I think if you had a gaming rig, and consoles beside them {like me} to see the differences back to back you would understand. The difference is HUGE, and it is not just a few games, every game I have looks better then my consoles {I dont really have any old games}Hermits here make it seem like games like crysis and metro 2033 are a generation ahead of consoles, what a load of turd.. ive played the best the pc has to offer (my college tutor can max everything) what do you guys think?
ThePsTriple
Pc graphics are overrated
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="ThePsTriple"]I think if you had a gaming rig, and consoles beside them {like me} to see the differences back to back you would understand. The difference is HUGE, and it is not just a few games, every game I have looks better then my consoles {I dont really have any old games}Hermits here make it seem like games like crysis and metro 2033 are a generation ahead of consoles, what a load of turd.. ive played the best the pc has to offer (my college tutor can max everything) what do you guys think?
Advid-Gamer
It's true. I thought RDR was supposed to be stunning. Colour me surprized when I found out it looks like ass.
Console graphics arn't bad when you consider the hardware is now five years old. I mean the Xbox 360 runs a X1900 and costs $200. When you consider this, consoles actually have very good graphics. When you compare to a modern computer that is say, $600 of course games are going to look better. You pay more, you expect to get more.
[QUOTE="heybooboo19"]
[QUOTE="strangeisland"]
So it looks worse in-game?
ferret-gamer
The best character model on consoles is Kratos at a modest 20k.
Edit: 22k
The main characters in crysis use less than 5k, polys, around the same as Hl2, yet still look on par or better than the 22k Kratos model.
Half-Life 2 had great characters for the time. This just goes to show that poly count doesn't really mean much anymore.
To be honest, the one thing that consoles can do well this generation is push polys. The texture limitations and effects limitations are what is really keeping them below PCs. PC developers have the luxury of being able to use as high a res texture as they deem possible while console developers are constantly balancing the textures because there are more limitations. PCs also have the edge in resolution and the fact that they can push as many or more polys as consoles can without breaking a sweat. Console games can look good, look at Alan Wake or Killzone 2 for instance. The case of Naughty Dog using 20,000 tri character models is an extreme realization of this. They know they can't make it look as good with textures alone like many PC games can so they had to model the majority of their detail in. But to be honest, if they had the luxury of being able to use higher res textures instead of taxing the engine with high poly models they would, it's just a simpler solution. Look at Rage, I believe that megatextures will be the way to go in the future. Extremely large texture sizes can enable your game to have more unique looking environments and characters that look extremely lifelike as well. If you look at that game, even with the stylized art design you can see that they have really good technical graphics as well. They know they can push polys, but the thing that makes the game look real is typically the textures and lighting and that is the way forward.
To be honest, the one thing that consoles can do well this generation is push polys. The texture limitations and effects limitations are what is really keeping them below PCs. PC developers have the luxury of being able to use as high a res texture as they deem possible while console developers are constantly balancing the textures because there are more limitations. PCs also have the edge in resolution and the fact that they can push as many or more polys as consoles can without breaking a sweat. Console games can look good, look at Alan Wake or Killzone 2 for instance. The case of Naughty Dog using 20,000 tri character models is an extreme realization of this. They know they can't make it look as good with textures alone like many PC games can so they had to model the majority of their detail in. But to be honest, if they had the luxury of being able to use higher res textures instead of taxing the engine with high poly models they would, it's just a simpler solution. Look at Rage, I believe that megatextures will be the way to go in the future. Extremely large texture sizes can enable your game to have more unique looking environments and characters that look extremely lifelike as well. If you look at that game, even with the stylized art design you can see that they have really good technical graphics as well. They know they can push polys, but the thing that makes the game look real is typically the textures and lighting and that is the way forward.
marq4porsche
People are overplaying Megatextures, and Rage. Megatexture allows designer/artist to create a large detailed texture using one pass of layering while normal methods use multipe layers. the purpose of megatexture is to allow better looking large area of detail without as large of a memory footprint.
Its just another solution to curb the memory footprint in games that consoles have trouble being able to render and store texture data.
No they arn't.. No console can come close to Crysis at this time.. The mere fact that games like Killzone 2 came come alittle close in some areas, but with that can at best do small environments with little action on screen compared to Crysis.. Crysis just doesn't look good, its landscape, action, and interactivity is massive.. Intil they can make a game with Killzone 2 graphics with the scale of a Battlefield game.. Then hell no..
[QUOTE="15strong"]
The whole notion of pc gamers playing in the next gen is BS. Let's be honest, there will be games next gen that look better than crysis on consoles.
Hakkai007
Can I have your crystal ball?
I dropped it and it broke. Serously, going by history, was there a game in the ps2/xbox era that looks better than Uncharted 2 or gears 3?
[QUOTE="marq4porsche"]
To be honest, the one thing that consoles can do well this generation is push polys. The texture limitations and effects limitations are what is really keeping them below PCs. PC developers have the luxury of being able to use as high a res texture as they deem possible while console developers are constantly balancing the textures because there are more limitations. PCs also have the edge in resolution and the fact that they can push as many or more polys as consoles can without breaking a sweat. Console games can look good, look at Alan Wake or Killzone 2 for instance. The case of Naughty Dog using 20,000 tri character models is an extreme realization of this. They know they can't make it look as good with textures alone like many PC games can so they had to model the majority of their detail in. But to be honest, if they had the luxury of being able to use higher res textures instead of taxing the engine with high poly models they would, it's just a simpler solution. Look at Rage, I believe that megatextures will be the way to go in the future. Extremely large texture sizes can enable your game to have more unique looking environments and characters that look extremely lifelike as well. If you look at that game, even with the stylized art design you can see that they have really good technical graphics as well. They know they can push polys, but the thing that makes the game look real is typically the textures and lighting and that is the way forward.
04dcarraher
People are overplaying Megatextures, and Rage. Megatexture allows designer/artist to create a large detailed texture using one pass of layering while normal methods use multipe layers. the purpose of megatexture is to allow better looking large area of detail without as large of a memory footprint.
Its just another solution to curb the memory footprint in games that consoles have trouble being able to render and store texture data.
