Last message on previous page:

quoted for hilarity.

What you've got to understand is that WE DON'T GIVE A DAMN. We like building PCs, upgrading, getting the most out of them, tinkering with them. If you want to get your black box and just take what you get, have at it. We're going to keep spending some of our time learning about how things actually work and how to improve them. We really, REALLY don't give a sh*t where you spend your money.

I'm a little sorry that the consoles have come to this though. I liked buying console ports because they ran well on midrange hardware (which I've always owned) because consoles were midrange hardware. The games were made efficient because they had to be.

Actually, all A64 processors have a RISC architecture. The x86 instructions are converted to RISC instructions within the CPU. Your statement is wrong.

That's not actually true. The Madden series of games for instance is set to run at 60fps NTSC and 50fps PAL.

My X1800XT 512MB ($300) absolutely mops the floor with the 360. I run Oblivion 1280x1024, HDR, 6xAA, 16xAF, EVERY graphics setting at maximum along with several graphics increasing .ini tweaks, and mods for higher resolution textures. And I get 20-30 fps in large areas and 30-60 fps in small ones. Keep in mind that the 360 is running at about half the resolution, and is not displaying some of the finer details.

The 7900 isn't going to do 100fps in Oblivion unless you drop most of the settings way down, and even then it's questionable. For less than the cost of the 360 and an HDTV you can get a PC that will own it.

quoted for hilarity.

What you've got to understand is that WE DON'T GIVE A DAMN. We like building PCs, upgrading, getting the most out of them, tinkering with them. If you want to get your black box and just take what you get, have at it. We're going to keep spending some of our time learning about how things actually work and how to improve them. We really, REALLY don't give a sh*t where you spend your money.

I'm a little sorry that the consoles have come to this though. I liked buying console ports because they ran well on midrange hardware (which I've always owned) because consoles were midrange hardware. The games were made efficient because they had to be.

Difference being that this is a consoel thread, and my point is that the PS3 graphics suck (7900), and Xbox 360 has better graphics than any computer will for a while. Point made, facts posted ALL over this thread.

quoted for hilarity.

What you've got to understand is that WE DON'T GIVE A DAMN. We like building PCs, upgrading, getting the most out of them, tinkering with them. If you want to get your black box and just take what you get, have at it. We're going to keep spending some of our time learning about how things actually work and how to improve them. We really, REALLY don't give a sh*t where you spend your money.

I'm a little sorry that the consoles have come to this though. I liked buying console ports because they ran well on midrange hardware (which I've always owned) because consoles were midrange hardware. The games were made efficient because they had to be.

Difference being that this is a consoel thread, and my point is that the PS3 graphics suck (7900), and Xbox 360 has better graphics than any computer will for a while. Point made, facts posted ALL over this thread.

Why are you sayin gthe 360 graphics are better than PC's still? The proof is in the pudding; i have an HDTV and 360 as well as a pretty decent computer (6800GS) I have Oblivion on both. It runs just as well on both (equal smoothness) but the graphics in most places are way better on my PC (ie outside environments, more objects, less popping)

I like consoles because they are more consumer friendly (everyone could get one for cheaper) and about 5 years ago they had far superior gfx than PCs...now consoles are becoming a unit that is made to work in your home network, and will soon be mini tivos....

The graphics right now are about equal for high end pcs and high end 360's proof: oblivion, crysis, gears of war.

This is just a plain stupid thing to post in here, god knows we've had this argument 10,000 times before.

Consoles are for playing games.

Computers are for many different tasks, they are on the cutting edge of graphics technology, and they are a lot more expensive.

Period.

Yay, someone understands!

When did I ever say that the xbox 360 didn't have 48 unified shaders? the descrepency was where you stated there was a difference between the xbox 360's GPU core and the PC's x1900xtx core. You made it seem like a PC graphics card with only "16" pipelines is destroying nvidia's offer that contains 24 pipelines.

