Why do people say PC gaming is more expensive?

Nope wrong again. Look at the benchmarks on oblivion on a 66000 it looks horrible in comparsion and you cant even find MW 2 benchmarks on a 7600. Did I say consoles were more powerful then current pc hardware in any of my post? No I said it would out perform the 6 and 7 series in nearly every game released and it does. The miserable benchmarks in COD 4 pretty much prove that and its only going to get worse for those older pc gpu's as devs are not going to waste time optimzing for them( another problem with pc hardware). Anyways ive posted repeted proof to show you are wrong and even the herimts agree with me in this instance so give it up. Im done with you.

TheSterls

learn to quote and delete pics

but youre right in this case. while the consoles are only at 600p and not on max settings, a 7600gt or 6600 at 1024x768 on high settings is still not going to be running it 60fps. i can verify that i have a system with a 6600.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] LOL , dont you know that the console version arent even running max settings nor even high settings . THEY ARE RUNNING A MIX OF LOW MEDIUM AND HIGH SETTINGS JUST BECAUSE OF THEIR RAM LIMITS!!!! And my old Sempron 3300 1gb and 7600gs ran it on high at 1024x768 and got 30+ fps, Now also with max setting includes 4x AA which is a fps killer, and you have graphics and features that the console versions dont have or even can run so your arguement is flawed

04dcarraher

There is noting on the console version that is being run on low are medium settings and the pictures prove that , the comparison is right in front of your eyes. Low settings have no shadows, no specualar mapping and far lower res textures the fact I have to even argue this with you proves you havent even seen the console versions. Two there is not any feature cod4 has on it that cant be done on consoles, look at codMW 2it troucned it in everyway even the texture quality was better so yet again im just wasting my time.

http://www.overclock.net/video-game-news/609603-gamespot-mw2-graphics-comparison.html

Hmmm wonder how a 7600gt is gonna run that lmao.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

There is noting on the console version that is being run on low are medium settings and the pictures prove that , the comparison is right in front of your eyes. Low settings have no shadows, no specualar mapping and far lower res textures the fact I have to even argue this with you proves you havent even seen the console versions. Two there is not any feature cod4 has on it that cant be done on consoles, look at codMW 2it troucned it in everyway even the texture quality was better so yet again im just wasting my time.

http://www.overclock.net/video-game-news/609603-gamespot-mw2-graphics-comparison.html

Hmmm wonder how a 7600gt is gonna run that lmao.

mitu123

This has nothing to do with the 360 vs the PS3 and in all honesty there acutally pretty close the 360 had slightly nicer textures in spots and a more consistant framerate. His argument is that older pc hardware a 7600gt and a 6600 gt can outperfrom todays current consoles and the fact of the matter is they cannot not on any of todays current games. The gams struggle to hit even 20 fps on compareable settings on games Like cod4 MW. The fact is thats only going to get worse on games like AC, DMC4, RE5 and other multiplat titles that are releaed.

This has nothing to do with the 360 vs the PS3 and in all honesty there acutally pretty close the 360 had slightly nicer textures in spots and a more consistant framerate. His argument is that older pc hardware a 7600gt and a 6600 gt can outperfrom todays current consoles and the fact of the matter is they cannot not on any of todays current games. The gams struggle to hit even 20 fps on compareable settings on games Like cod4 MW. The fact is thats only going to get worse on games like AC, DMC4, RE5 and other multiplat titles that are releaed.

TheSterls

its actually kinda illogical on his part considering alone the RSX is about as powerful as two 6600gts thats without optimization from the cell.

so theres no way itll beat it. i mean my 6600agp gets about 30-40fps in COD2 on max at 1024x768 which is better than the 360 version but ask it to run COD4 and it drops to about 25-30fps MW2 even less not much though.

Long story short, while the pc may end up costing more than a single console, it will not only offer you more quality exclusives than all the consoles combined this generation if we go by SW scores, but you can also browse the web, do media stuff, etc. The icing on the cake is that games start off cheaper and their prices drop much faster and lower. Find me 5 distinct AAAE non-PSN/LIVE games for $20 or less. On the pc, however, not even counting steams miraculous sales, there are dozens of quality titles from this gen at that price point, and much sooner after their release. A perfect example of this is DA:O, which not only prettier and better in every way on the PC, but it is also much cheaper than its console counterparts.

shakmaster13

Can't you just get any PC game for free from some special sites? My friend got MW 2, Batman AA, Borderlands all for free.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

That detail is negligle at best on cod MW2 if you had seen both versions you wouldnt even argue this. A 7600 gt could not do any of the DX10 features so its basicalaly doing it on the exact same settings at consoles at a sligly higher res and its getting obliterated by nearly 41fps no a 7600gt will not outperform a console end of story.

