Consoles are superior to the PC on a technical level

[QUOTE="Rocker6"]

[QUOTE="lowe0"] He's got a point... at 10 feet, the human eye can only resolve every pixel of 720p if it's on a 50 inch screen or larger. 1080p pushes that into the high 70 inch range.Zlychop

That point about distance does hold some water,even though some visual flaws still remain noticeable.But that's besides the point here...

We're arguing technical levels.What device is more advanced,one that can output 720p,or one that can output 1080p?

Keep in mind,this is not one of those threads where we argue preferences,and subjectivities.Just pure technical facts.And on a pure technical level,1080p>720p.Not even you can deny that....

He said consoles are technically superior than PCs,he got proven wrong,and now he has nowhere to go...

Such a terrible lie.

[QUOTE="Rocker6"]

[QUOTE="lowe0"] He's got a point... at 10 feet, the human eye can only resolve every pixel of 720p if it's on a 50 inch screen or larger. 1080p pushes that into the high 70 inch range.Zlychop

That point about distance does hold some water,even though some visual flaws still remain noticeable.But that's besides the point here...

We're arguing technical levels.What device is more advanced,one that can output 720p,or one that can output 1080p?

Keep in mind,this is not one of those threads where we argue preferences,and subjectivities.Just pure technical facts.And on a pure technical level,1080p>720p.Not even you can deny that....

He said consoles are technically superior than PCs,he got proven wrong,and now he has nowhere to go...

You don't understand.

Consoles are technically superior given that with what they have, hardware that doesn't change can rival even today's PC visuals.

PC hardware uses brute force to typically run games, whereas console games are coded technically to the metal (lowest level of assembly coding).

Hence why console games are in fact technically superior, if you have anything less than maybe a GTX 295 today, consoles will run games better.

And we already shown you that even aged X1950 and 7800 GTX can run today's games at console resolutions,and low-med settings...

I know what coding to metal is,and it takes a few years for devs to start implementing it.That is proved by observing the visual quality differences between launch console titles,and 2009+ console titles...

[QUOTE="Rocker6"]

[QUOTE="Zlychop"]

Were you punched in your head as a baby? Probably not, you just got beaten up by kids (repeated blows to your brain) growing up for being a punk.

640P at 10 ft = no visible differenceto the naked eye compared to 1080p

lowe0

So that's your argument? :lol:

Backpedaling much?

Oh well,at least you now admited consoles technically aren't nowhere near PC...

What's your next argument?

"Buh buh,I like art style in console games more"

Perhaps that? :lol:

Jaggies and blockiness are bigger than individual pixels. Blurriness is even more evident. If jaggies were as small as individual pixels, that'd be great.

[QUOTE="Zlychop"]

[QUOTE="lowe0"] He's got a point... at 10 feet, the human eye can only resolve every pixel of 720p if it's on a 50 inch screen or larger. 1080p pushes that into the high 70 inch range.Rocker6

This.

Sorry,Lowe cannot save you here,that in no way proves consoles are technically superior over PC ;)

[QUOTE="Zlychop"][QUOTE="Rocker6"]

That point about distance does hold some water,even though some visual flaws still remain noticeable.But that's besides the point here...

We're arguing technical levels.What device is more advanced,one that can output 720p,or one that can output 1080p?

Keep in mind,this is not one of those threads where we argue preferences,and subjectivities.Just pure technical facts.And on a pure technical level,1080p>720p.Not even you can deny that....

He said consoles are technically superior than PCs,he got proven wrong,and now he has nowhere to go...

gameofthering

Such a terrible lie.

Pretty good right?

All this for just a $200 console that has taken most of the PCs main games away and has been lasting since 2005 without a need for an upgrade.

Show me a graphics card from 2006 that would run todays games without any problems for $200.

Good luck.

[QUOTE="gameofthering"]

[QUOTE="Zlychop"] You don't understand. Consoles are technically superior given that with what they have, hardware that doesn't change can rival even today's PC visuals. PC hardware uses brute force to typically run games, whereas console gamers are coded technically to the metal. Hence why console games are in fact technically superior, if you have anything less than maybe a GTX 295 today, consoles will run games better.Zlychop

Such a terrible lie.

Pretty good right?

All this for just a $200 console that has taken most of the PCs main games away and has been lasting since 2005 without a need for an upgrade.

Show me a graphics card from 2006 that would run todays games without any problems for $200.

Good luck.

We get it, you are cheep, anything else you want to add?

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="lowe0"] Could you explain what part of my post was technically inaccurate?lowe0

Pulling random stats out of your ass is never accurate lowe0, everyone gets it you like technically inferior games. Its your opinion and you are entitled to it. Go you.

well try posting your facts? Would be the first time you ever did so.

