How much more powerful will the R600/HD 2900 XT be over xbox360's video card?

well lets put it at this, the highly touted Playstation 3 graphics engine, the RSX, is all nice and pretty no? you can say its better than the xbox360 in terms of the graphics department perhaps. Now take the 8800 GTX, TWICE as powerful as the playstation 3 graphics card. Then take the 2900XT which beats the 8800 GTX in benchies. Yeah.jfelisario

Nope, the RSX is not as good as the Xenos.

RSX = ~G70
Xenos= ~R580
G80/R600= better then 2x the R580.

So, it will be more then twice as powerful as the Xenos.

[QUOTE="jfelisario"]well lets put it at this, the highly touted Playstation 3 graphics engine, the RSX, is all nice and pretty no? you can say its better than the xbox360 in terms of the graphics department perhaps. Now take the 8800 GTX, TWICE as powerful as the playstation 3 graphics card. Then take the 2900XT which beats the 8800 GTX in benchies. Yeah.LordEC911

Nope, the RSX is not as good as the Xenos.

RSX = ~G70
Xenos= ~R580
G80/R600= better then 2x the R580.

So, it will be more then twice as powerful as the Xenos.

oops, *switches xbox 360 with ps3* hehe

Just like to add in that the x2900xtx, whenever we see it, has about twice the specs of a 8800GTX.
Now that doesn't mean gaming performance will be 2x better, but it certainly should be significantly better, especially when in a PCi-e2.0 mobo and running a DX10 game/benchmark.LordEC911

Not to mention the image quality will be better as well because of DirectX 10.

Information like this makes me glad i'm a pc gamer :Pselbie

Same here :D

[QUOTE="selbie"]Information like this makes me glad i'm a pc gamer :PCyborg-21

Same here :D

meh you can always be both...gettin the best of both worlds

well lets put it at this, the highly touted Playstation 3 graphics engine, the RSX, is all nice and pretty no? you can say its better than the xbox360 in terms of the graphics department perhaps. Now take the 8800 GTX, TWICE as powerful as the playstation 3 graphics card. Then take the 2900XT which beats the 8800 GTX in benchies. Yeah.jfelisario

well the consoles only have to output at about 30fps or so, and they do it at a much lower resolution than, say, the R600. 1280x720 (360) compared to 2560x1600 (R600)crazytom49

The R600 will kill the RSX and Xenos, lol.K_r_a_u_s_e_r

 The 8800GTX already did that.

[QUOTE="K_r_a_u_s_e_r"]The R600 will kill the RSX and Xenos, lol.RazorGR

The 8800GTX already did that.

i think he forgot to add "as well" to the end of that hehe :) 

The R600 inherited A LOT of its design from the GPU ATi designed for the Xbox 360. Much in the same way that the 9700/9800/X800 inherited much of their traits from the GPU in the Nintendo GameCube.

The RSX is essentially an underclocked 7800-series GPU because nVidia was rather bitter against Sony for how they'd sabotaged the success of the Xbox 1, and used Sony's position against them by giving them a cheap GPU under huge markup. ;)

Problem is, no matter how much more powerful a GPU is for a video card in a PC, it will never be used as efficiently as it will be in a console. Consoles get better over time with improved software and developers learning more tricks to wring out the performance from the µArchitecture in place. For example, the Xbox 360 started with only supporting up to 1080i, but recent firmware updates enabled support for up to 1080p.

well the consoles only have to output at about 30fps or so, and they do it at a much lower resolution than, say, the R600. 1280x720 (360) compared to 2560x1600 (R600)crazytom49

well lets put it at this, the highly touted Playstation 3 graphics engine, the RSX, is all nice and pretty no? you can say its better than the xbox360 in terms of the graphics department perhaps. Now take the 8800 GTX, TWICE as powerful as the playstation 3 graphics card. Then take the 2900XT which beats the 8800 GTX in benchies. Yeah.jfelisario