I realize that, what I'm saying is that in the future, next consoles and whatever, this technique will be the norm. As a 3D environment artist, I am well aware of the benefits that this technique will alow me to do. Going from 512s and 1024s to 4096 or 8192 textures will be a huge difference. Of course PCs will be able to do this easier and will probably get it first but I also believe that the next consoles will be very strong right off the bat as well. I expect them to be at least full on DX11 or 12 capable machines that support hardware tesselation and raytracing as well as higher resolution textures. To think otherwise would be folly.You know, it's 2010 and people are still denying Crysis is the most technically advanced game so far in this generation.
Kinda sad, huh?
[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]
[QUOTE="marq4porsche"]
To be honest, the one thing that consoles can do well this generation is push polys. The texture limitations and effects limitations are what is really keeping them below PCs. PC developers have the luxury of being able to use as high a res texture as they deem possible while console developers are constantly balancing the textures because there are more limitations. PCs also have the edge in resolution and the fact that they can push as many or more polys as consoles can without breaking a sweat. Console games can look good, look at Alan Wake or Killzone 2 for instance. The case of Naughty Dog using 20,000 tri character models is an extreme realization of this. They know they can't make it look as good with textures alone like many PC games can so they had to model the majority of their detail in. But to be honest, if they had the luxury of being able to use higher res textures instead of taxing the engine with high poly models they would, it's just a simpler solution. Look at Rage, I believe that megatextures will be the way to go in the future. Extremely large texture sizes can enable your game to have more unique looking environments and characters that look extremely lifelike as well. If you look at that game, even with the stylized art design you can see that they have really good technical graphics as well. They know they can push polys, but the thing that makes the game look real is typically the textures and lighting and that is the way forward.
People are overplaying Megatextures, and Rage. Megatexture allows designer/artist to create a large detailed texture using one pass of layering while normal methods use multipe layers. the purpose of megatexture is to allow better looking large area of detail without as large of a memory footprint.
Its just another solution to curb the memory footprint in games that consoles have trouble being able to render and store texture data.
I realize that, what I'm saying is that in the future, next consoles and whatever, this technique will be the norm. As a 3D environment artist, I am well aware of the benefits that this technique will alow me to do. Going from 512s and 1024s to 4096 or 8192 textures will be a huge difference. Of course PCs will be able to do this easier and will probably get it first but I also believe that the next consoles will be very strong right off the bat as well. I expect them to be at least full on DX11 or 12 capable machines that support hardware tesselation and raytracing as well as higher resolution textures. To think otherwise would be folly. The consoles next gen wont probably be high ended as many think compared to mid ranged gamig Pc's at release depending on the price point of the consoles. processing power for gpu's have doubled almost every year since 2005. which means that Pc gpu power is in the 10-12x range for best cards out today. As long as these current consoles are out Pc's will not be able to stretch its legs like it should . Its been almost three years since Ive had the need to upgrade anything. And if these consoles last beyond 2012 I feel sorry for console only gamers because even now the multiplatform games on console feel like medium settings.[QUOTE="marq4porsche"]I realize that, what I'm saying is that in the future, next consoles and whatever, this technique will be the norm. As a 3D environment artist, I am well aware of the benefits that this technique will alow me to do. Going from 512s and 1024s to 4096 or 8192 textures will be a huge difference. Of course PCs will be able to do this easier and will probably get it first but I also believe that the next consoles will be very strong right off the bat as well. I expect them to be at least full on DX11 or 12 capable machines that support hardware tesselation and raytracing as well as higher resolution textures. To think otherwise would be folly. The consoles next gen wont probably be high ended as many think compared to mid ranged gamig Pc's at release depending on the price point of the consoles. processing power for gpu's have doubled almost every year since 2005. which means that Pc gpu power is in the 10-12x range for best cards out today. As long as these current consoles are out Pc's will not be able to stretch its legs like it should . Its been almost three years since Ive had the need to upgrade anything. And if these consoles last beyond 2012 I feel sorry for console only gamers because even now the multiplatform games on console feel like medium settings.[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]
People are overplaying Megatextures, and Rage. Megatexture allows designer/artist to create a large detailed texture using one pass of layering while normal methods use multipe layers. the purpose of megatexture is to allow better looking large area of detail without as large of a memory footprint.
Its just another solution to curb the memory footprint in games that consoles have trouble being able to render and store texture data.
04dcarraher
It is entirely possible that the next gen consoles could see something like a modified 480 GTX which is reasonable because the card would have been 2 years old by 2012. Tesselation is a must for next gen consoles so they'll have to be Direct x 11 compatible at least as well. PC's will eclipse that though because even when these consoles come out, PCs will be gaining all the more, it's a cycle. But I agree that consoles are gonna be looking dire by 2012, my PC already kills them and it's a midrange machine.
The consoles next gen wont probably be high ended as many think compared to mid ranged gamig Pc's at release depending on the price point of the consoles. processing power for gpu's have doubled almost every year since 2005. which means that Pc gpu power is in the 10-12x range for best cards out today. As long as these current consoles are out Pc's will not be able to stretch its legs like it should . Its been almost three years since Ive had the need to upgrade anything. And if these consoles last beyond 2012 I feel sorry for console only gamers because even now the multiplatform games on console feel like medium settings.[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="marq4porsche"] I realize that, what I'm saying is that in the future, next consoles and whatever, this technique will be the norm. As a 3D environment artist, I am well aware of the benefits that this technique will alow me to do. Going from 512s and 1024s to 4096 or 8192 textures will be a huge difference. Of course PCs will be able to do this easier and will probably get it first but I also believe that the next consoles will be very strong right off the bat as well. I expect them to be at least full on DX11 or 12 capable machines that support hardware tesselation and raytracing as well as higher resolution textures. To think otherwise would be folly.
marq4porsche
It is entirely possible that the next gen consoles could see something like a modified 480 GTX which is reasonable because the card would have been 2 years old by 2012. Tesselation is a must for next gen consoles so they'll have to be Direct x 11 compatible at least as well. PC's will eclipse that though because even when these consoles come out, PCs will be gaining all the more, it's a cycle. But I agree that consoles are gonna be looking dire by 2012, my PC already kills them and it's a midrange machine.
