PC vs Consoles in graphics

[QUOTE="ExESGO"]

[QUOTE="Birdy09"] Thats low rating these days, not mid-ranged by any stretch of the imaginationswguy123

My original plan was to give it entry-level, but I didn't want to make him feel bad.

Entry-level systems are pure shame in my book.

Thanks for not making me feel bad :P So I should get multiplats for PS3?

[QUOTE="swguy123"]

[QUOTE="ExESGO"]

My original plan was to give it entry-level, but I didn't want to make him feel bad.

Entry-level systems are pure shame in my book.

Birdy09

Thanks for not making me feel bad :P So I should get multiplats for PS3?

I agree it is better to know the truth. I guess it is better to get multiplats for PS3. Is Fallout 3 on PS3 really that bad and which version should I get?

low settings at 800x600 which is something most igpus can handle is weaker than the consoles. youd be better with a console

most console games are medium or medium high at best at 720p or lower 30fps. any low end rig (dualcore 2.4-3.0ghz, 2-3gb ram, hd3850/4650 or 9600gso/gt220) can handle that

washd123

[QUOTE="Birdy09"][QUOTE="swguy123"]

Thanks for not making me feel bad :P So I should get multiplats for PS3?

swguy123

I agree it is better to know the truth. I guess it is better to get multiplats for PS3. Is Fallout 3 on PS3 really that bad and which version should I get?

[QUOTE="Zanoh"]

Not saying ALL old vets do the same, vets like me tend to play old games and appreciate them like Sheppard212 was asking. I was just showing there are people like that so he has to eat his high end PC. XD

Nah he doesn't need to but it is best to say, he stands corrected.

Sheppard212

I understand. :) Plus, no matter how good ATi is, they cause terribad indigestion. Almost as bad as Cheetahmen.

But what I should be getting at is why compare the lowest of the low settings from either console? Each should be going for the best. The very concept is so darn mind boggling I don't know how to properly deal with it.

Some people want to see how the console stands against the PC on lower optimal settings. Some view it as throwing console gamers a bone, others see it as a scientific experiment.

I might be wrong, but if a PC was best at high end settings, wouldn't it be the best at lower settings as well?

generally, the differences in graphics these days between the consoles and PC aren't really worth fussing over. But then again, console gamers seem to be fighting over pixels for games that look near identical. You pay more for better graphics on the PC. IMO the most important thing is the other features that PC provides, such as mods.

[QUOTE="washd123"]

low settings at 800x600 which is something most igpus can handle is weaker than the consoles. youd be better with a console

most console games are medium or medium high at best at 720p or lower 30fps. any low end rig (dualcore 2.4-3.0ghz, 2-3gb ram, hd3850/4650 or 9600gso/gt220) can handle that

ronvalencia

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="washd123"]

low settings at 800x600 which is something most igpus can handle is weaker than the consoles. youd be better with a console

most console games are medium or medium high at best at 720p or lower 30fps. any low end rig (dualcore 2.4-3.0ghz, 2-3gb ram, hd3850/4650 or 9600gso/gt220) can handle that

clyde46

ME2 is better optimized and he was running it on 1600x900 res.

Also ME2 doesn't use as high textures.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="washd123"]

low settings at 800x600 which is something most igpus can handle is weaker than the consoles. youd be better with a console

most console games are medium or medium high at best at 720p or lower 30fps. any low end rig (dualcore 2.4-3.0ghz, 2-3gb ram, hd3850/4650 or 9600gso/gt220) can handle that

clyde46

WTF? It's ME2 and 1600x900p i.e. my old laptop can't beyond 1600x900p.

I still own Sony Vaio VGN-FW-45 laptop with Intel Core 2 Duo P8700 2.53Ghz + ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4650 (500Mhz/600Mhz(effective 1200Mhz)) + 4GB DDR2-800 system ram (with dual channel mode).

Radeon HD 46X0 has 8 ROPs which limits its rendering preformance at high resolutions i.e. it can handle 1280x720p ME2 with ease. My ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4650 will struggle at 1680x1050(connected to external monitor) and max settings i.e. 1600x900p is in the borderline. Same thing with Dragon Age.

My ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4650 can't handle Final Fantasy 14 benchmark at 1280x720p (scored ~1184 points, jerky). Overclocking doesn't change the point scores.This is one the reasons whyI bought the Dell XPS 1645 laptop (scored ~1894 points, smooth, which is not bad for 26 watts GPU).

The desktop part is clocked higher than the mobile part. I can overclock my 4650 to 550Mhz**/800Mhz**. I always use the latest or near latest ATI Cat drivers.

**Few more Mhz leads black screen.

Graphics, It honestly doesn't matter.

The game could look bad but would be so fun to play you could honestly careless.

But if a game looks badand plays bad then obviously it's bad.

and if a game looks great but plays like bad then it's bad.

Your only option is to play demos.

Low-Med on PC =/= console graphics. Some console games look worse than the lowest settings on the same PC game while others look better than a PC game at low settings.

Lot's of games have demos, so just give them a shot, and use good judgement. If you can't do that, or you're just still very unsure then go where your preferences lie. Maybe if you like FPS better on PC you'd settle for playing one on low settings compared to the same game on console which could possibly look better.

AGAIN!!!

This has been discussed many times...but we all know that no console can match up to the powerful PC if its nicely upgraded......

The ? is How much will u be able to spend on ur PC when compared to the standard hardware of Consoles....

Still I have to give full credits to Naughty Dogs & Sony Santa Monica for their hard work and makin 2 of the best lookin games of All-Time that can be compared to none other than ...................................U all know guys...Has to be Crysis.