Consoles are superior to the PC on a technical level

Wtf?

People seem to think the console games are running with all the bells and whistles. Console games run at crap resolutions and are tweaked for the hardware as much as possible. Even then they've usually tweaked all this just to get it running as close to 30 FPS as possible.

Not even close.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

[QUOTE="Zlychop"] Exclusives that are actually worth playing.Zlychop

LOL CONSOLE GAMERS, yea all i have to say is Guild Wars 2 that's all
(and maybe a screenshot) (dont u dare say anything Unreal)

For the people bashing on Killzone 3, you obviously haven't seen it in person....don't tell me you have because I won't believe you.CR00K

the cpu in a pc is not dedicated to gaming, the cpu in consoles is, which is why you get better performance on consoles, add this to ps3 having better games, makes PS3 > PC.PinnacleGamingP

Modern PC X86 CPU is dedicated for command processing e.g.

1. industry leading branch unit performance (Intel Core i series).

2. best support for stack/function call based computer languages e.g. C++. PowerPC has a higer overhead when calling functions.

3. best support for GPR(general purpose registers) to SIMD registers transfers. PowerPC has to copy via the slower memory route.

4. industry leading speculative/prediction data loads (Intel Core i series). AMD K10 has similar tech.

5. 1:1 CISC (variable instructions length) to RISC (fix instructions length) translator acts like instruction set compression function i.e. maximize instruction cache. ARM countered X86's advanatge with ARM's 16bit instructions length i.e. ARM supports dual instruction length. PowerPC doesn't have this feature.

AMD Radeon HD 7750 to 7970 GE includes AMD's X86 IP i.e. it's basically AMD own SPE like kitbash.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=lLCCGS5vUx4#t=89s

Sony PS4, rumored to have an AMD Liverpood APU with Radeon HD 7850 level GPU http://www.psx-sense.nl/89207/exclusief-talloze-informatie-over-de-playstation-4-inclusief-specificaties/

MS Xbox 720 Yukon, rumored to have an AMD APU with Radeon HD 7850 level GPU(application) + AMD Jaguar type APU(system). http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2405922,00.asp

For the people bashing on Killzone 3, you obviously haven't seen it in person....don't tell me you have because I won't believe you.CR00K

I have. And no. It doesn't compare to the best-looking PC games.

I was having a dream where somebody actually thought consoles were better than a gaming PC on a technical level. It had to be a dream right?

[QUOTE="CR00K"]For the people bashing on Killzone 3, you obviously haven't seen it in person....don't tell me you have because I won't believe you.jun_aka_pekto

I have. And no. It doesn't compare to the best-looking PC games.

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

[QUOTE="CR00K"]For the people bashing on Killzone 3, you obviously haven't seen it in person....don't tell me you have because I won't believe you.CR00K

I have. And no. It doesn't compare to the best-looking PC games.

True, but one direct feed doesn't negate the fact that the other pics were bullshots. Also that one pic isn't very flattering for the game. I have seen it being played and it looks nice in certain situations (better then that crappy shot), but other times it looks downright ugly. It looks like a blast to play though and I am sure the few times it does go ugly doesn't ruin the game, but for the TC to try and play this shill game to make himself feel better is pretty sad. Consoles might have rivalled your mid range desktop back when they came out but they quickly lost it. You can argue but but but technically it's better. That just means you can't win in a straight up comparison so give it up.

People started saying bullshots, when that clearly wasn't one posted. CR00K

Not saying it looks better than PC games. People started saying bullshots, when that clearly wasn't one posted. TC is just trying to get to 20+ pages. CR00K

I can't speak for the other games. But, I've seen other people post screenshots of Forza gameplay. They didn't look jaggie-free like the one on the first page here.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"]False.... Xbox 360 GPU performance 240 GFLOPS, AMD 7970 performance 3790 GFLOPSZlychop

Congrats, you can have as many whatever flops as you want.

You still at the end of the day NO GAMES that utilize those flops to their potential.

[QUOTE="CR00K"]For the people bashing on Killzone 3, you obviously haven't seen it in person....don't tell me you have because I won't believe you.ionusX

the denial is strong

first off show me those games running on 360 looking like that? lol. those pics are from trailers that was made on a pc hahaha

In a graphics comparison thread, chances are consoles will have to play second fiddle to the PC.

