Were the HD consoles really more powerful than PCs at launch?

Yeah PCs still had the edge in power but the fact that the consoles could be better optimised for meant that back then, more often then not, the console version ended up looking better.destroyerHHH

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

We have an actual video of Withcer 2 on 360 and looks beyond spectacular there, i agree will look even better in reality, the video is bad quality

It is called "high" because the difference to the next setting is near zero

So, it is not low, because Crysis 2 does not have a low, "high" is already good enough to almost match the highest mode, that is well known

That is why it is called "high" in the first place, high is high, it is the lowest on PC indeed, but is high settings, what it says

loosingENDS

crysis-2-xbox-360-vs-pc-comparison

With Crysis 2, Xbox 360 = PC's lowest settings i.e. high.

We'll bring further analysis on Crysis 2's graphics options in a later article, but from these screenshots we've noticed that the Xbox 360 version of the game has dramatically poorer texture quality, fewer light sources and no advanced light effects, such as bloom and HDR. There are also fewer objects in the Xbox 360 version, evidenced by the trees and clutter that are visible on the PC screens, but not Xbox 360 ones.

Crysis 2 does not have HDR on 360 ?

Who wrote this article exactly ?

I cant write anymore, i cant stop laughing, sorry

EDIT: Ok, stopped laughing

360 has HDR of course and the textures look about same, there is nothing dramatically lower about them TBH

Note that Xbox 360 doesn't render Crysis 2 at 1280x720p i.e. Crysis 2 Xbox 360 version renders at 1152x720. 1280x720p is a dead give away for PC version at Xbox 360 emulation mode i.e. bullshots.

[QUOTE="destroyerHHH"]Yeah PCs still had the edge in power but the fact that the consoles could be better optimised for meant that back then, more often then not, the console version ended up looking better.starjet905

Only resolution and frame rate are the very last things that matter in graphics, since 720p and 30fps are perfect for any game

[QUOTE="starjet905"][QUOTE="destroyerHHH"]Yeah PCs still had the edge in power but the fact that the consoles could be better optimised for meant that back then, more often then not, the console version ended up looking better.loosingENDS

Only resolution and frame rate are the very last things that matter in graphics, since 720p and 30fps are perfect for any game

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

[QUOTE="starjet905"] Not really. Give some examples for such games where the console versions look better? By better, they should run at 1920x1080+ and 60FPS+ as well.starjet905

Only resolution and frame rate are the very last things that matter in graphics, since 720p and 30fps are perfect for any game

720p and 30fps is actually better than anything

Why ?

Because you can have 4x better actual visible graphics in any game

With 1080p and 60fps, you cut back your visual quality 4 times, which is infinitly worst actual visible tangible graphics

It is like trading 4x better graphics for 0.00000001% better graphics, it is unthinkable really

What is better, pac man at 1080p and 60fps or Samaritan at 720p and 30fps

I will take the 720p, 30fps at any generation, that resolution is perfect if we ever want to see close to CGI graphics

[QUOTE="starjet905"][QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

Only resolution and frame rate are the very last things that matter in graphics, since 720p and 30fps are perfect for any game

loosingENDS

720p and 30fps is actually better than anything

Why ?

Because you can have 4x better actual visible graphics in any game

With 1080p and 60fps, you cut back your visual quality 4 times, which is infinitly worst actual visible tangible graphics

It is like trading 4x better graphics for 0.00000001% better graphics, it is unthinkable really

What is better, pac man at 1080p and 60fps or Samaritan at 720p and 30fps

I will take the 720p, 30fps at any generation, that resolution is perfect if we ever want to see close to CGI graphics

your argument in jpg format

[QUOTE="starjet905"][QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

Only resolution and frame rate are the very last things that matter in graphics, since 720p and 30fps are perfect for any game

720p and 30fps is actually better than anything

Why ?

