Last message on previous page:
grape, i dont even know why you bother with these people that wont look at the facts and stop arguing.... geez he posted the sites over and over again, and u stil tried to argue your point? most of you know nothing about hardware, then read some numbers and get all excited. shut up and listen to ppl who are smarter then u maybe u will learn something

and i would like to see a link about the r600 and the xb360 gfx chip architechture simlarities

If people aren't called out on something other people will read it and think its true.

Thats retarded reasoning. Should we called the R420 R300 just because it is similar.

You were. Not even going to apologise for calling me an idiot and a fagot? No, typical.

yea u pointed it out real well.......
is ur swearing to feel superior? or because ur insecure? or maybe both

action man, i dont mean u shouldnt correct something thats rong, but its a waste of time to argue with someone that wont listen

Having seen COD, COD2, PGR, and a few others on my big screen 117" at 720P output using both an XBOX-360 and my woeful PC/GPU (see sig) I would have to say that the XBOX-360 graphics were not at all that impressive. They virtually seem to mimic what I have already seen in the comp world. If anything some of the games on the XBOX looked much worse.

I can say this because at 117" you see all the good and all the bad in a video signal. I would have to say that COD graphics were almost identical.

Given the consoles have limited abilities they really are not all that good of a bargain. Not to mention the vendor preferences for a gaming console that does not usually exist in the PC world. You can often see a title released for a specific console only, but is still available in the PC world. Rockstar games may fall prey to this with their partnering with Msoft.

IM talkin bout xbox 1, so no Oblivion. Best graphics to date meant to the date they came out they were best, Im starting to wonder if you have a good eye for graphics if you thought Morrowind (though a great game) was the best graphics (it was one of the more demanding on cpu, not Gpu) I guess it is all opinion, but most people agreed back in 2001 Dead or Alive was BY FARRR the best graphics to date...I dont really see how you can argue agasinst that.

I'm pretty sure alot of you guys should start researching before posting. Seriously, you're at a computer, there's alot of resources available to you to avoid such silly statements. Here let me help again;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox

"Graphics Processor: 233 MHz custom chip developed by Microsoft and nVIDIA (fits between GeForce 3 and GeForce 4 in capability). Enhanced vertex processing with 2 vertex shaders, and more flexible pixel shading than DirectX 8. "

I didnt know the specifics, why i said "im pretty sure" We all know though that 5200 sucked balls (not to mention g3/4) and is nowhere near as capable as xbox. Since those cards were the most prevalent for the time, there is no question xbox had better graphics than PC's....XBox does halflife2 VERY good justice. Halflife 2 shows of the GPU capabilities, and how xbox trumped PC graphics its first few years (evidence being once again Halo/Dead or Alive)

Im confused... I admit halo on PC was changed somewhat from its predecessor, but even if run with DX8 and settings to match it with what it looked like on the box it would eat a lot of cards that were out before the 6 series alive.

Morrowind...best graphics...im not seeing it at all? Also, i might be mistaken but i didnt say YOU didnt have halo...i think i was originally qouting masterlee?

Sorry i thought halo was 2000 game of the year for xbox...my bad

True...PC games can not be optimized out of the box for every PC system in the world like it can be on xbox...big reason why graphics on consoles are sometimes better than on PCs.

Still...look at other games on both, UT2k4, halflife 2, splinter cell etc. In this past generation you had to have a had a good video card (not even available when xbox was released) to play these games.

I was comparing them in terms of grapical quality and ability. It seems the xbox is far more like a 6 series card than it is with a card that was available at or even years after the launch of xbox.

I don't feel like debating this much since we cant even agree on what makes a game have good graphics (Morrowind? yeah its pretty but not even near the best of its time)

Id also like to add that, I know im using SOME games late in the lifespan to justify that the xbox was better graphically (halflife2) but really that is proof.

If the xbox 360 is able to keep pace with all the new dx10 games (next 3-4years) representing them very well (not many exemptions from PC version) then i would prolly say 360 had better graphic capabilities as PC's in 2005/2006 if those cards couldnt handle the new games. But thats a little bit harder for me to say since the 360 HASNT given us a game that looks better on the 360 than on a current day PC...

ALL this 360 talk is comparable to PS3, neither have shown up the PC graphically this year.

I agree but it helps discredit that person so people will hopefully ignore them in the future.

PS3 is a wash (let the flame begin :-))...

Why release a HD gaming console with a Blueray DVD player and then limit it by not adding an HDMI port? My current DVD player supports HDMI? Even the low end SONY DVD player at the local BB have an HDMI port!

