8600GT>>>>>>>Xbox 360 and PS3.

[QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="anshul89"][QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="granddogg"]Forget the year the tech came out! I'm about to slap this pc gamer down let's see how that rig play on my 52 in hdtv it will fall apart that card is good on a small screen that's it. now walk away ! anshul89

FYI TEH CELL processor eats 3 8800 ultras in SLI for breakfast and eats the intel skulltrail mobo with dual quad CPU's for lunch and still feels hungry.:shock:

My PC is just a tea break for the mighty CELL!!

[QUOTE="subrosian"]

[QUOTE="granddogg"]Forget the year the tech came out! I'm about to slap this pc gamer down let's see how that rig play on my 52 in hdtv it will fall apart that card is good on a small screen that's it. now walk away ! Thinker_145

So an Xbox 360 running at a lower resolution over HDMI looks fine, but a PC running at a *higher resolution* over HDMI doesn't? They both connect to the same HDTV, they both can use the same controller, what's the difference?

I don't agree with the TC going this route, not because the PC isn't more powerful than consoles (this is undeniable) but because if the PC just played console games with slightly improved graphics, it would not be a unique and special platform. There's so much more to PC gaming than just "zomg look at my resolution"... so much more.

It's just one of the many reasons of the superiority of the PC.

But why?

Why make graphics the focus? Why make performance in such petty (yes - I said petty - commonplace - mainstream - run-of-the-mill) games the focus? That's not to say they aren't enjoyable, fun, or engaging games, but where's the spark? Where's the special? What's unique about playing those games on PC, other than graphics, free online, and flexibility of controls?

I guess it's a matter of opinion.

I've had my brothers call me up - I showed them Portal on my PC when I visited - hooked it in to their huge HDTV, played the game. They picked it up on the 360, and they loved it, but they were like "y'know, it doesn't look as good". I didn't know what he meant, but I realized I ran the game at a higher resolution, with more AA / AF than they were running.

That's great and all - y'know it's really nice - but they're not going to pick up a gaming PC just to play the game with better graphics. Yeah, my PC looks better than their 360, but so what? Y'know what makes a PC worthwhile? Dark Crusade, Sins of a Solar Empire, STALKER, Savage 2, Guild Wars - that's why you get a PC if you already have a console. Performance is something to consider before you buy a system - but once you have one platform, the reason to get another extends beyond raw performance.

Bring up graphics if they're brought up in some other thread, bring them up all you like if people get in some hair-brained PS3 vs 360 comparisson. But by all means, graphics needs to stop being the ultra-focus of SW, and hell, even PC gaming. Not because they don't matter - but because there's so much more to it that's being left unsaid.

-

You're creating an argument that can be countered, and the type of thinking that leads to the graphics-first PC gamer. And really, that's just a damn shame.

My rig can play crysis. (sig) it's 20x worse then any console.Dynafrom

Played Crysis with an OC'd 8500GT and a hyper threading Pentium 4.. I got 15fps in some areas didn't look to bad either.

Thats ALL medium including shaders, vsync off and no AA.

[QUOTE="Supafly1"][QUOTE="Thinker_145"]

LOL console fanboys are ignoring this arent they.:lol:

Bu bu teh consoles are so much more efficient and still loss to the paltry 8600GT.:cry:

I have seen console fanboys say that the 8600GT sucks and is worthless.Ah the irony now your consoles suck as well then i guess.

Thinker_145

Why are you comparing things that have a 2 year difference. Maybe you should compare a video card that was released at the same time as X-box 360.

The xbox 360 is a "current" product in the market.The 8600 is also a current product in the market.A 2 year old GPU isnt.Maybe 2 years ago the 360 was more efficient than consoles but we are talking about today.

So? Maybe we should actually then praise the X-box 360 since the hardware is about 2 years old and it's still doing such a good job.

So? Maybe we should actually then praise the X-box 360 since the hardware is about 2 years old and it's still doing such a good job.

Supafly1

I've never seen a two year old Xbox 360 that is still running. And I say that as simply a statement of fact - there are many things the Xbox 360 platform does well - reliable, powerful, well-designed hardware is not really one of them.

How about the RAM?EuroMafia

What about RAM, a PC will always have more RAM.. you can buy 2 GB rams for real cheap

So? Maybe we should actually then praise the X-box 360 since the hardware is about 2 years old and it's still doing such a good job.

Supafly1

Which is nothing special.