[QUOTE="gameofthering"]

[QUOTE="Zlychop"] You don't understand. Consoles are technically superior given that with what they have, hardware that doesn't change can rival even today's PC visuals. PC hardware uses brute force to typically run games, whereas console gamers are coded technically to the metal. Hence why console games are in fact technically superior, if you have anything less than maybe a GTX 295 today, consoles will run games better.Zlychop

Such a terrible lie.

Pretty good right?

All this for just a $200 console that has taken most of the PCs main games away and has been lasting since 2005 without a need for an upgrade.

Show me a graphics card from 2006 that would run todays games without any problems for $200.

Good luck.

First of all,that is all compresed and downsampled.At such levels of downsampling,nearly all visual flaws are fixed,and you could basically match Minecraft to Crysis...

Second,the first two pics are clear bullshots...

Also,what does PC price has to do with anything?

Yes,upfront costs for PC harware are higher than console prices,but that in no way proves technical superiority...

Technically, consoles are pathetic compared with the PC. But what hurts the most, is how much more freedom and variety of gameplay there is on the PC.

[QUOTE="Rocker6"]

[QUOTE="Zlychop"]

This.

lowe0

Sorry,Lowe cannot save you here,that in no way proves consoles are technically superior over PC ;)

No worries,I'm sure our TC here will soon make a "Consoles are superior to the PC" thread,with some vague statements in the OP,where we can argue our personal preferences to death once again ;)

[QUOTE="Zlychop"]

[QUOTE="gameofthering"]

Such a terrible lie.

Rocker6

Pretty good right?

All this for just a $200 console that has taken most of the PCs main games away and has been lasting since 2005 without a need for an upgrade.

Show me a graphics card from 2006 that would run todays games without any problems for $200.

Good luck.

First of all,that is all compresed and downsampled.At such levels of downsampling,nearly all visual flaws are fixed,and you could basically match Minecraft to Crysis...

Second,the first two pics are clear bullshots...

Also,what does PC price has to do with anything?

Yes,upfront costs for PC harware are higher than console prices,but that in no way proves technical superiority...

Leave the cost stuff in, don't pander to the tralor trash, PC's cost more and thank god because it keeps PC games from becomming casual trash.

[QUOTE="gameofthering"]

[QUOTE="Zlychop"] You don't understand. Consoles are technically superior given that with what they have, hardware that doesn't change can rival even today's PC visuals. PC hardware uses brute force to typically run games, whereas console gamers are coded technically to the metal. Hence why console games are in fact technically superior, if you have anything less than maybe a GTX 295 today, consoles will run games better.Zlychop

Such a terrible lie.

Pretty good right?

All this for just a $200 console that has taken most of the PCs main games away and has been lasting since 2005 without a need for an upgrade.

Show me a graphics card from 2006 that would run todays games without any problems for $200.

Good luck.

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-8800-gt

Anything else?

For the record, Crysis came out in 2007 and on max settings it looks better than anything on consoles (not to mention mods). So as far as I'm concerned, every game from 2007 up till now on consoles has just been playing catch up. And those Halo visuals looks nice...for a console.

For $200 you can get a GTX 560Ti which will run laps around your Xbox 360 GPU.

[QUOTE="gameofthering"]

[QUOTE="Zlychop"] You don't understand. Consoles are technically superior given that with what they have, hardware that doesn't change can rival even today's PC visuals. PC hardware uses brute force to typically run games, whereas console gamers are coded technically to the metal. Hence why console games are in fact technically superior, if you have anything less than maybe a GTX 295 today, consoles will run games better.Zlychop

Such a terrible lie.

Pretty good right?

All this for just a $200 console that has taken most of the PCs main games away and has been lasting since 2005 without a need for an upgrade.

Show me a graphics card from 2006 that would run todays games without any problems for $200.

Good luck.

You can get a card for $200 that will run games better than consoles, but old cards from 2006 does not cost that much if you even can find them to buy. But yea consoles are good.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="Zlychop"] Console optimization can rival performance of a 2012 card, this is well known. Some games run the same on consoles as they do on PC, by console optimization. Halo 4, wait for it and be amazed by how close it looks to the top PC ttiles.Zlychop

Console cant even run games in proper HD, were you dropped on your head as a baby?

Were you punched in your head as a baby? Probably not, you just got beaten up by kids (repeated blows to your brain) growing up for being a punk.

:lol:

[QUOTE="gameofthering"]

[QUOTE="Zlychop"] You don't understand. Consoles are technically superior given that with what they have, hardware that doesn't change can rival even today's PC visuals. PC hardware uses brute force to typically run games, whereas console gamers are coded technically to the metal. Hence why console games are in fact technically superior, if you have anything less than maybe a GTX 295 today, consoles will run games better.Zlychop

Such a terrible lie.