It all depends on the year they start planing and designing the consoles, if they are released in 2012 they wont have GTX 480 performance it would be alot less , because of multiple reasons price, power,cooling, and size. Now if by 2014 then yea I can see performance for consoles surpassing the GTX 480. Because by then gpu's would have gotten smaller, uses less power and performance ratio would have gone up at the same time. Look at the 8800GTX vs GTX 460 four year difference and uses less power, and performs 2x or more better. Also the fact that even low budget pc gpu's today out do the console gpu's by a mile. Which opens a route for Console makers to use low to medium ranged Pc gpu hardware and it would be an improvement and they could get away calling it the next generation.[QUOTE="marq4porsche"]
[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] The consoles next gen wont probably be high ended as many think compared to mid ranged gamig Pc's at release depending on the price point of the consoles. processing power for gpu's have doubled almost every year since 2005. which means that Pc gpu power is in the 10-12x range for best cards out today. As long as these current consoles are out Pc's will not be able to stretch its legs like it should . Its been almost three years since Ive had the need to upgrade anything. And if these consoles last beyond 2012 I feel sorry for console only gamers because even now the multiplatform games on console feel like medium settings.04dcarraher
It is entirely possible that the next gen consoles could see something like a modified 480 GTX which is reasonable because the card would have been 2 years old by 2012. Tesselation is a must for next gen consoles so they'll have to be Direct x 11 compatible at least as well. PC's will eclipse that though because even when these consoles come out, PCs will be gaining all the more, it's a cycle. But I agree that consoles are gonna be looking dire by 2012, my PC already kills them and it's a midrange machine.
It all depends on the year they start planing and designing the consoles, if they are released in 2012 they wont have GTX 480 performance it would be alot less , because of multiple reasons price, power,cooling, and size. Now if by 2014 then yea I can see performance for consoles surpassing the GTX 480. Because by then gpu's would have gotten smaller, uses less power and performance ratio would have gone up at the same time. Look at the 8800GTX vs GTX 460 four year difference and uses less power, and performs 2x or more better. Also the fact that even low budget pc gpu's today out do the console gpu's by a mile. Which opens a route for Console makers to use low to medium ranged Pc gpu hardware and it would be an improvement and they could get away calling it the next generation.Very doubtful , I cant name any example of when a system came out and was alot weaker then a 2 year old card with the exception of the wii. Console makers spend billion in Research and development and then sell there platforms for a loss while pc makers sell each peace of hardware for a gain. You could easily take a system launch it for the size of the orginal Ps3 and add a powerbrick and have a beast of a console.
[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]
[QUOTE="marq4porsche"]
It is entirely possible that the next gen consoles could see something like a modified 480 GTX which is reasonable because the card would have been 2 years old by 2012. Tesselation is a must for next gen consoles so they'll have to be Direct x 11 compatible at least as well. PC's will eclipse that though because even when these consoles come out, PCs will be gaining all the more, it's a cycle. But I agree that consoles are gonna be looking dire by 2012, my PC already kills them and it's a midrange machine.
It all depends on the year they start planing and designing the consoles, if they are released in 2012 they wont have GTX 480 performance it would be alot less , because of multiple reasons price, power,cooling, and size. Now if by 2014 then yea I can see performance for consoles surpassing the GTX 480. Because by then gpu's would have gotten smaller, uses less power and performance ratio would have gone up at the same time. Look at the 8800GTX vs GTX 460 four year difference and uses less power, and performs 2x or more better. Also the fact that even low budget pc gpu's today out do the console gpu's by a mile. Which opens a route for Console makers to use low to medium ranged Pc gpu hardware and it would be an improvement and they could get away calling it the next generation.very doubtful , I cant name any example of when a system came out and was alot weaker then a 2 year old card with the exception of the wii. Console makes spend billion in Research and development and then sell there platforms for a loss while pc makers sell each peace of hardware for a gain. You could easily take a system launch it for the size of the orginal Ps3 and add a powerbrick and have a beast of a console.
There you go again, Its funny that the PS3 and 360 used in development Pc gpu architecture's and yet were weaker then the full blown versions. They dont gain anything from Pc hardware to make up lost profit form selling consoles at a lost. the Console owners paid the gpu companies for the patents to produce their own chips, Nvidia or ATI arent in the business to keep on producing obsolete items for other companies , thats why their are brands and they make their versions at their factories. And come on you know that for them to create a gpu or use a existing gpu like the GTX 480, they would need to spend hand over fist to make it, then have to power it, and then to cool it. You have to use some common sense and think about it. half the console would be the cooling needed for something that powerful. Also I dont think that alot of people are willing to pay $700+ for a console.[QUOTE="TheSterls"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] It all depends on the year they start planing and designing the consoles, if they are released in 2012 they wont have GTX 480 performance it would be alot less , because of multiple reasons price, power,cooling, and size. Now if by 2014 then yea I can see performance for consoles surpassing the GTX 480. Because by then gpu's would have gotten smaller, uses less power and performance ratio would have gone up at the same time. Look at the 8800GTX vs GTX 460 four year difference and uses less power, and performs 2x or more better. Also the fact that even low budget pc gpu's today out do the console gpu's by a mile. Which opens a route for Console makers to use low to medium ranged Pc gpu hardware and it would be an improvement and they could get away calling it the next generation.
04dcarraher
very doubtful , I cant name any example of when a system came out and was alot weaker then a 2 year old card with the exception of the wii. Console makes spend billion in Research and development and then sell there platforms for a loss while pc makers sell each peace of hardware for a gain. You could easily take a system launch it for the size of the orginal Ps3 and add a powerbrick and have a beast of a console.