Bioshocks runs only min 30 FPS on xbox? I really thought it was 60... Well never played it though.. omgimba

Exept those XBL Arcade UE3 games like Undertow.

OMG.

Are you telling me...

Seriously?

If I were to keep on upgrading my PC, it would get continually more powerful?

Isn't that a crime in some states? I mean, you can just up and increase the power... whenever you want?

OMG, I'm shocked that I didn't already know this.

:|

Now I'm no math major but 1024x600 x 2 = 2048x1200 yet 1280x1024 = double the resolution?

Pro_wrestler

well the bolded part is clear.

1024x600 x 2 does NOT = 2048x1200

1024x600x4 does. learn math before making a mathematical argument. this is like 4th grade math.

And the 8600gt still needs to go into a 900 dollar pc to prevent bottleneck.amorbis1001

The 8600gt is not a gaming card really. It is rather weak for the G80 series. Best used in notebooks.Wasdie

I keep hearing how consoles are so much more efficient than the PC.Now let's see it then shall we how the 8600GT plays multiplat games in the same graphical fidelity as the xbox 360 and ps3.

So we see in COD4 that the 8600GT gets 36fps maxed out in 12x10.Now 12x10 is MORE than double the resolution of 600p so it's safe to assume that the 8600GT would get around 80fps maxed out in COD4 in 600p.That leaves plenty of headroom to put in AA and thus ultimately excedding console quality while maintaining 60fps.

Now let's see UT3.The 8600GT get's 39fps maxed out in 1600x1200.It is safe to say that the 8600GT would get 80+ fps in 720p.How does the ps3 run this game again?

Now lets see bioshock.We see here that the 8600GT runs bioshock maxed out in 720p at 40fps once again beating the xbox 360's 30fps.

You console fanboys can argue all you want as to how the PC is more expensive and requires regular upgrades but the fact is that the PC is as much an efficient gaming machine as your console is as proved by the 8600GT here.Only those people need regular upgrades who must play in crazy resolutions.

The 8600GT is now available for $80 and it thrashes your consoles graphics.This card also doesnt need much power so you may not have to replace your generic PSU to run this card.So basically if you have any dual core CPU than for roughly $120(you may need more RAM) you can make your PC on par with your consoles.

But people will continue to think that their consoles give them a close experience to what a $1000 PC gives but i guess ignorance is bliss.

Thinker_145

who ever said consoles were more efficient than PC?

[QUOTE="Supafly1"]

So? Maybe we should actually then praise the X-box 360 since the hardware is about 2 years old and it's still doing such a good job.

skrat_01

Which is nothing special.

We are currently comparing 8600GT against X-box 360 hardware or GPU or whatever and I believe that there were PC's out 2 years from now that performed even better than the X-box 360 but then again, the price-tag of that kind of a PC was not around $600-700. And Subrosian, it doesn't matter if your X-box 360 doesn't last 2 years, they upgrade the hardware in the run, it still performs the same as it did 2 years ago.

the 8600GT is crappy card,don't make it sound comparable with 8800gt, and u're just a fakeboy. i remember you doing pro ps3 threads and bashing pc gaming, now suddenly u're a elite hermit :roll: .-wii60-

lol, yeah, and the 8600 is a crap card, far behind the 8800gt256/512.

if you want to make a "pc's are more powerful than consoles" thread, show them specs of the 9800GX2 and 9800GTX...

And the 8600gt still needs to go into a 900 dollar pc to prevent bottleneck.amorbis1001

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="Supafly1"]

So? Maybe we should actually then praise the X-box 360 since the hardware is about 2 years old and it's still doing such a good job.

Supafly1

Which is nothing special.

We are currently comparing 8600GT against X-box 360 hardware or GPU or whatever and I believe that there were PC's out 2 years from now that performed even better than the X-box 360 but then again, the price-tag of that kind of a PC was not around $600-700. And Subrosian, it doesn't matter if your X-box 360 doesn't last 2 years, they upgrade the hardware in the run, it still performs the same as it did 2 years ago.

I'll cut to the chase- if you want a gaming PC with comparable hardware to the 360 - you can get one for a bit more - but not a huge amount - not just because of cheap hardware prices, but as the comparable hardware is increadably cheap.

However you are better off spending the extra cash and getting a better gaming PC that can run all the latest intensive PC games at high settings with great frame rates - only Crysis stresses the card(s).