You need to get over that consoles are not more powerful then their Pc equals which are 2004-2005 based tech. Every game including the call of dutys, Oblivion, and many multiplatform games look better then any of the console versions, even with Geforce 6 or 7. Even with my old Geforce 6600 looked better over the 360 version.

Nope wrong again. Look at the benchmarks on oblivion on a 66000 it looks horrible in comparsion and you cant even find MW 2 benchmarks on a 7600. Did I say consoles were more powerful then current pc hardware in any of my post? No I said it would out perform the 6 and 7 series in nearly every game released and it does. The miserable benchmarks in COD 4 pretty much prove that and its only going to get worse for those older pc gpu's as devs are not going to waste time optimzing for them( another problem with pc hardware). Anyways ive posted repeted proof to show you are wrong and even the herimts agree with me in this instance so give it up. Im done with you.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] Hate to break it to you that MW2 doesnot have any true direct x 10 features and it was almost a direct port from the consoles.

You need to get over that consoles are not more powerful then their Pc equals which are 2004-2005 based tech. Every game including the call of dutys, Oblivion, and many multiplatform games look better then any of the console versions, even with Geforce 6 or 7. Even with my old Geforce 6600 looked better over the 360 version.

04dcarraher

Nope wrong again. Look at the benchmarks on oblivion on a 66000 it looks horrible in comparsion and you cant even find MW 2 benchmarks on a 7600. Did I say consoles were more powerful then current pc hardware in any of my post? No I said it would out perform the 6 and 7 series in nearly every game released and it does. The miserable benchmarks in COD 4 pretty much prove that and its only going to get worse for those older pc gpu's as devs are not going to waste time optimzing for them( another problem with pc hardware). Anyways ive posted repeted proof to show you are wrong and even the herimts agree with me in this instance so give it up. Im done with you.

So you have been wasting my time the whole time? I could max Fear on a TI4600 it would avreage about 1 frame per a second and then crash my pc but I could allow it to display the max visuals. The fact of the matter is if it cant create the game at a playable framerate then thus it cant do better graphics then the cosoles can. Console devs must releae a game at a steady 30 to 60fps very rarely is there one thats not hitting a steady 30fps. And you are arguing for these cards that are not even hitting games at 10fps. If its not being displayed at a playable framerate then it fails its as simple as that.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

This has nothing to do with the 360 vs the PS3 and in all honesty there acutally pretty close the 360 had slightly nicer textures in spots and a more consistant framerate. His argument is that older pc hardware a 7600gt and a 6600 gt can outperfrom todays current consoles and the fact of the matter is they cannot not on any of todays current games. The gams struggle to hit even 20 fps on compareable settings on games Like cod4 MW. The fact is thats only going to get worse on games like AC, DMC4, RE5 and other multiplat titles that are releaed.

washd123

its actually kinda illogical on his part considering alone the RSX is about as powerful as two 6600gts thats without optimization from the cell.

so theres no way itll beat it. i mean my 6600agp gets about 30-40fps in COD2 on max at 1024x768 which is better than the 360 version but ask it to run COD4 and it drops to about 25-30fps MW2 even less not much though.

Pretty much , and later games the distance only widens . People wouldnt even attemp tto run a game like AC on pc with any of hte 6 series of cards even the 7 sereis struggles. Poor optimization or not thats how it is as devs foucs on higher end pc cards and maxing out the consoles.

Dont any of you understand that a RSX is gimped 7800 their not two or three or four times powerful as of today then they were back in 2004/2005 and dont you understand that memory plays a big role in terms of graphics in quality? not dumb claims about performance. A 7600gt or that matter a 6600gt can produce better visuals because their not limited with memory as with a console. They cant magically make a RSX or 360 gpu into more then what they are they take short cuts, lower resolutions, in textures, screen size, objects, and effects. Even in 2005/2006 most people had Geforce 6's and 7's and or ATI equals and isnt it funny that every multiplatform game was on Pc and 360 that the pc versions always ran and looked better.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="washd123"]

thats a bold faced lie right there. even if it did it wouldnt be running at 60fps or 30fps.

give the consoles some credit. they both easily compete with a stock hd4650 or a 9500gt

falldogout

Those cards struggle to run Crysis at minimum settings which the console version of C2 looks far more impressive even bringing crysis into the argument makes his point even weaker.