There you go again, Its funny that the PS3 and 360 used in development Pc gpu architecture's and yet were weaker then the full blown versions. They dont gain anything from Pc hardware to make up lost profit form selling consoles at a lost. the Console owners paid the gpu companies for the patents to produce their own chips, Nvidia or ATI arent in the business to keep on producing obsolete items for other companies , thats why their are brands and they make their versions at their factories. And come on you know that for them to create a gpu or use a existing gpu like the GTX 480, they would need to spend hand over fist to make it, then have to power it, and then to cool it. You have to use some common sense and think about it. half the console would be the cooling needed for something that powerful. Also I dont think that alot of people are willing to pay $700+ for a console.You also have to realize that consoles don't really need a full blown gpu. They get by just fine with having stripped down versions. Yes cooling will be an issue but in two years time if they started development of a smaller version of the 480 with less cores they would be fine, as a matter of fact they could well use a 470 as a base because it's already just that.
They dont need full blown versions of gpu's but yet limits them in everything they do then if they use stripped versions. A GTX 480 with less cores wouldnt be a GTX 480 then :P, GTX 470 isnt much different then a GTX 480.Ethier way anything is an improvement over the current consoles.
I would say they are overrated. I honestly don't see a huge difference between them and since it's unlikely you'll be able to max some of the most graphical impressive PC games without a very high end computer....
Either way, I don't care. PC needs more than graphics to woo me. Same with consoles.
Depends what resolution you're referring to when you say max out.I would say they are overrated. I honestly don't see a huge difference between them and since it's unlikely you'll be able to max some of the most graphical impressive PC games without a very high end computer....
Either way, I don't care. PC needs more than graphics to woo me. Same with consoles.
Pixel-Pirate
[QUOTE="TheSterls"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] It all depends on the year they start planing and designing the consoles, if they are released in 2012 they wont have GTX 480 performance it would be alot less , because of multiple reasons price, power,cooling, and size. Now if by 2014 then yea I can see performance for consoles surpassing the GTX 480. Because by then gpu's would have gotten smaller, uses less power and performance ratio would have gone up at the same time. Look at the 8800GTX vs GTX 460 four year difference and uses less power, and performs 2x or more better. Also the fact that even low budget pc gpu's today out do the console gpu's by a mile. Which opens a route for Console makers to use low to medium ranged Pc gpu hardware and it would be an improvement and they could get away calling it the next generation.
04dcarraher
very doubtful , I cant name any example of when a system came out and was alot weaker then a 2 year old card with the exception of the wii. Console makes spend billion in Research and development and then sell there platforms for a loss while pc makers sell each peace of hardware for a gain. You could easily take a system launch it for the size of the orginal Ps3 and add a powerbrick and have a beast of a console.
There you go again, Its funny that the PS3 and 360 used in development Pc gpu architecture's and yet were weaker then the full blown versions. They dont gain anything from Pc hardware to make up lost profit form selling consoles at a lost. the Console owners paid the gpu companies for the patents to produce their own chips, Nvidia or ATI arent in the business to keep on producing obsolete items for other companies , thats why their are brands and they make their versions at their factories. And come on you know that for them to create a gpu or use a existing gpu like the GTX 480, they would need to spend hand over fist to make it, then have to power it, and then to cool it. You have to use some common sense and think about it. half the console would be the cooling needed for something that powerful. Also I dont think that alot of people are willing to pay $700+ for a console. I still don't know why consoles must use a low-end PC GPU even though the 360 had a GPU better than that in 99.9% of PCs at the time, was very profitable in the long run, and power effeciency is expected to increase 16-fold by 2013. I don't think console manufacturers are all going to suddenly turn into Nintendos just because they're extending the console generation and want a piece of the casual pie. That's what the Xbox 360 + Kinect is for. Once it comes time to release a new hardcore system, they will be targetting core gamers and they'll need power in order to attract and keep big-budget developers for another 6-8 lifecycle.I feel like PC gamers really underestimate the hardware that can power a $300-$400 console. It's strange, it seems like PC gamers had a lot more respect for consoles in 2005, then suddenly by 2010 everyone acts like consoles are always weak and will always be weak, and that our current rigs are somehow future proof re: console multiplats even into the next generation.
Thats not at all what TC said. He just basicly said PCs graphics arent as good as hermits like to make them sound.You know, it's 2010 and people are still denying Crysis is the most technically advanced game so far in this generation.
Kinda sad, huh?
Vesica_Prime
Next gen consoles ? Will most likely used a much better GPU than a GTX 480. I see no reason to believe a next-gen system would use an obsolete 4 year old GPU. It did happen with the PS3 when it used a 7800 GTX, but thats probably because they never had plans to use a GPU in the system in the 1st place. Sounds like a development disaster, and were desperate.
They dont need full blown versions of gpu's but yet limits them in everything they do then if they use stripped versions. A GTX 480 with less cores wouldnt be a GTX 480 then :P, GTX 470 isnt much different then a GTX 480.Ethier way anything is an improvement over the current consoles.
04dcarraher
Classic example, misunderstood PS3 fanboys claim that the RSX is a 7800 GTX, but it's not it's severly stripped down version. It has 60% less badwidth, half the ROPs, and not to mention it has a 128bit bus while the full 7800 GTX had 256-bit bus. It doesn't even have the same amount of video memory a full blown 7800 GTX had 512MB while theRSX can only go up to 256MB.So, the RSX is NOT the same as the7800 GTX.
[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] It all depends on the year they start planing and designing the consoles, if they are released in 2012 they wont have GTX 480 performance it would be alot less , because of multiple reasons price, power,cooling, and size. Now if by 2014 then yea I can see performance for consoles surpassing the GTX 480. Because by then gpu's would have gotten smaller, uses less power and performance ratio would have gone up at the same time. Look at the 8800GTX vs GTX 460 four year difference and uses less power, and performs 2x or more better. Also the fact that even low budget pc gpu's today out do the console gpu's by a mile. Which opens a route for Console makers to use low to medium ranged Pc gpu hardware and it would be an improvement and they could get away calling it the next generation.
very doubtful , I cant name any example of when a system came out and was alot weaker then a 2 year old card with the exception of the wii. Console makes spend billion in Research and development and then sell there platforms for a loss while pc makers sell each peace of hardware for a gain. You could easily take a system launch it for the size of the orginal Ps3 and add a powerbrick and have a beast of a console.