Take my PC for example - its pretty much your usual affordable gaming rig. It cost me $900 Australian Dollars (scratch 160gb hard drive, and DVD drive) and every PC game performs increadably well, even Crysis runs fantasticaly with some tweaking. Now a Xbox 360 pro here costs $580 Australian Dollars, and you would say 'well gee that gaming PC is much more expensive in comparison' the reality is not really. The hardware of the machine destroys that in the 360 - obviusly, and the system even by game standards - scratch Crysis - is actually grossly overpowered. We have reached an era where hardware is exeeding software in capabilities (also factor in this is a computer I am talking about).

I could have easily spend half as much - and gotten a PC for around the 360s price - that has a cheap but nice Core 2 Duo, and an 8600GT (i'd say $650-700 AUD total) problem is while it will be at the same hardware performance as a 360, and produce the same level of visual quality for years to come, I'd be missing out on a system with much more longevity - even compared to the 360, and has a huge performance and visual edge - which is what people boast about the 'PC advantage'.

In a nutshel though, what im trying to say is -with a console you get what you pay for when it comes to hardware. You arent getting a superiour machine compared to a cheap PC with comparable hardware - and price, and you arent getting hardware that touches a gaming PC that is a few hundred more.

Personally I think that consoles - spefically the PS3 (apart from the Blu Ray player) are overprices in terms of vaule for money - especially when you look at how cheap Quad Cores, 2gb DDR2 and 8800GT cards are - and how increadably well they perform.

That card is horrible. If anyone is truly going to buy this card -- steer away and get the ATI Radeon HD 3850. It's cheaper and better than the 8600.

That card is horrible. If anyone is truly going to buy this card -- steer away and get the ATI Radeon HD 3850. It's cheaper and better than the 8600.

Stevo_the_gamer

3580 is cheaper than 8600 gt or gts?

LOL. I remember all this topics back to the end of 2005: 7600 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> X360 and PS3.

7600 is dead long time ago and can't handle any modern game, and X360 still run smoothly everything :D

LOL. I remember all this topics back to the end of 2005: 7600 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> X360 and PS3.

7600 is dead long time ago and can't handle any modern game, and X360 still run smoothly everything :D

goddamn_

Cough Cough mass effect cough cough. Also who said the 7600 was dead? :S, It can still put everything mid - high which is console graphics. Of course it can't do that with crysis.

Also I hear alot more reviewers talking about frame rate issues in console games.

That card is horrible. If anyone is truly going to buy this card -- steer away and get the ATI Radeon HD 3850. It's cheaper and better than the 8600.

Stevo_the_gamer

[QUOTE="Thinker_145"]

.Now 12x10 is MORE than double the resolution of 600p

Pro_wrestler

:|

Now I'm no math major but 1024x600 x 2 = 2048x1200 yet 1280x1024 = double the resolution?

What is the 8600GT's equivelant in 2005? 7600GT..wouldn't it be a more fair comparison to use that card rather than change hardware completely..The consoles didn't get a hardware upgrade did it or was it something I missed.

OMG, are you serious? how old are you? You can't do simple multiplication?

LOL. I remember all this topics back to the end of 2005: 7600 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> X360 and PS3.

7600 is dead long time ago and can't handle any modern game, and X360 still run smoothly everything :D

goddamn_

You mean the 7800? and who said it's dead?

as it stands right now, you are correct, but im predicting that consoles will surpass the 8600 by the end of the generation, but that wont matter because pc gamers will already have a graphics card way more powerfull then it by thenlinkin_guy109

How can it surpass it? What am I missing here, or can a console magically generate a new GPU?

[QUOTE="Pro_wrestler"]

:|

Now I'm no math major but 1024x600 x 2 = 2048x1200 yet 1280x1024 = double the resolution?

Ontain

well the bolded part is clear.

1024x600 x 2 does NOT = 2048x1200

1024x600x4 does. learn math before making a mathematical argument. this is like 4th grade math.

Learn how to read before pushing the quick quote button, I wasn't multiplaying anything instead I used addition which would be wrong in this case, so I don't think thats a reflection of my ability to find an answer given the correct method. ^_^ ^_^

OMG, are you serious? how old are you? You can't do simple multiplication?

slickchris7777

Why do people read the first message that they disagree with, bypassing the more informative post that the resolve is in..

Intel Core 2 X6800, Intel 975XBX2, eVGA 680i SLI, 2GB Corsair XMS Memory (1GBx2),

it's due to the RAM mostly, and also due to the processor they tested with, versus the processor in the 360.

[QUOTE="EuroMafia"][QUOTE="Pro_wrestler"][QUOTE="Thinker_145"]

.Now 12x10 is MORE than double the resolution of 600p

Pro_wrestler

:|

Now I'm no math major but 1024x600 x 2 = 2048x1200 yet 1280x1024 = double the resolution?

Fair enough..but 2005 tech versus 2007 tech:)

Doesn't matter, if you have a decent P4 pc with 1.5-2GB ram, you could buy a $150 card and beat the 360+PS3

as it stands right now, you are correct, but im predicting that consoles will surpass the 8600 by the end of the generation, but that wont matter because pc gamers will already have a graphics card way more powerfull then it by thenlinkin_guy109

PS3 and 360 have already seen their limits, say the devs.

But the 360 was relaesed in 2005.Compare it to something realistic like a 7600-7800gt and then we'll talk. ;)stvee101

as it stands right now, you are correct, but im predicting that consoles will surpass the 8600 by the end of the generation, but that wont matter because pc gamers will already have a graphics card way more powerfull then it by thenlinkin_guy109

Radeon HD 2600 XT > 8600-Master_St3ve-

word

[QUOTE="Thinker_145"]

.Now 12x10 is MORE than double the resolution of 600p

Pro_wrestler

:|

Now I'm no math major but 1024x600 x 2 = 2048x1200 yet 1280x1024 = double the resolution?

What is the 8600GT's equivelant in 2005? 7600GT..wouldn't it be a more fair comparison to use that card rather than change hardware completely..The consoles didn't get a hardware upgrade did it or was it something I missed.

your last statement is a piece of trash, so your saying i can't compare a 360 to a ps3 because their a year apart? just because consoles use old pc graphics cards doesn't mean it can't be compared to mid-ranged cards that came out a year later.

Intel Core 2 X6800, Intel 975XBX2, eVGA 680i SLI, 2GB Corsair XMS Memory (1GBx2),

it's due to the RAM mostly, and also due to the processor they tested with, versus the processor in the 360.

mistervengeance

the 360's processer is better, i'm pretty sure. because the 360 has 3 cores. to bad processors really don't make that big of a difference, unless your running 100 background programs.

[QUOTE="mistervengeance"]

Intel Core 2 X6800, Intel 975XBX2, eVGA 680i SLI, 2GB Corsair XMS Memory (1GBx2),

it's due to the RAM mostly, and also due to the processor they tested with, versus the processor in the 360.

irelevent

the 360's processer is better, i'm pretty sure. because the 360 has 3 cores. to bad processors really don't make that big of a difference, unless your running 100 background programs.

I doubt the 360's CPU is better then the X6800.

[QUOTE="irelevent"][QUOTE="mistervengeance"]

Intel Core 2 X6800, Intel 975XBX2, eVGA 680i SLI, 2GB Corsair XMS Memory (1GBx2),

it's due to the RAM mostly, and also due to the processor they tested with, versus the processor in the 360.

Hellsing2o2

the 360's processer is better, i'm pretty sure. because the 360 has 3 cores. to bad processors really don't make that big of a difference, unless your running 100 background programs.

I doubt the 360's CPU is better then the X6800.

[QUOTE="Hellsing2o2"][QUOTE="irelevent"][QUOTE="mistervengeance"]

Intel Core 2 X6800, Intel 975XBX2, eVGA 680i SLI, 2GB Corsair XMS Memory (1GBx2),

it's due to the RAM mostly, and also due to the processor they tested with, versus the processor in the 360.

muscleserge

the 360's processer is better, i'm pretty sure. because the 360 has 3 cores. to bad processors really don't make that big of a difference, unless your running 100 background programs.

I doubt the 360's CPU is better then the X6800.

I really wouldn't be surprised if the Xenon didin't even have one 3rd the power of the C2D/C2X. Same thing for the Cell.

[QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="Hellsing2o2"][QUOTE="irelevent"][QUOTE="mistervengeance"]

Intel Core 2 X6800, Intel 975XBX2, eVGA 680i SLI, 2GB Corsair XMS Memory (1GBx2),

it's due to the RAM mostly, and also due to the processor they tested with, versus the processor in the 360.

Hellsing2o2

the 360's processer is better, i'm pretty sure. because the 360 has 3 cores. to bad processors really don't make that big of a difference, unless your running 100 background programs.

I doubt the 360's CPU is better then the X6800.

I really wouldn't be surprised if the Xenon didin't even have one 3rd the power of the C2D/C2X. Same thing for the Cell.