new generation console question

[Smack500]

I was reading a gaming mag earlier.I saw an article saying that pcs are upgrading at such a fast rate at this time, that they will be a bit above the new consoles upon their release. If this is the case I dont think its happened before.

Does anyone have any specs on the consoles and top of the line pcs to know if this is true or not?

Ive seen screen shots from some of the new gen consoles, I have yet to see anything better then U3 ss though.

 

[dream431ca]

trust me..PC's will always be above consoles in terms of graphics, speed and other stuff. you ever seen quake 4 pics?? That's higher than any of the new consoles.

 

[guchi]

trust me..PC's will always be above consoles in terms of graphics, speed and other stuff. you ever seen quake 4 pics?? That's higher than any of the new consoles.

ummm... compared to what game excactly? link some screenshots too...

 

[Adabiviak]

Excellent topic. I understand that the CPUs in the consoles leave something to be desired, but they are running a "dedicated" program and may not need to be real balls of fire. The GPU however, is another story. What are the latest and current consoles using for video cards? Can they even compare (since their output is typically for "low res" television sets and PCs are for "hi res" monitors or even HD?) I've no idea! I'm gonna dig a little...

 

[OCybrManO]

trust me..PC's will always be above consoles in terms of graphics, speed and other stuff. you ever seen quake 4 pics?? That's higher than any of the new consoles.

That hasn't been the case in the past. Almost every wave of consoles has started out at least somewhat more powerful than the average gamer's PC at the time (usually PCs would catch up months or years later). Since we've only seen several scattered shots of engine tests and renders made by game developers to estimate the power of the console it's really hard to judge how powerful the systems really are at this point. The only major difference in graphical quality of console games on the same system comes from the ability of the developers. So, even though consoles are hardware-locked throughout their lifespan many of the games still gradually become more graphically impressive over time as the developers learn the intricacies of the system and how best to optimize for it (perhaps with the exception of the Xbox because, basically, it was just a PC). You only really know the true power of a console when its successor is almost ready to be released and everyone quits making games for it.

All things considered, this time around it could go either way. The first game made on the new Unreal engine is going to be the best-looking game in existence for the PC when it is released... as most games made on a newly developed Unreal engine tend to be. On a related note, I believe the PC game Huxley is going to use the new Unreal engine... and it is also planned to be released on the Xbox 360. That leads me to believe that the consoles will at least be capable of a tie with that game when in the hands of a good developer... and I hope they don't prove me wrong.

EDIT:

Excellent topic. I understand that the CPUs in the consoles leave something to be desired, but they are running a "dedicated" program and may not need to be real balls of fire. The GPU however, is another story. What are the latest and current consoles using for video cards? Can they even compare (since their output is typically for "low res" television sets and PCs are for "hi res" monitors or even HD?) I've no idea! I'm gonna dig a little...

Console GPUs are almost always more powerful than the PC GPUs of the time. They are specifically developed as such so that they can last for several years until the new console come out... whereas PC video cards come out in waves every year or so. Your point about the stripped-down nature of consoles is also important because, unlike PCs, consoles don't have to deal with HALs, drivers, background process, services, incredibly varied (and, for the purpose of gaming... bloated) operating systems, and the like... making them able to get more oomph from a system with the same hardware specs.

 

[trizzm]

console developers should worry about other stuff than graphics until people have TVs with resolutions graded higher than 640x480 because you can put three billions of polygons on screen at the same time with each texture in 1024*1024 and bumpmapped to death, it's still going to look asscheek-ugly as halo2 proved.

 

[OCybrManO]

console developers should worry about other stuff than graphics until people have TVs with resolutions graded higher than 640x480 because you can put three billions of polygons on screen at the same time with each texture in 1024*1024 and bumpmapped to death, it's still going to look asscheek-ugly as halo2 proved.

The Xbox 360 is supposedly putting much more emphasis on HDTV support than the Xbox did (barely any games did anything more than 480p). It is also rumoured to have a GPU with very efficient FSAA (and anisotropic filtering) so that they will be able to get rid of the jagged lines that plagued many XBox games (from my experience) when running on component video cables without having to sacrifice much in terms of perfomance (unlike the previous GPU, which was more like something between a Geforce 3 & 4). It's not their fault if you don't have a TV that supports higher resolutions.

