xbox 360, ps3 video card??

[mandugi23]

hey guys, i just read an article how ps3 and xbox 360 would bring death to pc gaming...

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6449_7-6233821-1.html

what do you guys think?

oh and do you guys know full spec(or just video card) of xbox 360 and ps3?

[wolfie]

i dont think its going to be death of the pc, i play cod2 on the computer and my graphics are much much better then whats on the 360. i would rather spend the $400 on another vid card. they just dont seem to come out with any games for the consoles like they used to in the nintendo days. to justifie getting one. all my xbox did was collect dust.

[chaoskeeper1190]

let us see the xbox360 has good graphics but it's nothing compared to a high end computer, plus they were comparing it to alienware's over suped up alx. And the compute gets games that are much better earlier( does the xbox360 have QuakeVI yet? NO.)

[tomster2300]

Here's the rub:

"Granted, Nvidia and ATI will eventually put out more powerful graphics cards that trump what's inside the PS3 and the Xbox 360, but the price-performance ratio, at least over the next couple of years, heavily favors the next-gen consoles."

That pretty much sums up this entire discussion.

[blue60007]

If the newest consoles offer half the image quality of a desktop system now, they won't even meet a fourth of the way two years from now. That's why I don't like consoles cause they only get an upgrade every 5 years, while desktops systems get faster every few weeks. I've got a 5+ year old computer that is faster than a PS2 and Xbox.

[juppy]

Personally, I don't see why they're always trying to compare the two. I seem to recall this same statement being made when the PS2 and the original Xbox came out. Didn't happen then either, did it? You can't really compare capabilities of the two though because 1) the tv that the consoles hook up to don't even begin to offer the resolution that a computer monitor can, and 2) the console's only job is to play that game....it doesn't have all the other drivers and non-game-related things to worry about, so therefore it takes less processing power to do the same job. Granted, HDTV is getting closer as far as the resolution problem goes, but I still don't see the point in trying to compare the two. Play what you like and be done with it.

[tomster2300]

You guys didn't read the quote I put. The main thing you ought to get out of this is that upon their debut, consoles are usually the better bang for their buck for gaming, and gaming only (cause that's all they do, duh). Remember thought, this is just on their debut. A few months later after hardware prices drop the pc again reigns champion. Also for people who don't want the hassle of fooling with their pc, downloading updates, patches, etc. and making sure their hardware is gaming savy, a console is more convenient - since it's essentially plug and play.

I still have to say that sports games are better on a console than on a pc because you can throw down the controller and assault your friend when he throws a touchdown through your safety's hands on a xbox. You just cant do that on a computer.

[Dustmann]

My understanding of the 360 is that its IBM engineered cpu has 3 3.2ghz cores all with a form of hyperthreading (2 threads per core). Anyone checked on the price of a dualcore cpu w/ hyperthreading for a pc? Here is a 3.2ghz pentium EE w/ dual core and hyperthreading
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819116214

The cpu and video card are easily comparible or better than anything on the market, and they are bundled for $300-400, something PC components can't touch.

So to answer the question, pc gaming could very well be on the verge of extinction.

[rspassey]

Originally Posted by Dustmann So to answer the question, pc gaming could very well be on the verge of extinction.

Are you kidding me?

Throw anygame you want at my PC for at least a year more, and you will play it equal to or better than on a console. And computer technology moves much faster than that of consoles.

True, for the price of a 360, or PS3, you get great performance, but to some of us, like myself, price isn't an issue for a good PC. My PS2 is collecting dust b/c I love PC gaming and enjoy it much more than console, to each his own is how this is going to play out.

Take a family of 3 kids all about 14 - 17 years old who all like electronic gaming of somesort. What is more worth the value, a 400$ 360 which most likely at least 2 of them can use together, or three 1500$ computers? The 360 wins by far. But take myself, I am 15, and paid for a 3K+ computer with my own money rather than buying into consoles because, like I said, I much perfer PC gaming, and everything else that can be done on a PC, and as far as I am concerned, my PC will out perform both the 360 and PS3.