Because you can have 4x better actual visible graphics in any game

With 1080p and 60fps, you cut back your visual quality 4 times, which is infinitly worst actual visible tangible graphics

It is like trading 4x better graphics for 0.00000001% better graphics, it is unthinkable really

What is better, pac man at 1080p and 60fps or Samaritan at 720p and 30fps

[QUOTE="starjet905"][QUOTE="destroyerHHH"]Yeah PCs still had the edge in power but the fact that the consoles could be better optimised for meant that back then, more often then not, the console version ended up looking better.loosingENDS

since 720p and 30fps are perfect for any game

[QUOTE="starjet905"][QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

Only resolution and frame rate are the very last things that matter in graphics, since 720p and 30fps are perfect for any game

loosingENDS

720p and 30fps is actually better than anything

Why ?

Because you can have 4x better actual visible graphics in any game

With 1080p and 60fps, you cut back your visual quality 4 times, which is infinitly worst actual visible tangible graphics

It is like trading 4x better graphics for 0.00000001% better graphics, it is unthinkable really

What is better, pac man at 1080p and 60fps or Samaritan at 720p and 30fps

I will take the 720p, 30fps at any generation, that resolution is perfect if we ever want to see close to CGI graphics

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

[QUOTE="starjet905"] Not really. Give some examples for such games where the console versions look better? By better, they should run at 1920x1080+ and 60FPS+ as well.Jankarcop

since 720p and 30fps are perfect for any game

No, but the gap was a lot smaller. In 2006 Gears of War looked good even compared to PC.SaltyMeatballs

Only resolution and frame rate are the very last things that matter in graphics

loosingENDS

Resolution has a huge impact on how games look. You just simply can't ignore that.

And frame rate has a huge impact in gameplay itself.

What is better, pac man at 1080p and 60fps or Samaritan at 720p and 30fps

loosingENDS

I'll take Samaritan in 1080p and 60fps on PC thank you.

I've been playing my games in 1080p for 3-4 years so I'm past pathetic resolutions like 720p.

No its just console fanboys ( namely reach3 and LoosingENDS ) talking out their arse again. I swear they believe the stuff they put in their topics sometimes.

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

Only resolution and frame rate are the very last things that matter in graphics

GiantAssPanda

Resolution has a huge impact on how games look. You just simply can't ignore that.

And frame rate has a huge impact in gameplay itself.

Above 720p has near zero impact imo in a 720p HDTV and largly depends on how large a HDTV you have or you want

If i want to game on a 60'' HDTV, then i would probably see the difference you speak of

In my HDTV and view distance the 1080 and 720 make for near zero difference, same for the texture resolution in medium and high

PC is for elitists, getting some more pixels and frames per sec i will never see if not my priority in visuals

The difference between a 720p and a 1080p movie is also minimal in my HDTV, while between 720p and 480p is near infinite

The point is that 720p is the sweet spot, same for 30fps, you dont really need more, just better graphics are that resolution and fps

I don't think anything had graphics close to Kameo in 05 (textures).silversix_

Indeed, the shaders/textures in Kameo are unbelievable even by todays standars

Also has some of the best interactive water in the world still

Resolution is the single most important factor when speaking of graphics imo; of course, it's not the only factor, but my God do my games look horrible when I lower the resolution to console levels.

So no, PC hardware already had the edge when so-called "HD" consoles released.

[QUOTE="GiantAssPanda"]

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

Resolution has a huge impact on how games look. You just simply can't ignore that.

And frame rate has a huge impact in gameplay itself.

loosingENDS

Above 720p has near zero impact imo in a 720p HDTV and largly depends on how large a HDTV you have or you want

If i want to game on a 60'' HDTV, then i would probably see the difference you speak of

In my HDTV and view distance the 1080 and 720 make for near zero difference, same for the texture resolution in medium and high

PC is for elitists, getting some more pixels and frames per sec i will never see if not my priority in visuals

The difference between a 720p and a 1080p movie is also minimal in my HDTV, while between 720p and 480p is near infinite

The point is that 720p is the sweet spot, same for 30fps, you dont really need more, just better graphics are that resolution and fps

I don't think anything had graphics close to Kameo in 05 (textures).silversix_

Indeed, the shaders/textures in Kameo are unbelievable even by todays standars

Also has some of the best interactive water in the world still

Above 720p has near zero impact imo in a 720p HDTV and largly depends on how large a HDTV you have or you wantloosingENDS

But I have a big 1080p TV. The difference between upscaled 720p and native 1080p is like night & day.

Oh and btw, you should really try playing games @ 1080p before actually commenting on it :D

I always thought the 360 version of Crysis 2 looked decent. I do have a question though. How do you get a clear unobstructed view on the 360 like the one below? I can't seem to do it on the PC. The best I could get is below. There's always ordnance and the HUD blocking the view.

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]Above 720p has near zero impact imo in a 720p HDTV and largly depends on how large a HDTV you have or you wantGiantAssPanda

But I have a big 1080p TV. The difference between upscaled 720p and native 1080p is like night & day.

Oh and btw, you should really try playing games @ 1080p before actually commenting on it :D

Ok, i never said otherwise, i have my 720p and i am fine with it, so i expect to see Samartian in 720p and 30fps and not current graphics in 1080p annd 60fps next gen

I want real difference in graphics, not just the ability to game on a larger screen

[QUOTE="GiantAssPanda"]

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]Above 720p has near zero impact imo in a 720p HDTV and largly depends on how large a HDTV you have or you wantloosingENDS

But I have a big 1080p TV. The difference between upscaled 720p and native 1080p is like night & day.

Oh and btw, you should really try playing games @ 1080p before actually commenting on it :D

Ok, i never said otherwise, i have my 720p and i am fine with it, so i expect to see Samartian in 720p and 30fps and not current graphics in 1080p annd 60fps next gen

I want real difference in graphics, not just the ability to game on a larger screen

[QUOTE="GiantAssPanda"]

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]Above 720p has near zero impact imo in a 720p HDTV and largly depends on how large a HDTV you have or you wantloosingENDS

But I have a big 1080p TV. The difference between upscaled 720p and native 1080p is like night & day.

Oh and btw, you should really try playing games @ 1080p before actually commenting on it :D

Ok, i never said otherwise, i have my 720p and i am fine with it, so i expect to see Samartian in 720p and 30fps and not current graphics in 1080p annd 60fps next gen

I want real difference in graphics, not just the ability to game on a larger screen

Don't need a very large screen to see the difference. On my 24" monitor, the difference between 720p and 1080p is huge. But you wouldn't know that, Mr "low-res-is-better-because-I'm-stuck-with-low-res".

Ok, i never said otherwise, i have my 720p and i am fine with it, so i expect to see Samartian in 720p and 30fps and not current graphics in 1080p annd 60fps next gen

loosingENDS

Second post said it all.

The 360 was more powerful than most peoples PC's at the time... of course a PC could be built that was more powerful, that should be obvious... however you weren't going to build it for $400

Don't need a very large screen to see the difference. On my 24" monitor, the difference between 720p and 1080p is huge. But you wouldn't know that, Mr "low-res-is-better-because-I'm-stuck-with-low-res".

milannoir

how far away do you stand from your monitor ?

Or better, how is the relative screen size ?

If you are close like a PC screen, then the relative size would be bigger than a 60'' HDTV in the living room

The 360 was more powerful than most peoples PC's at the time... of course a PC could be built that was more powerful, that should be obvious... however you weren't going to build it for $400

moistsandwich

Even a 10.000$ PC with 7800GTX would not even start Witcher 2 and Crysis 2 that 360 runs fine today though

So, not really, you could not get what 360 offers back then for any price

And that was a card released in 360 launch year, not 2 years back like 580GTX is to xbox 720

Even a 10.000$ PC with 7800GTX would not even start Witcher 2 and Crysis 2 that 360 runs fine today though

loosingENDS

People like to talk about how when the 360 came out, that it was more powerful than PCs, but I'm not too sure about that.

I'm sure most people would agree that CoD2 had the best graphics out of the launch titles for the 360, but if memory serves me correctly, my PC version of it that I got before it even came out for the 360 looked and ran better. Maybe I imagined it all and the 720p/30fps 360 version was better than my PC version.

So SWs, am I crazy or did anyone else experience this?

arto1223

No of course they weren't. They were around the power of a mid/high range PC for games. They use dated PowerPC architecture which has a lot of problems. The P4 was a superior chip, even the P3 in the original Xbox was superior to the PowerPC cores to some extent. A top of the range PC at the time was comfortably superior.

Since then the gap between the PC and the consoles has exponentially grown to a point far greater than before the 360. The next generation of consoles will struggle to be anything like a mid range PC when released. That's why Microsoft will have upgradable or tier level consoles. The gap between the PC and consoles has gotten too large.

[QUOTE="moistsandwich"]

The 360 was more powerful than most peoples PC's at the time... of course a PC could be built that was more powerful, that should be obvious... however you weren't going to build it for $400

loosingENDS

Even a 10.000$ PC with 7800GTX would not even start Witcher 2 and Crysis 2 that 360 runs fine today though

So, not really, you could not get what 360 offers back then for any price

And that was a card released in 360 launch year, not 2 years back like 580GTX is to xbox 720

Wrong, attempt at trolling? or just stupidity? The version of the Witcher 2 being produced for the Xbox will have completely different limitations to the PC version. If they were releasing it for the PC back then they would have similar limitations. e.g. incredibly low resolution, poor draw distance to cope with low memory etc etc

The reason the PC version of Witcher 2 wouldn't run on a 2005 PC is because it is designed for far higher standards than a 2005 PC or a Xbox360. It is designed for a 2011 PC i.e. a machine with around 10 times the power of an Xbox360.

Other points;

- The 7800GTX was a superior card to x1900 (AMD) which was basically the Xbox360's GPU.

- You could also run the 7800GTX in Sli on the PC.

- You could use cooling to heavily overclock hte 7800GTX.

- PowerPC cores in the Xbox had feeble architecture compared to any Intel chip. Even the P3 core in the original Xbox had some advantages over the cheap PowerPc core architecture.

- PC would have more RAM, much more and additionally more video memory with Sli GPUs

With far less than $10,000 you could build a PC comfortably more advanced than an Xbox360 at the time.

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

[QUOTE="moistsandwich"]

The 360 was more powerful than most peoples PC's at the time... of course a PC could be built that was more powerful, that should be obvious... however you weren't going to build it for $400

iamrob7

Even a 10.000$ PC with 7800GTX would not even start Witcher 2 and Crysis 2 that 360 runs fine today though

So, not really, you could not get what 360 offers back then for any price

And that was a card released in 360 launch year, not 2 years back like 580GTX is to xbox 720

Wrong, attempt at trolling? or just stupidity? The version of the Witcher 2 being produced for the Xbox will have completely different limitations to the PC version. If they were releasing it for the PC back then they would have similar limitations. e.g. incredibly low resolution, poor draw distance to cope with low memory etc etc

The reason the PC version of Witcher 2 wouldn't run on a 2005 PC is because it is designed for far higher standards than a 2005 PC or a Xbox360. It is designed for a 2011 PC i.e. a machine with around 10 times the power of an Xbox360.

Other points;

- The 7800GTX was a superior card to x1900 (AMD) which was basically the Xbox360's GPU.

- You could also run the 7800GTX in Sli on the PC.

- You could use cooling to heavily overclock hte 7800GTX.

- PowerPC cores in the Xbox had feeble architecture compared to any Intel chip. Even the P3 core in the original Xbox had some advantages over the cheap PowerPc core architecture.

- PC would have more RAM, much more and additionally more video memory with Sli GPUs

With far less than $10,000 you could build a PC comfortably more advanced than an Xbox360 at the time.

Sure, a more advanced PC system of 2005, that somehow cant even remotly run the latest PC games that 360 runs with ease at high settings and 720p, 30fps

Sorry, but somehow it does not fit

One point, 7800 GPU was one generation behind Xenos, that is the only relevant point imo and the one that makes the infinite difference in staying power of 360 and explains why 7800GTX SLI is a dead setup for years now and 360 still laughs at anything they throw at it, even behemoth games like Withcer 2, Gears 3 and Crysis 1-2 etc

Gears 3 would make even 2006 PC hardware explode imo too

[QUOTE="iamrob7"]

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

Even a 10.000$ PC with 7800GTX would not even start Witcher 2 and Crysis 2 that 360 runs fine today though

So, not really, you could not get what 360 offers back then for any price

And that was a card released in 360 launch year, not 2 years back like 580GTX is to xbox 720

loosingENDS

Wrong, attempt at trolling? or just stupidity? The version of the Witcher 2 being produced for the Xbox will have completely different limitations to the PC version. If they were releasing it for the PC back then they would have similar limitations. e.g. incredibly low resolution, poor draw distance to cope with low memory etc etc

The reason the PC version of Witcher 2 wouldn't run on a 2005 PC is because it is designed for far higher standards than a 2005 PC or a Xbox360. It is designed for a 2011 PC i.e. a machine with around 10 times the power of an Xbox360.

Other points;

- The 7800GTX was a superior card to x1900 (AMD) which was basically the Xbox360's GPU.

- You could also run the 7800GTX in Sli on the PC.

- You could use cooling to heavily overclock hte 7800GTX.

- PowerPC cores in the Xbox had feeble architecture compared to any Intel chip. Even the P3 core in the original Xbox had some advantages over the cheap PowerPc core architecture.

- PC would have more RAM, much more and additionally more video memory with Sli GPUs

With far less than $10,000 you could build a PC comfortably more advanced than an Xbox360 at the time.

Sure, a more advanced PC system of 2005, that somehow cant even remotly run the latest PC games that 360 runs with ease at high settings and 720p, 30fps

Sorry, but somehow it does not fit

One point, 7800 GPU was one generation behind Xenos, that is the only relevant point imo and the one that makes the infinite difference in staying power of 360 and explains why 7800GTX SLI is a dead setup for years now and 360 still laughs at anything they throw at it, even behemoth games like Withcer 2, Gears 3 and Crysis 1-2 etc

Gears 3 would make even 2006 PC hardware explode imo too

It amazes me how dumb you are, I just can't imagine someone being this much in denial or trolling for this long. You genuinely must be a bit slow I guess. Now I've come to that realisation, it is hard to really take your post very seriously.

Games designed in 2011 are designed for a 2011 PC, obviously. I mean 1+1=2 also. 7800 is a dead setup now because the PC has advanced for the last 7 years whereas the Xbox360 is just as terrible as ever.

How can you be this slow? Are you a troll? tell the truth? Honestly I just don't understand how someone can have such a weak grasp on rational thought.

That gibberish at the end I can barely make sense of. Um, ok bud, a generation ahead?? the x1900 was a weaker GPU than the 7800GTX, just check a benchmark wherever you like. I think I must be the last person on this forum to continue to respond to your silly posts. When you have an actual argument or point to make that has any kind of foundation in reality or sense of rational thought. Let me know.

[QUOTE="arto1223"]

People like to talk about how when the 360 came out, that it was more powerful than PCs, but I'm not too sure about that.

I'm sure most people would agree that CoD2 had the best graphics out of the launch titles for the 360, but if memory serves me correctly, my PC version of it that I got before it even came out for the 360 looked and ran better. Maybe I imagined it all and the 720p/30fps 360 version was better than my PC version.

So SWs, am I crazy or did anyone else experience this?

iamrob7

No of course they weren't. They were around the power of a mid/high range PC for games. They use dated PowerPC architecture which has a lot of problems. The P4 was a superior chip, even the P3 in the original Xbox was superior to the PowerPC cores to some extent. A top of the range PC at the time was comfortably superior.

Since then the gap between the PC and the consoles has exponentially grown to a point far greater than before the 360. The next generation of consoles will struggle to be anything like a mid range PC when released. That's why Microsoft will have upgradable or tier level consoles. The gap between the PC and consoles has gotten too large.

[QUOTE="Rocker6"]

[QUOTE="rumbalumba"]

wait...wut?

if i inserted an Uncharted 3 or a God Of War 3 on my PS3 on 2006 it would've played it without any problems. the consoles did not grow any power, the PS3 has had the power to run a UC3 or GOW3 since launch.

now, were there a UC3 or a GOW3 game on PC on 2006? nada.

rumbalumba

Don't forget how devs back in '06 didn't know enough about PS3 architecture to produce games like that...

Also,8800GTX was released in November 2006,a card much more powerful than PS3,that can play Crysis on high settings with no problems,and can play games decently even today...

the question is that are the HD twins more powerful than PCs in 2006? regardless of dev talent, the same hardware existed back then.

PS3 release date-November 11,2006

GeForce 8 series release(8800GTX)-November 8,2006

8800GTX is much more powerful than PS3,my friend was using it for a very long time,it could high/max many games easily,only had problems with shadows,so he needed to put shadows on medium for smoother FPS...

So no,HD twins WEREN'T more powerful than PCs in 2006...

No, but they were impressive anyway. Most PC gamers still had crappy cards like the GeForce 6600 when they came out.

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

[QUOTE="GiantAssPanda"]

But I have a big 1080p TV. The difference between upscaled 720p and native 1080p is like night & day.

Oh and btw, you should really try playing games @ 1080p before actually commenting on it :D

Ok, i never said otherwise, i have my 720p and i am fine with it, so i expect to see Samartian in 720p and 30fps and not current graphics in 1080p annd 60fps next gen

I want real difference in graphics, not just the ability to game on a larger screen

Don't need a very large screen to see the difference. On my 24" monitor, the difference between 720p and 1080p is huge. But you wouldn't know that, Mr "low-res-is-better-because-I'm-stuck-with-low-res".

[QUOTE="iamrob7"]

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

Even a 10.000$ PC with 7800GTX would not even start Witcher 2 and Crysis 2 that 360 runs fine today though

So, not really, you could not get what 360 offers back then for any price

And that was a card released in 360 launch year, not 2 years back like 580GTX is to xbox 720

Wrong, attempt at trolling? or just stupidity? The version of the Witcher 2 being produced for the Xbox will have completely different limitations to the PC version. If they were releasing it for the PC back then they would have similar limitations. e.g. incredibly low resolution, poor draw distance to cope with low memory etc etc

The reason the PC version of Witcher 2 wouldn't run on a 2005 PC is because it is designed for far higher standards than a 2005 PC or a Xbox360. It is designed for a 2011 PC i.e. a machine with around 10 times the power of an Xbox360.

Other points;

- The 7800GTX was a superior card to x1900 (AMD) which was basically the Xbox360's GPU.

- You could also run the 7800GTX in Sli on the PC.

- You could use cooling to heavily overclock hte 7800GTX.

- PowerPC cores in the Xbox had feeble architecture compared to any Intel chip. Even the P3 core in the original Xbox had some advantages over the cheap PowerPc core architecture.

- PC would have more RAM, much more and additionally more video memory with Sli GPUs

With far less than $10,000 you could build a PC comfortably more advanced than an Xbox360 at the time.

Sure, a more advanced PC system of 2005, that somehow cant even remotly run the latest PC games that 360 runs with ease at high settings and 720p, 30fps

Sorry, but somehow it does not fit

One point, 7800 GPU was one generation behind Xenos, that is the only relevant point imo and the one that makes the infinite difference in staying power of 360 and explains why 7800GTX SLI is a dead setup for years now and 360 still laughs at anything they throw at it, even behemoth games like Withcer 2, Gears 3 and Crysis 1-2 etc

Gears 3 would make even 2006 PC hardware explode imo too

Don't know, don't care.

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

What is better, pac man at 1080p and 60fps or Samaritan at 720p and 30fps

GiantAssPanda

I'll take Samaritan in 1080p and 60fps on PC thank you.

I've been playing my games in 1080p for 3-4 years so I'm past pathetic resolutions like 720p.

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

[QUOTE="iamrob7"]

Wrong, attempt at trolling? or just stupidity? The version of the Witcher 2 being produced for the Xbox will have completely different limitations to the PC version. If they were releasing it for the PC back then they would have similar limitations. e.g. incredibly low resolution, poor draw distance to cope with low memory etc etc

The reason the PC version of Witcher 2 wouldn't run on a 2005 PC is because it is designed for far higher standards than a 2005 PC or a Xbox360. It is designed for a 2011 PC i.e. a machine with around 10 times the power of an Xbox360.

Other points;

- The 7800GTX was a superior card to x1900 (AMD) which was basically the Xbox360's GPU.

- You could also run the 7800GTX in Sli on the PC.

- You could use cooling to heavily overclock hte 7800GTX.

- PowerPC cores in the Xbox had feeble architecture compared to any Intel chip. Even the P3 core in the original Xbox had some advantages over the cheap PowerPc core architecture.

- PC would have more RAM, much more and additionally more video memory with Sli GPUs

With far less than $10,000 you could build a PC comfortably more advanced than an Xbox360 at the time.

Cranler

Sure, a more advanced PC system of 2005, that somehow cant even remotly run the latest PC games that 360 runs with ease at high settings and 720p, 30fps

Sorry, but somehow it does not fit

One point, 7800 GPU was one generation behind Xenos, that is the only relevant point imo and the one that makes the infinite difference in staying power of 360 and explains why 7800GTX SLI is a dead setup for years now and 360 still laughs at anything they throw at it, even behemoth games like Withcer 2, Gears 3 and Crysis 1-2 etc

Gears 3 would make even 2006 PC hardware explode imo too

That is because it came a year later of course

So, if the 2006 8800GTX was 2x stronger than Xenos and 7800 GTX in 2005, just a year later ...

how much stronger will the xbox 720 GPU be than a 580GTX today, coming 2 !!!!! whole years later ?

I suspect 4x stronger at least, will be like having 4xGTX580 in xbox 720, which is nice

Cant wait for xbox 720

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

Even a 10.000$ PC with 7800GTX would not even start Witcher 2 and Crysis 2 that 360 runs fine today though

AdrianWerner

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

Sure, a more advanced PC system of 2005, that somehow cant even remotly run the latest PC games that 360 runs with ease at high settings and 720p, 30fps

Sorry, but somehow it does not fit

One point, 7800 GPU was one generation behind Xenos, that is the only relevant point imo and the one that makes the infinite difference in staying power of 360 and explains why 7800GTX SLI is a dead setup for years now and 360 still laughs at anything they throw at it, even behemoth games like Withcer 2, Gears 3 and Crysis 1-2 etc

Gears 3 would make even 2006 PC hardware explode imo too

loosingENDS

That is because it came a year later of course

So, if the 2006 8800GTX was 2x stronger than Xenos and 7800 GTX in 2005, just a year later ...

how much stronger will the xbox 720 GPU be than a 580GTX today, coming 2 !!!!! whole years later ?

I suspect 4x stronger at least, will be like having 4xGTX580 in xbox 720, which is nice

Cant wait for xbox 720

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

[QUOTE="GiantAssPanda"]

But I have a big 1080p TV. The difference between upscaled 720p and native 1080p is like night & day.

Oh and btw, you should really try playing games @ 1080p before actually commenting on it :D

milannoir

Ok, i never said otherwise, i have my 720p and i am fine with it, so i expect to see Samartian in 720p and 30fps and not current graphics in 1080p annd 60fps next gen

I want real difference in graphics, not just the ability to game on a larger screen

Don't need a very large screen to see the difference. On my 24" monitor, the difference between 720p and 1080p is huge. But you wouldn't know that, Mr "low-res-is-better-because-I'm-stuck-with-low-res".

Above 720p has near zero impact imo in a 720p HDTV and largly depends on how large a HDTV you have or you want

loosingENDS

Dumbest post I have seen all year (though we are less than a month in, but still). Above 720 wouldn't have near zero impact on a 720 screen, it would have absolutely zero impact. I could keep writing about this one... but you will just say something stupid as a response either way.

Even a 10.000$ PC with 7800GTX would not even start Witcher 2 and Crysis 2 that 360 runs fine today though

loosingENDS

Why do you write it like that? First of, the '$' sign goes before the amount. Second, 10.000 is the same thing as 10 since you always use '.' rather than ',' so it should look like this '$10,000' but it doesn't matter because I'm sure no one on SWs has ever built/bought a PC for gaming that costs $10,000.

Don't know, don't care.

clone01

Then don't post here. Why did you even click on this thread. You're like one of those guys that buys a hybrid and always has to remind people of it. We get it, you're so cool that technical graphics mean nothing to you.

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

Sure, a more advanced PC system of 2005, that somehow cant even remotly run the latest PC games that 360 runs with ease at high settings and 720p, 30fps

Sorry, but somehow it does not fit

One point, 7800 GPU was one generation behind Xenos, that is the only relevant point imo and the one that makes the infinite difference in staying power of 360 and explains why 7800GTX SLI is a dead setup for years now and 360 still laughs at anything they throw at it, even behemoth games like Withcer 2, Gears 3 and Crysis 1-2 etc

Gears 3 would make even 2006 PC hardware explode imo too

loosingENDS

That is because it came a year later of course

So, if the 2006 8800GTX was 2x stronger than Xenos and 7800 GTX in 2005, just a year later ...

how much stronger will the xbox 720 GPU be than a 580GTX today, coming 2 !!!!! whole years later ?

I suspect 4x stronger at least, will be like having 4xGTX580 in xbox 720, which is nice

Cant wait for xbox 720

... honestly theres no point even replying to this idiot.

People like to talk about how when the 360 came out, that it was more powerful than PCs, but I'm not too sure about that.

I'm sure most people would agree that CoD2 had the best graphics out of the launch titles for the 360, but if memory serves me correctly, my PC version of it that I got before it even came out for the 360 looked and ran better. Maybe I imagined it all and the 720p/30fps 360 version was better than my PC version.

So SWs, am I crazy or did anyone else experience this?

arto1223

The answer is simply NO. And when COD2 came out it didn't have the best graphics, it may have had the second or third best graphics. The best graphics was easily PC's F.E.A.R. for which the GS game the Best Technical Graphics Award for which I completely agree.

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"] The comparison pics for Crysis show a night and day difference between console and pc. 8800gtx from 2006 is at least twice the power of the 360 gpu.pelvist

That is because it came a year later of course

So, if the 2006 8800GTX was 2x stronger than Xenos and 7800 GTX in 2005, just a year later ...

how much stronger will the xbox 720 GPU be than a 580GTX today, coming 2 !!!!! whole years later ?

I suspect 4x stronger at least, will be like having 4xGTX580 in xbox 720, which is nice

Cant wait for xbox 720

... honestly theres no point even replying to this idiot.

Then don't post here. Why did you even click on this thread. arto1223