There you go again, Its funny that the PS3 and 360 used in development Pc gpu architecture's and yet were weaker then the full blown versions. They dont gain anything from Pc hardware to make up lost profit form selling consoles at a lost. the Console owners paid the gpu companies for the patents to produce their own chips, Nvidia or ATI arent in the business to keep on producing obsolete items for other companies , thats why their are brands and they make their versions at their factories. And come on you know that for them to create a gpu or use a existing gpu like the GTX 480, they would need to spend hand over fist to make it, then have to power it, and then to cool it. You have to use some common sense and think about it. half the console would be the cooling needed for something that powerful. Also I dont think that alot of people are willing to pay $700+ for a console. Name one GPU that had a unified shader architecture in 2005 apart from the Xenos?[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="TheSterls"]There you go again, Its funny that the PS3 and 360 used in development Pc gpu architecture's and yet were weaker then the full blown versions. They dont gain anything from Pc hardware to make up lost profit form selling consoles at a lost. the Console owners paid the gpu companies for the patents to produce their own chips, Nvidia or ATI arent in the business to keep on producing obsolete items for other companies , thats why their are brands and they make their versions at their factories. And come on you know that for them to create a gpu or use a existing gpu like the GTX 480, they would need to spend hand over fist to make it, then have to power it, and then to cool it. You have to use some common sense and think about it. half the console would be the cooling needed for something that powerful. Also I dont think that alot of people are willing to pay $700+ for a console. Name one GPU that had a unified shader architecture in 2005 apart from the Xenos?very doubtful , I cant name any example of when a system came out and was alot weaker then a 2 year old card with the exception of the wii. Console makes spend billion in Research and development and then sell there platforms for a loss while pc makers sell each peace of hardware for a gain. You could easily take a system launch it for the size of the orginal Ps3 and add a powerbrick and have a beast of a console.
HuusAsking
Read closer "in development" pc gpu architectures because months later ATI and Nvidia released first generation unified shader architecture gpu's .
There you go again, Its funny that the PS3 and 360 used in development Pc gpu architecture's and yet were weaker then the full blown versions. They dont gain anything from Pc hardware to make up lost profit form selling consoles at a lost. the Console owners paid the gpu companies for the patents to produce their own chips, Nvidia or ATI arent in the business to keep on producing obsolete items for other companies , thats why their are brands and they make their versions at their factories. And come on you know that for them to create a gpu or use a existing gpu like the GTX 480, they would need to spend hand over fist to make it, then have to power it, and then to cool it. You have to use some common sense and think about it. half the console would be the cooling needed for something that powerful. Also I dont think that alot of people are willing to pay $700+ for a console. I still don't know why consoles must use a low-end PC GPU even though the 360 had a GPU better than that in 99.9% of PCs at the time, was very profitable in the long run, and power effeciency is expected to increase 16-fold by 2013. I don't think console manufacturers are all going to suddenly turn into Nintendos just because they're extending the console generation and want a piece of the casual pie. That's what the Xbox 360 + Kinect is for. Once it comes time to release a new hardcore system, they will be targetting core gamers and they'll need power in order to attract and keep big-budget developers for another 6-8 lifecycle.[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="TheSterls"]
very doubtful , I cant name any example of when a system came out and was alot weaker then a 2 year old card with the exception of the wii. Console makes spend billion in Research and development and then sell there platforms for a loss while pc makers sell each peace of hardware for a gain. You could easily take a system launch it for the size of the orginal Ps3 and add a powerbrick and have a beast of a console.
SakusEnvoy
I feel like PC gamers really underestimate the hardware that can power a $300-$400 console. It's strange, it seems like PC gamers had a lot more respect for consoles in 2005, then suddenly by 2010 everyone acts like consoles are always weak and will always be weak, and that our current rigs are somehow future proof re: console multiplats even into the next generation.
The point im trying to make is that the next set of consoles might not be the powerhouses people will want them to be. The 360 gpu or the ps3 gpu wasnt really better then high ranged gpu's at their times of release both gpu's were stripped and altered for low power usage. For MS and Sony both consoles werent profitable until years down the line until production prices went down. Then MS really screwed up with the 360's poor quality design and poor quality parts. Problem most dont realize that system development starts years before release date, so if they do plan on a 2012 release for the new consoles they wont see any of the future improvements that is continuing on. Well they have gone the Nintendo route and are trying to make it stick, PS3 Move, the 360 Kinect and when new consoles come out they wont keep the PS3 or 360 just for the casuals and motion controls they will transfer over because all other devs will move on. Why do consolers say that $300 console is "underestimated" when when the current ones when they were releasd they were well above that cost, costing them(MS and Sony)hundreds more to create and sell at a lost, thats not a smart. I dont think that MS ans Sony will create another console that takes almost 3 years to see profit from the console itself again. Trust me when I say if they create a high ended console competeing with current of Pc techat release expect to pay $600+ Not $400 or $300Name one GPU that had a unified shader architecture in 2005 apart from the Xenos?[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] There you go again, Its funny that the PS3 and 360 used in development Pc gpu architecture's and yet were weaker then the full blown versions. They dont gain anything from Pc hardware to make up lost profit form selling consoles at a lost. the Console owners paid the gpu companies for the patents to produce their own chips, Nvidia or ATI arent in the business to keep on producing obsolete items for other companies , thats why their are brands and they make their versions at their factories. And come on you know that for them to create a gpu or use a existing gpu like the GTX 480, they would need to spend hand over fist to make it, then have to power it, and then to cool it. You have to use some common sense and think about it. half the console would be the cooling needed for something that powerful. Also I dont think that alot of people are willing to pay $700+ for a console. 04dcarraher
Read closer "in development" pc gpu architectures because months later ATI and Nvidia released first generation unified shader architecture gpu's .
The Radeon HD2000 series didin't come out until 2007: nearly 18 months after the 360, and the GeForce 8800 series didn't reach the public until around the time the PS3 came out. Not to mention they were expensive as all get up when they finally did come out.[QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]Thats not at all what TC said. He just basicly said PCs graphics arent as good as hermits like to make them sound.You know, it's 2010 and people are still denying Crysis is the most technically advanced game so far in this generation.
Kinda sad, huh?
EdenProxy
He must not game on a monitor that displays at the least 1680x1050 res and he must not play many PC games on max.
There is a good bit of difference.
Console gaming is usually blurry and low res compared to PC gaming.
The jump in resolution alone is more than two times that of Xbox/PS2/Gamecube to PS3/Xbox 360.
[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="HuusAsking"]Name one GPU that had a unified shader architecture in 2005 apart from the Xenos?HuusAsking
Read closer "in development" pc gpu architectures because months later ATI and Nvidia released first generation unified shader architecture gpu's .
The Radeon HD2000 series didin't come out until 2007: nearly 18 months after the 360, and the GeForce 8800 series didn't reach the public until around the time the PS3 came out. Not to mention they were expensive as all get up when they finally did come out. Actually ATI X1900 series had 48 pixel shader processors and 8 vertex which was the start of the use of shader processors. unfied means that the shader processors can be used ethier for pixel or vertex jobs. the 360 gpu can only do a max of 36 pixel and 12 vertex. The 8800GTX was on the market 9 months after the 360 and yet was more then 3x more powerful.[QUOTE="XaosII"]This is exactly what im talking about, absolutely ridiculous lol except it is pretty much true. console have very low res texture, lots of popin etc compared to pc. Sure console game look great but they are no comparable to consoles. jaggies, low res textures slowdowns are apparent in most games.360/PS3 compared to the PC is about the same as Wii compared to 360/PS3.
ThePsTriple
[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"]The Radeon HD2000 series didin't come out until 2007: nearly 18 months after the 360, and the GeForce 8800 series didn't reach the public until around the time the PS3 came out. Not to mention they were expensive as all get up when they finally did come out. Actually ATI X1900 series had 48 pixel shader processors and 8 vertex which was the start of the use of shader processors. unfied means that the shader processors can be used ethier for pixel or vertex jobs. the 360 gpu can only do a max of 36 pixel and 12 vertex. The 8800GTX was on the market 9 months after the 360 and yet was more them 3x more powerful. Just correcting a minor thing. 360 came out November '05, 8800 GTX came out November '06. It was a year later.Read closer "in development" pc gpu architectures because months later ATI and Nvidia released first generation unified shader architecture gpu's .
04dcarraher
(Released one day after the debut of Gears of War on the 360 actually, which incidentally at the time was the best looking game on any platform.)
The point im trying to make is that the next set of consoles might not be the powerhouses people will want them to be. The 360 gpu or the ps3 gpu wasnt really better then high ranged gpu's at their times of release both gpu's were stripped and altered for low power usage. For MS and Sony both consoles werent profitable until years down the line until production prices went down. Then MS really screwed up with the 360's poor quality design and poor quality parts. Problem most dont realize that system development starts years before release date, so if they do plan on a 2012 release for the new consoles they wont see any of the future improvements that is continuing on. Well they have gone the Nintendo route and are trying to make it stick, PS3 Move, the 360 Kinect and when new consoles come out they wont keep the PS3 or 360 just for the casuals and motion controls they will transfer over because all other devs will move on. Why do consolers say that $300 console is "underestimated" when when the current ones when they were releasd they were well above that cost, costing them(MS and Sony)hundreds more to create and sell at a lost, thats not a smart. I dont think that MS ans Sony will create another console that takes almost 3 years to see profit from the console itself again. Trust me when I say if they create a high ended console competeing with current of Pc techat release expect to pay $600+ Not $400 or $300
04dcarraher
I agree with you that I don't think MS and Sony will be gunning for high-end GPUs for next gen. Even if they wanted to not sure if they could just look at the PS3 by the time it was launched it was already obsolete, LMAO, because nVidia had released the 8800 GTX. PC technology goes at a breakneck pace that consoles can't match.I think you also bring up a good point with Kinect and Move because they will certainly implement such things in future consoles, combine this with a high end GPU this will incrementally increase the cost of the entrie console package. The last gen didn't haveKinect and Move so there was less cost involved. I don't think consolerswill be willing to pay for the increased cost judging byall the whining we PC gamers hear about PC gaming being expensive.Lastly, one thing people hasn't mentioned is thatSony and especially Microsoft are still trying to make money from their Xbox 360 divsion. I remember a Microsoft executive who gave a speech not too long ago at my University and he mentioned that they are still trying to make money from theirXbox 360division. People have to remember that Microsoft lost $4 billion on the first Xbox, they haven't even recovered all the losses from the last gen in this gen. They only had a couple of profitable quarters spattered around here and their I believe even in the last quarter or two quarters ago where they lost significant money. They Xbox 360 division is in the red. It's a similar tune with Sony. So, why try to build a Uber expensive console when you have lost money on the last two.
[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]
The point im trying to make is that the next set of consoles might not be the powerhouses people will want them to be. The 360 gpu or the ps3 gpu wasnt really better then high ranged gpu's at their times of release both gpu's were stripped and altered for low power usage. For MS and Sony both consoles werent profitable until years down the line until production prices went down. Then MS really screwed up with the 360's poor quality design and poor quality parts. Problem most dont realize that system development starts years before release date, so if they do plan on a 2012 release for the new consoles they wont see any of the future improvements that is continuing on. Well they have gone the Nintendo route and are trying to make it stick, PS3 Move, the 360 Kinect and when new consoles come out they wont keep the PS3 or 360 just for the casuals and motion controls they will transfer over because all other devs will move on. Why do consolers say that $300 console is "underestimated" when when the current ones when they were releasd they were well above that cost, costing them(MS and Sony)hundreds more to create and sell at a lost, thats not a smart. I dont think that MS ans Sony will create another console that takes almost 3 years to see profit from the console itself again. Trust me when I say if they create a high ended console competeing with current of Pc techat release expect to pay $600+ Not $400 or $300
Xtasy26
I agree with you that I don't think MS and Sony will be gunning for high-end GPUs for next gen. Even if they wanted to not sure if they could just look at the PS3 by the time it was launched it was already obsolete, LMAO, because nVidia had released the 8800 GTX. PC technology goes at a breakneck pace that consoles can't match.I think you also bring up a good point with Kinect and Move because they will certainly implement such things in future consoles, combine this with a high end GPU this will incrementally increase the cost of the entrie console package. The last gen didn't haveKinect and Move so there was less cost involved. I don't think consolerswill be willing to pay for the increased cost judging byall the whining we PC gamers hear about PC gaming being expensive.Lastly, one thing people hasn't mentioned is thatSony and especially Microsoft are still trying to make money from their Xbox 360 divsion. I remember a Microsoft executive who gave a speech not too long ago at my University and he mentioned that they are still trying to make money from theirXbox 360division. People have to remember that Microsoft lost $4 billion on the first Xbox, they haven't even recovered all the losses from the last gen in this gen. They only had a couple of profitable quarters spattered around here and their I believe even in the last quarter or two quarters ago where they lost significant money. They Xbox 360 division is in the red. It's a similar tune with Sony. So, why try to build a Uber expensive console when you have lost money on the last two.
