on. It's the game design itself. M.U.L.E. and Elite running on a C64 smack the hell out of most console and PC games currently on the market today. Hell, Zork is probably more entertaining than Doom 3.

But any of you idiots who think that XBox 360 is better performance wise than a PC probably bought into that same crap that Sony shoveled out over their "Emotion Engine" which didn't do a 1/10th of what they hyped that up to be. Judge a console based on the content, not performance.

I've spoken and that's the end of the argument. (Yeah, I'm pulling the "Torgo knows more about gaming than the rest of the forum put together including the admins" card. Deal with it.)
 
Are you honestly making the comparison between you and Christ ? Get off your high horse, I stopped reading right there, as it is clear you are sooo full of yourself.
 
HDBox2d1 said:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rig in my sig is old.. Just built a new one:

AMD64 FX-57
2x BFG 7800GTX in SLi
2GB Crucial Ballistic PC3200 RAM
DFI Ultra D mobo
Enermax 600Watt SLi certified PSU
Thermaltake Shark Case (yes, another one.. i love this case)
NEC 19" LCD Monitor, 8MS, 400cd/m2,700:1

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually the xbox 360 spanks your computer. There isn't a desktop out there that is more powerful than this console. And seeing as it's a dedicated gaming platform it will be able to play games that PC's can't for years. The video chip won't be surpassed by desktop cards until late 2006 according to ATI sources.

I would just buy the Xbox 360; and to have two sources of HD Gaming.
You play the computer; while your friend/family/girlfriend plays the Xbox 360.
Click to expand...

psst

when the xbox can do 1600x1200.. get back to me.. Ooh wait it can only do 480i and 1080i (which bandwidth wise = 520p)?? Hmm.

which runs better

1600x1200 with all the goodies turned on or

1920x1080i (or really 960x540)..

hmmmm yep.. xbox is faster alright! :) and it better be considering that the graphic resolution is LESS!!
 
munkle said:
so your saying that all those $599 -$150 mail in rebate emachines (or slap on anyother computer name) is bettter than a 360? you are sadly mistaken
Click to expand...
Will it have better benchmarks in certain areas? Hell yeah. That cheap little PC will be better able to handle pathfinding, AI and multiple units than a 360. What does that translate to? Coding on the 360 to handle those AI units in a FPS game that jump out shoot at you and run back to get help is going to be a lot harder to optimize to get optimum results. It also means that a giant 200 on 200 unit battle in AoE 3 could possibly choke the XBox into submission.

The design of the XBox360 was focused on graphics, graphics, graphics oh and CPU. In that order. For certain games, that's all you need. For PC games that are now heading in the direction of more physics, AI and branch predicting, the Xenon really suffers in that area. For that matter, so will the Cell for the PS3 and the version of the PowerPC that the Revolution will use.
 
bonkrowave said:
Are you honestly making the comparison between you and Christ ? Get off your high horse, I stopped reading right there, as it is clear you are sooo full of yourself.
Click to expand...
Please. Everything he said was 100% correct.
 
figgie said:
psst

when the xbox can do 1600x1200.. get back to me.. Ooh wait it can only do 480i and 1080i (which bandwidth wise = 520p)?? Hmm.

which runs better

1600x1200 with all the goodies turned on or

1920x1080i (or really 960x540)..

hmmmm yep.. xbox is faster alright! :)
Click to expand...

Another person who still doesn't understand the process of upscaling and displaying 1080 signals. :rolleyes:
 
bonkrowave said:
Another person who still doesn't understand the process of upscaling and displaying 1080 signals. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


aaaahahahaha

you are aware that upscaling is not as cpu intensive as actually doing the graphics natively?

and you are aware that upscaling does not nvolve going from 480i to 1080p than interlacing that signal.. RIGHT??? of course not otherwise you would not have spouted off that non-sense.