But, there are other reasons for liking console games. I for one like the Uncharted games, the second one in particular. The pacing, the production values (glitch-free as of Chapter 9), the adventure/archeology theme. Some people may rag on it. But, I find Uncharted 2 a delight. To me, the adventure part stands out more than the shooter part (as it should be with these type of games). If there's a game I'd like on the PC, this is one since I love adventure/archeology movies and games like Indiana Jones, Tomb Raider, The Mummy, and now, Uncharted.

*Sigh* Too bad UC2 doesn't allow screenies of the singleplayer campaign. Offscreen shot.

If there's a game I'd like on the PC, this is one since I love adventure/archeology movies and games like Indiana Jones, Tomb Raider, The Mummy, and now, Uncharted.

jun_aka_pekto

The peasants are revolting.

The peasants are revolting.

tenaka2

What's funny is that these uprisings usually defeat themselves from the very beginning. :lol:

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

If there's a game I'd like on the PC, this is one since I love adventure/archeology movies and games like Indiana Jones, Tomb Raider, The Mummy, and now, Uncharted.

AdrianWerner

Looks like I'll have to try LH out. Thanks!

...now what? Is someone going to show us a PS3/360/PC with something comparable to theGraphics Synthesizer that can pull graphics comparable to GOW2 or MGS3? :|

Show me a X1900XTX (360 GPU) or a 7800 GTX (PS3 GPU) capable of running these visuals at acceptable frame rates

No way does a PC 7800 GTX run BF3 and look like this with anything above 15 FPS, LOL.

Feel free to support this thread and post more good looking console games.

These are games that had to be EXPERTLY and very technically coded (moreso than your average PC game) to run on such old hardware and yet the do.

Superior their equivalents for a fraction of the cost.

780 GTX was $599 at launch and the X1900XTX was $650 at launch and they struggle to run any of todays games even at 30 fps, yet the consoles can do it.

Zlychop

Agreed.

PS360's amazing just based off the fact it's 6 year old hardware pulling off Crysis, BF, Gears etc.

If PC's were to remain with 2006 hardware without an upgrade it wouldn't last; let alone would it actually have an acceptable framerate.

Metro on pc is like another game compared to the xbox 360! Graphics sure dont make games but I know for a fact when I upgraded my pc and played Metro in all its glory it was a FAR better experience...what a game! And to any heavily misinformed individuals who actually think Killzone 3 holds a candle to any recent pc games...please! I did a comparison on my monitor and even relatively "mediocre" multiplat games look much better than Killzone 3 at high resolutions and frame rate. Alan wake and Serious Sam 3 to bring up 2 random games I have recently played. No need to even consider the heavy weights of pc graphics like Crysis and Metro!dom2000

[QUOTE="Zlychop"]

Show me a X1900XTX (360 GPU) or a 7800 GTX (PS3 GPU) capable of running these visuals at acceptable frame rates

No way does a PC 7800 GTX run BF3 and look like this with anything above 15 FPS, LOL.

Feel free to support this thread and post more good looking console games.

These are games that had to be EXPERTLY and very technically coded (moreso than your average PC game) to run on such old hardware and yet the do.

Superior their equivalents for a fraction of the cost.

780 GTX was $599 at launch and the X1900XTX was $650 at launch and they struggle to run any of todays games even at 30 fps, yet the consoles can do it.

darkdude2k12

Agreed.

PS360's amazing just based off the fact it's 6 year old hardware pulling off Crysis, BF, Gears etc.

If PC's were to remain with 2006 hardware without an upgrade it wouldn't last; let alone would it actually have an acceptable framerate.

People thought Crysis 1 would be impossible to run on consoles, and it isn't despite the hardware.Zlychop

[QUOTE="Zlychop"]People thought Crysis 1 would be impossible to run on consoles, and it isn't despite the hardware.MonsieurX

[QUOTE="darkdude2k12"]

[QUOTE="Zlychop"]

Feel free to support this thread and post more good looking console games.