*Yawn* One thing I notice about these kinds of threads is they are illogical rehashes: 2005: "ATi Radeon 1900XT is moar powerful than consoles" 2006: "ATi 2900XT is moar powerful than consoles" 2007: "ATi 3870 is moar powerful than consoles" 2008: "ATi 4870 is moar powerful than consoles" 2009: "ATI 5870 is moar powerful than consoles" Are we really comparing new technology that constantly advances to static console hardware which focuses more on advancing software...? One thing is certain, a 1900XT isn't playing Modern Warfare 2/Mirrors Edge/Assassins Creed/Mass Effect 2/Fallout 3/Resident Evil 5 at the equivalent resolution, image quality and frame rate.Vadamee

[QUOTE="falldogout"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] Lol, Cod2 and Oblivion and Even FEAR looked better on my old 6600 then the 360 console version. I own a 360 and I've seen most games played on both Pc and 360 and even in 2005 there was big enough differences between the two versions without even needing geforce 8 series. Like in Oblivion camp fire smoke wastnt even in the 360 version and some low res textures and draw distances and world loading, then In Cod2 there a major difference in draw distances in texture quality after 20-30 feet.The list keeps on going.How can you compared gpu's that are modified 2004 based tech when even the high ended gpus that the consoles were based off of out do them. Its funny that back then you only needed hardware equal or a tad better then consoles needed and now you need Pc's with 2-3x more power just to have a edge over them. Its called bad coding, lazy porting etc. The hardware in the consoles arent better then what their based off of.

TheSterls

Those cards struggle to run Crysis at minimum settings which the console version of C2 looks far more impressive even bringing crysis into the argument makes his point even weaker.

Dont any of you understand that a RSX is gimped 7800 their not two or three or four times powerful as of today then they were back in 2004/2005 and dont you understand that memory plays a big role in terms of graphics in quality? not dumb claims about performance. A 7600gt or that matter a 6600gt can produce better visuals because their not limited with memory as with a console. They cant magically make a RSX or 360 gpu into more then what they are they take short cuts, lower resolutions, in textures, screen size, objects, and effects. Even in 2005/2006 most people had Geforce 6's and 7's and or ATI equals and isnt it funny that every multiplatform game was on Pc and 360 that the pc versions always ran and looked better.

04dcarraher

LOL there is no tech form 2004 that touches todays consoles. Both the PS3 and 360 GPU are based off tech from late 2005 so why are you bringing anything up form 2004? Im posting solid links and proof that show those cards do not hold up with todays console games ITS NOT EVEN CLOSE and you are still arguing this for no apparent reason. As for the memory constraint both consoles use texture streaming technlogy which wasnt even available in at the start of 2005. Its the reason why a console can do a game like FC2 with 512 megs of ram and why it would be compltely impossible for a pc to do it with the same amount of ram. They basically stream the textures from the disk using hte processor( the PS3 does this especially). Even look at the Oblvion comparison here on gamespot they did a couple years back comparing Oblivion on a 6800( which is better then the 6600 you listed and even shows the 360 version looks and runs better. THESE ARE NOT DUMB CLAIMS THERE COLD HARD FACTS RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE and then all you do is comeback with some claim that has no proof. The consoles will outperfrom any of those older cards you listed for various reasons

1. They are far better optimized

2. They beat them in terms of overall shader performance, pixel fill rate , clock speeds and overall are more powerful GPUS on a platform that is made to do nothing but play games.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="falldogout"] Dont forget crysis04dcarraher

Those cards struggle to run Crysis at minimum settings which the console version of C2 looks far more impressive even bringing crysis into the argument makes his point even weaker.

How can it when its a mix of medium to very high settings? The same way Oblivion mysteriously looks better on your 6600gs running at a whoping 7 to 10fps lol?

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

Dont any of you understand that a RSX is gimped 7800 their not two or three or four times powerful as of today then they were back in 2004/2005 and dont you understand that memory plays a big role in terms of graphics in quality? not dumb claims about performance. A 7600gt or that matter a 6600gt can produce better visuals because their not limited with memory as with a console. They cant magically make a RSX or 360 gpu into more then what they are they take short cuts, lower resolutions, in textures, screen size, objects, and effects. Even in 2005/2006 most people had Geforce 6's and 7's and or ATI equals and isnt it funny that every multiplatform game was on Pc and 360 that the pc versions always ran and looked better.

