How are PC's a generation ahead exactly?

[QUOTE="ocstew"][QUOTE="emperorzhang66"]compare a 2007 game to crysis. Now if everything was not being moved to consoles, you would be seeing those jumps at least every 2 years. but technology is there. No one is using it to its full potential.DreamCryotank

So true :lol:

The only advantage PCs have over consoles is graphics and even that isn't a generation ahead, it's not the leap from PS2 to PS3 at the moment, hermits are too ecstatic over it. What about gameplay, sound, animations? I have yet to see a PC game match a game like Killzone 3 or Uncharted 2 in sound/animation.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here.

Blazerdt47

Lmao, what are you talking about just graphics? PC's have the option to use any type of sound and animation possible to date. It's all up to the developer to integrate it.

BF3 is going to be built for PC's ground up, which will use DX11, motion captured animation and 7.1 lossless audio (most pc games have that anyway) and even then its all up to how good the game engine is.

Just to clarify, PC's are not a generation ahead but a couple if you compare any console to pc on a benchmark level.

Nothing beats a gaming pc. Technology wise pc's are so far a head its not funny. The buyer can stay as up to date as they want if they have the money, or have a console with 2007 tech.

Consoles sacrifice resolution and framerates (sweet baby jesus do they sacrifice the framerate) to obtain the visuals they do... and right about now, the best console graphics are looking fairly dated.

The PC is broken with piracy, over hyped, and neutral.LOXO7

It's impossible for me to be impressed by console graphics:

fake backgrounds

DoF

no-AA

corridor levels

low rez textures

That pretty much sums it up, console games are all about "tricks" to project reality (think of the skybox wallpapers), PC actually RENDERs those scenes.

When UC2/GEOW goes open world, maintains those graphics with minimal popin - I'll be impressed.

haberman13

Then w8 4 inFamous 2 ;)

Consoles sacrifice resolution and framerates (sweet baby jesus do they sacrifice the framerate) to obtain the visuals they do... and right about now, the best console graphics are looking fairly dated.

juno84

Maybe because of stuff like this?

each time i see one of those threads, its always a cow.

Why are cows overrating every single feature the ps3 has to offer? Is it because its last place in the console race?

Stop geting hyped about everything, and simply enjoy your games. If you must be fanboys, atleast claim ownage with good games.

Like the upcoming last guardian. No one cares about your tech, simply because it dosent match the PC.

Since console generations are measured in hardware performance upgrades... the PC is about 2 or 3 generations ahead now. If not more if you consider raw power over software (i.e. DirectX or OpenGL). Hell, there are GPU's coming out now that standalone could perform technically better than the PS3 and 360... probably combined. GPU's got 512MB of RAM more than 5 years ago too.

The only advantage PCs have over consoles is graphics and even that isn't a generation ahead, it's not the leap from PS2 to PS3 at the moment, hermits are too ecstatic over it. What about gameplay, sound, animations? I have yet to see a PC game match a game like Killzone 3 or Uncharted 2 in sound/animation.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here.

Blazerdt47

[QUOTE="Blazerdt47"]

The only advantage PCs have over consoles is graphics and even that isn't a generation ahead, it's not the leap from PS2 to PS3 at the moment, hermits are too ecstatic over it. What about gameplay, sound, animations? I have yet to see a PC game match a game like Killzone 3 or Uncharted 2 in sound/animation.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here.

AzatiS

PS3 uses the Nvidia 7 Series graphics chip and according to nvidia that will put the ps3 7 generations behind PC, LMAO!

Geforce 7 Series (PS3 Level)

Geforce 8 Series

Geforce 9 Series

Geforce 100 Series

Geforce 200 Series

Geforce 300 Series

Geforce 400 Series

Geforce 500 Series (PC level)

[QUOTE="Blazerdt47"]

The only advantage PCs have over consoles is graphics and even that isn't a generation ahead, it's not the leap from PS2 to PS3 at the moment, hermits are too ecstatic over it. What about gameplay, sound, animations? I have yet to see a PC game match a game like Killzone 3 or Uncharted 2 in sound/animation.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here.