Then you go and charge more for it than the XBOX-360?

Except the CELL processor which is pretty formidable and advanced, just not sure if even the developers will properly exploit it in the first year or two.

Perhaps, but it's still hard to compare like I've sai all along it's apples to ottomans.

Well it is what was code named to the 'rest of the world' the R500;

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/e [...] nce_8.html
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18432
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18729
http://www.digitimes.com/bits_chip [...] A7056.html
http://gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=5404
http://www.anandtech.com/news/shownews.aspx?i=23358

That it was officially the C1 / RC1 to ATI internally is almost irrelevant since you were takling in terms of R### series, it IS the Xenos it was known by those two other names before it's official naming.

Well more correctly it's architecture is very reminiscent of what people originally thought the R400 would be, then the R520/540 would be And the R600 is actually reminiscent of the C1/Xenos. So maybe the R600 should be called the C2 (sponsored by Coke) or the YenoT. Hey, whY noT?

And that even you yourself are talking in terms of R600 when we still don't know for sure it IS the R600, shows you too use the pre-release 'buzz' codenames.

Well that may or may not be the case, obviously you care somewhat and as for the other issue I'd say it's also a case of 'somewhat'.

The main point is why bother impugning statements/people who obviously know what they're talking about (who even provide links you could've checked before you make yor own mis-statements)?

IM talkin bout xbox 1, so no Oblivion.

So was I, Morrowind-XBOX1 , Oblivion-XBOX360 (to tie it in to the now which this thread really is about), hence the use of the words "dates"

Hmm, guess that it was the first DX8.1 title which to this day still good graphics and then there's other people's opinions..

First.. In my opinion, Morrowind's graphics are the best thing I've seen in the PC gaming world to date.

Simply exploring Morrowind is possibly the best thing about it. The game looks stunning

"Morrowind" would be worth the price of admission for the graphics alone.

Because I'm not the only one who thinks that way, and considering that the best graphics in Dead or Alive were pre-rendered cut scenes and static environments, I'd want to make sure you know what's a movie/still and what's not.

That last GF3/4 statement shows you don't know WTF you're talking about. The GF3 and 4 were solid cards despite having a slight feature difference when compared to the R8500 and Parhelia. The GF4's performance was undisputed until the R9700 was released.

Once again like I said the R8500 was DX8.1 , the Xbox DX8.0, and Morrowind was the first title to show that difference. You keep going on some false supositions, with nothing to back them up.

Once again baseless BS posturing. Halflife 2 has features on the PC even in just the original version (not Lost Coast) that were unreproduceable in the Xbox, once again the water on it's own is a big difference, with it's transparency and reflictive bumpmapped surfaces, then the lighting differences are huge.

Well it was poorly coded, but look at the difference here, with the GF4/R8500/R9800 showing the same PS1.1 visuals used in the Xbox version, then compare the PS1.1 path to 1.4 to 2.0 later;

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/arti [...] RodXNpYXN0

The 9800XT maintains 70+fps (2X that of Xbox) MINIMUM fps at higher resolution (2.5X higher than the Xbox) at PS1.1 and using PS2.0 and AF it's minimum is above the 30FPS of Xbox at that still higher resolution, so I highly doubt your statement, and it fits the PC gamers standards of hoping for higher resolutions, not comparing apples to apples.

YEah and I'm using that quote to say, it doesn't matter if he does or doesn't own it your statements are still empty fabrications.

That would require is coming out before the Xbox did.

That argument doesn't even follow logic, as the stability issues weren't graphics but gameplay on the PC )other than the chameleon feature which was only a PC feature since Xbox couldn't do it, once again those reflective surfaces, so there's no performance comparison.

The R8500 was out before the Xbox, and with more features.

Once again you're talking BS, the Xbox isn't anywhere near and R9500, let alone GF6 series. Heck it's not even equal to an FX series.

And considering you don't know even the basics of what you're talking about there is no reason to continue further because you'll make some other outlandish false statements to justify your previous false statements.

Simply put graphics capabilities of the R8500 exceeded those of the Xbox and came out before the Xbox, so there's nothing left to discuss other than the intangibles I mentioned before about 'feelings', etc. And if that's all you got, then you've got nothing.

Hes not smarter then me. How ever both Xbox 360 and R600, have unified shader archecture, many of which is dealt with the same way. Ati has also said it will be easier to crossplatform between the xbox 360 and once their R600 gets on the market. Also, Ati has taken what they have learned from the Xbox 360's xenos and created the 2nd generation which will be coming to the pc space... the R600. That site that was posted said that the xenos wasnt named the R500, neither is it named the R600. That website that grape posted also said the xenos had alot of shader features that were superior to DX9.0 and many were in DX10.