Slow down there partner, the 360 has more graphical prowess than the ps3. But neither is a match for today's high-end cards ;)

Slow down there partner, the 360 has more graphical prowess than the ps3. But neither is a match for today's high-end cards ;)Staryoshi87

[QUOTE="Staryoshi87"]Slow down there partner, the 360 has more graphical prowess than the ps3. But neither is a match for today's high-end cards ;)codezer0

One game a determination of graphical prowess does not make...imo. Don't get me wrong, I have a 360 and it's a powerful beast :) Perhaps they didn't do a good job of optimizing r6v for the pc :( PCs still pack more whallop.

[QUOTE="codezer0"][QUOTE="Staryoshi87"]Slow down there partner, the 360 has more graphical prowess than the ps3. But neither is a match for today's high-end cards ;)Staryoshi87

One game a determination of graphical prowess does not make...imo. Don't get me wrong, I have a 360 and it's a powerful beast :) Perhaps they didn't do a good job of optimizing r6v for the pc :( PCs still pack more whallop.

PCs no doubt pack more "whallop" but since consoles obviously all have the same specs, a dev can easily make the game run better and look better on the console than its pc counterpart since on pcs the dev has to cater to a wide variety of systems...iunno thats my take on it

PCs no doubt pack more "whallop" but since consoles obviously all have the same specs, a dev can easily make the game run better and look better on the console than its pc counterpart since on pcs the dev has to cater to a wide variety of systems...iunno thats my take on it

Yeah, with PC games they have to account for scalability. The majority of games will still look better maxed on a pc, though.

[QUOTE="Staryoshi87"]Slow down there partner, the 360 has more graphical prowess than the ps3. But neither is a match for today's high-end cards ;)codezer0

PCs no doubt pack more "whallop" but since consoles obviously all have the same specs, a dev can easily make the game run better and look better on the console than its pc counterpart since on pcs the dev has to cater to a wide variety of systems...iunno thats my take on itMiguel16

If a computer is 20x more powerful (on specs) than a console, then the game should run 20x faster. Period.

And with a console, I'm guaranteed that the game I buy on it will pop in and run right away. Half the games that seem to come out for Windows nowadays, can't even run out of the box anymore. They almost always require a separate CD's worth of patches just to get them running anymore. Hell, Quake 3 alone required a total of 32 patches before finally being stable. Yet every time I pop in my copy of it for Dreamcast, it works without needing to patch ****

O RLY? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBJqa3RwlxAtratyu92

[QUOTE="Staryoshi87"]Slow down there partner, the 360 has more graphical prowess than the ps3. But neither is a match for today's high-end cards ;)codezer0

Only because windows XP Pc is still on Dx9, wait for Dx10. When your Dx10 GPU really starts to be worth it. No console will match Dx10.

Only because windows XP Pc is still on Dx9, wait for Dx10. When your Dx10 GPU really starts to be worth it. No console will match Dx10. Bebi_vegeta

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]Only because windows XP Pc is still on Dx9, wait for Dx10. When your Dx10 GPU really starts to be worth it. No console will match Dx10. codezer0

What?

Console and Pc use complet different programs. 

[QUOTE="codezer0"]

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]Only because windows XP Pc is still on Dx9, wait for Dx10. When your Dx10 GPU really starts to be worth it. No console will match Dx10. Bebi_vegeta

What?

Console and Pc use complet different programs.

i think he's referring to the unified shader processing inherent in both. the xbox 360 gpu is more akin to the r600 really, despite it having the r500 designation, as it has 48 unified shader units as opposed to the pixel pipelines and TMU's of the past, just like the 8800's and the x2900xt

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="codezer0"]

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]Only because windows XP Pc is still on Dx9, wait for Dx10. When your Dx10 GPU really starts to be worth it. No console will match Dx10. jfelisario

What?