AzatiS

U mad? Do you have any idea whats difference of 2 generations? Like PS One vs PS3? Well PS One had about 32 Mhz, PS3 has 7 cores clocked at cca 3000 Mhz each. PS One had 2 MB RAM, PS3 has 256 MB RAM + 256 MB VRAM. And it shows of course just compare any good loking PS One game to Killzone 3 - THATS the difference of 2 generations. Maybe in 2017 high end PC will be there, but definitely not now.

Todays top high end PCs are a generation ahead of consoles HW vise, PC games are barely 1/2 gen ahead of console games.

[QUOTE="AzatiS"][QUOTE="Blazerdt47"]

The only advantage PCs have over consoles is graphics and even that isn't a generation ahead, it's not the leap from PS2 to PS3 at the moment, hermits are too ecstatic over it. What about gameplay, sound, animations? I have yet to see a PC game match a game like Killzone 3 or Uncharted 2 in sound/animation.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here.

BlbecekBobecek

U mad? Do you have any idea whats difference of 2 generations? Like PS One vs PS3? Well PS One had about 32 Mhz, PS3 has 7 cores clocked at cca 3000 Mhz each. PS One had 2 MB RAM, PS3 has 256 MB RAM + 256 MB VRAM. And it shows of course just compare any good loking PS One game to Killzone 3 - THATS the difference of 2 generations. Maybe in 2017 high end PC will be there, but definitely not now.

Todays top high end PCs are a generation ahead of consoles HW vise, PC games are barely 1/2 gen ahead of console games.

LOL are you saying those 7 cores on the cell processor are comparable to desktop cpu's?

U mad? Do you have any idea whats difference of 2 generations? Like PS One vs PS3? Well PS One had about 32 Mhz, PS3 has 7 cores clocked at cca 3000 Mhz each. PS One had 2 MB RAM, PS3 has 256 MB RAM + 256 MB VRAM. And it shows of course just compare any good loking PS One game to Killzone 3 - THATS the difference of 2 generations. Maybe in 2017 high end PC will be there, but definitely not now.

BlbecekBobecek

You are wrong.. A full blown, high-end PC is something both of us can't even comprehend what games utilizing it's max. potential, would like like on.

And by full blown.. i mean a full blown 6000 Euro PC, built for the extreme passionates.

I'm talking about this piece of Godly heaven, created by Man.

Now THAT's a 6000E gaming PC.

[QUOTE="BlbecekBobecek"]

[QUOTE="AzatiS"] Technology wise are not 1 , are 2 generations ahead... For example MY GPU ALONE got more memory , faster memory , faster chipset , etc than a whole PS3. Now.. If i add everything else.... Imagine what you could make with so much power... But no.. it goes wasted because... of consoles!! And with the ideal "" 8 years "" cycle consoles aiming..?!! Thats so shame .erazor51

U mad? Do you have any idea whats difference of 2 generations? Like PS One vs PS3? Well PS One had about 32 Mhz, PS3 has 7 cores clocked at cca 3000 Mhz each. PS One had 2 MB RAM, PS3 has 256 MB RAM + 256 MB VRAM. And it shows of course just compare any good loking PS One game to Killzone 3 - THATS the difference of 2 generations. Maybe in 2017 high end PC will be there, but definitely not now.

Todays top high end PCs are a generation ahead of consoles HW vise, PC games are barely 1/2 gen ahead of console games.

LOL are you saying those 7 cores on the cell processor are comparable to desktop cpu's?

No, Im not. Why did you think I was saying so? Did I write it somewhere? No... I didnt. :)

[QUOTE="BlbecekBobecek"]

U mad? Do you have any idea whats difference of 2 generations? Like PS One vs PS3? Well PS One had about 32 Mhz, PS3 has 7 cores clocked at cca 3000 Mhz each. PS One had 2 MB RAM, PS3 has 256 MB RAM + 256 MB VRAM. And it shows of course just compare any good loking PS One game to Killzone 3 - THATS the difference of 2 generations. Maybe in 2017 high end PC will be there, but definitely not now.

Lucianu

You are wrong.. A full blown, high-end PC is something both of us can't even comprehend what games utilizing it's max. potential, would like like on.

And by full blown.. i mean a full blown 6000 Euro PC, built for the extreme passionates.

I'm talking about this piece of Godly heaven, created by Man.