Pretty good right?

All this for just a $200 console that has taken most of the PCs main games away and has been lasting since 2005 without a need for an upgrade.

Show me a graphics card from 2006 that would run todays games without any problems for $200.

Good luck.

[QUOTE="Zlychop"]

[QUOTE="gameofthering"]

[QUOTE="Zlychop"] You don't understand. Consoles are technically superior given that with what they have, hardware that doesn't change can rival even today's PC visuals. PC hardware uses brute force to typically run games, whereas console gamers are coded technically to the metal. Hence why console games are in fact technically superior, if you have anything less than maybe a GTX 295 today, consoles will run games better.Riadon2

Such a terrible lie.

Pretty good right?

All this for just a $200 console that has taken most of the PCs main games away and has been lasting since 2005 without a need for an upgrade.

Show me a graphics card from 2006 that would run todays games without any problems for $200.

Good luck.

Yeah,8800 GTX is an awesome card,my friend used his on a 1680x1050 monitor,had great results,most games would easily play on high,only without AA,and detailed shadows...

He replaced it last year with a 460 GTX,though,the fan died...

If you're not using any AA then why not just use FXAA on NVIDIA System Tools?

It has great results and almost no performance hit.

If you're not using any AA then why not just use FXAA on NVIDIA System Tools?

It has great results and almost no performance hit.

XVision84

[QUOTE="XVision84"]

If you're not using any AA then why not just use FXAA on NVIDIA System Tools?

It has great results and almost no performance hit.

Riadon2

I thought you can still update your System Tools to allow it.

Or use FXAA injector.

[QUOTE="Riadon2"][QUOTE="XVision84"]

If you're not using any AA then why not just use FXAA on NVIDIA System Tools?

It has great results and almost no performance hit.

XVision84

I thought you can still update your System Tools to allow it.

Or use FXAA injector.

[QUOTE="XVision84"]

[QUOTE="Riadon2"] FXAA didn't exist in 2007 lawl.Riadon2

I thought you can still update your System Tools to allow it.

Or use FXAA injector.

Well...yeah...I know that. I never said I was talking aout 2007, lol.

[QUOTE="lowe0"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Pulling random stats out of your ass is never accurate lowe0, everyone gets it you like technically inferior games. Its your opinion and you are entitled to it. Go you.

tenaka2

well try posting your facts? Would be the first time you ever did so.

[QUOTE="Zlychop"]

[QUOTE="gameofthering"]

Such a terrible lie.

Riadon2

Pretty good right?

All this for just a $200 console that has taken most of the PCs main games away and has been lasting since 2005 without a need for an upgrade.

Show me a graphics card from 2006 that would run todays games without any problems for $200.

Good luck.

Those are terrible screens of Crysis and Uncharted, those games did not look this ugly.

[QUOTE="Riadon2"][QUOTE="XVision84"]

I thought you can still update your System Tools to allow it.

Or use FXAA injector.

XVision84

Well...yeah...I know that. I never said I was talking aout 2007, lol.

FXAA was kind of in 2007, Crysis had AA that was blur, same as FXAA pretty much.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="lowe0"] It was hardly a random number; the resolving power of the human eye was exactly what was being discussed in the post I quoted. Furthermore, the resolving power of the human eye is a documented fact, not an opinion.

lowe0

well try posting your facts? Would be the first time you ever did so.

Yay, well done. first time for everything, doesnt help when you are sitting 2 feet from an lcd though :)

[QUOTE="Riadon2"][QUOTE="Zlychop"]

Pretty good right?

All this for just a $200 console that has taken most of the PCs main games away and has been lasting since 2005 without a need for an upgrade.

Show me a graphics card from 2006 that would run todays games without any problems for $200.

Good luck.

Zlychop

Those are terrible screens of Crysis and Uncharted, those games did not look this ugly.

[QUOTE="XVision84"]

[QUOTE="Riadon2"] Now you can... but FXAA didn't exist in 2007 at all.HaloinventedFPS

Well...yeah...I know that. I never said I was talking aout 2007, lol.

FXAA was kind of in 2007, Crysis had AA that was blur, same as FXAA pretty much.

[QUOTE="Zlychop"]

[QUOTE="Riadon2"] My old 8800 GTX was able to run Crysis at 30 fps at high settings in 1080p. Unlike your little bullshots and pc-run previews you like to prance around, my experience with Crysis was actually realtime and far superior to anything you could get on Vaseline-box. Terrible screens for both games, Crysis and Uncharted did not look that ugly. Here is a picture of the best looking console game: and here is a picture of unmodded Crysis with no AA at High settings: And that is how I played the game in 2007, tweaked Crysis and Metro 2033 and The witcher 2 look ridiculous on a single 8800 GTX.Riadon2

Those are terrible screens of Crysis and Uncharted, those games did not look this ugly.