LOL there is no tech form 2004 that touches todays consoles. Both the PS3 and 360 GPU are based off tech from late 2005 so why are you bringing anything up form 2004? Im posting solid links and proof that show those cards do not hold up with todays console games ITS NOT EVEN CLOSE and you are still arguing this for no apparent reason. As for the memory constraint both consoles use texture streaming technlogy which wasnt even available in at the start of 2005. Its the reason why a console can do a game like FC2 with 512 megs of ram and why it would be compltely impossible for a pc to do it with the same amount of ram. They basically stream the textures from the disk using hte processor( the PS3 does this especially). Even look at the Oblvion comparison here on gamespot they did a couple years back comparing Oblivion on a 6800( which is better then the 6600 you listed and even shows the 360 version looks and runs better. THESE ARE NOT DUMB CLAIMS THERE COLD HARD FACTS RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE and then all you do is comeback with some claim that has no proof. The consoles will outperfrom any of those older cards you listed for various reasons

1. They are far better optimized

2. They beat them in terms of overall shader performance, pixel fill rate , clock speeds and overall are more powerful GPUS on a platform that is made to do nothing but play games.

*Yawn* One thing I notice about these kinds of threads is they are illogical rehashes: 2005: "ATi Radeon 1900XT is moar powerful than consoles" 2006: "ATi 2900XT is moar powerful than consoles" 2007: "ATi 3870 is moar powerful than consoles" 2008: "ATi 4870 is moar powerful than consoles" 2009: "ATI 5870 is moar powerful than consoles" Are we really comparing new technology that constantly advances to static console hardware which focuses more on advancing software...? One thing is certain, a 1900XT isn't playing Modern Warfare 2/Mirrors Edge/Assassins Creed/Mass Effect 2/Fallout 3/Resident Evil 5 at the equivalent resolution, image quality and frame rate.Vadamee

actually yeah it is. the x1950xt certainly will since my x1950pro could.

and all those cards are more powerful. a lot more. its a matter that devs can fully optimize for the consoles they cant specificially target one pc gpu

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

Dont any of you understand that a RSX is gimped 7800 their not two or three or four times powerful as of today then they were back in 2004/2005 and dont you understand that memory plays a big role in terms of graphics in quality? not dumb claims about performance. A 7600gt or that matter a 6600gt can produce better visuals because their not limited with memory as with a console. They cant magically make a RSX or 360 gpu into more then what they are they take short cuts, lower resolutions, in textures, screen size, objects, and effects. Even in 2005/2006 most people had Geforce 6's and 7's and or ATI equals and isnt it funny that every multiplatform game was on Pc and 360 that the pc versions always ran and looked better.

04dcarraher

LOL there is no tech form 2004 that touches todays consoles. Both the PS3 and 360 GPU are based off tech from late 2005 so why are you bringing anything up form 2004? Im posting solid links and proof that show those cards do not hold up with todays console games ITS NOT EVEN CLOSE and you are still arguing this for no apparent reason. As for the memory constraint both consoles use texture streaming technlogy which wasnt even available in at the start of 2005. Its the reason why a console can do a game like FC2 with 512 megs of ram and why it would be compltely impossible for a pc to do it with the same amount of ram. They basically stream the textures from the disk using hte processor( the PS3 does this especially). Even look at the Oblvion comparison here on gamespot they did a couple years back comparing Oblivion on a 6800( which is better then the 6600 you listed and even shows the 360 version looks and runs better. THESE ARE NOT DUMB CLAIMS THERE COLD HARD FACTS RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE and then all you do is comeback with some claim that has no proof. The consoles will outperfrom any of those older cards you listed for various reasons

1. They are far better optimized

2. They beat them in terms of overall shader performance, pixel fill rate , clock speeds and overall are more powerful GPUS on a platform that is made to do nothing but play games.

It was based off the higher end Gforce 7 sereis of cards and hte 360s GPU used a unified arcuhitecture that didnt come out in pc'suntill 2006 are you delustional are just plain crazy?

How can it when its a mix of medium to very high settings? The same way Oblivion mysteriously looks better on your 6600gs running at a whoping 7 to 10fps lol?

TheSterls

its a mix of medium high and low with godrays and a custom TOD. not that impressive at 720p 30fps when my old pc with a x1950pro and 1gb of ram with a single core proc managed that.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

How can it when its a mix of medium to very high settings? The same way Oblivion mysteriously looks better on your 6600gs running at a whoping 7 to 10fps lol?

washd123

its a mix of medium high and low with godrays and a custom TOD. not that impressive at 720p 30fps when my old pc with a x1950pro and 1gb of ram with a single core proc managed that.

A 7600gt struggles to even start it up

[QUOTE="washd123"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

How can it when its a mix of medium to very high settings? The same way Oblivion mysteriously looks better on your 6600gs running at a whoping 7 to 10fps lol?