Who cares if they are triple cored at 3.2GHz each when if you visually compare them, and physically compare them, a 3500+ and 6800GT combo will pawn the console.

[blue60007]

Keep in mind that operating frequency means diddly squat. That CPU could be equal to a 2.66Ghz Celeron D....

Originally Posted by ryan124712 Take a family of 3 kids all about 14 - 17 years old who all like electronic gaming of somesort. What is more worth the value, a 400$ 360 which most likely at least 2 of them can use together, or three 1500$ computers? The 360 wins by far. But take myself, I am 15, and paid for a 3K+ computer with my own money rather than buying into consoles because, like I said, I much perfer PC gaming, and everything else that can be done on a PC, and as far as I am concerned, my PC will out perform both the 360 and PS3.

That's how I feel...one good thing about consoles is they typically take less hassle and time to set up and run a game...

[rspassey]

Originally Posted by blue60007 Keep in mind that operating frequency means diddly squat. That CPU could be equal to a 2.66Ghz Celeron D....

That is very true, and they will catch people who think that the higher the GHz is the better it will be, and in general, in one series of CPUs this can be true, but many other things need to be compared, such as bus frequencies and memory timings so many things.

[jfk]

I watched a kid play COD2 on the 360 today at the store. The graphics were good, but they weren't as good as they are on my PC, I even mentioned it to the kid. The detail just wasn't as good, and when there was a lot of smoke it had even less texture. It looked good, but I'll spend the money on a video card upgrade before I buy the 360. My PC will pwn any console. Besides, like ryan said, I MUCH prefer games on a PC over the console.

[tomster2300]

What's the highest resolution a HDtv can go? I think that will play a big difference when comparing the 360 to a pc. The displays at these retail stores might be using a lower quality tv that displays a much lower resolution.

[rspassey]

You can run a PC to a HDTV.

[blue60007]

Originally Posted by tomster2300 What's the highest resolution a HDtv can go? I think that will play a big difference when comparing the 360 to a pc. The displays at these retail stores might be using a lower quality tv that displays a much lower resolution.

1080i resolution is like 1920x1080, but since it's interlaced it's only 1920x540 per frame. This is 1036800 pixels versus 1310720 pixels on a 1280x1024 screen. The PC monitor has 25% more resolution than HD. I think that's correct. Now if were talking 1080p....that's a whole other boat.

[tomster2300]

So I have a question then. How would the 360 look hooked up to this?

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/P...ctlisting.aspx

Is that comparable to 1080p? I need explanation on all the diff. HD resolutions I suppose.

[blue60007]

480i (standard definition) - 640 x 240
480p (DVD quality) - 640 x 480
720i - 1280 x 360
720p - 1280 x 720
1080i - 1920x 540
1080p - 1920 x 1080

I think that's right, might be wrong though.

[tomster2300]

So how many HD's actually support 1080p? I guess it's only on certain sizes and up that that resolution can be achieved.

[blue60007]

I think only the very top end HDTV's support 1080p, even then I don't know of anything that uses it (besides a computer).

[myrgo_31]

well, everyone on this thread that says PC games are more enjoyable over console games, is their opinion, and I am one those people. I cant really stand console games. I mean, after playing Halo 2 on X-Box at one of my friends house compared to Half-life 2 on PC, i think its pretty obvious which one is the winner (i even have a CRT monitor, insufficient RAM and a very outdated vid card). Obviously the Half-Life 2 on PC is the winner. I just dont see how X-Box 360 can surpass the PC's graphics. I mean, its on a TV. Come on. I dont care if its X-Box in the year 2034. A PC will always offer better graphics, IMO. Hell, if you want a clear-cut winner, hook up the 360 to a nice plasma/HD TV and get Halo 3 or Madden 2006 or something good for console, while on the other hand get, say 2 7800GTX 512 cards, 2 GB's of RAM, put them in SLI and play Doom 3/Half-Life 2 on a good LCD, and boom. You know damn well the winner is the computer.

But, some people do have a point. For the price to performance ratio, of course console games will win, becasue you can get a couple good games, a decent gaming console, and all the other accessories to play good games for riight around 600-700 bucks. But, if your like me, or Ryan, or other people on here that dont care how much a good comp is, and if you perfer PC games much more than console, your making a good choice too by sticking with PC games. So, it kinda is peoples opinons, whatever they like is fine.

BUT...

...To the very, very big dummy that said PC games are on the verge of extinction, you are SO wrong. I mean, how old are you? Seriously, do you know anything about PC video cards and technology?? Please comment only when you know what your talking about please, and it would save everyone a lot of time to not read your very stupid words that make no sense whatsoever.

[pc master]

I remember reading a news posting on this site not too long ago. It said that someone from nvidia let slip that the ps3 graphics were nothing more than a clocked down 7800 gtx(Sure on model number, not sure on letters after)

not sur eon xbox 360 though.

[jfk]

...To the very, very big dummy that said PC games are on the verge of extinction, you are SO wrong. I mean, how old are you? Seriously, do you know anything about PC video cards and technology?? Please comment only when you know what your talking about please, and it would save everyone a lot of time to not read your very stupid words that make no sense whatsoever.

myrgo, I'm not a moderator here, but I suspect one will be along shortly. This kind of stuff is NOT acceptable on these forums. Berating other posters is considered unacceptable behavior in the forum rules.

[blue60007]

Originally Posted by pc master I remember reading a news posting on this site not too long ago. It said that someone from nvidia let slip that the ps3 graphics were nothing more than a clocked down 7800 gtx(Sure on model number, not sure on letters after) not sur eon xbox 360 though.

But then again I heard ATi is doing the graphics for the PS3.

I do know that the XBOX 360 is using a special ATi chipset.

[pc master]

I prefer the Nintendo revolution myself. I would prefer gameplay over graphics any day.

A console will nver kill pc gaming. PC games can always improve because the pc industry is always coming out with new technology. The pc industry will beat the ps3 and xbox 360. It may take time but who cares.


Nintendo will beat them all in time.

[blue60007]

Yeah, so what if the XBOX is better than a PC now? 3 months from now it won't be.

[Darth Revan]

Originally Posted by wolfie i all my xbox did was collect dust.

lo mine too. I can run CoD maxed at 1024x768 with a 9800 pro gig of ram and a 3.0 P4

[Hi Ho]

Keep in mind that operating frequency means diddly squat. That CPU could be equal to a 2.66Ghz Celeron D....

I seriously doubt that. It uses a PowerPC architecture which is more like AMD in that it is much faster than the clock speed would have you believe.

But then again I heard ATi is doing the graphics for the PS3.

Nvidia is doing the graphics for the PS3.

With that said, I don't know if I will buy one. I certainly won't buy a Sony product. I much prefer games, especially FPS, on PC. Without an HDTV The 360's graphics really don't look much better than the original.

[blue60007]

Originally Posted by Hi Ho I seriously doubt that. It uses a PowerPC architecture which is more like AMD in that it is much faster than the clock speed would have you believe.

Well I'm not saying it's going to be like a Celeron D, but we can't really say for sure unless there are more specifics on the architechture and everything. Also from what I read, it only has 1MB of L2 cache...which is good for a single core, but no so good for 3 cores. Maybe it is 1MB x 3, but it didn't sound like it.

Originally Posted by Hi Ho Nvidia is doing the graphics for the PS3.

I thought I heard ATi was, but I'm probably thinking of the XBOX and that was a while a go when I read that.

[RazorDX]

Xbox = ATI
PS3 = Nvidia

ATI is scheduled to release it's new flagship during the first quarter of 2006. When that is done, and when Nvidia has their response to ATI's new card, the PS3 and Xbox 360's graphics technology will be obsolete in comparison.

But honestly, is there anything that taxes the X1800xx or 7800xx series enough to justify the price tags of the newer cards to be released? I have an X800Pro and haven't found anything that really cripples it yet.

[Jaggannath]

Originally Posted by wolfie all my xbox did was collect dust.

Better than if it collected stamps... now that's an expensive habit. I heard a few stamps were swapped in the states and were valued at $3 million for a single stamp. Ouch