Actually, I think that will do it. That's a fair comparison and an equally good analysis that I'm willing to accept.

Still, the eDRAM die is difficult to evaluate and no real comparative benchmarks exist so that we can really measure the two from a pure performance perspective, despite the similarities in architecture. Additionally, in your analysis, you may want to add the fact that the Xbox 360 uses unified memory architecture, meaning the video RAM that is available to the GPU (an amount which is, for better or worse, variable, I believe) is actually slower than the dedicated video RAM available in most PC GPUs and in fact the RSX in the Playstation 3.

At any rate, with Gears of War, being a Hermit is certainly not bad.

Redfingers

Thank you, I appreciate that you think my comparison post had some good points. I also want to apologize for my harsh words previously, there was no need for the snark. I learned a bit about what counts in the graphics hardware department, leading up to and continuing to work on this thread, and I hope I was able to get some of that learning across.

The unified memory architecture of the Xbox is, from my understanding, not terribly revolutionary. PCs do the same thing. In fact, most PCs have bios options for allocating an amount of system RAM to graphics (not quite sure how this is accomplished with PCI-E; at least I can't find such an option on my mobo...I'm guessing it works on an "as needed" basis). As I understand it, all of this data travels across the north bridge, so it is effectively the same thing as what the 360 does. The advantage of using your video card's memory as opposed to system memory, again as I understand it, is physical proximity. Not having to bounce data back and forth over the system's bus to get the job done gives performance gains.

All that being said, many graphics cards have 512 megs of dedicated memory onboard, so they've got to be at least as good as a 360 in this department. And even if they do not, I've read benchmarks that show how the amount of video memory is not as crucial as other factors when evaluating performance.

[QUOTE="Michael85"]Negative. Metroid Prime = 60 FPS, and Halo 2 = 30. I see no difference.Blackbond

Then you sir might have some issues with visual recognition. Playing Halo after Metroid Prime is like walking in mud. 60FPS compared to 30FPS is easily noticable like night and day. Well at least in my case.

I have to agree. 30 FPS and 60 FPS is a big difference in animation smoothness.

What gives me doubts is people who claim to be able to tell differences between really high framerates. I think if you were to really put people to the test on that you'd find thatthey couldn't reliably discern the difference. Human cognition has its limits, and despite claims to the contrary, no one is a walking fraps machine.

TeH CELL!!!!

No, the cell isn't better than any CPU on the PC. Get your facts straight, please.

trix5817

luls. "Any" CPU? Do we get to bring quad core xeons to the table?

Ask the same question in about a year or two.I bet the 360 and PS3 will be outputting graphics far higher than anything a X1800 or 7800 with 1GB of RAM and a Pentium 4 3.0GHz(thats would majority of people say the PS3 and 360 are equal to...from what ive seen)could ever output.Both PS3 and 360 have new technology that devs must get used to.Optimizing your games specifically for some like Xenos unified architechture,taking advantage of the eDRAM,optimizing it for the dual thread 3 cores...is no easy task.Just like optimizing your games for the 7 SPEs of the cell is no easy task,all of it is fairly new tech which is hard and expensive to utilize currently.All I can tell you is wait.

killab2oo5

Okay, I will admit that as time goes on, newer games will look better than their predecessors on a given console, but I don't believe that porting such an optimized game over to a PC, which also have multiple core processors and all the bells and whistles you describeis going to mean that game cannot be similarly optimized to look as good. More importantly, in a year or two, you're going to be able to afford to buy a vastly more powerful system than what you described for the same price. Even considering potential 360 price drops, as time goes on, I think you'll get more performance value from a PC.

I have a 9800 pro, 3ghz P entium4 with 1gb 400mhz ram...think i need a upgrade? ;)Heil68

Yes, but honestly for most games, a 3ghz Pentium 4 is probably going to be a-ok. Your video card would probably be the first, easiest improvement. Benchmarks have shown that there is little performance gain from PCI-E over AGP, so you might choose to simply get a new card and pop it into the system you have now. But if you're going with a new mobo in the near future, which is really a question of whether your chipset supports faster memory, you might as well get with the newer card interface. If your motherboard can support faster memory, that's also a quick and affordable way to see performance gains.

Though you've probably come to the same conclusions, and I'm being annoyingly informational. Sorry, writing that last long post got me in that sort of mood.

Try playing Gears using an 1800XL :lol:

PS3_3DO

Certainly doable, given that the 360 can run it.

You'd also have the benefit of always having textures applied to models while running on a PC, too!

PC GPUs are substantially more powerful than console GPUs and are extremely cost-effective in comparison: undisputable truth.

360 GPU is equivalent to an x1800 XL: still rumor material and probably completely false.

Redfingers

"Rumor" confirmed.

The Xenos GPU in a 360 runs at 500 mhz, has 48 unified shader pipelines, as you mentioned inprevious posts, 16 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 22.4 GB/s of 128 bit bus bandwidth. An x1800XL also runs at 500mhz, has 8 vertex and 16 pixel shaders, the same number of TMUs and ROPs, and a 256 bit, 32 GB/s bus. Now, I don't know that unified shaders are actually as efficient as dedicated ones (something GameSpot also wonders about), but let's assume they are. They both have the same number of Texture Mappers and Raster Operators, so their fill rate performance is comparable going by ATI's standards, but presumably the 360 is going to be doing more with the greater number of flexible pipelines.

Or so 360 fans like to think whenever they trot out that line about 48 unified shaders, and completely ignore the gimped bus relative to even yesteryear's video cards. The bigger, badder bandwidth on the 1800 seriesundeniably outperforms the 360's Xenos, so while one card has one advantage, it is offset by the other card's own advantage. That's why I chose these two cards as "comparable".

Arguably, the 700 mhz of split memory in the 360 will give the Xenos a leg up over the XL. So, maybe you'd rather compare it to the 1650 XT from that same generation/architecture set, which also has a more comparable number of shader pipelines, but a faster core speed than the Xenos. Based on the slightly better 1800 XL performance, I thought I'd give the 360 the benefit of the doubt in my comparison.You can compare them yourself and pick out the one that you think might be a better fit for comparison. I'm open to suggestions.

But my point remains, the 360's R500 architecture is potent, but becoming long in the tooth compared to other, newer, and not even pricey cards. Today's pricey cards handily beat the 360, and by year's end, they won't be that pricey anymore. The gap will only widen, and the games are gonna keep coming. So, maybe being a "hermit" ain't such a bad thing?

System Wars was the first place I ever heard that consoles could match up to PC gaming. :| I heard lemmings just flat out say "The 360 is more powerful then any PC."Nerkcon

Well, since some posters insist on giving rational, thought out posts, I guess I will contribute in that same spirit. I will concede that, at launch, most console platforms (read: most...there are exceptions *cough*Wii*cough*) will offer a better price-to-performance value than a PC of that same generation. But my point here is that we're in ought-seven, and as you can see by that pretty bar graph, there are PC cards out there in the $100-200 range that will offer performance that is as good if not better than a console. Meaning that, at this point, PCs offer more bang for the buck, and if you want to keep throwing bucks at it, you'll get performance that melts any console. And that gap will continue to widen as developers keep putting out titles. Bottom line: it's certainly not a bad time to be a PC gamer.

Two explanations are possible:

1. They were referring to the gameplay.
2. They were fanboys. I've seen allot of them here.

Fyper

Hey hey now...no rational explanations here. I'd prefer frothing at the mouth accusations accompanied by torches and pitchforks. This is system wars.