Last message on previous page:

just on 360 lol

Crack

I don't believe anything compares to a xbox 306

he's on a salary to promote the 360

yeah, and you get free crack for your 360

what are you talking about?

We have a winner!

We already know the 360 does not have Geometry Shaders, which is a DX10 requirement. Of course why would the 360 need them? The PC needs them due to the bottlenecks surrounding the CPU and GPU communication and the focus of AMD/Intel processors does not dovetail nicely with aggressive realtime 3D rendering. The 360 has some more native solutions (XPC, dotproduct VMX units).

PC GPUs are made for the unique needs of the PC.

Console GPUs (well, Xenos) is made for the unique needs of Consoles.

We would all be ticked with Xenos on the PC because we would be stuck at 720p; and console gamers would not be too happy with a PC GPU stuck with 22GB/s of totaly bandwidth.

Different systems, different needs, different APIs.

/me gives Rich a cookie

you still haven't answered my question, As for controls there are such things as an xbox 360 controller for a pc. Second of all lets not talk bout price. So all you guys are saying that a quad-sli 7900gtx doesnt stand a chance against a 360 right?

What resolution is that Xbox 360 running at ?

- HDTV: 1280 x 720 = 921,600 pixels per frame if not interlaced

- TFT/CRT: 1280 x 1024 = 1,310,720 pixels per frame

The PC GPUs typically render a 4:3 screen (same width in pixels, but taller for less up/down looking around). They render these frames with +42% more pixels per frame too. (Or significantly more, at up to 3.2x times more pixels per frame than the 'HDTV' console, if the HDTV output is 720 interlaced that is ).

The GPU is advanced on the console, all the effects, etc it can do, true, but the work load it has to do for 'HDTV' video output is not that high.

Can comparisons really be made ?

Heck some people run their PCs at 2560 x 1920 = 5.333x the pixels per frame of a console at higher frame rates and refresh rates than the consoles will output at. That is over 5 times the detail !

Until HDTV devices can output at similar resolutions typical, decent PC 3D video cards will always be more powerful.

I think the term is called 'advertising'.

When comparing a PC GPU to a Console GPU both systems need to run at the same resolution, FSAA, texture quality [including texture resolution] etc so they can be compared.

This would mean running a PC GPU at only 1280 x 720, which is likely to give the PC up to +42% boost in performance (vs 1280 x 1024) in some scenes. It is an equal comparison though, just people with PCs like to run at higher resolutions than consoles are offering.

I'd put the console GPU somewhere between the GeForce 7600 GT and 7900 GTX, maybe GeForce 7900 GT level.

How would a Radeon 1800 XL to 1900 XTX vs GeForce 7600 GT to 7900 GTX vs an Xbox 360 stack up, if all running at 1280 x 720 with same FSAA ?

The PCs would kick its ass at such a low resolution, I'll say that much.

PS: Decent PC video subsystems are approaching 128 GB/sec fast. , Even my current 'low end' Radeon X800 XL has a 32 GB/sec video memory interface available to it. 8)

GPUs have had cache for ages btw, just like that eDRAM stuff, except it isn't advertised as some BS speed. They say [mem clk] x [bus width at memory] / 8 / 1024 = GB/sec of video memory. The companies (ATI and nVidia) do not like disclosing all the details of their GPUs. Only some of the more basic ones. (eg: Enough to let people calculate Gpixel/sec fill-rate, etc).

ATI actually made their cache hit rate stats (for X1900 GPU) available to the public. In static, predictable, non-interactive (non-random input) tests, such as 3DMark the results where very good, but in games the rate was lower. Of course it performed damn well in games, but it could prefetch far more accurately for timedemos and 3D Mark, they knew this, and they knew it would boost sales of the GPU.