[QUOTE="lowe0"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

well try posting your facts? Would be the first time you ever did so.

tenaka2

Yay, well done. first time for everything, doesnt help when you are sitting 2 feet from an lcd though :)

My old X1950XT could run some pretty good looking games. Not as nice looking as those, but it was held back by my Pentium 4.

Some vanilla crysis indoor shots to compare with the others:

Some vanilla crysis indoor shots to compare with the others:

jun_aka_pekto

Some vanilla crysis indoor shots to compare with the others:

[QUOTE="Zlychop"][QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

Some vanilla crysis indoor shots to compare with the others:

PinnacleGamingP

Wrong, Crysis on the 360 looks pretty similar to this.

It's indoors.

This is how Crysis really looks on very high settings.Zlychop

It could look better. But, I recall using only 2xAA when I took the screenshots.

[QUOTE="Zlychop"]

This is how Crysis really looks on very high settings.jun_aka_pekto

It could look better. But, I recall using only 2xAA when I took the screenshots.

Crysis interiors are very unremarkable.They still looked decent,but nowhere as impressive as open terrain...

That last carrier level is visually the most unimpressive part of the game...

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

[QUOTE="Zlychop"]

This is how Crysis really looks on very high settings.Rocker6

It could look better. But, I recall using only 2xAA when I took the screenshots.

Crysis interiors are very unremarkable.They still looked decent,but nowhere as impressive as open terrain...

That last carrier level is visually the most unimpressive part of the game...

That's true. I actually prefer the interiors of Crysis 2 better.

[QUOTE="Rocker6"]

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

It could look better. But, I recall using only 2xAA when I took the screenshots.

jun_aka_pekto

Crysis interiors are very unremarkable.They still looked decent,but nowhere as impressive as open terrain...

That last carrier level is visually the most unimpressive part of the game...

That's true. I actually prefer the interiors of Crysis 2 better.

Yeah...

Even though I prefer Crysis 1 over Crysis 2 as an overall game,Crysis 2 definitely had more attention to details,especially with MaldoHD mod...

[spoiler] My most impressive C2 interior was the part when your break into Hargreave's office,a great looking place! [/spoiler]

[QUOTE="Nanomage"]So many bullshots! :ocomptonst88

Instead of discussing only graphics.

Why don't we discuss the fact consoles can't match the PC in RTS / Large scale games :P

E.g

This Game!

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="lowe0"] I did. The resolving power of the human eye at 20/20 is 1 arc minute. From that, you can derive viewing distance or screen size for any given resolution. lowe0

Yay, well done. first time for everything, doesnt help when you are sitting 2 feet from an lcd though :)

Perhaps your point is again moot, and you should keep your bitterness and hatred for pc gamers where it belongs? In the person that has stopped you gaming.

[QUOTE="lowe0"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Yay, well done. first time for everything, doesnt help when you are sitting 2 feet from an lcd though :)

tenaka2

Perhaps your point is again moot, and you should keep your bitterness and hatred for pc gamers where it belongs? In the person that has stopped you gaming.

Wrong, Crysis on the 360 looks pretty similar to this.

It's indoors.

Zlychop

2 options, blind or stupid, take your choice.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="lowe0"] Perhaps instead of a provably false accusation, you should have simply said nothing at all? lowe0

Perhaps your point is again moot, and you should keep your bitterness and hatred for pc gamers where it belongs? In the person that has stopped you gaming.

Na it ok, crawl back into your regret hole, thread is fine.

Instead of discussing only graphics.

Why don't we discuss the fact consoles can't match the PC in RTS / Large scale games :P

E.g

This Game!

gameofthering

[QUOTE="gameofthering"]

Instead of discussing only graphics.

Why don't we discuss the fact consoles can't match the PC in RTS / Large scale games :P

E.g

This Game!

*SC2*

Grawse

They don't,they give PC an unfair advantage ;)

Instead of discussing only graphics.

Why don't we discuss the fact consoles can't match the PC in RTS / Large scale games :P

E.g

This Game!

[QUOTE="Riadon2"][QUOTE="Zlychop"]

Those are terrible screens of Crysis and Uncharted, those games did not look this ugly.

Zlychop

id say killzone 2 and 3 actually look better than crysis on the highest pc settings, hermits and lemmings use to say bu bu bu crysis is open world. which everyone now knows was not the case