Now THAT's a 6000E gaming PC.

Yeah, thats sweet baby. I have no idea how powerful could this be, but I think it will take several more years before we can buy this kind of power for under € 1000 as high end, yet standard PC.

[QUOTE="erazor51"]

[QUOTE="BlbecekBobecek"]

U mad? Do you have any idea whats difference of 2 generations? Like PS One vs PS3? Well PS One had about 32 Mhz, PS3 has 7 cores clocked at cca 3000 Mhz each. PS One had 2 MB RAM, PS3 has 256 MB RAM + 256 MB VRAM. And it shows of course just compare any good loking PS One game to Killzone 3 - THATS the difference of 2 generations. Maybe in 2017 high end PC will be there, but definitely not now.

Todays top high end PCs are a generation ahead of consoles HW vise, PC games are barely 1/2 gen ahead of console games.

BlbecekBobecek

LOL are you saying those 7 cores on the cell processor are comparable to desktop cpu's?

No, Im not. Why did you think I was saying so? Did I write it somewhere? No... I didnt. :)

when console games run at sub hd resolutions and pc games run at 1920x1200 or 2560x1600 and have been running at resolutions over hd since 1998... then consoles are a generation behind. what kind of graphics do you think pc could produce if it only had to render in sub hd?

the current top of the line PC parts are likely what you'll see in next gen consoles.oldkingallant

I'm not so certain about that - current consoles have heat dissipation problems coupled with hardware failure rates.

There's almost no way Sony or MS could shoehorn in a powerhouse GPU from the latest nVidia and ATI has on the market - heat generation while running an uber-game could cause a hardware failure.

Yeah, thats sweet baby. I have no idea how powerful could this be, but I think it will take several more years before we can buy this kind of power for under € 1000 as high end, yet standard PC.

BlbecekBobecek

Yep. No way in hell am i paying 6000 euros for a PC that no game in existence can utilize it's full potential. Maybe after 7-8 years wen this type of power is cheaper, and is utilized by something.

With a buget of 600$ it's perfectly reasonable in this time to get a standard gaming PC that can max. out most games, and play more demanding games at a good quality. And with 1000$++ i can get a high end one that maxes out everything.

[QUOTE="BlbecekBobecek"]

[QUOTE="erazor51"]

LOL are you saying those 7 cores on the cell processor are comparable to desktop cpu's?

Firebird-5

No, Im not. Why did you think I was saying so? Did I write it somewhere? No... I didnt. :)

when console games run at sub hd resolutions and pc games run at 1920x1200 or 2560x1600 and have been running at resolutions over hd since 1998... then consoles are a generation behind. what kind of graphics do you think pc could produce if it only had to render in sub hd?

Consoles were always running in much lower resolutions than PC games, that didnt make them last generation. Actually 360 and PS3 are first two consoles that get their resolution above NTSC/PAL standards, which are if I remember well somwhere around 720x480 and back then most games were running at even lower resolutions. But the fact is that TV work differently than PC monitors and it doesnt hurt the image that much. Thats all not an argument about generations. I can play 10 years old game at 2560x1600 and it doesnt make it next gen.

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

[QUOTE="BlbecekBobecek"]

No, Im not. Why did you think I was saying so? Did I write it somewhere? No... I didnt. :)

BlbecekBobecek

when console games run at sub hd resolutions and pc games run at 1920x1200 or 2560x1600 and have been running at resolutions over hd since 1998... then consoles are a generation behind. what kind of graphics do you think pc could produce if it only had to render in sub hd?

Consoles were always running in much lower resolutions than PC games, that didnt make them last generation. Actually 360 and PS3 are first two consoles that get their resolution above NTSC/PAL standards, which are if I remember well somwhere around 720x480 and back then most games were running at even lower resolutions. But the fact is that TV work differently than PC monitors and it doesnt hurt the image that much. Thats all not an argument about generations. I can play 10 years old game at 2560x1600 and it doesnt make it next gen.

dont care what display you are using. consoles now render in sub hd resolutions, while im playing crysis in 2560x1440 on max

you are delusional - your tv doesnt even do 1920x1200

[QUOTE="oldkingallant"] the current top of the line PC parts are likely what you'll see in next gen consoles.topsemag55

I'm not so certain about that - current consoles have heat dissipation problems coupled with hardware failure rates.