TheSterls

its a mix of medium high and low with godrays and a custom TOD. not that impressive at 720p 30fps when my old pc with a x1950pro and 1gb of ram with a single core proc managed that.

A 7600gt struggles to even start it up

Also a Sempron with 1 gb of ram and a 7800gs was able to run Crysis all on medium with a couple high settings at 1024x768 25+ fps which is more then consoles can run on their native resolutions which tend to be below 720 and some below 1024x768 type of resolution.

[QUOTE="Vadamee"]*Yawn* One thing I notice about these kinds of threads is they are illogical rehashes: 2005: "ATi Radeon 1900XT is moar powerful than consoles" 2006: "ATi 2900XT is moar powerful than consoles" 2007: "ATi 3870 is moar powerful than consoles" 2008: "ATi 4870 is moar powerful than consoles" 2009: "ATI 5870 is moar powerful than consoles" Are we really comparing new technology that constantly advances to static console hardware which focuses more on advancing software...? One thing is certain, a 1900XT isn't playing Modern Warfare 2/Mirrors Edge/Assassins Creed/Mass Effect 2/Fallout 3/Resident Evil 5 at the equivalent resolution, image quality and frame rate.washd123

actually yeah it is. the x1950xt certainly will since my x1950pro could.

and all those cards are more powerful. a lot more. its a matter that devs can fully optimize for the consoles they cant specificially target one pc gpu

Im not sure if you are arguing that is more powerful are if it will outperfrom them . However the x1900 nor the x1950 pro will not outperfrom the 360 or ps3 in most of today current games.

Look up the ME benchmarks if you like, for some reason it wont let me most the link but i found it gets about 24 fps average at a slighly higer res with no AA and AF turned on compared to the 360s 4xMSAA. Mass Effect was the only benchmarks I could find out of the games listed but its doubtful AC or any of the other games that are primarly built for consoles will run better on it.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="washd123"]

its a mix of medium high and low with godrays and a custom TOD. not that impressive at 720p 30fps when my old pc with a x1950pro and 1gb of ram with a single core proc managed that.

04dcarraher

A 7600gt struggles to even start it up

Also a Sempron with 1 gb of ram and a 7800gs was able to run Crysis all on medium with a couple high settings at 1024x768 25+ fps which is more then consoles can run on their native resolutions which tend to be below 720 and some below 1024x768 type of resolution.

Um the consoles are running it at 1280x720 native which has already been confimred at a steady 30fps with 2xMSAA from a mix of low to very high settings . You have pretty much done nothing but own yourself. Not only are both consoles running it at higher setttings there doing it at a higher framerate and at a higher res so what exactly are you trying ot argue with?

Also the PS3 also uses the XDRAM to commuicate direclty with a processor that helps render its visuals and a BR drive that helps stream its textures hence the reason its outperforming any of those cards in most of todays current games, which is sad because its architecture is exotic and most of them are built for the 360.

[QUOTE="washd123"]

[QUOTE="Vadamee"]*Yawn* One thing I notice about these kinds of threads is they are illogical rehashes: 2005: "ATi Radeon 1900XT is moar powerful than consoles" 2006: "ATi 2900XT is moar powerful than consoles" 2007: "ATi 3870 is moar powerful than consoles" 2008: "ATi 4870 is moar powerful than consoles" 2009: "ATI 5870 is moar powerful than consoles" Are we really comparing new technology that constantly advances to static console hardware which focuses more on advancing software...? One thing is certain, a 1900XT isn't playing Modern Warfare 2/Mirrors Edge/Assassins Creed/Mass Effect 2/Fallout 3/Resident Evil 5 at the equivalent resolution, image quality and frame rate.TheSterls

actually yeah it is. the x1950xt certainly will since my x1950pro could.

and all those cards are more powerful. a lot more. its a matter that devs can fully optimize for the consoles they cant specificially target one pc gpu

Im not sure if you are arguing that is more powerful are if it will outperfrom them . However the x1900 nor the x1950 pro will not outperfrom the 360 or ps3 in most of today current games.

Look up the ME benchmarks if you like, for some reason it wont let me most the link but i found it gets about 24 fps average at a slighly higer res with no AA and AF turned on compared to the 360s 4xMSAA. Mass Effect was the only benchmarks I could find out of the games listed but its doubtful AC or any of the other games that are primarly built for consoles will run better on it.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

A 7600gt struggles to even start it up

TheSterls

Also a Sempron with 1 gb of ram and a 7800gs was able to run Crysis all on medium with a couple high settings at 1024x768 25+ fps which is more then consoles can run on their native resolutions which tend to be below 720 and some below 1024x768 type of resolution.

