Why would anyone not own a gaming PC?

[QUOTE="VladJasonDrac"]

[QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

Starcraft 2 completely maxed out everything on ultra at 1080p. Cutscene is in real time, and ingame pic is from possibly the most insane level in SC2.TheSterls

Thanks for the screenshots of different games. I know you weren't responding to me but I asked earlier for anyone to show me the godliness that is PC > the PS3s claim to graphics fame that is Uncharted 2 and you can clearly see that UC2 can't really hold a PCs jock.

Which birngs me to the point of if the PC games look that good then why are people crying about consoles holding them back when from the screenies I have seen that isn't the case at all?

OH please I own SC 2 , Its cutscenes look about as good as UC2 when you actually play it. Its a great looking game but come on its nothign special the best console has to offer hold up quite well with pc games. And thats usually due to the fact console games have a much larger budget.

No they don't even the best console games have, low res textures, bad draw distance, bad LOD, bad lighting, bad shadows, low quality effects.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="VladJasonDrac"]

Thanks for the screenshots of different games. I know you weren't responding to me but I asked earlier for anyone to show me the godliness that is PC > the PS3s claim to graphics fame that is Uncharted 2 and you can clearly see that UC2 can't really hold a PCs jock.

Which birngs me to the point of if the PC games look that good then why are people crying about consoles holding them back when from the screenies I have seen that isn't the case at all?

argetlam00

OH please I own SC 2 , Its cutscenes look about as good as UC2 when you actually play it. Its a great looking game but come on its nothign special the best console has to offer hold up quite well with pc games. And thats usually due to the fact console games have a much larger budget.

Starcraft 2 has a 100 million dollar budget...And console budgets mean little. What does Crysis have, a 20 million dollar budget (not completely sure) and Killzone 2 has a far bigger one. Yet Crysis looks WAY better.

correction, the $100 million dollar budget for scii was not true. you can look that up if you dont believe..

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="VladJasonDrac"]

Thanks for the screenshots of different games. I know you weren't responding to me but I asked earlier for anyone to show me the godliness that is PC > the PS3s claim to graphics fame that is Uncharted 2 and you can clearly see that UC2 can't really hold a PCs jock.

Which birngs me to the point of if the PC games look that good then why are people crying about consoles holding them back when from the screenies I have seen that isn't the case at all?

argetlam00

OH please I own SC 2 , Its cutscenes look about as good as UC2 when you actually play it. Its a great looking game but come on its nothign special the best console has to offer hold up quite well with pc games. And thats usually due to the fact console games have a much larger budget.

Starcraft 2 has a 100 million dollar budget...And console budgets mean little. What does Crysis have, a 20 million dollar budget (not completely sure) and Killzone 2 has a far bigger one. Yet Crysis looks WAY better.

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

OH please I own SC 2 , Its cutscenes look about as good as UC2 when you actually play it. Its a great looking game but come on its nothign special the best console has to offer hold up quite well with pc games. And thats usually due to the fact console games have a much larger budget.

TheShadowLord07

Starcraft 2 has a 100 million dollar budget...And console budgets mean little. What does Crysis have, a 20 million dollar budget (not completely sure) and Killzone 2 has a far bigger one. Yet Crysis looks WAY better.

correction, the $100 million dollar budget for scii was not true. you can look that up if you dont believe..

Aww, missed that piece of news. Thanks. Whats its real dev cost?

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="VladJasonDrac"]

Thanks for the screenshots of different games. I know you weren't responding to me but I asked earlier for anyone to show me the godliness that is PC > the PS3s claim to graphics fame that is Uncharted 2 and you can clearly see that UC2 can't really hold a PCs jock.

Which birngs me to the point of if the PC games look that good then why are people crying about consoles holding them back when from the screenies I have seen that isn't the case at all?

Hakkai007

OH please I own SC 2 , Its cutscenes look about as good as UC2 when you actually play it. Its a great looking game but come on its nothign special the best console has to offer hold up quite well with pc games. And thats usually due to the fact console games have a much larger budget.

No they don't even the best console games have, low res textures, bad draw distance, bad LOD, bad lighting, bad shadows, low quality effects.

Yet i just proved the majority of multiplats use the exact same assets and the excluives look better then the multiplats so you can go away now.

You also dont even own a console so why am i arguing with you .

[QUOTE="TheShadowLord07"]

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

PS3 exclusives (which are of genres that can be found on PC and some of those genres, like shooters, are superior on PC) are a reason you own a PS3. Its not a reason not to own a PC.

argetlam00

I was going by what you said in page one actually about zero reasons to own a console. Can I find those games I listed on the pc? I like consoles because it has games you can't find on the pc. and I like the pc because I can't those games on the consoles.

I never said there is no reason not to own a console. There is just ONE, exclusives. THats it. What I said is there is no reason not to own a PC. People seem to be gaming purely on consoles and ignoring the PC when a PC has FAR more advantages than any console.

you cleary said in page one:

If they do, I see good reasons why they should buy a PC. Zero reasons why they should buy a console. All a console can do is game (well, not really, but thats their main purpose).