Also suggest people have a read of: http://www.microsoft.com/xna/

1080i is about the equiv of 1280 x 720 btw, and using 3:2 deblocking is is rendered to a screen with 720 vertical lines. Surprised ? 8O, Well not really, it saves on space and bitrate (which more finite through air than cables) as even though it only updates every other line each frame, the deblocking means every line actually gets an update. Basic high-school mathematics, and some rather smart trickery to fool consumers.

1080p was actually designed for 864 pixels 'tall' playback on PCs. Using 5:4 deblocking, when rendered on a PC screen 864 pixels vertical / high, it looks more crisp than rendering 1080 pixels high with just standard filtering. The HD formats were designed this way, as it lets them look good regardless of the output device, even on older PC monitors, aswell as on large screen TV you as you sit further back than the PC monitor.

It was surprisingly simple, & smart, to do mathematically speaking, and eliminates the drawbacks of working with interlaced footage when on PCs, without having to convert from/to and back again, thus avoiding detail loss at each step when working in lossy formats, as it isn't 'required' anymore.

You guys are still arguing on this one? I see my previous comments were ripped apart. LOL

I say XBOX/PS3 is GREAT when they first come out, maybe even for 6 months are better or on par with a high-end PC. But logic tells you at the speed graphics technology moves there's no way XBOX can beat out a dynamic/upgradable PC for very long.

So don't talk to me about specs. Common sense of technology advancement answers this question. IMO

I was over at a friend's place for a little pre-bar drinking last week and they were playing with their xbox360 and the comment that was made went something like "god the graphics are so good!" They were playing Ghost Recon and I just chuckled inside and said to myself "yes, welcome to where PC gamers were two years ago "

To me the difference has always been having the hardware to be able to benefit from the power of your platform. Up until just recently, console gamers could get, what, 480p, at best? 480p doesn't exactly stress a system, which is why the xbox could use a celeron/p3. Granted, you got a bigger screen than PC gamers did, but I played a little halo once, and it looked like ass. Now you can actually get a TV capable of 720p that's bigger than a monitor so it is starting to come together. As far as cost is concerned, well its really a matter of personal preference at that point. Some people like the PC, some like the console. Neither are going away anytime soon, so pick what you like and go with it.

Here come a question from me then. Start low and work up.. well kinda.. X1900xtx vs. 7900gtx what one is better OVER ALL. Not that one has more shaders or cpu power but OVER ALL what one is better. then work up to xbox 360 which in the end doesnt matter. if you like using a keyboard and mouse and beable to surf the net and chat on xfire/aim/skype use a pc. IF you like a controller and have a 40"+ HD LCD get a 360. doesnt matter really what is better you can play the top games on both anyway.

for a straight up hardware component vs PC the 7800GT i think would compare at the same resolution as the 360...course that is if you can get HDR and AA to work at the same time like the 360 GPU does. Otherwise they are quite similar on a good CPU w/2GB of ram. I mean look at games that have come out for both systems, Oblivion/King Kong/Quake 4/Condemned(i know it s not out but there have been many previews on PC), the game runs smoother on most test systems than it does on the 360...course they usually are running 7800GTX/7900/1900 on a FX-60 or equivilant but still.

I am not a techie, so what I am about to say might sound trivial. But I know you will all agree because you are on this website.

Consoles for me are about sports. football, hocky , and golf are my faves. a great console, and a great controler, with a awesome HDTV, make life oh so good.

But thats about it.

MY pc is like my child. I built it. I love it. I know what it feels like to get your console hooked up, but let me tell you, I was shaking like a junkie when I was holding my 1900 xtx the first time. It was so pretty.

so there is the satisfaction aspect. I was happy about my console until I was bored. no good games? well the my console is dependent on games. my PC isnt dependent on anything. game or no game its great.

I love call of duty. and I love the online community. I know that world isnt there on xbox live. xbox live is cumbersome, and generic. pales to the actual PC online experience.

also aiming with a controller is terrible. my sweet logitech mouse is deadly.

so thats the way i look at it. do you want a stale experience, or one that is alive?