Off with you you heathen!

btw i have seen and know how Faroudja and DVDO do thier scaling. Don't assume dude. It is bad ;)
 
figgie said:
psst

when the xbox can do 1600x1200.. get back to me.. Ooh wait it can only do 480i and 1080i (which bandwidth wise = 520p)?? Hmm.

which runs better

1600x1200 with all the goodies turned on or

1920x1080i (or really 960x540)..

hmmmm yep.. xbox is faster alright! :) and it better be considering that the graphic resolution is LESS!!
Click to expand...
You mean 1920x540 in extremely high motion scenes and 1920x1080 in low motion/still scenes. Most of the time effective resolution is somewhere in between.
 
bonkrowave said:
Are you honestly making the comparison between you and Christ ? Get off your high horse, I stopped reading right there, as it is clear you are sooo full of yourself.
Click to expand...
As far as you are concerned, I AM the Savior of this gaming forum. Exactly how many games and units have you sold? How many gaming books have you written? Do you talk to other game developers on a daily basis? Have you visited the sacred sanctums of game developers?

Yeah, that's what I thought. There are other people much, much more qualified than me out there, but not in this forum. So, yeah, I'm holier than thou.
 
Oline61 said:
You mean 1920x540 in extremely high motion scenes and 1920x1080 in low motion/still scenes. Most of the time effective resolution is somewhere in between.
Click to expand...

Good, looks like it is HDTV 101 time.

actually no

a HDTV does 1080i at a given time. Meaning only 540 lines ever 1/30 of a second. So even at 1080i it still only displaying 540 lines. simple math my man. Those are facts not speculation. meaning that 1/30 second 540 lines. 2/30 540 lines and like that indefinetly.
 
Oline61 said:
Please. Everything he said was 100% correct.
Click to expand...

If he is correct, then why are some of the biggest names marching with the XBOX banner, saying the XBOX360 is easier to program for, like Carmack, over the PC? I will take a tried and true developer. Over some PC anus !!!!!! reviewing the 360 with the sole reason of bashing it.

Yeah critics, are really not bais, and do not like to sensationalize things to credit there own buzz. /sarcasm
 
Wow as if this dead horse had not been beaten enough, nope here we go again.

There is a LOT of false information in this thread, and wow it's odd how people have bitten into it. The 360 does in fact have 3 cores all of which are at some speed 3ghz or something like that. However, at this point in time I would HIGHLY doubt that programmers have utilized all three, and I even doubt they can effectively use two in their games. Once they can harness the power it should be interesting to see what kind of visuals it can put out. The R500 in it is also pretty damn solid. with the 14mb or something like that of embedded RAM, it won't take nearly as much of a hit when applying AA, although on todays TVs I feel that anisotropic filtering is much more important (jaggies aren't nearly as visible on these fuzzier TVs, even the hi def ones). The amount of RAM the system has total is also a negligible point when talking about the 360 and a PC. The 360 doesn't need NEARLY AS MUCH RAM as a PC. It has no background apps or an OS to run, just games. 512mb will be enough for some great games. I don't want to seem biased towards Microsoft (I'm actually quite the opposite if you read up on my posts on this topic), but I am tired of all this bullshit people try to convey to everyone else.

So, in short, yes as of now it is more powerful. In 6-12 months we will have PCs above and beyond it though, BUT ALSO We will have smarter/more efficient programmers and better programming methods to use multiple cores and its unique video solution.
 
bonkrowave said:
I hope you know you are wrong. In terms of which has a higher number yes the 520 does have that extra 20. It terms of performance and power the R500 > R520. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
R520 will get better FPS at the same settings as R500. If thats not more power and performance, then I should use integrated graphics instead of my 6600GT.
 
figgie said:
Good look like it is HDTV 101 time.

actually no

a HDTV does 1080i at a given time. Meaning only 540 lines ever 1/30 of a second. So even at 1080i it still only displaying 540 lines. simple math my man. Those are facts not speculation.
Click to expand...
However if there is no motion between fields, for instance low motion or still scenes, the fields line up into a perfect 1920x1080 image. :p

The human eye will only notice interlacing artifacts in very high motion, so IT DOESN'T MATTER ANYWAYS.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top