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/imag [...] 9sLmpwZw==

Hes not smarter then me. How ever both Xbox 360 and R600, have unified shader archecture, many of which is dealt with the same way. Ati has also said it will be easier to crossplatform between the xbox 360 and once their R600 gets on the market. Also, Ati has taken what they have learned from the Xbox 360's xenos and created the 2nd generation which will be coming to the pc space... the R600. That site that was posted said that the xenos wasnt named the R500, neither is it named the R600. That website that grape posted also said the xenos had alot of shader features that were superior to DX9.0 and many were in DX10.

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/imag [...] 9sLmpwZw==

gg double post...sorry.

Hmm, guess that it was the first DX8.1 title which to this day still good graphics and then there's other people's opinions..

It was pretty for sure, and the environments were nice, but just the sheer graphical quality wasnt the best (water was nice for its time agreed)

There are far too many links i can give to articles from 2001 that talk about how DoA is the best graphics ever made etc. etc.

Because I'm not the only one who thinks that way, and considering that the best graphics in Dead or Alive were pre-rendered cut scenes and static environments, I'd want to make sure you know what's a movie/still and what's not.

Doesnt change the fact that a majority of people felt that DoA was the best to date. Even Halo featured insanely good graphics for its time (models, textures, bump mapping)

Explain yourself please...I dont see how a card is more capable if it looks twice as bad on common games between PC and Xbox. Im far more interested in actual outcomes than hardware features and abilities (like directx9 capable...while in performance it is far worse than the xbox's Dx8)

For example, halo again, the screenshots you linked to were NOT as graphically appealing on cards prevelant for the time than they were on xbox, especially all of the textures. Morrowind looked very similar in both the xbox and PC, though i cant compare the xboxes to a 5200 or a similar card, i can compare it to max settings with a 6800GS, and i would agree that on that system Morrowind looked slightly better (mostly the smoother graphics) BUt this goes to show you how xbox is more similar to the results found with PC's with 6 series cards.

Once again baseless BS posturing. Halflife 2 has features on the PC even in just the original version (not Lost Coast) that were unreproduceable in the Xbox, once again the water on it's own is a big difference, with it's transparency and reflictive bumpmapped surfaces, then the lighting differences are huge.

Agreed. But you need to once again use a Vid card from pre 2004/2003 to compare it. No doubt the results were better on the xbox than most FX series for example.

Well it was poorly coded, but look at the difference here, with the GF4/R8500/R9800 showing the same PS1.1 visuals used in the Xbox version, then compare the PS1.1 path to 1.4 to 2.0 later;

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/arti [...] RodXNpYXN0

The 9800XT maintains 70+fps (2X that of Xbox) MINIMUM fps at higher resolution (2.5X higher than the Xbox) at PS1.1 and using PS2.0 and AF it's minimum is above the 30FPS of Xbox at that still higher resolution, so I highly doubt your statement, and it fits the PC gamers standards of hoping for higher resolutions, not comparing apples to apples.

True its hard to compare because of the differences, but the 9800xt Screenshots do Halo the most justice on the PC (from ones you linked to ...gf4 didnt even touch the same quality as xbox) BUt then again that card was from around late 2003 correct?

That argument doesn't even follow logic.

Its been used by Pro-PC fanboys since the beggining of this PC vs console debate... Ive even seen game developers use that explanation when describing why games on PC dont look as good on medium range or lower end PC's as they do on consoles.

The R8500 was out before the Xbox, and with more features.

Yeah the R8500 played UT2k4, halflife 2, and Splinter cell chaos GREAT!!! Features arent everything, ID rather have a high performance DX8 card like xbox than a card for PC with more features but less performance (fx 5200 anyone??? DX9!!!!)

Once again you're talking BS, the Xbox isn't anywhere near and R9500, let alone GF6 series. Heck it's not even equal to an FX series.

I would say its somewhere between 9500 and 6 series. Compareing quality and performance of course...not features.

Dont feel like writing a conclusion.. its all ^^^^

I've got a 6800GT in my older system and I know for a fact Doom3 on the Xbox didn't look nearly as good.

I've got a 6800GT in my older system and I know for a fact Doom3 on the Xbox didn't look nearly as good.

I agree with that.

But then again, i think the xbox DOom3 looked better than a PC with, say, a fx series.