NPD Sales Results for November 2009

[Stereophile]

i only want the games to look as good as the ps3/360 for now so it should be sufficient?

Many new games needs more than a 7800GTX, even if you only want 720p resolution. My X1900, which is a good deal more powerful than a 7800GTX, especially on new games, can barely keep up at 720p. I think you could find an entry level 8800 card for not a lot more, it would be well worth the minisule difference in price.

 

[Tigerblade]

Many new games needs more than a 7800GTX, even if you only want 720p resolution. My X1900, which is a good deal more powerful than a 7800GTX, especially on new games, can barely keep up at 720p. I think you could find an entry level 8800 card for not a lot more, it would be well worth the minisule difference in price.

Now the last top end cards I owned were a pair of 512mb 7800GTX's and from memory the x1900 was pretty much even without SLi of course.......this was quite a few years ago so maybe my memory is hazy.....

Unless we are comparing the 256mb varient to the 512mb x1900?

 

[Stereophile]

Unless we are comparing the 256mb varient to the 512mb x1900?

Yeah I was talking about a 256mb 7800GTX. The 512mb are quite rare. The X1900XT compared favorably with the 7900GT/X. It easily beats a 256mb 7800GTX.
After Oblivion came out, the X1900 cards started pulling ahead of the Nvidia equivalents. IIRC my card got about twice the FPS as a 7900 in that game.
It can still play most stuff at low res if I turn down the detail. But anyone buying a new card for gaming would be crazy to go less than an 8800. Aren't they available for less than $100 ? I think a 7800GTX is fairly useless in most modern games.
Even though it's the closest PC card to a PS3, it won't give as good of graphics in modern PC games. .A 7800 is positively ancient as far as PC gaming goes.

 

[Rash]

Yeah I was talking about a 256mb 7800GTX. The 512mb are quite rare. The X1900XT compared favorably with the 7900GT/X. It easily beats a 256mb 7800GTX.
After Oblivion came out, the X1900 cards started pulling ahead of the Nvidia equivalents. IIRC my card got about twice the FPS as a 7900 in that game.
It can still play most stuff at low res if I turn down the detail. But anyone buying a new card for gaming would be crazy to go less than an 8800. Aren't they available for less than $100 ? I think a 7800GTX is fairly useless in most modern games.
Even though it's the closest PC card to a PS3, it won't give as good of graphics in modern PC games. .A 7800 is positively ancient as far as PC gaming goes.

I don't suppose you have Street Fighter 4 on the PC to see how it runs at 720p at max detail? ive seen a x1900xt for £30 i dont wanna spend more than £50 on a graphics card as i only wana use the pc as an arcade cab for hyperspin/the odd pc game like trackmania, sf4 and l4d 1&2

 

[Stereophile]

I don't suppose you have Street Fighter 4 on the PC to see how it runs at 720p at max detail?

I bought it originally for PS3, but it was briefly installed on my PC.

I can't remember if I had the AA cranked up to max, but I had all of the bells and whistles turned on, and it ran smoothly at 720p 60fps. IIRC the arcade only uses a 7900GS.

SF4 is not that demanding of a game. An X1900XT will meet/exceed the console's graphics.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

He doesn't get it. He labeled the RSX a 7600, rather than a stripped down 7800, when established and neutral people with credentials at least as good as an engineering BS ? outside of any area of authority on the topic, all agree, it's more like a 7800, and for 720p in a closed box, with a CPU as powerful as Cell, more capable than a 7800GTX. All he's looking at is bandwidth and ignoring all the other positives above a 7600 and 7800 like.
Does it make any sense a console company vying for graphics supremacy would specifiy or be sold on contract a "less expensive, thus less profitable part" rather than a variant of the "top of the curret line" GPU ?

A 7600 like GPU in a $600 retail console sold at a loss ? Really ?
Unsubtle trolling

Multiplatform games don't reflect anything more than the early and current marketshare/mindshare paradigm. Very few 3rd party developers are utilizing all of the PS3's potential.

It's not in their interest to lead on PS3 because it sells less software and is more costly to develop for in the beginning, due to the steep learning curve. ND made Uncharted 2 for cheap. It was mostly content creation and tweaks to the Uncharted engine. They're first party. But the latest edge tools are helping 3rd party come up to speed. Running a custom AA algorhythm ~ X16 AA in effect, on a single SPU is impressive.

This generation is barely half done. PS3 has the best console graphics now. I have no doubt the PS3 games in 2-3 years will look semi-next generation, and as big an improvement as we've seen from launch to now. Similiar to how the trailing PS2 games did such amazing things with "old hw". And it had roughly half the total effective game rendering power of Xbox. Now PS/Xxxx are more equally matched, and as Carmack said, the PS3 has more peak power. The longer the generation lasts, the wider the gap grows. It's a long term strategy.

Sales mean nothing in the context of which console is more powerful. The most powerful system frequently is not the market leader. Although from a business standpoint, the Wii was a magnficent hit, I don't like the way Nintendo 'leads' the industry. They're back to their NES ways, except they don't compete for the 'enthusist gamer'. So the only truly AAA games are few and far between.

Actually, YOU don't get it, on many levels.

1. I never, EVER said "RSX IS a 7600". I said: RSX is CLOSER to a 7600 than to a 7800 or 7900. I then backed that up with reference citing PUBLISHED HARDWARE SPECS. In short, you're wrong. Again.

2. PS3 does not have "the best console graphics now". It has graphics ON PAR with what's offered on 360. Generally, multiplatform games have looked better on 360, with very few exceptions. Each console has some exceptionally good looking games, each vendor CLAIMS that their exclusive games couldn't be done on the other console. The reality is, there isn't a game on PS3 or 360 that couldn't have been done on the other.

3. As many, MANY developers have shown and said, PS3 and 360 each have their own strengths and weaknesses. NEITHER has a unilateral advantage over the other. Neither has enough memory or bandwidth to create the kind of graphical divide that can be witnessed when comparing, for example, a Wii game to its 360 or PS3 equivelant.

Summarily, you're once again making CLAIMS without backing them up, PRETENDING I've said one thing when I said quite another, and IMAGINING that your console of choice is somehow, some way, miraculously a monster powerhouse that destroys the competition.

Get with the program. PS3 and 360 are EQUALS. Wii alone stands in the distance as the weaker hardware, just as it stands alone as the winner of this generation's hardware sales.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

Time to lock this baby up as the original discussion was about sales number and now we got a bunch of people arguing about what system is better.....lol let me give you a hint...... based upon sales it goes like this

1. Wii
2. X360
3. PS3

Obviously the Wii has what people want: cheap fun easy to get a lot of people togethe or play by yourself games.....