Console or pc, which has better graphics

[whr2206]

OK, one of my friends says that nvida, and microsoft have this new texturing and shadowing capabilities with the xbox. Now I know nvida has geforce 3 in there right?? And also that tvs are more advanced than monitors. I told him that, that was bs. That pc has geforce 3 cards, and ati ards that are jsut as advanced. Whih do you think is more advanced in technology, xbox or the most powerful pc you can make?? He also thinks the custom intel p3 is powerful. Isnt the xp, or p4 faster?

[Nuclear Krusader]

Unless he's connecting his console to a HDTV, the PC has better graphics. The resolution of a computer monitor cannot be outmatched by that of a TV.

And I think that the XP and the P4 are faster than P3.

[tech-no-blue]

I think that pc had better graphics than console because it had the more advance engine than the console...pc got pentium 4 and microsoft xp support than console like xbox just used a pentium 3....{console got a lot to catch up...}

[Prew]

Isn't resolution on TV's limited to 640 X 480? There must be limitations with televisions or else why buy a monitor?- why not use the TV?. Some video cards have TV out, but I don't know anyone that connects their computer to a TV to play games.

Having said that, the X-Box graphics are actually quite good, just not as good as a computer using 1600 X 1200 resolution.

[grcr99]

I connected my computer to the TV and the resolution was really bad. I opened a word document and the lettering was all blurred. I had it at the best resolution that the TV could handle. Playing games seemed o.k. though.

On the other hand, if you connect your computer to a high quality HDTV, you will recieve the same resolution as your computer monitor, except on a bigger screen. HDTV is the way to go if you want to connect your computer to it. I suggest that because you can surf the net, play games, or do whatever you want on your computer while you are watching TV with PIP, all on the same screen.

You can watch TV on your computer monitor while you are working on the computer at the same time just like the HDTV, but put your computer monitor next to an HDTV and tell me wich one you would rather be looking at.

[Iman74]

I'm not into Game Consol's but let's face it; all technical specs aside Consoles Kick ass when it comes to Graphics.

[jaffa808]

Console graphics - ha ha sorry mate, if you think that there's even a contest you are deluded! I've not seen a PS2 game that even approaches my PC when it comes to graphics - Geforce2 GTS 64Mb and Athlon 1100, and my chum has a Geforce3 which is even better.

[whr2206]

I had a feeling i was right. Cause they make plans for htat like years before hand, and pick out the hardware, and when it comes out, theres bound to be something better. Even though for some reason my tbird and ati 75000 looks like crap.

[satan]

Originally posted by whr2206 He also thinks the custom intel p3 is powerful.

I thought they used a mobile celeron CPU? That's what they saw in a few sites that took the X-Box apart. I think only the developers systems had P3s. I know they cut the ram to 64 from 128, I'm pretty sure the CPU is a celeron.

[1timebuilder]

XP sucks

[satan]

Originally posted by 1timebuilder XP sucks

If you're talking about windows XP, which is off topic, then you have to be wrong. 2k and XP are the 2 best OSs that M$ has.

[tvpincdoc]

The question has little to do with direct comparison with the CPU, memory and graphics system. The game consoles have a bit of an advantage-they are dedicated to running games. AND they only have to deal with one set of specifications-the ones set out by the box maker (sort of like a Mac).

That said, the resolution on a TV, EVEN an HD set, is less than a video card can put out on a good monitor. Even HD is 1080i. I run my games in 1600x1200 (if it is available). 1080x?? isn't quite there. Even if you connect it to an HD system, I believe that they have the consoles set to run on a standard TV (why build in the higher specs for a limited audience??), so it probably just looks like running a DVD on progressive scan-a marginal improvement if any at all.

For the price-you can't build a PC that can compete with one of these boxes. But I haven't seen one yet that will let you do your taxes, copy a CD, write a term paper, listen to music, surf the web, manipulate pics, etc. And I haven't seen one that will let you hack into the game files to customize games (just look at the web sites for games like Quake and Star Fleet Command. There are users creating additions that are better than the original and help keep the game from getting old).

I will put my Athalon 1700XP with a GeForce 3 card against the XBox any day.

[Streams]

A PC with a high powered graphics card is better that a console but game developers are trying to make their games compatible with many diferent systems where as with a console the developers can design specificaly for the consoles hardware so they can use the full potential of the console

[morriswindgate]

TVs produce a picture by scanning a beam across the screen to form lines, so basically the picture you see is a set of zig-zag lines and as such have some space between them and a small amount of visable movement. A computer monitor and HDTV rely on a Pixelated screen where each pixel has the three basic colors present then the beam excites these colors according to the picture being projected.

[MoxManiac]

One of the things that stunned me was how incredible Dreamcast games look through a VGA box. 640x480 never looked so good!

Anyways, there's no contest, graphic wise.(PC) But I perfer console-style games (though I do play a lot of PC games), so I tend to lean towards consoles more.

[DragonNOA1]

someone may have already mentioned this but console games are made/programmed for one specific graphics chipset/card, unlike pc games, which are made to work with many different graphics cards. so in the case of halo for xbox, they made a game specifically for the specifications of the geforce 3! likewise the graphics on it are awesome...oh and by the way i lean towards pc games, but still play console games often

[Strider]

I agree that the PC has better graphics, but have you notice games on Consoles (PS2, Xbox, and Gamecube) seem to have smoother textures especially when it comes to drawing game charcters? I could be wrong, but I have set the resolution on many PC games to the maximum resolution and the characters to me still seem a little blocky whereas on the PS2 the characters seem quite smooth.

[whr2206]

the reason why I thought my friend was wrong was because, youd think nvida would release their most current card to the pc industry, rather than console.

[DragonNOA1]

well remember they are trying to SELL x-boxes, so saying they have the latest and greatest vid-card in them will certainly do that. just remember that we(pcs) will be getting the new geforce 4 card soon, so don't be too mad at x-boxes. they may have won the battle, but we'll win the war!

[satan]

Still I prefer consoles over PC. The only reason I would play PC because since I already have a PC I dont have to buy a console. I just would rather sit in front of my tv and pop in a game rather than boot up a computer, install a game, run it sitting in front of my computer. But for the graphics battle, definatly PC. The tv sucks as res, and computers get upgraded much faster than consoles do.

I tried using my tv-out and my controler to play games, to much hassel. Still with bleem, ps games so much better.