There's almost no way Sony or MS could shoehorn in a powerhouse GPU from the latest nVidia and ATI has on the market - heat generation while running an uber-game could cause a hardware failure.

I personally think the first next gen console will be Nintendo in 2012, it will have similar motion controls as Wii and will have HW somewhere around today´s well equipped middle-range gaming PC (which will be enough to show pretty impressive graphics with some optimalization). Most important marketing points will be finally truly FullHD games and the best 3D support.

[QUOTE="BlbecekBobecek"]

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

when console games run at sub hd resolutions and pc games run at 1920x1200 or 2560x1600 and have been running at resolutions over hd since 1998... then consoles are a generation behind. what kind of graphics do you think pc could produce if it only had to render in sub hd?

Firebird-5

Consoles were always running in much lower resolutions than PC games, that didnt make them last generation. Actually 360 and PS3 are first two consoles that get their resolution above NTSC/PAL standards, which are if I remember well somwhere around 720x480 and back then most games were running at even lower resolutions. But the fact is that TV work differently than PC monitors and it doesnt hurt the image that much. Thats all not an argument about generations. I can play 10 years old game at 2560x1600 and it doesnt make it next gen.

dont care what display you are using. consoles now render in sub hd resolutions, while im playing crysis in 2560x1440 on max

you are delusional - your tv doesnt even do 1920x1200

I know. And? Whats your point?

Lol 2-3 generations ahead? Seriously hermits? The hardware is maybe a gen ahead but in terms of games...no! Lets compare textures, animations, special effects, ai etc of for example killzone 3 to perfect dark on the n64...do you actually believe that is the same as the difference between bc2 on the ps3 and pc?? Lol!! Higher resolution only does so much...the animations for example are identical in all 3 versions! I would say the textures of that amazing looking gta4 mod would be a generation ahead but the sound, animations,special effects etc are still the same as gta4! And heres a question, why if pc gamers get 90+ exclusives a year does very few (aka 0) games take up the extra power that high end pcs have? I primarily play on pc btw and find the overall experience to be far better than consoles..but come on! Some of the crap i hear from hermits about pcs espically to do with graphics is laughable! Even things like ai?How many times to you see "Pc games have far better graphics, sound, animations, ai etc than console games" um...graphics and sound yes! Animations and ai...no! Barely any difference at all!

Umm, BC2 already has better sound than Uncharted 2 or Killzone 3 and it's not even an exclusive.DragonfireXZ95

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"]Umm, BC2 already has better sound than Uncharted 2 or Killzone 3 and it's not even an exclusive.NWA90s

Some people are in denial when thinking about whats going to happen to the next generation of consoles. They will be a step foward but not a leap. MS is looking into AMD Fusion 2 APU tech for their next console and the rate APU performance is going by the end of 2012 the graphics power will only be under the range of an ATI 5670 gpu. Which is low ended in todays standards its slower then a 8800GTS or 9800GTX back 3-4 years ago. Sony, MS and Nintendo will not be pushing top ended hardware because of costs. MS and Sony didnt make a dime on the consoles themselves until years after the fact. They are not going to repeat their past mistakes. By 2006 Pc hardware was already multiple times better then what the consoles could do with the release of the 8800GTX. and by 2007 Pc hardware prices dropped enough where most people could get a descent gaming system which quite a few are still using. The problem is that with multiplatform games you have to build the game around the console's limits mainly memory related(affects everything). And Pc's tend to be underutilized in the memory and processing power areas. Crysis 2 is a perfect example what happens when a Pc oreinated game gets converted to work on consoles. Smaller levels, more linear pathways, limited draw distances and a very static environment with heavy scripted events. Its like comparing what a console can do vs a what Pc can do. Imagine a tennis court with two player is what a console can create at any given time and then Pc can create a football field with two football teams . Console multiplatforming has really held back Pc gaming in general since 2007. 04dcarraher

Dont blame Cryteks design choice on consoles! I for one am glad they choose New York! They have made enough great games in jungles!