I also find it funny that your main argument for developers not developing on the ps3 is because there is such a high investment cost and may not yield equitable returns. The fact of the matter is games are being developed on the ps3. You don't control the majority of the game market share where a country is waiting on the release of your console and no one really cares what you think about developing for the ps3.

Did I not point out the dynamic nature of the 360 gpu? did I not make it clear enough that the dynamic nature of the architecture could be advantageous? If not, I'm sorry but I figured such concepts were intuitive. I like what ati is doing with their graphics architecture. I really do. Thats why I went out and bought myself a 360.

I believe someone already corrected you about the RISC architecture. Modern processors do translate x86 instructions to risc. you've given a moot point about instruction translation.

You're right, sony doesn't develop OS's and hardware to work together, But last I heard, certain unix ports (especially the one ps3 will be supporting) have been programmed to the support the cell processor. So while Sony may not be doing the programming, developers are. Like I've been stating all along, developers will develop for this platform. Don't kid yourself.

From press releases, rockstar's GTA will be a dual release. We can't argue over dual releases just yet since the hardware isn't available so I'll conceed on this point for now.

-- the_guy

What latencys are you talking about? I dont think theres much latency between a normal motherboard on a computer.

You better be reffering to Halfelife 2 because if your not then at you buddy. And as for 8XAA?? yeah OKkkkaayyyyyyyyyyyyy..............

I've been waiting to see how long that one went unnoticed/unanswered

quoted for hilarity.

What you've got to understand is that WE DON'T GIVE A DAMN. We like building PCs, upgrading, getting the most out of them, tinkering with them. If you want to get your black box and just take what you get, have at it. We're going to keep spending some of our time learning about how things actually work and how to improve them. We really, REALLY don't give a sh*t where you spend your money.

I'm a little sorry that the consoles have come to this though. I liked buying console ports because they ran well on midrange hardware (which I've always owned) because consoles were midrange hardware. The games were made efficient because they had to be.

Difference being that this is a consoel thread, and my point is that the PS3 graphics suck (7900), and Xbox 360 has better graphics than any computer will for a while. Point made, facts posted ALL over this thread.

Why are you sayin gthe 360 graphics are better than PC's still? The proof is in the pudding; i have an HDTV and 360 as well as a pretty decent computer (6800GS) I have Oblivion on both. It runs just as well on both (equal smoothness) but the graphics in most places are way better on my PC (ie outside environments, more objects, less popping)

I like consoles because they are more consumer friendly (everyone could get one for cheaper) and about 5 years ago they had far superior gfx than PCs...now consoles are becoming a unit that is made to work in your home network, and will soon be mini tivos....

The graphics right now are about equal for high end pcs and high end 360's proof: oblivion, crysis, gears of war.



This is funny because I can attest to this as well! My old system which was a 3.2 EE and X850XT PE completely kicked my friends Xbox360's ass in both Call of duty 2 and Oblivion, both looked far better and even ran better on my older PC. Now my new rig which is an OC 4000+ sandiego at 2.8ghz and an X1900XT runs circles around his 360! no comparison!

Take a Long hard look at the textures for most games like Call of Duty 2 and Oblivion for the 360 and you will notice that there is no use of AF at all!!!!! the textures look like a piece of muddy shit.

Consoles are for little boys.
PC's are for men.

I dont miss much! LOL. I just love picken on LIL kiddies

Comparing crappy PC ports between the 360 and PC is idiocy.

I always love the Crappy Port Excuse, Common you can do better than that



Point being made is that if the 360 is as powerful as everyone claims then it should not have a problem with any PC Game. While Call of Duty 2 might have been a port I certainly dont think Oblivion was. If im not mistaken Oblivion was co developed for the PC and the 360. Hell the reason Oblivion was freakin delayed was because of the problems the developers had getting Oblivion to run properly on the 360! LOL! they ended up having to cut out alot of things just to get it playable.

That's not actually true. The Madden series of games for instance is set to run at 60fps NTSC and 50fps PAL.

Wow, imagine that, a sports game running at 60fps! Big accomplishment

Its not an excuse its a fact, its made worse with most of them being launch titles.