For screenshots of PC games, look no further:

http://neogaf.net/forum/showthread.php?t=383744

Also has an epic Resident Evil 5 screenshot with a mod (a free mod).

argetlam00

Nice. You can totally see how most of those screenies blow away the graphics king that Uncharted 2 is said to be for consoles. I still don't want to game on my PC though lol

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

OH please I own SC 2 , Its cutscenes look about as good as UC2 when you actually play it. Its a great looking game but come on its nothign special the best console has to offer hold up quite well with pc games. And thats usually due to the fact console games have a much larger budget.

TheShadowLord07

Starcraft 2 has a 100 million dollar budget...And console budgets mean little. What does Crysis have, a 20 million dollar budget (not completely sure) and Killzone 2 has a far bigger one. Yet Crysis looks WAY better.

correction, the $100 million dollar budget for scii was not true. you can look that up if you dont believe..

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

OH please I own SC 2 , Its cutscenes look about as good as UC2 when you actually play it. Its a great looking game but come on its nothign special the best console has to offer hold up quite well with pc games. And thats usually due to the fact console games have a much larger budget.

TheSterls

No they don't even the best console games have, low res textures, bad draw distance, bad LOD, bad lighting, bad shadows, low quality effects.

Yet i just proved the majority of multiplats use the exact same assets and the excluives look better then the multiplats so you can go away now.

You also dont even own a console so why am i arguing with you .

I have a 360 and I live with someone who has all current gen consoles.

I can compare them side by side.

Do you have a higher end PC?

You have proven nothing.

None of those screenshots were your own and those were bad pics for PC screenshots.

You seem to have no understanding of tech like LOD and draw distance.....

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

OH please I own SC 2 , Its cutscenes look about as good as UC2 when you actually play it. Its a great looking game but come on its nothign special the best console has to offer hold up quite well with pc games. And thats usually due to the fact console games have a much larger budget.

TheSterls

Starcraft 2 has a 100 million dollar budget...And console budgets mean little. What does Crysis have, a 20 million dollar budget (not completely sure) and Killzone 2 has a far bigger one. Yet Crysis looks WAY better.

Yeah your right, Crysis budget is 22 million, not 20 :roll: Killzone 2 is 45 million:

http://www.digitalbattle.com/2010/02/20/top-10-most-expensive-video-games-budgets-ever/

Its the 10th most expensive game of all time right when this article was made. And we (or rather I) have shown before that even back in 2009 NeoGAF built a 550 dollar PC that can run Crysis max at 30+ FPS and a high res. Those parts are cheaper now.

[QUOTE="TheShadowLord07"]

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

Starcraft 2 has a 100 million dollar budget...And console budgets mean little. What does Crysis have, a 20 million dollar budget (not completely sure) and Killzone 2 has a far bigger one. Yet Crysis looks WAY better.

Arach666

correction, the $100 million dollar budget for scii was not true. you can look that up if you dont believe..

Wall Street Journal misquoted StarCraft II budget

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

[QUOTE="TheShadowLord07"]

cause I can't find uncharted 2,halo reach, demons souls, gears of war 3,killzone 3, FFvsXIII,vanquish,socom 4 on the pc perhaps?

TheShadowLord07

PS3 exclusives (which are of genres that can be found on PC and some of those genres, like shooters, are superior on PC) are a reason you own a PS3. Its not a reason not to own a PC.

I was going by what you said in page one actually about zero reasons to own a console. Can I find those games I listed on the pc? I like consoles because it has games you can't find on the pc. and I like the pc because I can't those games on the consoles.

Yeah, replying to a guy who says that he has more in life than gaming...Considering that all a console does is game (for the most part), my reply was rather correct.

Oh and I was going to ask if anyone knows how to get the ENB mod to work with RE5 since the shift+F12 or Shift+F11 is not working.

I put the files in the correct directory too.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

Starcraft 2 has a 100 million dollar budget...And console budgets mean little. What does Crysis have, a 20 million dollar budget (not completely sure) and Killzone 2 has a far bigger one. Yet Crysis looks WAY better.

argetlam00

Yeah your right, Crysis budget is 22 million, not 20 :roll: Killzone 2 is 45 million:

http://www.digitalbattle.com/2010/02/20/top-10-most-expensive-video-games-budgets-ever/

Its the 10th most expensive game of all time right when this article was made. And we (or rather I) have shown before that even back in 2009 NeoGAF built a 550 dollar PC that can run Crysis max at 30+ FPS and a high res. Those parts are cheaper now.

At high res? I run it at 1080p and about 30fps on a GTX285 and my pc cost a hell of alot more then 550$

[QUOTE="TheShadowLord07"]

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

PS3 exclusives (which are of genres that can be found on PC and some of those genres, like shooters, are superior on PC) are a reason you own a PS3. Its not a reason not to own a PC.

argetlam00

I was going by what you said in page one actually about zero reasons to own a console. Can I find those games I listed on the pc? I like consoles because it has games you can't find on the pc. and I like the pc because I can't those games on the consoles.

Yeah, replying to a guy who says that he has more in life than gaming...Considering that all a console does is game (for the most part), my reply was rather correct.

