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

[QUOTE="arto1223"]Then don't post here. Why did you even click on this thread. clone01

How mature. Just makes you look like an idiot when you go into threads and say that you don't care. It doesn't annoy me. You can do that to all my threads. It bumps the thread for me which is nice.

I love this thread.

I love this thread.

mitu123

Not as good as reach3's one about PC being a generation ahead, but still pretty entertaining.

[QUOTE="clone01"][QUOTE="arto1223"]Then don't post here. Why did you even click on this thread. arto1223

How mature. Just makes you look like an idiot when you go into threads and say that you don't care. It doesn't annoy me. You can do that to all my threads. It bumps the thread for me which is nice.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

I love this thread.

arto1223

Not as good as reach3's one about PC being a generation ahead, but still pretty entertaining.

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

nameless12345

PS3 was when it launched.-Renegade

PS3 was when it launched.-Renegade

[QUOTE="-Renegade"]PS3 was when it launched.wis3boi

[QUOTE="-Renegade"]PS3 was when it launched.mitu123

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

iamrob7

The 7800GTX was NOT superior card to X1900 e.g. Unreal Engine 3 (deferred shading engine) and Fold @ Home GPU1 (flexibility with RV570/R580's stream processors).

RV570/R580 has superior 32bit FP compute capability over NVIDIA G7X GPUs.

AMD Xenos GPU has nothing to do with AMD X1900 i.e.

1. AMD X1900 has 512 threads (via Ultra-Threading tech for pixel shaders) front-end while AMD Xenos has 64 threads front-end (for vertex and pixel shaders).

2. AMD X1900 has 16 ROPswhile AMD Xenos has 8 ROPs.

[QUOTE="iamrob7"]

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

ronvalencia

The 7800GTX was NOT superior card to X1900 e.g. Unreal Engine 3 (deferred shading engine) and Fold @ Home GPU1 (flexibility with RV570/R580's stream processors).

RV570/R580 has superior 32bit FP compute capability over NVIDIA G7X GPUs.

AMD Xenos GPU has nothing to do with AMD X1900 i.e.

1. AMD X1900 has 512 threads (via Ultra-Threading tech for pixel shaders) front-end while AMD Xenos has 64 threads front-end (for vertex and pixel shaders).

2. AMD X1900 has 16 ROPswhile AMD Xenos has 8 ROPs.

[QUOTE="SAGE_OF_FIRE"][QUOTE="heeeeeeeeeweeee"]

n pc had no real big exclusives in 2005.

Rocker6

A very healthy year for PC gaming was 2005...

[QUOTE="Rocker6"]

[QUOTE="SAGE_OF_FIRE"] Fear, Swat 4, Age of Empires 3, Guild Wars, Battlefield 2, Civ 4, and several others. princeofshapeir

A very healthy year for PC gaming was 2005...

Hmm,perhaps.Far Cry,Half Life 2,Doom3,etc.

But both were awesome...

[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"][QUOTE="Rocker6"]

A very healthy year for PC gaming was 2005...

Rocker6

Hmm,perhaps.Far Cry,Half Life 2,Doom3,etc.

But both were awesome...

*cough* WoW *cough*

You know, GameSpot's 2004 GOTY.

[QUOTE="Rocker6"]

[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"] 2004 was better!princeofshapeir

Hmm,perhaps.Far Cry,Half Life 2,Doom3,etc.

But both were awesome...

*cough* WoW *cough*

You know, GameSpot's 2004 GOTY.

Don't play WoW,or any MMO.Games I mentioned above were my highlights.There were some great multiplats too back in the day,like SC: Pandora Tommorow...

[QUOTE="Rocker6"]

[QUOTE="SAGE_OF_FIRE"] Fear, Swat 4, Age of Empires 3, Guild Wars, Battlefield 2, Civ 4, and several others. princeofshapeir

A very healthy year for PC gaming was 2005...

[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"][QUOTE="Rocker6"]

A very healthy year for PC gaming was 2005...

mitu123

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="iamrob7"]

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

savagetwinkie

The 7800GTX was NOT superior card to X1900 e.g. Unreal Engine 3 (deferred shading engine) and Fold @ Home GPU1 (flexibility with RV570/R580's stream processors).

RV570/R580 has superior 32bit FP compute capability over NVIDIA G7X GPUs.

AMD Xenos GPU has nothing to do with AMD X1900 i.e.

1. AMD X1900 has 512 threads (via Ultra-Threading tech for pixel shaders) front-end while AMD Xenos has 64 threads front-end (for vertex and pixel shaders).

2. AMD X1900 has 16 ROPswhile AMD Xenos has 8 ROPs.

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

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

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

dom2000

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"] 2004 was better!wis3boi

[QUOTE="wis3boi"][QUOTE="-Renegade"]PS3 was when it launched.04dcarraher

Noone said that PS4 hardware will be ahead of its time

Xbox 720 hardware will be ahead of its time though, like xbox 360, MS does not research hardware like cell or blu ray, so they can afford all the cost to go to pure graphics hardware

Xbox 720 hardware will be ahead of its time though

loosingENDS

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

Xbox 720 hardware will be ahead of its time though

AdrianWerner

Which means that, if xbox 360 is any indication, will probably rival PC graphics at least 10 years after its release

The problem PC faces next gen is that if graphics today are amazing enough on consoles with Gears 3, Witcher 2, Crysis 1-2, next gen graphics will be unbelivably astounding enough on consoles.

My guess is that noone will care for a bit better graphics on PC next gen, a million times more than they dont care today that Witcher 2 looks a tiny bit better on PC than 360

Next gen i expect the most huge decline of PC gaming ever

Which means that, if xbox 360 is any indication, will probably rival PC graphics at least 10 years after its release

loosingENDS

Consoles will face huge problems. Since they won't offer huge jump people will be reluctant to upgrade to new models. PCgaming relies much less of production values of games, so it won't face the same problem.

Which means that, if xbox 360 is any indication, will probably rival PC graphics at least 10 years after its releaseloosingENDS

derp.

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

The 7800GTX was NOT superior card to X1900 e.g. Unreal Engine 3 (deferred shading engine) and Fold @ Home GPU1 (flexibility with RV570/R580's stream processors).

RV570/R580 has superior 32bit FP compute capability over NVIDIA G7X GPUs.

AMD Xenos GPU has nothing to do with AMD X1900 i.e.

1. AMD X1900 has 512 threads (via Ultra-Threading tech for pixel shaders) front-end while AMD Xenos has 64 threads front-end (for vertex and pixel shaders).

2. AMD X1900 has 16 ROPswhile AMD Xenos has 8 ROPs.

04dcarraher

You are still thinking the old stream processor array concepts.

"XENOS is capable of processing 64 threads simultaneously".

pcreview.co.uk/forums/ati-xenos-x360-gpu-summary-t1926257.html

From the front-end, it handles 64 threads inflight. These threads are dispatched to any available 48 unified stream processors. AMD Xenos has a cut-down AMD Ultra-Thread/NVIDIA Giga-thread like technology.

. XENOS is capable of processing 64 threads simultaneously, this is to make sure that all elements are being utilized and so there is minimal or no stalling of the graphics architecture. So even if a ALU may be waiting for a texture sample to be achieved, that thread would not stall the ALU as it would be working on something else from another thread. This effectively hides tasks that would normally have a large latency penalty attached to them. ATI suggests that their testing achieves an average of 95% efficiency of the shader array in general purpose graphics usage conditions. The throughput is said to be two loops, two texture instructions, 6 ALU instructions, per pixel, per cycle at Xeno's peak fill rate

NVIDIA G80's GigaThread Technology

IBM SPE and NVIDIA G7X/RSX doesn't have this feature.

Just wondering. How many of the original release XBox 360s are still around? What was the casualty rate for RROD up to this point?

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

I don't think you're quite looking at this properly.

The Xbox 360 and PS3 consoles haven't changed spec since they launched so the games being created on them now are still representative of their general power in real use real world scenarios. Compare games like Gears of War 3, Halo Reach, Uncharted 3 etc to the very best looking game on a PC made in 2005/6 (whenever exactly the Xbox 360 and PS3 came out), which nowadays would be mostly useful as a paper weight by the way, and it's blatantly obvious the Xbox 360 and PS3, at launch, were more powerful and capable systems than pretty much any PC of their time was in any real use real world scenario for gaming.

There may have been a few super computers or super spec systems in 2005/6 that could produce the kinds of graphics we are now seeing on Xbox 360 and PS3 but who actually owned them, realistically...

All things being equal and looked at in a realistic sensible real world real use way the Xbox 360 and PS3 were more powerful and capable game systems at launch than PCs.

The rest is just geek boy semantics.

The Xenos GPU in the 360 was better than any GPU on the market at the time, but the in-order Xenon CPU was already outclassed by AMD Athlon 64 X2 x86 CPU's...superclocked

From wiki, AMD Radeon X1x00 family.