These are games that had to be EXPERTLY and very technically coded (moreso than your average PC game) to run on such old hardware and yet the do.

Superior their equivalents for a fraction of the cost.

780 GTX was $599 at launch and the X1900XTX was $650 at launch and they struggle to run any of todays games even at 30 fps, yet the consoles can do it.

Zlychop

Agreed.

PS360's amazing just based off the fact it's 6 year old hardware pulling off Crysis, BF, Gears etc.

If PC's were to remain with 2006 hardware without an upgrade it wouldn't last; let alone would it actually have an acceptable framerate.

and all it took to get Crysis 1 to run on consoles is by dumbing down the heck out of everything to the point where they function completely different from the PC version, not to mention all that blue bloom used to try and hide how ugly it is, and the fact that consoles couldn't handle the level ascension so it got removed.

Last of Us and Halo 4? Oh boy linear games heavily scripted, that's the only way they can pull of those visuals, yeah I wanna see if consoles can keep up with games like Planetside 2 and Rome 2 Total War.

[QUOTE="darkdude2k12"]

[QUOTE="Zlychop"]

Show me a X1900XTX (360 GPU) or a 7800 GTX (PS3 GPU) capable of running these visuals at acceptable frame rates

No way does a PC 7800 GTX run BF3 and look like this with anything above 15 FPS, LOL.

Feel free to support this thread and post more good looking console games.

These are games that had to be EXPERTLY and very technically coded (moreso than your average PC game) to run on such old hardware and yet the do.

Superior their equivalents for a fraction of the cost.

780 GTX was $599 at launch and the X1900XTX was $650 at launch and they struggle to run any of todays games even at 30 fps, yet the consoles can do it.

Zlychop

Agreed.

PS360's amazing just based off the fact it's 6 year old hardware pulling off Crysis, BF, Gears etc.

If PC's were to remain with 2006 hardware without an upgrade it wouldn't last; let alone would it actually have an acceptable framerate.

Exactly, I'm not saying that consoles have better hardware today. Technically the games are more advanced if they can keep up with the PC today. Look at games like The Last of Us, Halo 4, and others. People thought Crysis 1 would be impossible to run on consoles, and it isn't despite the hardware.Zlychop

Art style is a very, very power tool if used correctly.

Secondly, The Original Crysis can't be run on consoles. It still can't. Crytek had to upgrade and repourpose the engine(Cryengine 2---->Cryengine 3) JUST to get Crysis working on consoles. The Crysis console port was done using the Cryengine 3 which is more scalable than it's previous iteration.

This is not even taking into account the reduced draw distance, ugly blue filter, removal of volumetric clouds, decreased texture quality, tons of absent foliage available in the original, missing items in the original version, worse shadow work ect...

Also, when Consoles run a fully fledge OS in the background while running a game, then we can truly talk. Until then, no excuses.

All I got from this thread is that a huge segment of console gamers have 0 knowlage of tech in the slightest, Sorry but running a game at sub HD, at 10 fps is NOT superior.

Ignorance is bliss, they say.

Consolites seem to be huffing the Jenkem.

[QUOTE="jimmyrussle117"]

Are these trolls still trying? 1080p>720p, 60fps>20-25 fps, and 4xAA>0AA. 1/10 for makign me post.

Zlychop

An 800$ machine will get you 4 to 5 times better graphics (not that good graphics are essential to enjoyment of games, but it certainly helps).

Another sh!thole Zlychop thread, and over 140 posts. Shame.

All I got from this thread is that a huge segment of console gamers have 0 knowlage of tech in the slightest, Sorry but running a game at sub HD, at 10 fps is NOT superior.

Ignorance is bliss, they say.

Maddie_Larkin

You take too much for granted, just because a couple of fanboys come here and troll everyone doesn't mean every console gamer don't know about PC hardware.

Anyway, i'm only agree with the fact that some games look amazing for such an old hardware.

If PC's were to remain with 2006 hardware without an upgrade it wouldn't last; let alone would it actually have an acceptable framerate.

darkdude2k12

Wrong:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ksL2pwecHg

Good 2006 PC > any current console, hardware-wise.

Another sh!thole Zlychop thread, and over 140 posts. Shame.

wis3boi