Im pretty sure the PS3 does alot of movie playing to.

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]
Crysis budget was more then 20 million and depending on the rig Crysis doesnt look better. It looks better at Max but ive toyed with the settings and I think KZ 2 looks better then low or medium. Regardless im talking about the overall library of games. Many great pc games dont even look that good at all and it because low budget. Almost all console titles have a high budget and you see the diffrences . Does GOW3 look better then Connan or any other low budget action adventure title? Um yes and by a fair margin. And why do you think SC2 cost so much ? The cutscenes look great and that cost money.

TheSterls

Yeah your right, Crysis budget is 22 million, not 20 :roll: Killzone 2 is 45 million:

http://www.digitalbattle.com/2010/02/20/top-10-most-expensive-video-games-budgets-ever/

Its the 10th most expensive game of all time right when this article was made. And we (or rather I) have shown before that even back in 2009 NeoGAF built a 550 dollar PC that can run Crysis max at 30+ FPS and a high res. Those parts are cheaper now.

At high res? I run it at 1080p and about 30fps on a GTX285 and my pc cost a hell of alot more then 550$

lower than 1080p, higher than 720p. It was 1600x900 or something about that. Too lazy to go back and check.

ANd before I start getting my screenshots of RE5 let me show you a video of it running well enough on a 7600gt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbtadGJjhTg

[QUOTE="TheShadowLord07"]

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

PS3 exclusives (which are of genres that can be found on PC and some of those genres, like shooters, are superior on PC) are a reason you own a PS3. Its not a reason not to own a PC.

argetlam00

I was going by what you said in page one actually about zero reasons to own a console. Can I find those games I listed on the pc? I like consoles because it has games you can't find on the pc. and I like the pc because I can't those games on the consoles.

Yeah, replying to a guy who says that he has more in life than gaming...Considering that all a console does is game (for the most part), my reply was rather correct.

don't see a problem with that.

[QUOTE="Arach666"][QUOTE="TheShadowLord07"]

correction, the $100 million dollar budget for scii was not true. you can look that up if you dont believe..

TheShadowLord07

Wall Street Journal misquoted StarCraft II budget

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

[QUOTE="TheShadowLord07"]

I was going by what you said in page one actually about zero reasons to own a console. Can I find those games I listed on the pc? I like consoles because it has games you can't find on the pc. and I like the pc because I can't those games on the consoles.

TheShadowLord07

Yeah, replying to a guy who says that he has more in life than gaming...Considering that all a console does is game (for the most part), my reply was rather correct.

don't see a problem with that.

I would if someone isn't much of a gamer. PC provides far more features.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

No they don't even the best console games have, low res textures, bad draw distance, bad LOD, bad lighting, bad shadows, low quality effects.

Hakkai007

Yet i just proved the majority of multiplats use the exact same assets and the excluives look better then the multiplats so you can go away now.

You also dont even own a console so why am i arguing with you .

I have a 360 and I live with someone who has all current gen consoles.

I can compare them side by side.

Do you have a higher end PC?

You have proven nothing.

None of those screenshots were your own and those were bad pics for PC screenshots.

You seem to have no understanding of tech like LOD and draw distance.....

I just showed you the digital foundry comparison where all that is identical on RE5 to max settings. You seem to not know how to read.

I own a GTX285 and a I920 processor with 6gigs of ram that is capable of maxing any of the games you have listed. Those were 1080p direct feed shots of RE5 wich was ranked the best looking game on pc last year and it uses the exact same quality assets as the console version. The only advantage the pc version had were typical image quality settings.

And that low res video of RE5 on pc looks like crap so im not sure how thats helping your case at all.

PS. the link is on page 44 of this very thread that goes on to say the LOD detail, texture settings etc are all equal to max settings on the PC. Give it up.

PS. Im done downloading my music so I will be taking a break good day.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]Yes you can run GTA 4 on a 7800, people have done it and it looks just as good as the console versions. Having prey running on one cpu instead of all three has nothing to with texture detail thats the gpu's job not the cpu Next, Rage is going to be hurt in overall image quality because of them targetting 60fps and the consoles limited memory. TheSterls

Yes it does have to do with the processing function its the reason why Prey benchmarked better on rigs that had single core cpu's . If it didtnt matter then why isnt Prey among the best looking games to this day and why does RAGE look far superior in every way? Its being done in 720p and pushing 2MSAA wich was at least equal to what Prey was doing.

A. Its based off the geforce 7800 series

B. it has nearly half the memory bus then a normal 7800GTX

C. That the RSX cant out process the 7800 series because it is one

Quote right from the designer of the RSX "saying that the RSX GPU is basically a slightly less powerful GeForce 7800. That means that almost a year before launch, there's a PC graphics chip that is more powerful than the RSX GPU found in the PlayStation 3. And make no mistake, this is not a crazy, speculative conclusion ; this comes straight from the company that makes both parts: the RSX and GeForce 7800 graphics processing units."