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"]Umm, BC2 already has better sound than Uncharted 2 or Killzone 3 and it's not even an exclusive.rawr89

ROFL. UC2 has LCPM 7.1. that is Lossless audio right there. it means that the sound quality is akin to a live orchestra playing in front of you if you've got the right setup.

i know you lvoe BC2 (i did, too. got to level 32 and clocked in 120 hours), but seriously they can't even fix the online lag.

Lol 2-3 generations ahead? Seriously hermits? The hardware is maybe a gen ahead but in terms of games...no! Lets compare textures, animations, special effects, ai etc of for example killzone 3 to perfect dark on the n64...do you actually believe that is the same as the difference between bc2 on the ps3 and pc?? Lol!! Higher resolution only does so much...the animations for example are identical in all 3 versions! I would say the textures of that amazing looking gta4 mod would be a generation ahead but the sound, animations,special effects etc are still the same as gta4! And heres a question, why if pc gamers get 90+ exclusives a year does very few (aka 0) games take up the extra power that high end pcs have? I primarily play on pc btw and find the overall experience to be far better than consoles..but come on! Some of the crap i hear from hermits about pcs espically to do with graphics is laughable! Even things like ai?How many times to you see "Pc games have far better graphics, sound, animations, ai etc than console games" um...graphics and sound yes! Animations and ai...no! Barely any difference at all!

dom2000

Now this is normal consoler bashing right here... You you even realize thatalmost all thosegames are multiplatform aredesigned around consoles first then Pc's are an after thought most of the time? Then for those Pc exculsives they want to target all areas of Pc gamersincluding theirlaptop's net books, old and new Pc's. And yes Pc hardware is 2-3 generations ahead then what consoles have. Console run on direct x 9 based hardware while Pc is already on Direct x 11 hardware.

Then the consoles are stuck with 512mb of memory for both system and video usage(256mb and 256mb)while todays Pc's have 4Gb (4096mb)or more for system usage and then for gpu's have 512mb -2gb(2048mb) worth of video memory. Now moving onto the actual gpu performance of the console's, the PS3 is using a gimped Geforce 7800 while we have went through Geforce 8,9, 200's, 400, and 500's? The same thing applies to the 360 and ATi gpu's. For example the GTX 480 is nearly 12x faster with 6x the memory(1.5gb)then what a single console gpuhas in total... Then on the cpu front consoles gain are really behind the 360's tri core cpu is slower then an Athlon X2 from 2005... Needless to say that consoles are the basis for most games which limits Pc abilities from the start.

[QUOTE="NWA90s"][QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"]Umm, BC2 already has better sound than Uncharted 2 or Killzone 3 and it's not even an exclusive.mitu123

A serviceman weighed in on bc2's gun sounds in another thread and said they were the closest to the real thing he's heard in a game.

[QUOTE="mitu123"][QUOTE="NWA90s"] it has better explosion sounds, but the gun sound like crap. especially the m16 and g3 topgunmv

A serviceman weighed in on bc2's gun sounds in another thread and said they were the closest to the real thing he's heard in a game.

Umm, BC2 already has better sound than Uncharted 2 or Killzone 3 and it's not even an exclusive.DragonfireXZ95

[QUOTE="dom2000"]

Lol 2-3 generations ahead? Seriously hermits? The hardware is maybe a gen ahead but in terms of games...no! Lets compare textures, animations, special effects, ai etc of for example killzone 3 to perfect dark on the n64...do you actually believe that is the same as the difference between bc2 on the ps3 and pc?? Lol!! Higher resolution only does so much...the animations for example are identical in all 3 versions! I would say the textures of that amazing looking gta4 mod would be a generation ahead but the sound, animations,special effects etc are still the same as gta4! And heres a question, why if pc gamers get 90+ exclusives a year does very few (aka 0) games take up the extra power that high end pcs have? I primarily play on pc btw and find the overall experience to be far better than consoles..but come on! Some of the crap i hear from hermits about pcs espically to do with graphics is laughable! Even things like ai?How many times to you see "Pc games have far better graphics, sound, animations, ai etc than console games" um...graphics and sound yes! Animations and ai...no! Barely any difference at all!