Well, consoles this gen have almost always had at least 2 SKUs going simultaneously. Look at what Sony is doing with the PS3: the console's base price is $299 with a 160GB hard drive, and the "premium" 320GB version that comes with Move is $100 more.The Kinect SKU does basically the same thing. Most likely they'll continue offering these type of SKU choices into the next-generation, and also include backwards compatibility with Kinect & Move so that can be used on the new systems. Either way, Kinect and Move don't affect the base console's pricing, which I expect will probably be $300. (but I really doubt 2012, since neither console manufacturer has shown any interest in pushing one forward at all at the moment). But anyway this is all speculation.
AFAIK the 360 division has been profitable ever since the July-September 2007 quarter (link), so that's the first I've heard of them having any troubles. But I suppose it's not surprising if there are hiccups once or twice, even Nintendo posted a loss last quarter and certainly hardware pricing is not a problem there.
[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]
[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]
The point im trying to make is that the next set of consoles might not be the powerhouses people will want them to be. The 360 gpu or the ps3 gpu wasnt really better then high ranged gpu's at their times of release both gpu's were stripped and altered for low power usage. For MS and Sony both consoles werent profitable until years down the line until production prices went down. Then MS really screwed up with the 360's poor quality design and poor quality parts. Problem most dont realize that system development starts years before release date, so if they do plan on a 2012 release for the new consoles they wont see any of the future improvements that is continuing on. Well they have gone the Nintendo route and are trying to make it stick, PS3 Move, the 360 Kinect and when new consoles come out they wont keep the PS3 or 360 just for the casuals and motion controls they will transfer over because all other devs will move on. Why do consolers say that $300 console is "underestimated" when when the current ones when they were releasd they were well above that cost, costing them(MS and Sony)hundreds more to create and sell at a lost, thats not a smart. I dont think that MS ans Sony will create another console that takes almost 3 years to see profit from the console itself again. Trust me when I say if they create a high ended console competeing with current of Pc techat release expect to pay $600+ Not $400 or $300
SakusEnvoy
I agree with you that I don't think MS and Sony will be gunning for high-end GPUs for next gen. Even if they wanted to not sure if they could just look at the PS3 by the time it was launched it was already obsolete, LMAO, because nVidia had released the 8800 GTX. PC technology goes at a breakneck pace that consoles can't match.I think you also bring up a good point with Kinect and Move because they will certainly implement such things in future consoles, combine this with a high end GPU this will incrementally increase the cost of the entrie console package. The last gen didn't haveKinect and Move so there was less cost involved. I don't think consolerswill be willing to pay for the increased cost judging byall the whining we PC gamers hear about PC gaming being expensive.Lastly, one thing people hasn't mentioned is thatSony and especially Microsoft are still trying to make money from their Xbox 360 divsion. I remember a Microsoft executive who gave a speech not too long ago at my University and he mentioned that they are still trying to make money from theirXbox 360division. People have to remember that Microsoft lost $4 billion on the first Xbox, they haven't even recovered all the losses from the last gen in this gen. They only had a couple of profitable quarters spattered around here and their I believe even in the last quarter or two quarters ago where they lost significant money. They Xbox 360 division is in the red. It's a similar tune with Sony. So, why try to build a Uber expensive console when you have lost money on the last two.
Well, consoles this gen have almost always had at least 2 SKUs going simultaneously. Look at what Sony is doing with the PS3: the console's base price is $299 with a 160GB hard drive, and the "premium" 320GB version that comes with Move is $100 more.The Kinect SKU does basically the same thing. Most likely they'll continue offering these type of SKU choices into the next-generation, and also include backwards compatibility with Kinect & Move so that can be used on the new systems. Either way, Kinect and Move don't affect the base console's pricing, which I expect will probably be $300. (but I really doubt 2012, since neither console manufacturer has shown any interest in pushing one forward at all at the moment). But anyway this is all speculation.
AFAIK the 360 division has been profitable ever since the July-September 2007 quarter (link), so that's the first I've heard of them having any troubles. But I suppose it's not surprising if there are hiccups once or twice, even Nintendo posted a loss last quarter and certainly hardware pricing is not a problem there.
^^ Yes 360 division did post a profit but they alsobelieve they had major losses in 2008& 2009. Look at the last quarter or the quarter before (this year), I know the posted a loss in either of those quarters. They are still WAY short of recouping the $4 bil they lost in the first Xbox. I believe Sony is singing a similar tune where they posted major losses with some profitable quarters spatter throughout here and there.
Well, consoles this gen have almost always had at least 2 SKUs going simultaneously. Look at what Sony is doing with the PS3: the console's base price is $299 with a 160GB hard drive, and the "premium" 320GB version that comes with Move is $100 more.[QUOTE="SakusEnvoy"]
[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]
I agree with you that I don't think MS and Sony will be gunning for high-end GPUs for next gen. Even if they wanted to not sure if they could just look at the PS3 by the time it was launched it was already obsolete, LMAO, because nVidia had released the 8800 GTX. PC technology goes at a breakneck pace that consoles can't match.I think you also bring up a good point with Kinect and Move because they will certainly implement such things in future consoles, combine this with a high end GPU this will incrementally increase the cost of the entrie console package. The last gen didn't haveKinect and Move so there was less cost involved. I don't think consolerswill be willing to pay for the increased cost judging byall the whining we PC gamers hear about PC gaming being expensive.Lastly, one thing people hasn't mentioned is thatSony and especially Microsoft are still trying to make money from their Xbox 360 divsion. I remember a Microsoft executive who gave a speech not too long ago at my University and he mentioned that they are still trying to make money from theirXbox 360division. People have to remember that Microsoft lost $4 billion on the first Xbox, they haven't even recovered all the losses from the last gen in this gen. They only had a couple of profitable quarters spattered around here and their I believe even in the last quarter or two quarters ago where they lost significant money. They Xbox 360 division is in the red. It's a similar tune with Sony. So, why try to build a Uber expensive console when you have lost money on the last two.