Um the consoles are running it at 1280x720 native which has already been confimred at a steady 30fps with 2xMSAA from a mix of low to very high settings . You have pretty much done nothing but own yourself. Not only are both consoles running it at higher setttings there doing it at a higher framerate and at a higher res so what exactly are you trying ot argue with?

Also the PS3 also uses the XDRAM to commuicate direclty with a processor that helps render its visuals and a BR drive that helps stream its textures hence the reason its outperforming any of those cards in most of todays current games, which is sad because its architecture is exotic and most of them are built for the 360.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="washd123"]

actually yeah it is. the x1950xt certainly will since my x1950pro could.

and all those cards are more powerful. a lot more. its a matter that devs can fully optimize for the consoles they cant specificially target one pc gpu

04dcarraher

Im not sure if you are arguing that is more powerful are if it will outperfrom them . However the x1900 nor the x1950 pro will not outperfrom the 360 or ps3 in most of today current games.

Look up the ME benchmarks if you like, for some reason it wont let me most the link but i found it gets about 24 fps average at a slighly higer res with no AA and AF turned on compared to the 360s 4xMSAA. Mass Effect was the only benchmarks I could find out of the games listed but its doubtful AC or any of the other games that are primarly built for consoles will run better on it.

In terms of gaming they are not stripped compared to what came out in 2005 other then its lack of memory. And yes many console games run on todays default high settingsespecially games that were primarly built for consoles. The only games you can argue were first gen pc title that were usually outsourced to the consoles and horriby ported which look awful by todays console standards. Also you despertatley need to get your facts straight, both consoles have acess to 512mb of ram not 256 . The 360 has easy access via a unifived memory and the PS3 shares it between its GPU and its processor taht assist it in visuals.

No a 7600 GT cannot run the COD series at double the resolution at max settings at a framerate thats even playable ive proved that twice already. CODMW2 and CODMW are running it at a mix of high and max settings and its doing it at 60fps while the 7600gs cant even run MW at a simliar resolution and settings above 20 fps.Thats a 40fps diffrence no console game is going to be released at 20fps as its unplayable what part of that do you not understand? Anyways im done with you ive only posted link after link to varify my claim that those cards dont run those games at simliar settigns at even playable framerates compared to there console counterparts .

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] But yet The RSX only has a 22.4GB/s link to its local memory bandwidth, which is less than 60% of the memory bandwidth of the GeForce 7800 GTX. Right there cuts performance to a 7600.

Also a Sempron with 1 gb of ram and a 7800gs was able to run Crysis all on medium with a couple high settings at 1024x768 25+ fps which is more then consoles can run on their native resolutions which tend to be below 720 and some below 1024x768 type of resolution.

04dcarraher

Um the consoles are running it at 1280x720 native which has already been confimred at a steady 30fps with 2xMSAA from a mix of low to very high settings . You have pretty much done nothing but own yourself. Not only are both consoles running it at higher setttings there doing it at a higher framerate and at a higher res so what exactly are you trying ot argue with?

Also the PS3 also uses the XDRAM to commuicate direclty with a processor that helps render its visuals and a BR drive that helps stream its textures hence the reason its outperforming any of those cards in most of todays current games, which is sad because its architecture is exotic and most of them are built for the 360.

UNC2 and KILLZONE 2 both run at a native 720p so do most of todays best looking console titles. Please feel free to google any of the info for those gamesthe only games that are downscaled are usally crappy pc ports. And look up the info on Crysis its already been confimred. Also again its 512mb in both consoles not 256 i dont know where the hell your getting that. Anwyas im done and ive proven my point time and time agian.

The offical Crysis settings were reveled in a PSM magaizne I belive but digtial foundry also did a comparison based off the demo they ran using the cryengine 3. Cevat even takes a stab at infinity wards for going sub HD with COD series on consoles.

A 7600gt struggles to even start it up

TheSterls

i wasnt talking about the 7600gt i think we can agree a 7600gt will never beat a console.

Im not sure if you are arguing that is more powerful are if it will outperfrom them . However the x1900 nor the x1950 pro will not outperfrom the 360 or ps3 in most of today current games.

Look up the ME benchmarks if you like, for some reason it wont let me most the link but i found it gets about 24 fps average at a slighly higer res with no AA and AF turned on compared to the 360s 4xMSAA. Mass Effect was the only benchmarks I could find out of the games listed but its doubtful AC or any of the other games that are primarly built for consoles will run better on it.

TheSterls

maybe not the latest games but i know what im running. i had oblivion on max with 2x AA and HDR (forced AA) at 40fps on my x1950pro

i had TF2 all maxed out 50 or more FPS

and hell even ME was getting me 30fps with textures on normal and some of the lighting turned down so it looked like the 360 version.

it is more powerful than either console. thing is due to the unoptimization so to speak of pc games it wont outperform consoles.

If you are a "gamer", then PC gaming is more expensive.

If you are casual... just wanna play games on medium settings or WoW on High... then sure its cheap.

Speaking as a gamer... PC gaming is more expensive. People who dispute it are Hermits (aka. fanboys)

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

Im not sure if you are arguing that is more powerful are if it will outperfrom them . However the x1900 nor the x1950 pro will not outperfrom the 360 or ps3 in most of today current games.

Look up the ME benchmarks if you like, for some reason it wont let me most the link but i found it gets about 24 fps average at a slighly higer res with no AA and AF turned on compared to the 360s 4xMSAA. Mass Effect was the only benchmarks I could find out of the games listed but its doubtful AC or any of the other games that are primarly built for consoles will run better on it.

washd123

maybe not the latest games but i know what im running. i had oblivion on max with 2x AA and HDR (forced AA) at 40fps on my x1950pro

i had TF2 all maxed out 50 or more FPS

and hell even ME was getting me 30fps with textures on normal and some of the lighting turned down so it looked like the 360 version.

it is more powerful than either console. thing is due to the unoptimization so to speak of pc games it wont outperform consoles.

Yes I noticed the 7900gtx and the higher end x1900 games outperformed many of the consoles on multiplats back a couple years ago. I was even considering upgrading a pc to oneof those parts but im glad I waited . That is certinaly not the case as it seems the performace of later games has gotten worse on the older cards and better for the consoles and newer GPU's.

Resolution is where console lose the battle big time resolution allows more detail to be seen. and memory plays a role too because only having 512mb of total memory kills the quality of the visuals.

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6154261/p-3.html

I already told you Prey was a terrible port that was outsourced. the other pictures you posted the one of Lost Planet is running on a 8800gtx which you never mentiond in any of your arguments.

I already told you Prey was a terrible port that was outsourced. the other pictures you posted the one of Lost Planet is running on a 8800gtx which you never mentiond in any of your arguments.

TheSterls

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

I already told you Prey was a terrible port that was outsourced. the other pictures you posted the one of Lost Planet is running on a 8800gtx which you never mentiond in any of your arguments.

04dcarraher

What game Prey? Um if it was optimzed decently it would be Preys high end textures on pc look horrible compared to todays current console titles. LP2 runs on max DX9 setttings on consoles the cards you listed cant even run anything above that and they come no where near the performance and image quality of the conole version which is native 720p 4xMSAA and 60fps. As I said before conosles run 512mb or ram not 256

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6147028/p-2.html

Here is the 360 outperforming and looking better then the pc version running on a 6600gt which yet again proves im right. Its only when you get to the higher end cards where it looked better then the 360 version and even those higher end cards today struggle to run current games that look far better then Oblivion.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

I already told you Prey was a terrible port that was outsourced. the other pictures you posted the one of Lost Planet is running on a 8800gtx which you never mentiond in any of your arguments.

What game Prey? Um if it was optimzed decently it would be Preys high end textures on pc look horrible compared to todays current console titles. LP2 runs on max DX9 setttings on consoles the cards you listed cant even run anything above that and they come no where near the performance and image quality of the conole version which is native 720p 4xMSAA and 60fps.

give me a computer and a bunch of components and tell me to build it after reading your 5 minute learning guide and i guarantee i won't be able to. example - this afternoon i tried installing a game on my new laptop. it installed correctly but when i click on the icon to play it comes up with an error message. i don't know what the contents of this message means and i don't know where to look or what to do to fix it. i'm sure it is fixable but from experience of searching the web for game error messages and solutions just brings up an even more baffling list of instructions to fix it. atleast with consoles if you get an error message switching it on and off normally sorts it out. consoles have their exceptions of course - rrod on xbox for example. but i'm still miles more comfortable gaming on a console than i am on a pc. and it's not because i see console gaming as better or cheaper but i see it as easier and more user friendly and would rather go to my local store to pick up a console that i can just plug straight in than learn how to build a computer because last time i tried to install a cd writer it made my computer smoke...my_name_is_ron

its like talking to a wall here, over half of console games arent in native 720 they are below that. 04dcarraher

Then AA settings are used sparingly with only low demanding games.04dcarraher

[QUOTE="my_name_is_ron"] give me a computer and a bunch of components and tell me to build it after reading your 5 minute learning guide and i guarantee i won't be able to. example - this afternoon i tried installing a game on my new laptop. it installed correctly but when i click on the icon to play it comes up with an error message. i don't know what the contents of this message means and i don't know where to look or what to do to fix it. i'm sure it is fixable but from experience of searching the web for game error messages and solutions just brings up an even more baffling list of instructions to fix it. atleast with consoles if you get an error message switching it on and off normally sorts it out. consoles have their exceptions of course - rrod on xbox for example. but i'm still miles more comfortable gaming on a console than i am on a pc. and it's not because i see console gaming as better or cheaper but i see it as easier and more user friendly and would rather go to my local store to pick up a console that i can just plug straight in than learn how to build a computer because last time i tried to install a cd writer it made my computer smoke...BumFluff122

The last time I installed a new DVD drive/writer, I almost broke my CPU fan. Nearly every single time I install something on my PC, it takes me a good half hour to figure out what the hell I did wrong that it will no longer boot up. So I don't wanna hear crap about how "easy" it is to build a computer.Greyfeld

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] Ya, so? the console be at the very least play in on high settings with your logic. But wait they cant because darn it only has 256mb of memory for the system to use. Which shows their true weakness in any game low resolutions with muddy textures.

04dcarraher

What game Prey? Um if it was optimzed decently it would be Preys high end textures on pc look horrible compared to todays current console titles. LP2 runs on max DX9 setttings on consoles the cards you listed cant even run anything above that and they come no where near the performance and image quality of the conole version which is native 720p 4xMSAA and 60fps.

I could say the same thing. It depends on what games you are talkign about . LP shows the least diffrence there and its the highest quality looking title of the games you posted. The console version for an example is running on MAX DX9 settigns and your comparing it to DX10 settings which none of the cards in your argument can even do. Also read my previous post the majority of the best looking conosle games are in native 720p res with 2 to 4x AA examples of this. Uncharted2, Heavenly Sword, Killzone 2, Gears of War 2 , Mass Effect 2 , Lost Planet , RE5 DMC4.

There is only a select few games that run at settings that are far lower then max of therepc counterparts and yes Prey, Fear and Oblivon are some of them. But even oblivon looks and runs better on consoles then the cards you listed. You are looking up pc ports from 05 to support your claim and then assuming all of todays current games follow the same standards and thats simply not the case.

If you already have the rig, then PC gaming is as cheap as can be. I'd have to say the average of what I've payed for games is about... $35. Steam sales FTW!!! :twisted:

I cant explain this any clearer, Diect x 10 doesnot give a better/clearer/image over Direct x 9 just better looking effects. Then its been proven that a good chunk of console games dont even run at true 720 resolutions with or without AA added. Also do you know why say... oblivion runs better is because of shorter draw distances and all the corner cutting that had to be done even to make the game run at any steady framerate. Also with a game like oblivion the console loads small sections or bubbles of the map to give you the illusion your in a large area when your not, when the Pc version the poor 6600 had to draw a much larger chunk of the map. Consoles are illusion masters when it comes to covering their flaws using every trick in the book. The truth is that if the multplatform games were coded with equal amount of love as they do with the focused platform even the most stubborn people would realize how really limited consoles really are. And even with the vice versa with poor console to pc ports still show that the old gpus can still display better visuals. Even with so called bad pc to console ports should be able to produce as good of an image but they cant. Console gpu's are just modified late 2004 pc gpu based hardware and when the multiplatorm games are done right theres a big enough difference in the visuals between simliar pc based hardware even from the 2004/2005 era. I own a 360 and played on PS3 and have played many games on them, but every Pc version of the games are is 2-4x better in image sharpness to overall detail of textures/graphics in every Pc gpu generation from 2005 and beyond.

[QUOTE="majestix1988"]

10 years console life

or a neverending upgrade for pc..in new games to come

that is really good answer

10 year i will select

washd123

lol yeah no console has lasted 10 years. so far the longest is the ps2 which was 6 years. these consoles may push 7 at best.

but guess what a pc bought in 2005 will still play games. at about the same settings as the consoles. and it will continue to do so. theres no constant upgrade.

Um, the ps2 is a decade old and they're still releasing new games for it. This generation is looking to last a lot longer if we're to believe what sony and microsoft have been saying, and there's no reason not to, given the pc-like amount of firmware and hardware updates the consoles have been receiving all generation.

over half of console games arent in native 720 they are below that. 04dcarraher

In the long run, it's cheaper. But a lot of us prefer the fast, at the moment cheaper route.IronBass