 

[trizzm]

I do, I was not talking about myself I was talking about people, worthwhile HDTV sets are still very expensive, and a luxury that most people still pass by.
furthermore look at my rig why the hell would I want a xBox; two months after the xbox will be out a new video card will be out that crushes it to the floor and guess what i'll surely have it therefore xbox360 can lick my hi-res monitor's DVI input.

 

[J_Tweedy]

so what are these new consoles going to match in terms of pc specs? a rough idea is all anyone could give, but can anyone hazard a guess?

 

[OCybrManO]

two months after the xbox will be out a new video card will be out that crushes it to the floor

Console GPUs at their initial lauch have, in the past, been about a generation (or more) ahead of PC GPUs. We're not talking two months here... especially since both Nvidia and ATi have bumped their production cycles up to a year and a half instead of just a year, IIRC. The console developers pay the GPU manufacturers a lot of money to push their technology to the limit so they won't be totally obsolete compared to PCs after only a year or two. They usually get the equivalent of GPUs we won't see for the PC until about a year later (depending on the production cycles) and sometimes they are still better. Imagine still playing games on a 4-year-old PC. If you look at it that way the Xbox is still putting out pretty damn good results... and the PS2 is like a year or more older than that. Also, you have to remember that the cards are built directly into the systems rather than as an addon card... meaning they aren't slowed down by the latency of an AGP or PCI-Express bus... as the GPU can be directly connected to the system RAM (or they could even use one big pool of fast RAM if they wanted to cut out the transfer of data from system RAM to video RAM before the GPU can do anything with it) and the CPU. Basically, the more you specialize a piece of hardware the better it can do its job... but you sacrifice the ability to do other jobs and be expanded when better hardware comes out. If you try to make something a jack of all trades, like a PC, you're going to need more horsepower to get the same performance.

No, if you are willing to shell out a couple thousand dollars to build or buy a great gaming PC you don't need a console to play games... but if you are on a budget and don't care about the other features a PC can offer a console is your best bet, by a long shot. How could they justify spending $1000 every 2 to 4 years to stay at a decent level of PC gaming hardware when they could spend a third of that every 4 or 5 years and get something that, at least for a while, is more powerful than any PC out there? Unless you use your PC for a lot of other things or you think a keyboard + mouse combination is the ultimate gaming control system it's really not worth it.

 

[trizzm]

i'm saying this because in the last year PCs have seen the biggest sales boost on the hardware side since a very long time, practically everyone updated their system to play doom3 or HL2 (or is currently trying to ) and this money will mean more advancements faster and I won't be surprised if PCs catch up with next gen consoles faster than usual. the line between these machines and overclocked PCs with R520s (which will be out by then) will probably not be that large, if at all. plus, now there's SLI in the picture.

of course I have the chance to have a superig; I use it as the backbone of my home music studio

also what I wanted to add is that if you're going to enjoy xbox360 graphics on a hdtv set with convinient sound, the price argument is killed as you've blown the 1 grand mark at the least

 

[Gargantou]

Not to mention -ALL- XB360 games will HAVE to support HDTV.
I've played some games that seemed very fscking far ahead of their time compared to PC games, like Steel Battalion for the XBox, it had awesome graphics, if you play that game with Surround sound on a HDTV you'll know what gaming is all about.
I just hope Capcom releases a sequel for it to the XB360, that'd be awesome.*Drools thinking about the graphics*

 

[OCybrManO]

i'm saying this because in the last year PCs have seen the biggest sales boost on the hardware side since a very long time, practically everyone updated their system to play doom3 or HL2 and this money will mean more advancements faster and I won't be surprised if PCs catch up with next gen consoles faster than usual. the line between these machines and overclocked PCs with R520s (which will be out by then) will probably not be that large, if at all. plus, now there's SLI in the picture.

Apart from SLI it doesn't mean much. They are still on a production cycle of about a year and a half... meaning the next line of cards should be released late next year. The next-gen systems that will be released around or before that time period should be either roughly equal or even better than those... meaning the next major upgrade to put them comfortably ahead of consoles would be well over a year away... unless you have a motherboard with multiple PCI-Express slots and two expensive video cards. Then, if you have all of that you'd have to have an equally powerful CPU and a bunch of fast memory to avoid a bottleneck. For the price of a top-of-the-line PC you could buy all three consoles, three extra controllers for each system, other accessories, and still get 10-20 games to play. So, 3 fully loaded consoles and a bunch of games or just a really fast PC that you still have to buy games for (unless you're a pirate... but you can pirate console games as well.. so there goes that idea)? For the average consumer it's an easy choice. Consoles are the way to go for the casual gamer that doesn't want to blow a ton of money. Hardcore PC gamers are a small market compared to the amount of console gamers.