Xtasy26
The Kinect SKU does basically the same thing. Most likely they'll continue offering these type of SKU choices into the next-generation, and also include backwards compatibility with Kinect & Move so that can be used on the new systems. Either way, Kinect and Move don't affect the base console's pricing, which I expect will probably be $300. (but I really doubt 2012, since neither console manufacturer has shown any interest in pushing one forward at all at the moment). But anyway this is all speculation.
AFAIK the 360 division has been profitable ever since the July-September 2007 quarter (link), so that's the first I've heard of them having any troubles. But I suppose it's not surprising if there are hiccups once or twice, even Nintendo posted a loss last quarter and certainly hardware pricing is not a problem there.
^^ Yes 360 division did post a profit but they alsobelieve they hadmajor losses in 2009. Look at the last quarter or the quarter before, I know the posted a loss in either of those quarters. They are still WAY short of recouping the $4 bil they lost in the first Xbox. I believe Sony is singing a similar tune where they posted major losses with some profitable quarters spatter throughout here and there.
Previous costs are sunk. As long as they're in the black now (since they still possess a strong financial footing), Microsoft has nothing to worry about.Hermits here make it seem like games like crysis and metro 2033 are a generation ahead of consoles, what a load of turd.. ive played the best the pc has to offer (my college tutor can max everything) what do you guys think?
ThePsTriple
I'll put it this way - I had a PC with the same GPU as the PS3, and anyone with a little tech-savvy can see the difference between DX 9.0/7800 GTX, and DX 10 or 11 with a GTX 480.:)
The PS3's GPU is limited to DX 9.0 only, and cannot even recognize PureVideo, CUDA, or Phys-X. If you installed a 7-Series nVidia GPU into a Vista or a Windows 7 PC, you would instantly lose all of those, including DX 10 and 11.
The jump is pretty massive. Textures, view distance, resolution, DX11 features (tessilation and more), better framerate, and more make the PC look FAR better then consoles. Another gen better? Probably not. vastly superior? Definitely.
[QUOTE="Xtasy26"][QUOTE="SakusEnvoy"] Well, consoles this gen have almost always had at least 2 SKUs going simultaneously. Look at what Sony is doing with the PS3: the console's base price is $299 with a 160GB hard drive, and the "premium" 320GB version that comes with Move is $100 more.
The Kinect SKU does basically the same thing. Most likely they'll continue offering these type of SKU choices into the next-generation, and also include backwards compatibility with Kinect & Move so that can be used on the new systems. Either way, Kinect and Move don't affect the base console's pricing, which I expect will probably be $300. (but I really doubt 2012, since neither console manufacturer has shown any interest in pushing one forward at all at the moment). But anyway this is all speculation.
AFAIK the 360 division has been profitable ever since the July-September 2007 quarter (link), so that's the first I've heard of them having any troubles. But I suppose it's not surprising if there are hiccups once or twice, even Nintendo posted a loss last quarter and certainly hardware pricing is not a problem there.
HuusAsking
^^ Yes 360 division did post a profit but they alsobelieve they hadmajor losses in 2009. Look at the last quarter or the quarter before, I know the posted a loss in either of those quarters. They are still WAY short of recouping the $4 bil they lost in the first Xbox. I believe Sony is singing a similar tune where they posted major losses with some profitable quarters spatter throughout here and there.
Previous costs are sunk. As long as they're in the black now (since they still possess a strong financial footing), Microsoft has nothing to worry about.I don't think Microsoft is anywhere near black. They overall have a lot of losses, the losses they incurred in 2005,2006 was ridiculous not to mention last quarter or two quarters ago, they posted a net loss for their Xbox 360 divsion. But you are right, they have a strong financial footing with their other divisions so they could afford to take losses. One thing consolers forget that the reason consoles cost what they do, because often times at least initally, they sell each console at a loss, that doesn't happen with the PC hardware industry like for nVIdia and ATI/AMD.
[QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]Thats not at all what TC said. He just basicly said PCs graphics arent as good as hermits like to make them sound.You know, it's 2010 and people are still denying Crysis is the most technically advanced game so far in this generation.
Kinda sad, huh?
EdenProxy
Hermits here make it seem like games like crysis and metro 2033 are a generation ahead of consoles, what a load of turd.. ive played the best the pc has to offer (my college tutor can max everything) what do you guys think?
ThePsTriple
Now hush.
Previous costs are sunk. As long as they're in the black now (since they still possess a strong financial footing), Microsoft has nothing to worry about.[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="Xtasy26"]
^^ Yes 360 division did post a profit but they alsobelieve they hadmajor losses in 2009. Look at the last quarter or the quarter before, I know the posted a loss in either of those quarters. They are still WAY short of recouping the $4 bil they lost in the first Xbox. I believe Sony is singing a similar tune where they posted major losses with some profitable quarters spatter throughout here and there.
Xtasy26
I don't think Microsoft is anywhere near black. They overall have a lot of losses, the losses they incurred in 2005,2006 was ridiculous not to mention last quarter or two quarters ago, they posted a net loss for their Xbox 360 divsion. But you are right, they have a strong financial footing with their other divisions so they could afford to take losses. One thing consolers forget that the reason consoles cost what they do, because often times at least initally, they sell each console at a loss, that doesn't happen with the PC hardware industry like for nVIdia and ATI/AMD.
It is ridiculous. Econ 101. Past profits and losses are to be disregarded since there's nothing you can do about them. The money's gone, the costs are sunk. Always focus on the present matter at hand.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment