This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="General_X"][QUOTE="slickchris7777"][QUOTE="General_X"]The 8600GT is a crap card, the HD 3850 is a much much better card for the about the same price.Bgrngod
The 3850 is twice the price...
The 512mb 8600GT is about $160-$180, the 256mb HD 3850 (still a better card) is about $170-$180 with the 512mb starting at $200.8600GT 512 at Newegg for $150
If you count the MIR its actually $130.
[QUOTE="General_X"][QUOTE="slickchris7777"][QUOTE="General_X"]The 8600GT is a crap card, the HD 3850 is a much much better card for the about the same price.Bgrngod
The 3850 is twice the price...
The 512mb 8600GT is about $160-$180, the 256mb HD 3850 (still a better card) is about $170-$180 with the 512mb starting at $200.8600GT 512 at Newegg for $150
3850 256 at Newegg for $185
3850 512 at Newegg for $230
3850 256 at Newegg for $169.993850 512 at Newegg for $199.99 For those prices you should never even consider an 8600 GT since the HD is such a better card, even if it is slightly more expensive.[QUOTE="Bgrngod"][QUOTE="General_X"][QUOTE="slickchris7777"][QUOTE="General_X"]The 8600GT is a crap card, the HD 3850 is a much much better card for the about the same price.General_X
The 3850 is twice the price...
The 512mb 8600GT is about $160-$180, the 256mb HD 3850 (still a better card) is about $170-$180 with the 512mb starting at $200.8600GT 512 at Newegg for $150
3850 256 at Newegg for $185
3850 512 at Newegg for $230
3850 256 at Newegg for $169.993850 512 at Newegg for $199.99 For those prices you should never even consider an 8600 GT since the HD is such a better card, even if it is slightly more expensive.Apparently I wasn't very thorough my first time searching Newegg:
8600GT 512MB at Newegg for $99
40%-50% cheaper price makes it a good option.
[QUOTE="General_X"][QUOTE="Bgrngod"][QUOTE="General_X"][QUOTE="slickchris7777"][QUOTE="General_X"]The 8600GT is a crap card, the HD 3850 is a much much better card for the about the same price.Bgrngod
The 3850 is twice the price...
The 512mb 8600GT is about $160-$180, the 256mb HD 3850 (still a better card) is about $170-$180 with the 512mb starting at $200.8600GT 512 at Newegg for $150
3850 256 at Newegg for $185
3850 512 at Newegg for $230
3850 256 at Newegg for $169.993850 512 at Newegg for $199.99 For those prices you should never even consider an 8600 GT since the HD is such a better card, even if it is slightly more expensive.Apparently I wasn't very thorough my first time searching Newegg:
8600GT 512MB at Newegg for $99
40%-50% cheaper price makes it a good option.
Unfortunately that is the DDR2 version which is slower than the DDR3, it is a good price though. But if you wanted to stick with DX9 I would reccomend the x1950 series over the 8600GT.$100 XFX 8600GTAnd 8600GT CAN'T use 512MB RAM,the 128-bit memory bus prevents use of more than 256MB VRAM.
$170 VisionTek HD 3850
Just because HD 3850 is a far betterDOESN'T mean that everyone can afford it,plus a lot of people here don't build their own PC's so they likely have some cheapo 300 watter or something in that range,and HD 3850 CAN'T run on a 300W PSU,8600GT CAN run on most 300W PSU's.
[QUOTE="Bgrngod"]Turn the resolution on the PC version of Bioshock down to match what the 360 is doing and a 7800GTX will outperform the 360. The360 runs in HD, butit onlyneeds to render at1280x720. The 7800GTX can chew through that resolution pretty well.
Polaris_choice
Um no it wont. It has dips in framerate and simply wont stay at a steady 30fps even at that res especially when dealing with about 3 enemies on screen at a time.
Well holy crap, what do ya know? A Gamespot hardware guide showing the 7600GT (a much lesser card then the 7800GTX) running Bioshock(1024x768, High Quality) at 25 FPS. The 7900 GS pushing 38 on the same settings. Rough guess that the 7800GTX will land in between the two, which would put it around 30+ fps.
[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Indestructible2"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Indestructible2"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="-AK47-"]I think the 360 and PS3 can produce graphics better than what a 8600gt can do.Indestructible2
Your actually right because they can. Look at 8600 benchmarks on games desgined for consoles? Um lost planet anyone? The thing is a slideshow. It all depends on the way the games were built and what platform they were built for a 8600gt will struggle on many console specifit titles.
Uh,Console to PC ports are usually POORLY optimized,if Capcom actually spent more time optimizing Lost Planet for PC,it would most likely run as good if not better than 360 on a 8600GT PC.Actually no it probably wouldnt as the 8600gt simply isnt that good of a card. And the fact is there not going to spend there time optmizing for a middle grade card hence another problem with pc gaming.
Not that good of a card? I can guarantee you if Capcom optimized Lost Planet more than it did,8600GT WOULD run it as good if not better than 360,and Gears of War,Bioshock and Call of Duty 4 DO run as good if not better than360 versions of those games on a 8600GT.Um then all you proved to me is you dont own either console . Look up the benchmarks of Cod4 for a 8600gt or listen to the several kids that own the GPU. Not only does that game not run cod4 as good as the PS3 and 360 versions it doesnt look as good either . Putting it on max quality stomps the framerate. Sorry but you are proving you have no clue what your talking about.
*Sighs* I'm not gonna bother wasting my time with you.If you are gonna argue that the 8600gt is better then either the PS3 or 360 then dont waste your time with me because its simply an argument you are not gonna win as every benchmark proves it false.
[QUOTE="Indestructible2"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Indestructible2"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Indestructible2"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="-AK47-"]I think the 360 and PS3 can produce graphics better than what a 8600gt can do.Polaris_choice
Your actually right because they can. Look at 8600 benchmarks on games desgined for consoles? Um lost planet anyone? The thing is a slideshow. It all depends on the way the games were built and what platform they were built for a 8600gt will struggle on many console specifit titles.
Uh,Console to PC ports are usually POORLY optimized,if Capcom actually spent more time optimizing Lost Planet for PC,it would most likely run as good if not better than 360 on a 8600GT PC.Actually no it probably wouldnt as the 8600gt simply isnt that good of a card. And the fact is there not going to spend there time optmizing for a middle grade card hence another problem with pc gaming.
Not that good of a card? I can guarantee you if Capcom optimized Lost Planet more than it did,8600GT WOULD run it as good if not better than 360,and Gears of War,Bioshock and Call of Duty 4 DO run as good if not better than360 versions of those games on a 8600GT.Um then all you proved to me is you dont own either console . Look up the benchmarks of Cod4 for a 8600gt or listen to the several kids that own the GPU. Not only does that game not run cod4 as good as the PS3 and 360 versions it doesnt look as good either . Putting it on max quality stomps the framerate. Sorry but you are proving you have no clue what your talking about.
*Sighs* I'm not gonna bother wasting my time with you.If you are gonna argue that the 8600gt is better then either the PS3 or 360 then dont waste your time with me because its simply an argument you are not gonna win as every benchmark proves it false.
Ok smartass,SHOW me these 'benchmarks' of yours,and Gamespot benchmarks are inaccurate so they DON'T count.[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Bgrngod"]
Turn the resolution on the PC version of Bioshock down to match what the 360 is doing and a 7800GTX will outperform the 360. The360 runs in HD, butit onlyneeds to render at1280x720. The 7800GTX can chew through that resolution pretty well.
Bgrngod
Um no it wont. It has dips in framerate and simply wont stay at a steady 30fps even at that res especially when dealing with about 3 enemies on screen at a time.
Well holy crap, what do ya know? A Gamespot hardware guide showing the 7600GT (a much lesser card then the 7800GTX) running Bioshock(1024x768, High Quality) at 25 FPS. The 7900 GS pushing 38 on the same settings. Rough guess that the 7800GTX will land in between the two, which would put it around 30+ fps.
Yes and thats at a slightly lower resolution then what the 360 does it at.The problem witht he 7800gtx is it has dips below 30fps( that become quite noticeable with multiple enemies on screen at a time. The 360 has no noticeable dips throughout the game. This was on a system with a gig of ram though but I think the memory should have been sufficent.
[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Indestructible2"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Indestructible2"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Indestructible2"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="-AK47-"]I think the 360 and PS3 can produce graphics better than what a 8600gt can do.Indestructible2
Your actually right because they can. Look at 8600 benchmarks on games desgined for consoles? Um lost planet anyone? The thing is a slideshow. It all depends on the way the games were built and what platform they were built for a 8600gt will struggle on many console specifit titles.
Uh,Console to PC ports are usually POORLY optimized,if Capcom actually spent more time optimizing Lost Planet for PC,it would most likely run as good if not better than 360 on a 8600GT PC.Actually no it probably wouldnt as the 8600gt simply isnt that good of a card. And the fact is there not going to spend there time optmizing for a middle grade card hence another problem with pc gaming.
Not that good of a card? I can guarantee you if Capcom optimized Lost Planet more than it did,8600GT WOULD run it as good if not better than 360,and Gears of War,Bioshock and Call of Duty 4 DO run as good if not better than360 versions of those games on a 8600GT.Um then all you proved to me is you dont own either console . Look up the benchmarks of Cod4 for a 8600gt or listen to the several kids that own the GPU. Not only does that game not run cod4 as good as the PS3 and 360 versions it doesnt look as good either . Putting it on max quality stomps the framerate. Sorry but you are proving you have no clue what your talking about.
*Sighs* I'm not gonna bother wasting my time with you.If you are gonna argue that the 8600gt is better then either the PS3 or 360 then dont waste your time with me because its simply an argument you are not gonna win as every benchmark proves it false.
Ok smartass,SHOW me these 'benchmarks' of yours,and Gamespot benchmarks are inaccurate so they DON'T count.Um why are gamespots benchmarks inaccurate? Because they prove my point? The 8600gt isnt better then either the PS3 or 360 even on multiplats that werent built ground up for consoles. Its a budget card and the fact anyone is arguing this is laugable. If you want better peformance step it up to a 8800gt.
[QUOTE="Indestructible2"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Indestructible2"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Indestructible2"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Indestructible2"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="-AK47-"]I think the 360 and PS3 can produce graphics better than what a 8600gt can do.Polaris_choice
Your actually right because they can. Look at 8600 benchmarks on games desgined for consoles? Um lost planet anyone? The thing is a slideshow. It all depends on the way the games were built and what platform they were built for a 8600gt will struggle on many console specifit titles.
Uh,Console to PC ports are usually POORLY optimized,if Capcom actually spent more time optimizing Lost Planet for PC,it would most likely run as good if not better than 360 on a 8600GT PC.Actually no it probably wouldnt as the 8600gt simply isnt that good of a card. And the fact is there not going to spend there time optmizing for a middle grade card hence another problem with pc gaming.
Not that good of a card? I can guarantee you if Capcom optimized Lost Planet more than it did,8600GT WOULD run it as good if not better than 360,and Gears of War,Bioshock and Call of Duty 4 DO run as good if not better than360 versions of those games on a 8600GT.Um then all you proved to me is you dont own either console . Look up the benchmarks of Cod4 for a 8600gt or listen to the several kids that own the GPU. Not only does that game not run cod4 as good as the PS3 and 360 versions it doesnt look as good either . Putting it on max quality stomps the framerate. Sorry but you are proving you have no clue what your talking about.
*Sighs* I'm not gonna bother wasting my time with you.If you are gonna argue that the 8600gt is better then either the PS3 or 360 then dont waste your time with me because its simply an argument you are not gonna win as every benchmark proves it false.
Ok smartass,SHOW me these 'benchmarks' of yours,and Gamespot benchmarks are inaccurate so they DON'T count.Um why are gamespots benchmarks inaccurate? Because they prove my point? The 8600gt isnt better then either the PS3 or 360 even on multiplats that werent built ground up for consoles. Its a budget card and the fact anyone is arguing this is laugable. If you want better peformance step it up to a 8800gt.
ZOMGZ! GAMESPOT BENCHIES ARE ACCURATE JUST BECAUSE EVERY SITE THAT DOES BENCHMARKS IS ACCURATE! LULZ!!!!Give me proof that GS benchies ARE accurate :|
Go type in the benchmarks in a google search about 40fps is accurate for a 8600gts . Considering we go by Gamespots word here( it is there forum after all) ill leave it to you to prove to me that they are not accurate. I already have a source verifying that im correct and all you can say is there not accurate? Without even posting anything to prove otherwise? Polaris_choiceYou know what,you win,i'm a n00b,you're a god,GS is accurate,every other benchie site is worth ****.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2975&p=3Bebi_vegeta
What does showing benchmark of Fear have to do with anything? The console versions are badly optimzed ports not even made by the original company. Any game that is outsourced to someone else almsot always ends up being trash( that goes for any platform) And Fears visuals are average comapred to PS3 and 360 titles.
I think people miss the point. A video card cannot max outa game by itself or even play one for that matter. Sure if you already have a gaming PC where everything is good for gaming except the graphics card then sure buying a 8600GT makes sense if you are on a budget. However if you need the whole package then you can end up spending upwards of $1000 if you don't build or $600 and up even if you do. Now I know someone would disagree with me and try tocome up with figures that they would claim is less than $600 and can max out new games, but please don't bother. Those same people are the ones who claimed a 320MB 8800GTS would max out Crysis on direct X 10 settings which I am sure many people have found out is not the case. An advantage consoles have is a single standard for all consoles so you know each console will always play a certain game the best it possibly can. If you have an average PC like most people plopping a new graphics card in is not going to change anything. You need the RAM and processor to keep up with it if you want to see anything above a minimal performance increase. It makes sense for the majority of those people who do not want to spend $2000 or more on high-end pre-built PC or don't know howor don't wantto build a new PC to buy a console that can cost below $400. If anyone wants to debate which is the gaming king the PC or the console, well it comes down to what the average consumer buys and right now consoles are winning.ChevelleFan
How do you determine a winner when you have no evidence and you're only guessing. Console don't play at the best possibly can since thay have no options, PC can play even better or even lower... you play at a level that you feel is right for you.
What can you do when a game on console lag? nothing, your stuck with what you have.
[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2975&p=3Polaris_choice
What does showing benchmark of Fear have to do with anything? The console versions are badly optimzed ports not even made by the original company. Any game that is outsourced to someone else almsot always ends up being trash( that goes for any platform) And Fears visuals are average comapred to PS3 and 360 titles.
Aren't we comparing 7900GS that's near console video card power VS 8600GT?
[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2975&p=3Bebi_vegeta
What does showing benchmark of Fear have to do with anything? The console versions are badly optimzed ports not even made by the original company. Any game that is outsourced to someone else almsot always ends up being trash( that goes for any platform) And Fears visuals are average comapred to PS3 and 360 titles.
Aren't we comparing 7900GS that's near console video card power VS 8600GT?
No we are comparing a 8600gt vs consoles. A 7900gs also gets beat by both the PS3 and 360 in many multiplat games as well. As proof shows the later games that come out are looking better and running worse on older pc hardware yet running better on console hardware.( example consoles werent running Fear very well but they run Cod4 much better and its a far more technically impressive game)
[QUOTE="ChevelleFan"]I think people miss the point. A video card cannot max outa game by itself or even play one for that matter. Sure if you already have a gaming PC where everything is good for gaming except the graphics card then sure buying a 8600GT makes sense if you are on a budget. However if you need the whole package then you can end up spending upwards of $1000 if you don't build or $600 and up even if you do. Now I know someone would disagree with me and try tocome up with figures that they would claim is less than $600 and can max out new games, but please don't bother. Those same people are the ones who claimed a 320MB 8800GTS would max out Crysis on direct X 10 settings which I am sure many people have found out is not the case. An advantage consoles have is a single standard for all consoles so you know each console will always play a certain game the best it possibly can. If you have an average PC like most people plopping a new graphics card in is not going to change anything. You need the RAM and processor to keep up with it if you want to see anything above a minimal performance increase. It makes sense for the majority of those people who do not want to spend $2000 or more on high-end pre-built PC or don't know howor don't wantto build a new PC to buy a console that can cost below $400. If anyone wants to debate which is the gaming king the PC or the console, well it comes down to what the average consumer buys and right now consoles are winning.Bebi_vegeta
How do you determine a winner when you have no evidence and you're only guessing. Console don't play at the best possibly can since thay have no options, PC can play even better or even lower... you play at a level that you feel is right for you.
What can you do when a game on console lag? nothing, your stuck with what you have.
Yes your stuck witth a stable framerate and a game that is guranteed to play. The fact is Cod4, Bioshock and many of the other games we have named or run at the default high settings of its pc counterparts hence the reason we are doing fair comparisons seeing what the pc runs with the same effects as its console counterpart
[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2975&p=3Polaris_choice
What does showing benchmark of Fear have to do with anything? The console versions are badly optimzed ports not even made by the original company. Any game that is outsourced to someone else almsot always ends up being trash( that goes for any platform) And Fears visuals are average comapred to PS3 and 360 titles.
Aren't we comparing 7900GS that's near console video card power VS 8600GT?
No we are comparing a 8600gt vs consoles. A 7900gs also gets beat by both the PS3 and 360 in many multiplat games as well. As proof shows the later games that come out are looking better and running worse on older pc hardware yet running better on console hardware.( example consoles werent running Fear very well but they run Cod4 much better and its a far more technically impressive game)
WHAT!!!! Everybody know's that a PS3 has a 7800GTX.
I want proof of this COD4 running better on consoles.
[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="ChevelleFan"]I think people miss the point. A video card cannot max outa game by itself or even play one for that matter. Sure if you already have a gaming PC where everything is good for gaming except the graphics card then sure buying a 8600GT makes sense if you are on a budget. However if you need the whole package then you can end up spending upwards of $1000 if you don't build or $600 and up even if you do. Now I know someone would disagree with me and try tocome up with figures that they would claim is less than $600 and can max out new games, but please don't bother. Those same people are the ones who claimed a 320MB 8800GTS would max out Crysis on direct X 10 settings which I am sure many people have found out is not the case. An advantage consoles have is a single standard for all consoles so you know each console will always play a certain game the best it possibly can. If you have an average PC like most people plopping a new graphics card in is not going to change anything. You need the RAM and processor to keep up with it if you want to see anything above a minimal performance increase. It makes sense for the majority of those people who do not want to spend $2000 or more on high-end pre-built PC or don't know howor don't wantto build a new PC to buy a console that can cost below $400. If anyone wants to debate which is the gaming king the PC or the console, well it comes down to what the average consumer buys and right now consoles are winning.Polaris_choice
How do you determine a winner when you have no evidence and you're only guessing. Console don't play at the best possibly can since thay have no options, PC can play even better or even lower... you play at a level that you feel is right for you.
What can you do when a game on console lag? nothing, your stuck with what you have.
Yes your stuck witth a stable framerate and a game that is guranteed to play. The fact is Cod4, Bioshock and many of the other games we have named or run at the default high settings of its pc counterparts hence the reason we are doing fair comparisons seeing what the pc runs with the same effects as its console counterpart
From gamespot for COD4 " The PC version has the ability to run in a higher resolution, if you're equipped with a PC that can handle it, but it seems to scale quite well. You can also create servers that allow up to 32 players to play at once on the PC, as opposed to a limit of 18 in the console versions"
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/callofduty4modernwarfare/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary%3Breview&page=2
Man f*** gamespot I just wrote a whole frickin response that would clear up any confusion to my post but now gamespot glitched out a deleted everything I wrote which was like a couple paragraphs long. I won't bother with the whole response again but here it is in short form.
1. I know that saying consoles are winning is just my opinion and I just got it from what I hear and see everyday.
2. I never claimed a winner hence "winning."
3. Consoles are standardized so that the game will run the same on anyone's console.
4. The game will work as best it can according to how the developer programmed the game to work on the console. This does not mean that the console will play on the equivalent of max settings in game that is also on the PC.
5. Console is more cost effective for someone who would otherwisehave to buy a new PC.
I know I said more stuff but anyway I don't see how anyone could tear my comment apart. I mean everything I said besides consoles are winning is true to a certain extent.
[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2975&p=3Bebi_vegeta
What does showing benchmark of Fear have to do with anything? The console versions are badly optimzed ports not even made by the original company. Any game that is outsourced to someone else almsot always ends up being trash( that goes for any platform) And Fears visuals are average comapred to PS3 and 360 titles.
Aren't we comparing 7900GS that's near console video card power VS 8600GT?
No we are comparing a 8600gt vs consoles. A 7900gs also gets beat by both the PS3 and 360 in many multiplat games as well. As proof shows the later games that come out are looking better and running worse on older pc hardware yet running better on console hardware.( example consoles werent running Fear very well but they run Cod4 much better and its a far more technically impressive game)
WHAT!!!! Everybody know's that a PS3 has a 7800GTX.
I want proof of this COD4 running better on consoles.
Um no a PS3 does not just have a 7800gtx init. The RSX has superior shader peformance and pulls from 2 seprate memory pools it also has a processor in it that assist with rendering visuals which is the reason it would outpeform any pc with a 7800gtx in it if the developer had any clue of what he is doing.
[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="ChevelleFan"]I think people miss the point. A video card cannot max outa game by itself or even play one for that matter. Sure if you already have a gaming PC where everything is good for gaming except the graphics card then sure buying a 8600GT makes sense if you are on a budget. However if you need the whole package then you can end up spending upwards of $1000 if you don't build or $600 and up even if you do. Now I know someone would disagree with me and try tocome up with figures that they would claim is less than $600 and can max out new games, but please don't bother. Those same people are the ones who claimed a 320MB 8800GTS would max out Crysis on direct X 10 settings which I am sure many people have found out is not the case. An advantage consoles have is a single standard for all consoles so you know each console will always play a certain game the best it possibly can. If you have an average PC like most people plopping a new graphics card in is not going to change anything. You need the RAM and processor to keep up with it if you want to see anything above a minimal performance increase. It makes sense for the majority of those people who do not want to spend $2000 or more on high-end pre-built PC or don't know howor don't wantto build a new PC to buy a console that can cost below $400. If anyone wants to debate which is the gaming king the PC or the console, well it comes down to what the average consumer buys and right now consoles are winning.Bebi_vegeta
How do you determine a winner when you have no evidence and you're only guessing. Console don't play at the best possibly can since thay have no options, PC can play even better or even lower... you play at a level that you feel is right for you.
What can you do when a game on console lag? nothing, your stuck with what you have.
Yes your stuck witth a stable framerate and a game that is guranteed to play. The fact is Cod4, Bioshock and many of the other games we have named or run at the default high settings of its pc counterparts hence the reason we are doing fair comparisons seeing what the pc runs with the same effects as its console counterpart
From gamespot for COD4 " The PC version has the ability to run in a higher resolution, if you're equipped with a PC that can handle it, but it seems to scale quite well. You can also create servers that allow up to 32 players to play at once on the PC, as opposed to a limit of 18 in the console versions"
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/callofduty4modernwarfare/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary%3Breview&page=2
Do we not know how to look at gamespots pc hardware guide where they show the resolution and settings they run the game on and the framerate they recevied while running it on those settings. The pc version even ona 8600gt card only hits at 40fps and thats running at an equilvent resolution to its console counter parts. Both the console versions run at 60 fps. Its not untill you get into the 8800gt and ATI equivlents untill the pc version starts running it better.
But the 7900gs,8600gt and 7800gtx arent even close sorry look at gamespots very own benchmarks for futher proof.
In the end you can achive alot more with consoles then you can with pc.
Take the PS2. Back when it launched you had games like Timesplitters, Tekken Tag and Quake 3. Then now you have games like GOW2, FF12, MGS3 etc. Which are huge jumps in graphics compared to what the launch games looked like.
Then take a PC from 2000 with a Geforce 3 or a radeon 8000 series, sure the games it ran back then looked great but 6-7 years later it couldn't have ran anything of the new games. And the last "new" games it could have runed at a decent fps and with high setting would still not have been as big of a leap as with the PS2 games.
trasherhead
a geforce 3 can run farcry and hl2 can ps2? no. and a geforce 3 can run the new nfs games. and then you have to consider the many of the great looking ps3 games are running in resolutions below 640 x480. a gpu with the same power as ps3's will do just as much as ps3 ever will just you will need more ram
[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2975&p=3Polaris_choice
What does showing benchmark of Fear have to do with anything? The console versions are badly optimzed ports not even made by the original company. Any game that is outsourced to someone else almsot always ends up being trash( that goes for any platform) And Fears visuals are average comapred to PS3 and 360 titles.
Aren't we comparing 7900GS that's near console video card power VS 8600GT?
No we are comparing a 8600gt vs consoles. A 7900gs also gets beat by both the PS3 and 360 in many multiplat games as well. As proof shows the later games that come out are looking better and running worse on older pc hardware yet running better on console hardware.( example consoles werent running Fear very well but they run Cod4 much better and its a far more technically impressive game)
WHAT!!!! Everybody know's that a PS3 has a 7800GTX.
I want proof of this COD4 running better on consoles.
Um no a PS3 does not just have a 7800gtx init. The RSX has superior shader peformance and pulls from 2 seprate memory pools it also has a processor in it that assist with rendering visuals which is the reason it would outpeform any pc with a 7800gtx in it if the developer had any clue of what he is doing.
Pull from 2 different memory... creates latency problemes.
Anyway you talk but you bring no proof... so anything you say is worthless arguments.
[QUOTE="RevenMan"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"]so explain how consoles are so great because they don't have to be upgraded when the gf 8600gt can run bioshock maxed out @ 1280 x 800? not to mention cod4 600p on console 8600gt maxed @1280 x 800
so cows lems whats your excluse now? and btw that card is under $100 and is also in laptops so why are ps3/x360 so huge when you can get more grpahical performance in 15" laptops which are no bigger than the wii if you look at them without the monitor
Ramadear
You still don't understand do you? I'l try to be as simple as I can so you can undestand it. Can i play Ninja Gaiden 2 on the pc? Can I play mass effect on the pc? Can I play Fable 2 on the pc? Can I play forza 2 on the pc? Can I play Street Fighter 4 on the pc? The point is that while the pc has alot of great games so do the console and some genres are better suited for depending on wich platform they are.
Well that preatty much sums up my point. But don't wory like always pc games will look better than console games so you can be happy and look at the preatty graphics if you have the right amount of cash.
I'm pretty sure Mass Effect, Street fighter 4 and maybe Fable 2 will come to PC. Did you know? The pictures of Street Fighter 4 was running off a PC build. Anyhow, to the guy saying a Geforce 8600gt>consoles. Its greater than Wii but thats about it. The card blows and don't listen to the guys saying they can run Crysis at high and medium detail with this card. Thing is YOU CAN turn the graphics up that high but what they don't tell you is the FPS they are getting which is probably like 10fps or something crappy. If they can't tell the difference between 10fps and 30fps+ then thats their buisness but don't come here telling everyone else that **** card plays the game fine because it doesn't.
the 8600gt can run crysis on medium with around 30fps but geow/ bioshcok cod 4 it can run more than 30fps maxed out
[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="ChevelleFan"]I think people miss the point. A video card cannot max outa game by itself or even play one for that matter. Sure if you already have a gaming PC where everything is good for gaming except the graphics card then sure buying a 8600GT makes sense if you are on a budget. However if you need the whole package then you can end up spending upwards of $1000 if you don't build or $600 and up even if you do. Now I know someone would disagree with me and try tocome up with figures that they would claim is less than $600 and can max out new games, but please don't bother. Those same people are the ones who claimed a 320MB 8800GTS would max out Crysis on direct X 10 settings which I am sure many people have found out is not the case. An advantage consoles have is a single standard for all consoles so you know each console will always play a certain game the best it possibly can. If you have an average PC like most people plopping a new graphics card in is not going to change anything. You need the RAM and processor to keep up with it if you want to see anything above a minimal performance increase. It makes sense for the majority of those people who do not want to spend $2000 or more on high-end pre-built PC or don't know howor don't wantto build a new PC to buy a console that can cost below $400. If anyone wants to debate which is the gaming king the PC or the console, well it comes down to what the average consumer buys and right now consoles are winning.Polaris_choice
How do you determine a winner when you have no evidence and you're only guessing. Console don't play at the best possibly can since thay have no options, PC can play even better or even lower... you play at a level that you feel is right for you.
What can you do when a game on console lag? nothing, your stuck with what you have.
Yes your stuck witth a stable framerate and a game that is guranteed to play. The fact is Cod4, Bioshock and many of the other games we have named or run at the default high settings of its pc counterparts hence the reason we are doing fair comparisons seeing what the pc runs with the same effects as its console counterpart
From gamespot for COD4 " The PC version has the ability to run in a higher resolution, if you're equipped with a PC that can handle it, but it seems to scale quite well. You can also create servers that allow up to 32 players to play at once on the PC, as opposed to a limit of 18 in the console versions"
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/callofduty4modernwarfare/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary%3Breview&page=2
Do we not know how to look at gamespots pc hardware guide where they show the resolution and settings they run the game on and the framerate they recevied while running it on those settings. The pc version even ona 8600gt card only hits at 40fps and thats running at an equilvent resolution to its console counter parts. Both the console versions run at 60 fps. Its not untill you get into the 8800gt and ATI equivlents untill the pc version starts running it better.
But the 7900gs,8600gt and 7800gtx arent even close sorry look at gamespots very own benchmarks for futher proof.
8600GT is a budget card for gaming... and for a lower price the HD2600XT is better.
The thing PC people never get is a console can run games with good graphics with less then a PC can because a PC has allot going on in the back-round. Consoles are built for one thing and one thing only games. Devs can optimize a game better on a console better because there is only one configuration. Xbox360, PS3, Wii a PC can have so-many configuration due to different Proc Mem Video cards sound cards and more so it is harder for a Dev to optimize a game for the PC.blasto65_basic
the only think you need more of in a pc is ram. the same gpu can do just as much in a pc or console since the os doesn't use the gpu
[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2975&p=3Bebi_vegeta
What does showing benchmark of Fear have to do with anything? The console versions are badly optimzed ports not even made by the original company. Any game that is outsourced to someone else almsot always ends up being trash( that goes for any platform) And Fears visuals are average comapred to PS3 and 360 titles.
Aren't we comparing 7900GS that's near console video card power VS 8600GT?
No we are comparing a 8600gt vs consoles. A 7900gs also gets beat by both the PS3 and 360 in many multiplat games as well. As proof shows the later games that come out are looking better and running worse on older pc hardware yet running better on console hardware.( example consoles werent running Fear very well but they run Cod4 much better and its a far more technically impressive game)
WHAT!!!! Everybody know's that a PS3 has a 7800GTX.
I want proof of this COD4 running better on consoles.
Um no a PS3 does not just have a 7800gtx init. The RSX has superior shader peformance and pulls from 2 seprate memory pools it also has a processor in it that assist with rendering visuals which is the reason it would outpeform any pc with a 7800gtx in it if the developer had any clue of what he is doing.
Pull from 2 different memory... creates latency problemes.
Anyway you talk but you bring no proof... so anything you say is worthless arguments.
Um no im simply stating facts http://www.gamespot.com/features/6183967/index.html and that futher proves my point click on the benchmarks to prove otherwise. Your precious 7900gs ( which you claim is as capable as a PS3) is getting a ripping 25 fps while the PS3 version runs at 60fps.
Your a lost cause Babi_Vegeta. You can't get past your PC fanboyism so you are quick to attack anyone who disagrees with you. ChevelleFan
What are you even talking about? Just because I disagree i'm a fanboy? Nice logic.
I'm asking for proof, but nobody is giving me anything.
[QUOTE="blasto65_basic"]The thing PC people never get is a console can run games with good graphics with less then a PC can because a PC has allot going on in the back-round. Consoles are built for one thing and one thing only games. Devs can optimize a game better on a console better because there is only one configuration. Xbox360, PS3, Wii a PC can have so-many configuration due to different Proc Mem Video cards sound cards and more so it is harder for a Dev to optimize a game for the PC.imprezawrx500
the only think you need more of in a pc is ram. the same gpu can do just as much in a pc or console since the os doesn't use the gpu
there is no GPU out on the pc that is exaclty like its console counterpats and in the case of the PS3 its architecture is completely differnt. You cant just pick out a certain gpu and say"thiswill look as good as any console with more ram "it simply holds no water as the wide differnce in peformance among differnt games show.
Many people aren't understanding the fact that in new games the 8600GT is better than the 7900GTX. Keep in mind that the PS3 has a 7800GTX with 128bit memory bandwidth. If you want to see evidence go to the PC section an see the C0D4 and UT3 performance guides. This is the way hardware always is in the tech world. As games become more shader intensive the GPU's in the PS3 and Xbox360 will start to show their age. BTW they are already showing it.
Deathbourn
exactly, games build prior to unified shaders gpus don't run too well on the 8600gt but ones from the last year run better on it than 7900s. in just about every game now it beats the 7900gs but a fiar amount and often beats the gtx
[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2975&p=3Polaris_choice
What does showing benchmark of Fear have to do with anything? The console versions are badly optimzed ports not even made by the original company. Any game that is outsourced to someone else almsot always ends up being trash( that goes for any platform) And Fears visuals are average comapred to PS3 and 360 titles.
Aren't we comparing 7900GS that's near console video card power VS 8600GT?
No we are comparing a 8600gt vs consoles. A 7900gs also gets beat by both the PS3 and 360 in many multiplat games as well. As proof shows the later games that come out are looking better and running worse on older pc hardware yet running better on console hardware.( example consoles werent running Fear very well but they run Cod4 much better and its a far more technically impressive game)
WHAT!!!! Everybody know's that a PS3 has a 7800GTX.
I want proof of this COD4 running better on consoles.
Um no a PS3 does not just have a 7800gtx init. The RSX has superior shader peformance and pulls from 2 seprate memory pools it also has a processor in it that assist with rendering visuals which is the reason it would outpeform any pc with a 7800gtx in it if the developer had any clue of what he is doing.
Pull from 2 different memory... creates latency problemes.
Anyway you talk but you bring no proof... so anything you say is worthless arguments.
Um no im simply stating facts http://www.gamespot.com/features/6183967/index.html and that futher proves my point click on the benchmarks to prove otherwise. Your precious 7900gs ( which you claim is as capable as a PS3) is getting a ripping 25 fps while the PS3 version runs at 60fps.
Is that with or without AA? hmmmmm
[QUOTE="Ramadear"][QUOTE="RevenMan"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"]so explain how consoles are so great because they don't have to be upgraded when the gf 8600gt can run bioshock maxed out @ 1280 x 800? not to mention cod4 600p on console 8600gt maxed @1280 x 800
so cows lems whats your excluse now? and btw that card is under $100 and is also in laptops so why are ps3/x360 so huge when you can get more grpahical performance in 15" laptops which are no bigger than the wii if you look at them without the monitor
imprezawrx500
You still don't understand do you? I'l try to be as simple as I can so you can undestand it. Can i play Ninja Gaiden 2 on the pc? Can I play mass effect on the pc? Can I play Fable 2 on the pc? Can I play forza 2 on the pc? Can I play Street Fighter 4 on the pc? The point is that while the pc has alot of great games so do the console and some genres are better suited for depending on wich platform they are.
Well that preatty much sums up my point. But don't wory like always pc games will look better than console games so you can be happy and look at the preatty graphics if you have the right amount of cash.
I'm pretty sure Mass Effect, Street fighter 4 and maybe Fable 2 will come to PC. Did you know? The pictures of Street Fighter 4 was running off a PC build. Anyhow, to the guy saying a Geforce 8600gt>consoles. Its greater than Wii but thats about it. The card blows and don't listen to the guys saying they can run Crysis at high and medium detail with this card. Thing is YOU CAN turn the graphics up that high but what they don't tell you is the FPS they are getting which is probably like 10fps or something crappy. If they can't tell the difference between 10fps and 30fps+ then thats their buisness but don't come here telling everyone else that **** card plays the game fine because it doesn't.
the 8600gt can run crysis on medium with around 30fps but geow/ bioshcok cod 4 it can run more than 30fps maxed out
Medium at 800x600? Then sure. But of course that quality is below trash. Please stop trying to make it seem like the 8600gt is a good card, you are only hurting other people who don't know much about PCs.
[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2975&p=3Bebi_vegeta
What does showing benchmark of Fear have to do with anything? The console versions are badly optimzed ports not even made by the original company. Any game that is outsourced to someone else almsot always ends up being trash( that goes for any platform) And Fears visuals are average comapred to PS3 and 360 titles.
Aren't we comparing 7900GS that's near console video card power VS 8600GT?
No we are comparing a 8600gt vs consoles. A 7900gs also gets beat by both the PS3 and 360 in many multiplat games as well. As proof shows the later games that come out are looking better and running worse on older pc hardware yet running better on console hardware.( example consoles werent running Fear very well but they run Cod4 much better and its a far more technically impressive game)
WHAT!!!! Everybody know's that a PS3 has a 7800GTX.
I want proof of this COD4 running better on consoles.
Um no a PS3 does not just have a 7800gtx init. The RSX has superior shader peformance and pulls from 2 seprate memory pools it also has a processor in it that assist with rendering visuals which is the reason it would outpeform any pc with a 7800gtx in it if the developer had any clue of what he is doing.
Pull from 2 different memory... creates latency problemes.
Anyway you talk but you bring no proof... so anything you say is worthless arguments.
Um no im simply stating facts http://www.gamespot.com/features/6183967/index.html and that futher proves my point click on the benchmarks to prove otherwise. Your precious 7900gs ( which you claim is as capable as a PS3) is getting a ripping 25 fps while the PS3 version runs at 60fps.
Is that with or without AA? hmmmmm
Um thats with but the PS3 is doing 4x AA and so is the 360 version so what is your point?
Ya too bad I can't have 3 friends over playing splitscreen on a 50in TV with that card while sitting on a couch 10 feet away sipping on Mountain Dew. Hermits just don't get it :roll:
TheWalrusBeast
yeah ok consoles have splitscreen (but its on life support) but you can play pc games sitting on the couch but that's not the argument
Graphics wise I think PC's are better.I prefer my pc for fps games and rts games...but I cant imagine playing games like GoW,GoWII,DMC,mgs on the pc,when it comes to fun,consoles are pc's are just about equal...
[QUOTE="ChevelleFan"]Your a lost cause Babi_Vegeta. You can't get past your PC fanboyism so you are quick to attack anyone who disagrees with you. Bebi_vegeta
What are you even talking about? Just because I disagree i'm a fanboy? Nice logic.
I'm asking for proof, but nobody is giving me anything.
What proof do you need? This topic makes no sense at all. Comparing a entry level DX10 card to a console is not a very logical comparison. You want proof? Look at the benchmarks. What it reallyall comes down to in this topic is PC vs console. In my posts you are quick to comment pointing out the flaws in consoles. Whenever someone points out the cons of the PC you are quick to dismiss it. Is this not fanboyish?
[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2975&p=3Polaris_choice
What does showing benchmark of Fear have to do with anything? The console versions are badly optimzed ports not even made by the original company. Any game that is outsourced to someone else almsot always ends up being trash( that goes for any platform) And Fears visuals are average comapred to PS3 and 360 titles.
Aren't we comparing 7900GS that's near console video card power VS 8600GT?
No we are comparing a 8600gt vs consoles. A 7900gs also gets beat by both the PS3 and 360 in many multiplat games as well. As proof shows the later games that come out are looking better and running worse on older pc hardware yet running better on console hardware.( example consoles werent running Fear very well but they run Cod4 much better and its a far more technically impressive game)
WHAT!!!! Everybody know's that a PS3 has a 7800GTX.
I want proof of this COD4 running better on consoles.
Um no a PS3 does not just have a 7800gtx init. The RSX has superior shader peformance and pulls from 2 seprate memory pools it also has a processor in it that assist with rendering visuals which is the reason it would outpeform any pc with a 7800gtx in it if the developer had any clue of what he is doing.
Pull from 2 different memory... creates latency problemes.
Anyway you talk but you bring no proof... so anything you say is worthless arguments.
Um no im simply stating facts http://www.gamespot.com/features/6183967/index.html and that futher proves my point click on the benchmarks to prove otherwise. Your precious 7900gs ( which you claim is as capable as a PS3) is getting a ripping 25 fps while the PS3 version runs at 60fps.
Is that with or without AA? hmmmmm
Um thats with but the PS3 is doing 4x AA and so is the 360 version so what is your point?
If max settings is what it is ... then it would be @16x AA for PC
[QUOTE="Deathbourn"]Many people aren't understanding the fact that in new games the 8600GT is better than the 7900GTX. Keep in mind that the PS3 has a 7800GTX with 128bit memory bandwidth. If you want to see evidence go to the PC section an see the C0D4 and UT3 performance guides. This is the way hardware always is in the tech world. As games become more shader intensive the GPU's in the PS3 and Xbox360 will start to show their age. BTW they are already showing it.
imprezawrx500
exactly, games build prior to unified shaders gpus don't run too well on the 8600gt but ones from the last year run better on it than 7900s. in just about every game now it beats the 7900gs but a fiar amount and often beats the gtx
Um please tell me how he is correct? Proof shows on gamespots peformance guide that the 7800gtx gets floged in comparison to the PS3 on both UT3 and COD4 so please explain how that proves the PS3 is just using a 7800gtx when it stomps that card on both of those games as Gamespots benchmarks clearly prove.
[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Blue-Sky"]Take this from a PC gamer,
Console hardware has way more potential and capability than an 8600gt. That card will be obsolete next year and wouldn't even run 2009 PS3/360 games. So no.
Could you forumites please stop trying to convince console sheep to get a PC? I don't need more idiots in my community.
Polaris_choice
so how come a geforce 3 can run every xbox game then? your the idiot who thinks it wont run 2009 ps3 games, basicly the only think you need more of in a pc is ram the gpu is hardly doing anything when its not runing a game
Um no a Gforce 3 could not run every xbox game as good as the xbox. Hell it couldnt even run Metal Gear solid 2 worth a crap and that was a PS2 game . If you are going to make an argument you need to have some idea of what you are talking about instead of spraying random crap out of your mouth.
like what late xbox game runs above 640 x480? geforce 3 has no problems running med settings in late xbox games at low resolutions
[QUOTE="Puckhog04"]Consoles were outdated even before they launched or very soon after. And, in the case of the Wii, wayyy before it launched. PC's will always be ahead. Polaris_choice
Sorry but your wrong. There are games the 360 runs now the high end pc's that came out at the same time as the 360 struggle with. Example Bioshock does not look as good ona 7800gtx as it does on the 360. (seen it myself) it depends on the games and pc requires constant upgrades while a console last you 4 to 5 years.
since when is the 7800gts weaker than the 7800gt? as my 7800gt can max out bioshcok in dx9 (with new driver)
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment