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

I like how console supporters use PCs' upgradeability as a downside (ZOMG you have to pay MONEY), and then demand the X360 be compared to two-year-old hardware.

However, this topic is a stretch. You're oversimplifying things when you make the assumption that framerate varies linearly with resolution. I'd take the fact that $200 video cards absolutely CRUSH the consoles at this point and be happy with that.

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

And what about the CPU?The 360 also has a CPU which on paper is more powerful than that one.

[QUOTE="linkin_guy109"]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 thenHot_Potato

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

link?

[QUOTE="Hot_Potato"]

[QUOTE="linkin_guy109"]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 thenrobflores370

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

link?

He was already disqualified when he vaguely stated "the devs" rather than citing any particular developer who'd be dumb enough to go on record saying that his games weren't going to get any better.

How about the RAM?EuroMafia

what about it? 2gb is under half the price of a game. and bioshock runs fine on 1gb ram (300 or so is for the os)

[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.

600p is like 640 x 480

[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:)

2007 tech is more like the 8800gt which is about 4x the power of the 8600gt. and 2005's tech of the 7800 is just as good as the 8600gt

[QUOTE="stvee101"]But the 360 was relaesed in 2005.Compare it to something realistic like a 7600-7800gt and then we'll talk. ;)Thinker_145

The 7 series is now old.The 8600GT has a stunning price performance.For somebody buying a ps3 or 360 right now it doesnt matter that it is old tech.The ps3 is a current market product and so is the 8600 and both offer a similar price performance and thus can be compared.

exactly and the 7800 is just as powerful as either console

And yet consoles continue to sell - care to explain why that is?

We're well aware that PCs are more powerful - we just didn't base our buying decision off of that.

lowe0

and 8600s and 8800s continue to sell. 8800s were harder to find last xmas than ps3/x360 when they first came out or last xmas

[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.

Supafly1

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.

well that would be the x1900xtx and it destrioys the x360

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

Wow I dont think any one cares. PC>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Life. I dont give a &^*^& I will stick with my consoles.

[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.

Pro_wrestler

Well it is 6 AM in the morning

Good luck playing Assassin's Creed on your 8600GT with 1gb ram :P

[QUOTE="Pro_wrestler"][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.

mbrockway

Well it is 6 AM in the morning

Good luck playing Assassin's Creed on your 8600GT with 1gb ram :P

this thread fails

xbox 360 was released in 2005 (and pc hardware has upgraded dramatically since 2005) so your comparison fails.

those framerates and resolutions are personal tastes, just because something has 60 fps and extremely hi res doesnt mean the graphics automatically are better...... thats really funny that a hermit would say this. all hermits must know resolution deals more with screen size than anything ( higher resolutions for bigger monitors.....)

and not many people can distinguish between 30 and 60 fps, thats why many games use 30fps (also in case u didnt know, TV, no matter HD or SD is sent in a signal that produces 13 frames a second)

of course a brand new video card is going to own consoles that have been out over a year. but how many games are really going to take advantage of that brand new video card, and have good gameplay......probably the same amount as the consoles have (maybe 1 percent each year that are worth playing) (not actual figures just an estimate, before some fanboy starts yellin LINK LINK LINK)

i used to love p.c. gaming, but alot of pc games when i was into them didnt allow me to map a controller (or they did it very badly) thats why i quit playing p. c. games except for RTS games and sim games.

this thread fails

xbox 360 was released in 2005 (and pc hardware has upgraded dramatically since 2005) so your comparison fails.

those framerates and resolutions are personal tastes, just because something has 60 fps and extremely hi res doesnt mean the graphics automatically are better...... thats really funny that a hermit would say this. all hermits must know resolution deals more with screen size than anything ( higher resolutions for bigger monitors.....)

and not many people can distinguish between 30 and 60 fps, thats why many games use 30fps (also in case u didnt know, TV, no matter HD or SD is sent in a signal that produces 13 frames a second)

of course a brand new video card is going to own consoles that have been out over a year. but how many games are really going to take advantage of that brand new video card, and have good gameplay......probably the same amount as the consoles have (maybe 1 percent each year that are worth playing) (not actual figures just an estimate, before some fanboy starts yellin LINK LINK LINK)

i used to love p.c. gaming, but alot of pc games when i was into them didnt allow me to map a controller (or they did it very badly) thats why i quit playing p. c. games except for RTS games and sim games.

gearsofhalogeek

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

I am no console fanboy. In fact, I have been attempting to build a good gaming PC myself by doing research and asking for help yet I don't feel any smarter than I was before. There is simply too much choice. With consoles, I just go and buy one.

[QUOTE="gearsofhalogeek"]

this thread fails

xbox 360 was released in 2005 (and pc hardware has upgraded dramatically since 2005) so your comparison fails.

those framerates and resolutions are personal tastes, just because something has 60 fps and extremely hi res doesnt mean the graphics automatically are better...... thats really funny that a hermit would say this. all hermits must know resolution deals more with screen size than anything ( higher resolutions for bigger monitors.....)

and not many people can distinguish between 30 and 60 fps, thats why many games use 30fps (also in case u didnt know, TV, no matter HD or SD is sent in a signal that produces 13 frames a second)

of course a brand new video card is going to own consoles that have been out over a year. but how many games are really going to take advantage of that brand new video card, and have good gameplay......probably the same amount as the consoles have (maybe 1 percent each year that are worth playing) (not actual figures just an estimate, before some fanboy starts yellin LINK LINK LINK)

i used to love p.c. gaming, but alot of pc games when i was into them didnt allow me to map a controller (or they did it very badly) thats why i quit playing p. c. games except for RTS games and sim games.

Thinker_145

is that kinda like overclocking? i overclocked my processor AND video card on my pc a few years ago, (and i didnt know what i was doing, didnt have enough heat sinks and burnt it all up)

but thats only good on pixelation, clipping and smoothness i thought, i didnt think it could actually add polygons for code that isnt there......maybe i was wrong

[QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="gearsofhalogeek"]

this thread fails

xbox 360 was released in 2005 (and pc hardware has upgraded dramatically since 2005) so your comparison fails.

those framerates and resolutions are personal tastes, just because something has 60 fps and extremely hi res doesnt mean the graphics automatically are better...... thats really funny that a hermit would say this. all hermits must know resolution deals more with screen size than anything ( higher resolutions for bigger monitors.....)

and not many people can distinguish between 30 and 60 fps, thats why many games use 30fps (also in case u didnt know, TV, no matter HD or SD is sent in a signal that produces 13 frames a second)

of course a brand new video card is going to own consoles that have been out over a year. but how many games are really going to take advantage of that brand new video card, and have good gameplay......probably the same amount as the consoles have (maybe 1 percent each year that are worth playing) (not actual figures just an estimate, before some fanboy starts yellin LINK LINK LINK)

i used to love p.c. gaming, but alot of pc games when i was into them didnt allow me to map a controller (or they did it very badly) thats why i quit playing p. c. games except for RTS games and sim games.

gearsofhalogeek

is that kinda like overclocking? i overclocked my processor AND video card on my pc a few years ago, (and i didnt know what i was doing, didnt have enough heat sinks and burnt it all up)

but thats only good on pixelation, clipping and smoothness i thought, i didnt think it could actually add polygons for code that isnt there......maybe i was wrong

[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.

Thinker_145

And what about the CPU?The 360 also has a CPU which on paper is more powerful than that one.

then what is??

i don't see you saying what it is, so you probably know no more than me. 2 gigs of system ram,along with 256 dedicated Vram, is a HUGE leap over 512 shared video and system ram.

and as an earlier poster said, the core 2 duo architecture is far better than the powerpc architecture the 360 runs on.

it's like saying a 4 ghz pentium 4 is faster than a 3 ghz core 2 duo

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

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

imprezawrx500

:|

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.

600p is like 640 x 480

lol

when they say a number and then either "i" or "p" it's the second number in a resolution.

in this case 1024 x 600p, i believe it is around.

this thread fails

xbox 360 was released in 2005 (and pc hardware has upgraded dramatically since 2005) so your comparison fails.

those framerates and resolutions are personal tastes, just because something has 60 fps and extremely hi res doesnt mean the graphics automatically are better...... thats really funny that a hermit would say this. all hermits must know resolution deals more with screen size than anything ( higher resolutions for bigger monitors.....)

and not many people can distinguish between 30 and 60 fps, thats why many games use 30fps (also in case u didnt know, TV, no matter HD or SD is sent in a signal that produces 13 frames a second)

of course a brand new video card is going to own consoles that have been out over a year. but how many games are really going to take advantage of that brand new video card, and have good gameplay......probably the same amount as the consoles have (maybe 1 percent each year that are worth playing) (not actual figures just an estimate, before some fanboy starts yellin LINK LINK LINK)

i used to love p.c. gaming, but alot of pc games when i was into them didnt allow me to map a controller (or they did it very badly) thats why i quit playing p. c. games except for RTS games and sim games.

gearsofhalogeek