04dcarraher

Now this is normal consoler bashing right here... You you even realize thatalmost all thosegames are multiplatform aredesigned around consoles first then Pc's are an after thought most of the time? Then for those Pc exculsives they want to target all areas of Pc gamersincluding theirlaptop's net books, old and new Pc's. And yes Pc hardware is 2-3 generations ahead then what consoles have. Console run on direct x 9 based hardware while Pc is already on Direct x 11 hardware. Then the consoles are stuck with 512mb of memory for both system and video usage(256mb and 256mb)while todays Pc's have 4Gb (4096mb)or more for system usage and then for gpu's have 512mb -2gb(2048mb) worth of video memory. Now moving onto the actual gpu performance of the console's, the PS3 is using a gimped Geforce 7800 while we have went through Geforce 8,9, 200's, 400, and 500's? The same thing applies to the 360 and ATi gpu's. For example the GTX 480 is nearly 12x faster with 6x the memory(1.5gb)then what a single console gpuhas in total... Then on the cpu front consoles gain are really behind the 360's tri core cpu is slower then an Athlon X2 from 2005... Needless to say that consoles are the basis for most games which limits Pc abilities from the start.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]Some people are in denial when thinking about whats going to happen to the next generation of consoles. They will be a step foward but not a leap. MS is looking into AMD Fusion 2 APU tech for their next console and the rate APU performance is going by the end of 2012 the graphics power will only be under the range of an ATI 5670 gpu. Which is low ended in todays standards its slower then a 8800GTS or 9800GTX back 3-4 years ago. Sony, MS and Nintendo will not be pushing top ended hardware because of costs. MS and Sony didnt make a dime on the consoles themselves until years after the fact. They are not going to repeat their past mistakes. By 2006 Pc hardware was already multiple times better then what the consoles could do with the release of the 8800GTX. and by 2007 Pc hardware prices dropped enough where most people could get a descent gaming system which quite a few are still using. The problem is that with multiplatform games you have to build the game around the console's limits mainly memory related(affects everything). And Pc's tend to be underutilized in the memory and processing power areas. Crysis 2 is a perfect example what happens when a Pc oreinated game gets converted to work on consoles. Smaller levels, more linear pathways, limited draw distances and a very static environment with heavy scripted events. Its like comparing what a console can do vs a what Pc can do. Imagine a tennis court with two player is what a console can create at any given time and then Pc can create a football field with two football teams . Console multiplatforming has really held back Pc gaming in general since 2007. dom2000

Dont blame Cryteks design choice on consoles! I for one am glad they choose New York! They have made enough great games in jungles!

[QUOTE="AzatiS"][QUOTE="Blazerdt47"]

The only advantage PCs have over consoles is graphics and even that isn't a generation ahead, it's not the leap from PS2 to PS3 at the moment, hermits are too ecstatic over it. What about gameplay, sound, animations? I have yet to see a PC game match a game like Killzone 3 or Uncharted 2 in sound/animation.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here.

BlbecekBobecek

U mad? Do you have any idea whats difference of 2 generations? Like PS One vs PS3? Well PS One had about 32 Mhz, PS3 has 7 cores clocked at cca 3000 Mhz each. PS One had 2 MB RAM, PS3 has 256 MB RAM + 256 MB VRAM. And it shows of course just compare any good loking PS One game to Killzone 3 - THATS the difference of 2 generations. Maybe in 2017 high end PC will be there, but definitely not now.

Todays top high end PCs are a generation ahead of consoles HW vise, PC games are barely 1/2 gen ahead of console games.

Read what the guy ahead of you posted.... pure ownage...

PS3 uses the Nvidia 7 Series graphics chip and according to nvidia that will put the ps3 7 generations behind PC, LMAO!

Geforce 7 Series (PS3 Level)

Geforce 8 Series

Geforce 9 Series

Geforce 100 Series

Geforce 200 Series

Geforce 300 Series

Geforce 400 Series

Geforce 500 Series (PC level)

Thats just the GPU.. dont get us started on the amazing soundcards you can get for pc or the CPU's out now or amount of ram,etc..