Every Multiplat game that has been made since 2004 Pc versions also looked. better. If devs spent the same amount of effort into creating tweaked out consoles settings to run on the older based hardware as with the Pc counterparts that are the same era as the consoles those cards with more memory would look and run better. the fact that anymore that most multiplats need gpu's that are multiple times stronger then the aging console gpu's doesnot mean that coding and tweaking the consoles have gotten better (more power for nowhere). It means that for the Pc versions are getting the short end of the stick when it comes to multuplats that are made to make a quick buck. Now there are multiplat games with low requirements and can use some of the extra power behind Pc can offer. the problem is that almost all the multiplatform games are created for the console specs in mind which doesnot allow Pc's to really show off their stuff. Until you understand the differences between processing power and the ability to use memory to store and render higher resolutions, showing more detail and being able to use more filtering to enhance the graphics even more. Your not going to get it.

well I gtg. Considering the amazing popularity of this thread (never seen a non-hype thread get this many posts in a day) I'm sure we will continue this discussion tommorow.

[QUOTE="VladJasonDrac"]

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

What do you mean what work? You just proved... your using your PC to work, not a console. Why do you think that is?

Try to find me a console that can do some photoshop, music editing... you know, work related stuff.

Bebi_vegeta

Sounds like work at home? Which most of the world doesn't partake in but if you find me an office job that will pay me to play Mass Effct all day on their PC then consider me sold. Otherwise i'll be playing Splinter Celll on my 360 and writing silly posts in SW on my computer :lol:

So you just agreed that console can't do everything PC can?

I didn't really say that in the first place. I said there wasn't a lot PCs can do nowadays that consoles can't but whenever someone says something like I did people will point out the few obvious things that everyone already knows and try to win their argument like that. I'm not going to game on a PC because I can use Photoshop too. That's kinda silly logic to begin with. You PC guys are kooky lol

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

Yet i just proved the majority of multiplats use the exact same assets and the excluives look better then the multiplats so you can go away now.

You also dont even own a console so why am i arguing with you .

TheSterls

I have a 360 and I live with someone who has all current gen consoles.

I can compare them side by side.

Do you have a higher end PC?

You have proven nothing.

None of those screenshots were your own and those were bad pics for PC screenshots.

You seem to have no understanding of tech like LOD and draw distance.....

I just showed you the digital foundry comparison where all that is identical on RE5 to max settings. You seem to not know how to read.

I own a GTX285 and a I920 processor with 6gigs of ram that is capable of maxing any of the games you have listed. Those were 1080p direct feed shots of RE5 wich was ranked the best looking game on pc last year and it uses the exact same quality assets as the console version. The only advantage the pc version had were typical image quality settings.

And that low res video of RE5 on pc looks like crap so im not sure how thats helping your case at all.

PS. the link is on page 44 of this very thread that goes on to say the LOD detail, texture settings etc are all equal to max settings on the PC. Give it up.

PS. Im done downloading my music so I will be taking a break good day.

RE5, the best looking game for PC in 2009?????

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

Yet i just proved the majority of multiplats use the exact same assets and the excluives look better then the multiplats so you can go away now.

You also dont even own a console so why am i arguing with you .

TheSterls

I have a 360 and I live with someone who has all current gen consoles.

I can compare them side by side.

Do you have a higher end PC?

You have proven nothing.

None of those screenshots were your own and those were bad pics for PC screenshots.

You seem to have no understanding of tech like LOD and draw distance.....

I just showed you the digital foundry comparison where all that is identical on RE5 to max settings. You seem to not know how to read.

I own a GTX285 and a I920 processor with 6gigs of ram that is capable of maxing any of the games you have listed. Those were 1080p direct feed shots of RE5 wich was ranked the best looking game on pc last year and it uses the exact same quality assets as the console version. The only advantage the pc version had were typical image quality settings.

And that low res video of RE5 on pc looks like crap so im not sure how thats helping your case at all.

low res video it was 720p.....I guess consoles are low res crap too?

ANd I have posted a pic early that has the PC version of resident evil 5 looking much much better....

I do actually but it stopped working, again. That brings me to my first reason for preferring consoles: I've found console gaming to be far more reliable, mainly due to games crashing on the PC. Secondly, I like playing with a controller on my couch and with surround sound speakers. That could be done with a PC but I don't want to have to worry about controller compatibility issues or having extra cords sprawled out across my lounge room. Finally, I prefer the exclusives on consoles, and there's by far more than enough games for me.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]Yes you can run GTA 4 on a 7800, people have done it and it looks just as good as the console versions. Having prey running on one cpu instead of all three has nothing to with texture detail thats the gpu's job not the cpu Next, Rage is going to be hurt in overall image quality because of them targetting 60fps and the consoles limited memory. 04dcarraher

Yes it does have to do with the processing function its the reason why Prey benchmarked better on rigs that had single core cpu's . If it didtnt matter then why isnt Prey among the best looking games to this day and why does RAGE look far superior in every way? Its being done in 720p and pushing 2MSAA wich was at least equal to what Prey was doing.

Prey wasnt even on the PS3 you are ignoring the question and the Rsx was made to work with the processor the RSX+CELL romps a 7800gtx and that is widley apparent on DMC4 for an example a rare multiplat that acutally looked better then the 360 version. Why cant a 7800gtx look as good as the PS3 version at even close to the same framerate? A 7800 has no prcoessing assistnace. It has to do all the gpu task by itself, AA , lighting , post processing . The RSX has to do none of that it is being done by the processor allowing the RSX to do other things.

hence the reason why a 7800gtx cannot push a game with as many effects or assets at even a playable framerate.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

I have a 360 and I live with someone who has all current gen consoles.

I can compare them side by side.

Do you have a higher end PC?

You have proven nothing.

None of those screenshots were your own and those were bad pics for PC screenshots.

You seem to have no understanding of tech like LOD and draw distance.....

Hakkai007

I just showed you the digital foundry comparison where all that is identical on RE5 to max settings. You seem to not know how to read.

I own a GTX285 and a I920 processor with 6gigs of ram that is capable of maxing any of the games you have listed. Those were 1080p direct feed shots of RE5 wich was ranked the best looking game on pc last year and it uses the exact same quality assets as the console version. The only advantage the pc version had were typical image quality settings.

And that low res video of RE5 on pc looks like crap so im not sure how thats helping your case at all.

low res video it was 720p.....I guess consoles are low res crap too?

ANd I have posted a pic early that has the PC version of resident evil 5 looking much much better....

That doenst look much better , It looks crisper and its using a color mod wich makes the game look even more cartoony.

PS. you are actually arguing that the highly compressed youtube video looks as good as the console image?

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

I have a 360 and I live with someone who has all current gen consoles.

I can compare them side by side.

Do you have a higher end PC?

You have proven nothing.

None of those screenshots were your own and those were bad pics for PC screenshots.

You seem to have no understanding of tech like LOD and draw distance.....

Bebi_vegeta

I just showed you the digital foundry comparison where all that is identical on RE5 to max settings. You seem to not know how to read.

I own a GTX285 and a I920 processor with 6gigs of ram that is capable of maxing any of the games you have listed. Those were 1080p direct feed shots of RE5 wich was ranked the best looking game on pc last year and it uses the exact same quality assets as the console version. The only advantage the pc version had were typical image quality settings.

And that low res video of RE5 on pc looks like crap so im not sure how thats helping your case at all.

PS. the link is on page 44 of this very thread that goes on to say the LOD detail, texture settings etc are all equal to max settings on the PC. Give it up.

PS. Im done downloading my music so I will be taking a break good day.

RE5, the best looking game for PC in 2009?????

It won most the rewards.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

I just showed you the digital foundry comparison where all that is identical on RE5 to max settings. You seem to not know how to read.

I own a GTX285 and a I920 processor with 6gigs of ram that is capable of maxing any of the games you have listed. Those were 1080p direct feed shots of RE5 wich was ranked the best looking game on pc last year and it uses the exact same quality assets as the console version. The only advantage the pc version had were typical image quality settings.

And that low res video of RE5 on pc looks like crap so im not sure how thats helping your case at all.

PS. the link is on page 44 of this very thread that goes on to say the LOD detail, texture settings etc are all equal to max settings on the PC. Give it up.

PS. Im done downloading my music so I will be taking a break good day.

RE5, the best looking game for PC in 2009?????

It won most the rewards.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="TheSterls"]

Yes it does have to do with the processing function its the reason why Prey benchmarked better on rigs that had single core cpu's . If it didtnt matter then why isnt Prey among the best looking games to this day and why does RAGE look far superior in every way? Its being done in 720p and pushing 2MSAA wich was at least equal to what Prey was doing.

TheSterls

Prey wasnt even on the PS3 you are ignoring the question and the Rsx was made to work with the processor the RSX+CELL romps a 7800gtx and that is widley apparent on DMC4 for an example a rare multiplat that acutally looked better then the 360 version. Why cant a 7800gtx make look as good as the PS3 version at even close to the same framerate? A 7800 has no prcoessing assistnace. It has to do all the gpu task by itself, AA , lighting , post processing . The RSX has to do none of that it is being done by the processor allowing the RSX to do other things.

hence the reason why a 7800gtx cannot push a game with as many effects or assets at even a playable framerate.

And wouldn'tyou think that a PC CPU takes away some of the stress?

On laptops using old intel gpus you can play games like CoD4 just fine if you have a dual core cpu which improves performance dramatically.

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

I just showed you the digital foundry comparison where all that is identical on RE5 to max settings. You seem to not know how to read.

I own a GTX285 and a I920 processor with 6gigs of ram that is capable of maxing any of the games you have listed. Those were 1080p direct feed shots of RE5 wich was ranked the best looking game on pc last year and it uses the exact same quality assets as the console version. The only advantage the pc version had were typical image quality settings.

And that low res video of RE5 on pc looks like crap so im not sure how thats helping your case at all.

TheSterls

low res video it was 720p.....I guess consoles are low res crap too?

ANd I have posted a pic early that has the PC version of resident evil 5 looking much much better....

That doenst look much better , It looks crisper and its using a color mod wich makes the game look even more cartoony.

PS. you are actually arguing that the highly compressed youtube video looks as good as the console image?

It was playing the game just fine and wasn't playing on low settings.

And you seem to forget the PC image I keep posting...

And that color mod makes the game look better and more realistic.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="VladJasonDrac"]

Sounds like work at home? Which most of the world doesn't partake in but if you find me an office job that will pay me to play Mass Effct all day on their PC then consider me sold. Otherwise i'll be playing Splinter Celll on my 360 and writing silly posts in SW on my computer :lol:

VladJasonDrac

So you just agreed that console can't do everything PC can?

I didn't really say that in the first place. I said there wasn't a lot PCs can do nowadays that consoles can't but whenever someone says something like I did people will point out the few obvious things that everyone already knows and try to win their argument like that. I'm not going to game on a PC because I can use Photoshop too. That's kinda silly logic to begin with. You PC guys are kooky lol

Hello?

Again you say... "there wasn't a lot PCs can do nowadays that consoles can't"/

There's plenty of things a console can't do and a PC can.

PC is mainly a working tool... and does everything entertaiment wise as well.

Now you can't tell me that's not a plus for the PC?

One of the main reason why I got a PS3 was for blu-ray movies... and it's also the same reason why I didn't get a Wii or X360. So in the end I purchase a PS3 because it can play games, but also because I can watch Blu-ray movies.

And guess what, I can do even more on PC and yet I can game.

Yeah, that's quite the silly logic...

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

The PS3 RSX isnt any better then a normal 7800GTX A. Its based off the geforce 7800 series B. it has nearly half the memory bus then a normal 7800GTX C. That the RSX cant out process the 7800 series because it is one Quote right from the designer of the RSX "saying that the RSX GPU is basically a slightly less powerful GeForce 7800. That means that almost a year before launch, there's a PC graphics chip that is more powerful than the RSX GPU found in the PlayStation 3. And make no mistake, this is not a crazy, speculative conclusion ; this comes straight from the company that makes both parts: the RSX and GeForce 7800 graphics processing units." Every Multiplat game that has been made since 2004 Pc versions also looked. better. If devs spent the same amount of effort into creating tweaked out consoles settings to run on the older based hardware as with the Pc counterparts that are the same era as the consoles those cards with more memory would look and run better. the fact that anymore that most multiplats need gpu's that are multiple times stronger then the aging console gpu's doesnot mean that coding and tweaking the consoles have gotten better (more power for nowhere). It means that for the Pc versions are getting the short end of the stick when it comes to multuplats that are made to make a quick buck. Now there are multiplat games with low requirements and can use some of the extra power behind Pc can offer. the problem is that almost all the multiplatform games are created for the console specs in mind which doesnot allow Pc's to really show off their stuff. Until you understand the differences between processing power and the ability to use memory to store and render higher resolutions, showing more detail and being able to use more filtering to enhance the graphics even more. Your not going to get it. 04dcarraher

Prey wasnt even on the PS3 you are ignoring the question and the Rsx was made to work with the processor the RSX+CELL romps a 7800gtx and that is widley apparent on DMC4 for an example a rare multiplat that acutally looked better then the 360 version. Why cant a 7800gtx make look as good as the PS3 version at even close to the same framerate? A 7800 has no prcoessing assistnace. It has to do all the gpu task by itself, AA , lighting , post processing . The RSX has to do none of that it is being done by the processor allowing the RSX to do other things.

hence the reason why a 7800gtx cannot push a game with as many effects or assets at even a playable framerate.

And wouldn'tyou think that a PC CPU takes away some of the stress?

On laptops using old intel gpus you can play games like CoD4 just fine if you have a dual core cpu which improves performance dramatically.

I do actually but it stopped working, again. That brings me to my first reason for preferring consoles: I've found console gaming to be far more reliable, mainly due to games crashing on the PC. Secondly, I like playing with a controller on my couch and with surround sound speakers. That could be done with a PC but I don't want to have to worry about controller compatibility issues or having extra cords sprawled out across my lounge room. Finally, I prefer the exclusives on consoles, and there's by far more than enough games for me.

tubbyc

Are you telling me, your surround sounds doesn't have wires for your console, but would require wires for your PC? I don't get how, because it's a PC, you'll have "extra cords sprawled out"...

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

I just showed you the digital foundry comparison where all that is identical on RE5 to max settings. You seem to not know how to read.

I own a GTX285 and a I920 processor with 6gigs of ram that is capable of maxing any of the games you have listed. Those were 1080p direct feed shots of RE5 wich was ranked the best looking game on pc last year and it uses the exact same quality assets as the console version. The only advantage the pc version had were typical image quality settings.

And that low res video of RE5 on pc looks like crap so im not sure how thats helping your case at all.

PS. the link is on page 44 of this very thread that goes on to say the LOD detail, texture settings etc are all equal to max settings on the PC. Give it up.

PS. Im done downloading my music so I will be taking a break good day.

TheSterls

RE5, the best looking game for PC in 2009?????

It won most the rewards.

Are we talking multiplate... because I know few games that look better.

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

Prey wasnt even on the PS3 you are ignoring the question and the Rsx was made to work with the processor the RSX+CELL romps a 7800gtx and that is widley apparent on DMC4 for an example a rare multiplat that acutally looked better then the 360 version. Why cant a 7800gtx make look as good as the PS3 version at even close to the same framerate? A 7800 has no prcoessing assistnace. It has to do all the gpu task by itself, AA , lighting , post processing . The RSX has to do none of that it is being done by the processor allowing the RSX to do other things.

hence the reason why a 7800gtx cannot push a game with as many effects or assets at even a playable framerate.

04dcarraher

And wouldn'tyou think that a PC CPU takes away some of the stress?

On laptops using old intel gpus you can play games like CoD4 just fine if you have a dual core cpu which improves performance dramatically.

I recall reading a link that it can get up to 8800 performacne with good optimization regardless that proves my point right there and you kind of admited to it . The processor assit it far more then a pc processor can and thats why it its capable of more.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

low res video it was 720p.....I guess consoles are low res crap too?

ANd I have posted a pic early that has the PC version of resident evil 5 looking much much better....

Hakkai007

That doenst look much better , It looks crisper and its using a color mod wich makes the game look even more cartoony.

PS. you are actually arguing that the highly compressed youtube video looks as good as the console image?

It was playing the game just fine and wasn't playing on low settings.

And you seem to forget the PC image I keep posting...

And that color mod makes the game look better and more realistic.

And you will read my link before that i the 360 version is eqivlent to max settings therefore why are you bringing up the low settings? Im not arguing that the pc version wont look better because it will.But its due to IMAGE Quality settings. LOD detail, draw distance , texture quality etc are all identical on this game and many more. Thats my point. You are acting as if the console titles are released with all these crappy low settings and thats not the case for about 95% of the multipalts available now.

i used RE5 as it is one of the best looking multiplats PERIOD.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

And wouldn'tyou think that a PC CPU takes away some of the stress?

On laptops using old intel gpus you can play games like CoD4 just fine if you have a dual core cpu which improves performance dramatically.

TheSterls

I recall reading a link that it can get up to 8800 performacne with good optimization regardless that proves my point right there and you kind of admited to it . The processor assit it far more then a pc processor can and thats why it outperforms it.

The PS3 can never even get close to an 8800gt performance.

An 8800gt is much more powerful than even 2 7800gt cards.

[QUOTE="tubbyc"]

I do actually but it stopped working, again. That brings me to my first reason for preferring consoles: I've found console gaming to be far more reliable, mainly due to games crashing on the PC. Secondly, I like playing with a controller on my couch and with surround sound speakers. That could be done with a PC but I don't want to have to worry about controller compatibility issues or having extra cords sprawled out across my lounge room. Finally, I prefer the exclusives on consoles, and there's by far more than enough games for me.

Bebi_vegeta

Are you telling me, your surround sounds doesn't have wires for your console, but would require wires for your PC? I don't get how, because it's a PC, you'll have "extra cords sprawled out"...

What I mean is the surround sound receiver is right in front of my TV, and the consoles are right under the TV, but my PC is far away.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

RE5, the best looking game for PC in 2009?????

Bebi_vegeta

It won most the rewards.

Are we talking multiplate... because I know few games that look better.

No, it won best graphics on the PC last year on most websites including Gamespot and IGN. Uncharted 2 won the OVERALL category.

[QUOTE="VladJasonDrac"]

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

So you just agreed that console can't do everything PC can?

Bebi_vegeta

I didn't really say that in the first place. I said there wasn't a lot PCs can do nowadays that consoles can't but whenever someone says something like I did people will point out the few obvious things that everyone already knows and try to win their argument like that. I'm not going to game on a PC because I can use Photoshop too. That's kinda silly logic to begin with. You PC guys are kooky lol

Hello?

Again you say... "there wasn't a lot PCs can do nowadays that consoles can't"/

There's plenty of things a console can't do and a PC can.

PC is mainly a working tool... and does everything entertaiment wise as well.

Now you can't tell me that's not a plus for the PC?

One of the main reason why I got a PS3 was for blu-ray movies... and it's also the same reason why I didn't get a Wii or X360. So in the end I purchase a PS3 because it can play games, but also because I can watch Blu-ray movies.

And guess what, I can do even more on PC and yet I can game.

Yeah, that's quite the silly logic...

Again, that's you and not me. Really everything I do on my computer I could just go do on the PS3s crappy web browser.

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

That doenst look much better , It looks crisper and its using a color mod wich makes the game look even more cartoony.

PS. you are actually arguing that the highly compressed youtube video looks as good as the console image?

TheSterls

It was playing the game just fine and wasn't playing on low settings.

And you seem to forget the PC image I keep posting...

And that color mod makes the game look better and more realistic.

And you will read my link before that i the 360 version is eqivlent to max settings therefore why are you bringing up the low settings? Im not arguing that the pc version wont look better because it will.But its due to IMAGE Quality settings. LOD detail, draw distance , texture quality etc are all identical on this game and many more. Thats my point. You are acting as if the console titles are released with all these crappy low settings and thats not the case for about 95% of the multipalts available now.

i used RE5 as it is one of the best looking multiplats PERIOD.

RE5 is far from looking the best in multiplatforms.

Metro 2033 is the best multiplatform.

I can see more detail in the PC version.

You can see more detail further away because the console version is much blurrier at long distance.

The PC version has better effects too.

In the console versions the clothes are blurred out while in the PC version I can see the threads on the shirts.

And the 95% was pulled right form your ass.

I am done arguing with someone who will never admit his ignorance.

It's laughable that you think the PS3 can even come close to an 8800gt which is many times more powerful than it.

The PS3 CPU is not even that power it only uses logical cores.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

It won most the rewards.

TheSterls

Are we talking multiplate... because I know few games that look better.

No, it won best graphics on the PC last year on most websites including Gamespot and IGN. Uncharted 2 won the OVERALL category.

Well they are wrong.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="tubbyc"]

I do actually but it stopped working, again. That brings me to my first reason for preferring consoles: I've found console gaming to be far more reliable, mainly due to games crashing on the PC. Secondly, I like playing with a controller on my couch and with surround sound speakers. That could be done with a PC but I don't want to have to worry about controller compatibility issues or having extra cords sprawled out across my lounge room. Finally, I prefer the exclusives on consoles, and there's by far more than enough games for me.

tubbyc

Are you telling me, your surround sounds doesn't have wires for your console, but would require wires for your PC? I don't get how, because it's a PC, you'll have "extra cords sprawled out"...

What I mean is the surround sound receiver is right in front of my TV, and the consoles are right under the TV, but my PC is far away.

OK... The only wire you'd require would be one HDMI cable, just like your console... other then that, if your PC is not even in the same room, then why even mention you don't feel like pluging your PC...

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

It won most the rewards.

TheSterls

Are we talking multiplate... because I know few games that look better.

No, it won best graphics on the PC last year on most websites including Gamespot and IGN. Uncharted 2 won the OVERALL category.

That's a shame, cause it's not... just like when MGS4 won.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="VladJasonDrac"]

I didn't really say that in the first place. I said there wasn't a lot PCs can do nowadays that consoles can't but whenever someone says something like I did people will point out the few obvious things that everyone already knows and try to win their argument like that. I'm not going to game on a PC because I can use Photoshop too. That's kinda silly logic to begin with. You PC guys are kooky lol

VladJasonDrac

Hello?

Again you say... "there wasn't a lot PCs can do nowadays that consoles can't"/

There's plenty of things a console can't do and a PC can.

PC is mainly a working tool... and does everything entertaiment wise as well.

Now you can't tell me that's not a plus for the PC?

One of the main reason why I got a PS3 was for blu-ray movies... and it's also the same reason why I didn't get a Wii or X360. So in the end I purchase a PS3 because it can play games, but also because I can watch Blu-ray movies.

And guess what, I can do even more on PC and yet I can game.

Yeah, that's quite the silly logic...

Again, that's you and not me. Really everything I do on my computer I could just go do on the PS3s crappy web browser.

Well why don't you?

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

It was playing the game just fine and wasn't playing on low settings.

And you seem to forget the PC image I keep posting...

And that color mod makes the game look better and more realistic.

Hakkai007

And you will read my link before that i the 360 version is eqivlent to max settings therefore why are you bringing up the low settings? Im not arguing that the pc version wont look better because it will.But its due to IMAGE Quality settings. LOD detail, draw distance , texture quality etc are all identical on this game and many more. Thats my point. You are acting as if the console titles are released with all these crappy low settings and thats not the case for about 95% of the multipalts available now.

i used RE5 as it is one of the best looking multiplats PERIOD.

RE5 is far from looking the best in multiplatforms.

Metro 2033 is the best multiplatform.

I can see more detail in the PC version.

You can see more detail further away because the console version is much blurrier at long distance.

The PC version has better effects too.

In the console versions the clothes are blurred out while in the PC version I can see the threads on the shirts.

And the 95% was pulled right form your ass.

I am done arguing with someone who will never admit his ignorance.

It's laughable that you think the PS3 can even come close to an 8800gt which is many times more powerful than it.

The PS3 CPU is not even that power it only uses logical cores.

Im done arguing with you to because you havent even played any of the console version of RE5 and thats only proven in your statement. According to you Digitalfoundry a website that does gaming comparsions for a living is lieing lol? The visual diffrence comes from image quaity settings it does not have better effects and you can make out the threads in Chris shirt as well as his skin pores in the 360 version .

Metro 2033 the best looking multiplat? LOL on pc yes on consoles it looks horrid even compared to most console titles.

Also you dont even know the relevance of what your saying. For assisting the gpu in visuals its far beyond any pc prcoessor that came out during that time and even most to this day. logical cores suck for standard processing functions like web browsing and things not even related to gaming.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

And wouldn'tyou think that a PC CPU takes away some of the stress?

On laptops using old intel gpus you can play games like CoD4 just fine if you have a dual core cpu which improves performance dramatically.

TheSterls

I recall reading a link that it can get up to 8800 performacne with good optimization regardless that proves my point right there and you kind of admited to it . The processor assit it far more then a pc processor can and thats why it outperforms it.