Console and Pc use complet different programs.

i think he's referring to the unified shader processing inherent in both.  

Since the 360 vid card was the first (real) step toward dx10 ;) I like to think of it as dx9.5 =D

[QUOTE="jfelisario"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="codezer0"]

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]Only because windows XP Pc is still on Dx9, wait for Dx10. When your Dx10 GPU really starts to be worth it. No console will match Dx10. Staryoshi87

What?

Console and Pc use complet different programs.

i think he's referring to the unified shader processing inherent in both.

Since the 360 vid card was the first (real) step toward dx10 ;) I like to think of it as dx9.5 =D

lol i wasn't finished explaining and you quoted me already :P 

[QUOTE="codezer0"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]Only because windows XP Pc is still on Dx9, wait for Dx10. When your Dx10 GPU really starts to be worth it. No console will match Dx10. Bebi_vegeta

Console and Pc use complet different programs.

DirectX 10 in Windows Vista does away with almost everything from DirectX 9 and earlier in favor of the elements from the Xbox 360 SDK. Instead of DirectInput, you now have XInput. Instead of DirectSound/3D and EAX, you now have OpenAL (until Microsoft makes their own proprietary version to swallow/shut out OpenAL). And the unified shader architecture in the Xbox 360 GPU is a big proponent to the stream processing that is now implemented in DirectX 10's graphics software.

So, whether you'd like to accept it or not, DirectX 10 in Windows Vista is inherited (almost) directly from the Xbox 360. 

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="codezer0"]

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]Only because windows XP Pc is still on Dx9, wait for Dx10. When your Dx10 GPU really starts to be worth it. No console will match Dx10. jfelisario

What?

Console and Pc use complet different programs.

i think he's referring to the unified shader processing inherent in both. the xbox 360 gpu is more akin to the r600 really, despite it having the r500 designation, as it has 48 unified shader units as opposed to the pixel pipelines and TMU's of the past, just like the 8800's and the x2900xt

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="codezer0"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]Only because windows XP Pc is still on Dx9, wait for Dx10. When your Dx10 GPU really starts to be worth it. No console will match Dx10. codezer0

Console and Pc use complet different programs.

DirectX 10 in Windows Vista does away with almost everything from DirectX 9 and earlier in favor of the elements from the Xbox 360 SDK. Instead of DirectInput, you now have XInput. Instead of DirectSound/3D and EAX, you now have OpenAL (until Microsoft makes their own proprietary version to swallow/shut out OpenAL). And the unified shader architecture in the Xbox 360 GPU is a big proponent to the stream processing that is now implemented in DirectX 10's graphics software.

So, whether you'd like to accept it or not, DirectX 10 in Windows Vista is inherited (almost) directly from the Xbox 360.

But Dx10 will be better then what consoles use and that's the bottom line. Consoles are always in advance and then they get surpass by PC. 

[QUOTE="Staryoshi87"]Slow down there partner, the 360 has more graphical prowess than the ps3. But neither is a match for today's high-end cards ;)codezer0

That's because of lame half assed coding.

Don't blame the hardware, blame LaziSoft.

[QUOTE="codezer0"][QUOTE="Staryoshi87"]Slow down there partner, the 360 has more graphical prowess than the ps3. But neither is a match for today's high-end cards ;)Wesker776

That's because of lame half assed coding.

Don't blame the hardware, blame LaziSoft.

yep, they totally threw out AA, despite the fact that they have been given the tools by DAAMIT and the Green Team to make the proper optimizations, they chose the easy cash way and did a lazy port. You just have to look at other games for a fairer comparison, also when Gears of War finally hits the PC, i think that will be a great case to debate about.

[QUOTE="Staryoshi87"]Slow down there partner, the 360 has more graphical prowess than the ps3. But neither is a match for today's high-end cards ;)codezer0

Thats because Vegas is an unoptimized port. Its native res is 1280x720 on 360 and your tv upconverts which isnt at all the same. Prey and Fear run better on pc. 8800gtx runs Oblivion twice as fast as the 360.

This guy runs Vegas very smooth at 2560x1600. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBJqa3RwlxA

Besides how many good console games are there anyway?

And any good one are still coming to  PC anyway...

That's because of lame half assed coding.

Don't blame the hardware, blame LaziSoft.Wesker776

yep, they totally threw out AA, despite the fact that they have been given the tools by DAAMIT and the Green Team to make the proper optimizations, they chose the easy cash way and did a lazy port. You just have to look at other games for a fairer comparison, also when Gears of War finally hits the PC, i think that will be a great case to debate about. jfelisario

Thats because Vegas is an unoptimized port. Its native res is 1280x720 on 360 and your tv upconverts which isnt at all the same. Prey and Fear run better on pc. 8800gtx runs Oblivion twice as fast as the 360.

This guy runs Vegas very smooth at 2560x1600. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBJqa3RwlxACranler

Then why, as a consumer, should we be forced to accept such substandard jobs? Why do people keep buying up crap like this when it is a piece of **** Why should we as computer gamers be forced to accept paying $50 for a game and it doesn't even work out of the box, requiring god knows how many patches and updates? Why should I have to patch anything to be able to put in a game and play?

I find it pretty damn ridiculous that I'm basically being told that I'd have to spend about $1000/year on hardware just to be able to keep up and play what I want, when a single purchase of ~$400 on the console end can last me for years. And the Xbox 360 can play the game at 1920x1080, to which I would have to buy a $600 video card just to have a chance of doing on a computer.

And every year, to be able to play the newest games at 1080p, I'm basically going to have to throw out my whole damn computer and start new. At the prices of hardware these days, that's like buying a new car every year so you can still drive. Logically, it's equally ridiculous. Devs have no problem in getting the most out of the hardware in consoles and can make it perform better over time. Why the hell can't they do that for my PC?

But Dx10 will be better then what consoles use and that's the bottom line. Consoles are always in advance and then they get surpass by PC. Bebi_vegeta

And if DirectX 10 is so good, and Windows XP is still a supported OS, why the hell aren't we seeing it available for Windows XP too? The only reason they can even sell Vista is because of DirectX 10, instead of on any meritable trait.

It would be pretty retarded for a gaming card that cost as much as an xbox360 or ps3 to not be able to outperform either. BeavermanA

Again, it's pretty damn ridiculous to have spent all this money and then for some $20/50 game to come around and then you have to throw everything away and start all over again. 

Besides how many good console games are there anyway?

And any good one are still coming to PC anyway... 

OgreB

And about a good 80% of the RPG's that are worth playing are console ONLY. Unless you're into MMO's, at which point it's irrelevant because you're still paying several times more just to keep playing. Hell, for what you could save *not* playing an MMO or two you could easily save enough cash for a shiny new console and some games.

[QUOTE="BeavermanA"]It would be pretty retarded for a gaming card that cost as much as an xbox360 or ps3 to not be able to outperform either. codezer0

Again, it's pretty damn ridiculous to have spent all this money and then for some $20/50 game to come around and then you have to throw everything away and start all over again.

Besides how many good console games are there anyway?

And any good one are still coming to PC anyway...

OgreB

And about a good 80% of the RPG's that are worth playing are console ONLY. Unless you're into MMO's, at which point it's irrelevant because you're still paying several times more just to keep playing. Hell, for what you could save *not* playing an MMO or two you could easily save enough cash for a shiny new console and some games.

please do list all the "myriads" of games that pawn the pc on the 360, and how so. 

But Dx10 will be better then what consoles use and that's the bottom line. Consoles are always in advance and then they get surpass by PC. Bebi_vegeta

And if DirectX 10 is so good, and Windows XP is still a supported OS, why the hell aren't we seeing it available for Windows XP too? The only reason they can even sell Vista is because of DirectX 10, instead of on any meritable trait.

For all I care it could come from in a kindle surprise egg.

Kotor 1&2 on the Xbox 1 are both BC on the 360, and the 360 can then upscale them up to 1080p. You can't even get kotor to run in a widescreen format (natively) for the computer version(s) of the game.

Rainbow Six Vegas on a 360 @ 1080p will run smoother and faster than even a $2000 system. Hell, mine altogether (with software, and monitor) cost me close to $3000 (if I add the cost of software) and even I have my doubts I'd be able to run fluidly @ 1680x1050, much less 1920x1200.

GRAW on the PC may run well, but compared to how positivek the Xbox 360 version is for the experience, the PC version is like pretentious false advertising.

The GTA games in general perform much better on consoles, and a lot of missions that would be a cinch on a PS2 or Xbox controller are next to impossible to do on the computer versions.

Crackdown is also one game that is hella fun on the 360, but I've yet to see anything similar to it on the computer, much less any word of it coming out to Windows, if ever.

Alan Wake is another game that is being developed for the Xbox 360 and Windows, and it too will certainly play a lot better on 360 than it will on any computer. The game basically requires a quad-core processor to play it properly, and the playable build that Remedy had showing of it was running on a Quad-Core intel w/ 8800GTX SLi... with the CPU overclocked to 3.73GHz. So to reasonably expect to be able to play Alan Wake properly on Windows, you're going to need to get a time machine to get a machine that could handle it, whereas a $400 360 will do fine.

For all I care it could come from in a kindle surprise egg.Havent you notice that microsoft is crap? But its the only crap we can eat since, they make directX.Bebi_vegeta

Microsoft's so afraid of it, they nixed (native) support for it in Vista altogether. 

Kotor 1&2 on the Xbox 1 are both BC on the 360, and the 360 can then upscale them up to 1080p. You can't even get kotor to run in a widescreen format (natively) for the computer version(s) of the game.

Rainbow Six Vegas on a 360 @ 1080p will run smoother and faster than even a $2000 system. Hell, mine altogether (with software, and monitor) cost me close to $3000 (if I add the cost of software) and even I have my doubts I'd be able to run fluidly @ 1680x1050, much less 1920x1200.

GRAW on the PC may run well, but compared to how positivek the Xbox 360 version is for the experience, the PC version is like pretentious false advertising.

The GTA games in general perform much better on consoles, and a lot of missions that would be a cinch on a PS2 or Xbox controller are next to impossible to do on the computer versions.

Crackdown is also one game that is hella fun on the 360, but I've yet to see anything similar to it on the computer, much less any word of it coming out to Windows, if ever.

Alan Wake is another game that is being developed for the Xbox 360 and Windows, and it too will certainly play a lot better on 360 than it will on any computer. The game basically requires a quad-core processor to play it properly, and the playable build that Remedy had showing of it was running on a Quad-Core intel w/ 8800GTX SLi... with the CPU overclocked to 3.73GHz. So to reasonably expect to be able to play Alan Wake properly on Windows, you're going to need to get a time machine to get a machine that could handle it, whereas a $400 360 will do fine.

codezer0

For KOTOR, you can't blame hardware for that, modern computer hardware can easily run that on widescreen, so its the software's flaw, blame the game developer for that one. Vegas + GRAW, LazySoft, we've been through that, lazy optimizations. For the gta games, the controller is personal preference, you can easily plug in a controller into your pc and play with that, you aren't limited to the keyboard and mouse you know. You can't compare Crackdown because it ain't out on the pc, besides Gears of War and Lost Planet are coming to the pc, and it seems that the pc version of Lost Planet is more spectacular than the xbox360's

http://au.pc.ign.com/articles/780/780685p1.html

By the time alan wake comes out, the quad-cores will become more affordable. By q3 2007, we'll be seeing the q6600 for about 266.

hellacodezer0