Sorry dude but PC is atleast 1-3 generations ahead of consoles, look at the facts in the specs.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="dom2000"]

Lol 2-3 generations ahead? Seriously hermits? The hardware is maybe a gen ahead but in terms of games...no! Lets compare textures, animations, special effects, ai etc of for example killzone 3 to perfect dark on the n64...do you actually believe that is the same as the difference between bc2 on the ps3 and pc?? Lol!! Higher resolution only does so much...the animations for example are identical in all 3 versions! I would say the textures of that amazing looking gta4 mod would be a generation ahead but the sound, animations,special effects etc are still the same as gta4! And heres a question, why if pc gamers get 90+ exclusives a year does very few (aka 0) games take up the extra power that high end pcs have? I primarily play on pc btw and find the overall experience to be far better than consoles..but come on! Some of the crap i hear from hermits about pcs espically to do with graphics is laughable! Even things like ai?How many times to you see "Pc games have far better graphics, sound, animations, ai etc than console games" um...graphics and sound yes! Animations and ai...no! Barely any difference at all!

dom2000

Now this is normal consoler bashing right here... You you even realize thatalmost all thosegames are multiplatform aredesigned around consoles first then Pc's are an after thought most of the time? Then for those Pc exculsives they want to target all areas of Pc gamersincluding theirlaptop's net books, old and new Pc's. And yes Pc hardware is 2-3 generations ahead then what consoles have. Console run on direct x 9 based hardware while Pc is already on Direct x 11 hardware. Then the consoles are stuck with 512mb of memory for both system and video usage(256mb and 256mb)while todays Pc's have 4Gb (4096mb)or more for system usage and then for gpu's have 512mb -2gb(2048mb) worth of video memory. Now moving onto the actual gpu performance of the console's, the PS3 is using a gimped Geforce 7800 while we have went through Geforce 8,9, 200's, 400, and 500's? The same thing applies to the 360 and ATi gpu's. For example the GTX 480 is nearly 12x faster with 6x the memory(1.5gb)then what a single console gpuhas in total... Then on the cpu front consoles gain are really behind the 360's tri core cpu is slower then an Athlon X2 from 2005... Needless to say that consoles are the basis for most games which limits Pc abilities from the start.

No, some games on Pc are a generation or two ahead of consoles in abilites and depth. But all companies try to get the biggest chunk of profit they can get which means that most games have to scale on lower ended computers too. But at the same time Pc performance go up year after year which means more and more Pc's can produce better graphics then cureent consoles, for example ATI sold more then 11 million Direct x 11 cards in 2010 which means about 75% of them at least are 2x or morearebetter then what console's can do. then you have to include gpu's from 2006+ that were midranged to high ended. The performance and ability base is there for the taking and more and more devs are making use of the hardware since they cant do what they want on consoles, like BF3 or Metro 2033.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]The PC is broken with piracy, over hyped, and neutral.blue_hazy_basic

Not as much as the PC. PC is obviously a generation ahead. What was I thinking:?

[QUOTE="AzatiS"][QUOTE="Blazerdt47"]

The only advantage PCs have over consoles is graphics and even that isn't a generation ahead, it's not the leap from PS2 to PS3 at the moment, hermits are too ecstatic over it. What about gameplay, sound, animations? I have yet to see a PC game match a game like Killzone 3 or Uncharted 2 in sound/animation.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here.

BlbecekBobecek

U mad? Do you have any idea whats difference of 2 generations? Like PS One vs PS3? Well PS One had about 32 Mhz, PS3 has 7 cores clocked at cca 3000 Mhz each. PS One had 2 MB RAM, PS3 has 256 MB RAM + 256 MB VRAM. And it shows of course just compare any good loking PS One game to Killzone 3 - THATS the difference of 2 generations. Maybe in 2017 high end PC will be there, but definitely not now.

Todays top high end PCs are a generation ahead of consoles HW vise, PC games are barely 1/2 gen ahead of console games.

1. Cell is not a 7 Core CPU

2. Mhz ratings don't mean crap these days.

3. You want to talk huge memory differences. PS3/360 have 512MB Total, my PC has 7415MB total. Other people on this board have over 12000MB

4. Current PC hardware would not even stress over running KZ3 in resolution above 1080P.

5. Games like Metro 20033 (PC Version) allready have over double the texture resolution we have seen on console games and a lighting system consoles couldn't dream of running in its full glory even in sub HD.