The R520 core architecture is referred to by ATI as an "Ultra Threaded Dispatch Processor". This refers to ATI's plan to boost the efficiency of their core, instead of going with a brute force increase in the number of processing units. A central pixel shader "dispatch unit" breaks shaders down into threads (batches) of 16 pixels (4×4) and can track and distribute up to 128 threads per pixel "quad" (4 pipelines each). When one of the shader quads becomes idle, due to a completion of a task or waiting for other data, the dispatch engine will assign the quad with another task to do in the meantime, with the overall result being a greater utilization of the shader units, theoretically. With such a large number of threads per "quad", ATI created a very large general purpose register array that is capable of multiple concurrent reads and writes and has a high-bandwidth connection to each shader array. This provides temporary storage necessary to keep the pipelines fed by having work available as much as possible. With chips such as RV530 and R580, where the number of shader units per pipeline triples, the efficiency of pixel shading drops off slightly because these shaders still have the same level of threading resources as the less endowed RV515 and R520

Just wondering. How many of the original release XBox 360s are still around? What was the casualty rate for RROD up to this point?

jun_aka_pekto

OT, Yes, well for all intents & purposes since the number of gamers out there with a PC that could match the gaming performance of 360 in 2005 was minuscule at best. !!!:P

All things being equal and looked at in a realistic sensible real world real use way the Xbox 360 and PS3 were more powerful and capable game systems at launch than PCs.

The rest is just geek boy semantics.

amaneuvering

[QUOTE="amaneuvering"]

All things being equal and looked at in a realistic sensible real world real use way the Xbox 360 and PS3 were more powerful and capable game systems at launch than PCs.

The rest is just geek boy semantics.

AdrianWerner

What do you mean ?

If i had bought a super PC in 2005 and never upgraded since, rigth now that PC would not run anything like Gears 3, Witcher 2, Crysis 1-2 and would be useless years back

So, in reality is has a near infinite effect, since 360 far outlasted 2005 PC hardware by a million miles, exactly because was so much better in its time of release

Exactly the way xbox 720 will outlast any PC hardware bought in 2013 by miles

So, in reality is has a near infinite effect, since 360 far outlasted 2005 PC hardware by a million miles, exactly because was so much better in its time of release

loosingENDS

In the past console hardware at launch was so much more powerful than even unoptimized 1st gen games blew PC graphics away. 360 was the first console that offered such a small jump in power over PC that no launch game could blow PC away. They needed to learn how to utilise 360 power to make it shine and by the time they did, PC hardware was already way ahead.

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

So, in reality is has a near infinite effect, since 360 far outlasted 2005 PC hardware by a million miles, exactly because was so much better in its time of release

AdrianWerner

In the past console hardware at launch was so much more powerful than even unoptimized 1st gen games blew PC graphics away. 360 was the first console that offered such a small jump in power over PC that no launch game could blow PC away. They needed to learn how to utilise 360 power to make it shine and by the time they did, PC hardware was already way ahead.

If you had spend 100.000$ on PC hardware, yes

But the point is that xbox 360 is still relevant and 2005 PC hardware is for the garbage bin

Maybe we did not see a huge difference back then, but we see it today

If you dont count cost at all then PC wins indeed, if i could have a new graphics card every month for free, then would be better

But spending only 300$ in 6 years and beeing able to still play games looking like Witcher 2, Gears 3, Crysis 1-2 seems infinilty better to me

Nope, not even close. Heil68

Nope, not even close. Heil68

Then why 360 runs Witcher 2, Crysis 1-2 near high

And 2005 Geforce 7800GTX cant even start those games

360 GPU was miles ahead of anything in 2005 on PC

Same as xbox 720 GPU will be miles ahead of the best PC hardware in 2013

[QUOTE="superclocked"]The Xenos GPU in the 360 was better than any GPU on the market at the time, but the in-order Xenon CPU was already outclassed by AMD Athlon 64 X2 x86 CPU's...ronvalencia

From wiki, AMD Radeon X1x00 family.

The R520 core architecture is referred to by ATI as an "Ultra Threaded Dispatch Processor". This refers to ATI's plan to boost the efficiency of their core, instead of going with a brute force increase in the number of processing units. A central pixel shader "dispatch unit" breaks shaders down into threads (batches) of 16 pixels (4×4) and can track and distribute up to 128 threads per pixel "quad" (4 pipelines each). When one of the shader quads becomes idle, due to a completion of a task or waiting for other data, the dispatch engine will assign the quad with another task to do in the meantime, with the overall result being a greater utilization of the shader units, theoretically. With such a large number of threads per "quad", ATI created a very large general purpose register array that is capable of multiple concurrent reads and writes and has a high-bandwidth connection to each shader array. This provides temporary storage necessary to keep the pipelines fed by having work available as much as possible. With chips such as RV530 and R580, where the number of shader units per pipeline triples, the efficiency of pixel shading drops off slightly because these shaders still have the same level of threading resources as the less endowed RV515 and R520

But spending only 300$ in 6 years and beeing able to still play games looking like Witcher 2, Gears 3, Crysis 1-2 seems infinilty better to me

loosingENDS

I'm actually not so sure if PC gaming is more expensive in the long run. I mean I buy a lot of games and where I live new console games are normally around 20 euros more expensive than PC games. And thanks to Steam/GOG/GMG/Gamersgate etc. sales older games can be bought with a pitiful amount of money.

And ask yourself, would you rather spend your money on top of the line hardware or overpriced software?

I rather spend my money on better and more efficient hardware. There's no real justification for console games being so much more expensive other than console manufacturers' greed.

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

But spending only 300$ in 6 years and beeing able to still play games looking like Witcher 2, Gears 3, Crysis 1-2 seems infinilty better to me

GiantAssPanda

I'm actually not so sure if PC gaming is more expensive in the long run. I mean I buy a lot of games and where I live new console games are normally around 20 euros more expensive than PC games. And thanks to Steam/GOG/GMG/Gamersgate etc. sales older games can be bought with a pitiful amount of money.

And ask yourself, would you rather spend your money on top of the line hardware or overpriced software?

I rather spend my money on better and more efficient hardware. There's no real justification for console games being so much more expensive other than console manufacturers' greed.

[QUOTE="Heil68"]Nope, not even close. superclocked

If you had spend 100.000$ on PC hardware, yesloosingENDS

nah, by the time devs learned how to truly use 360 even a 800$ PC offered far prettier games

But the point is that xbox 360 is still relevant and 2005 PC hardware is for the garbage binloosingENDS

Maybe. But this just means it's not falling too much behind. It never managed to outperform PCs in actual games.

Maybe we did not see a huge difference back then, but we see it todayloosingENDS

Why would you think that? All things point to the fact that we'll be seeing even less of a difference than we did with 360.

But spending only 300$ in 6 years and beeing able to still play games looking like Witcher 2, Gears 3, Crysis 1-2 seems infinilty better to me

loosingENDS

Of course the irony is that PC gaming got a lot cheaper in recent years, while this gen the costs of console gaming skyrocketed, so even with regular upgrades I don't pay that much more, if at all, than I would with 360.

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

For the price you couldn't build a PC with the same level of graphics. Assuming you leave out the price of the HDTV to play it on. But otherwise the consoles were about the same as a mid-range to low-range PC at the time. But PC prices have come down faster than console prices and of course the game and accessory prices remain as high as on launch for consoles.

[QUOTE="Heil68"]Nope, not even close. loosingENDS

Then why 360 runs Witcher 2, Crysis 1-2 near high

They dont not even closestop being in denial

And 2005 Geforce 7800GTX cant even start those games

If you downgrade and optminize enough they can and as long its direct x 9 then yes it can start those games. Why would would Pc dev's create a game where graphics are being pushed while catering to a 7 year old gpu? Do you realize that they have to make all kinds of compermises just to allow games to run 30 fps average and at 720 on consoles?

360 GPU was miles ahead of anything in 2005 on PC

Nope The 360 Xenos was the first unified shader based gpu on the market but it memory amount and memory bandwidth limits in what it can render. The 7800GTX and even the X1900 had more memory and bandwidth. It wasnt until around 2007 when they started to utilize the console fully and by then the Geforce 8's were out and left the 360 and PS3 in the dust. If the 360's gpu was so much better then why did the Geforce 7's and ATI X1800/1900's out did the 360 suring their lifetime hmm?

Same as xbox 720 GPU will be miles ahead of the best PC hardware in 2013

Wrong again MS ans AMD are working together with APU designs. and the fact that there is no new arcitecture changes in gpu's coming up makes your claim false. Since you have no understanding of basic computer hardware for them to have a gpu thats "miles" better then Pc's in 2013 you will still need more cooling and power then gpu's need today. and are you willing to pay more then a grand for that console? because it wont be no $400-$500