 

[Axyon]

Not to mention -ALL- XB360 games will HAVE to support HDTV.

Expanding on that, all games are required to be able to run at default of 720p (480i/480p is also supported of course) on HDTVs, and with utilisation for FSAA.

so what are these new consoles going to match in terms of pc specs? a rough idea is all anyone could give, but can anyone hazard a guess?

The Xbox 360's specs are:

3 processors at 3.0Ghz each
Next-Gen ATi GPU (at least one generation ahead of the x800s, apparently)
256 or 512mb RAM, not yet confirmed.
DVD Drive etc.

 

[<RJMC>]

one thing is that the xbox hav specs compared to a PC whit pemtiun3 and it look better that a PC whit that power,so I think you should consider that

 

[Cole]

Actually it's 1 processor with 3 cores at 3.0ghz each if memory serves correct.

 

[Smack500]

As far hdtv goes, thats nice for xbox. Buts its not an advantage over the pc. A pc can connect to anything, any console can and much more (with the right equipment).

At any rate, I dont think much can be said about this until alot more info about the gpus comes out.

 

[gh0st]

Actually it's 1 processor with 3 cores at 3.0ghz each if memory serves correct.

Yeah.

I'll be buying one. PC fanboys are worse than console ones heh.

two months after the xbox will be out a new video card will be out that crushes it to the floor and guess what i'll surely have it therefore xbox360 can lick my hi-res monitor's DVI input

You sound desperate for it to fail or suck. Not much of gamer are we.

 

[KU_]

Yeah.

I'll be buying one. PC fanboys are worse than console ones heh.

You sound desperate for it to fail or suck. Not much of gamer are we.

'Meh, it's the truth. Maybe not in two months, but PC's will and always will catch up. I personally think all 3 next gen systems will look the same graphically wise, but gameplay wise Nintendo is going to own them all. Nothing innovative about an Xbox with a faster CPU and better graphics IMO.

 

[gh0st]

'Meh, it's the truth. Maybe not in two months, but PC's will and always will catch up. I personally think all 3 next gen systems will look the same graphically wise, but gameplay wise Nintendo is going to own them all. Nothing innovative about an Xbox with a faster CPU and better graphics IMO.

I dont want innovative. I want fun games. In my opinion, nintendo's third party games are shitty.

 

[DEATH eVADER]

Trust me, PC's will always be ahead. When PC games looked smooth as ever, PS1 games still looked pixelated

 

[No-live 2]

Nice info about next gen consoles:

http://hardware.gamespot.com/Story-ST-x-1939-x-x-x

Screenshots PS3 game (2 days to vegas):
http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/2daystovegas/screenindex.html

and let me say: WOW

Screenshots XBOX 360 (2days to vegas):
http://www.gamespot.com/x360/action/2daystovegas/screenindex.html

and let me say again: WOWOWOWOW

 

[OCybrManO]

Trust me, PC's will always be ahead. When PC games looked smooth as ever, PS1 games still looked pixelated

The original Playstation was released more than a decade ago... 1994 to be exact. Do you remember what PC games looked like in 1994? Let me paint a picture using the PC Gamer awards for 1994:

Game of the Year - Doom
Best Action Game - TIE Fighter
Best Adventure Game - System Shock
Best Simulation - 1942: The Pacific Air War
Must I continue?

Playstation graphics were awesome compared to those of PCs in 94/95... and the same thing happened with the PS2 in 1998.

'Meh, it's the truth. Maybe not in two months, but PC's will and always will catch up.

Ummm... that's the whole point of having an upgradeable system with an almost universal OS. You can't expect a static system like the NES to keep up with a PC that keeps getting upgraded. The problem is that this expandability of the PC (along with other factors, like versatility) makes it much more expensive to get the same graphics quality. If you buy one decent video card, or a new hard drive, or a couple of good sticks of RAM, or a new CPU, or a new sound card... you probably just spent as much money on that one part as a whole console costs. Even at the end of the lifecycle of the current consoles they are still able to pump out some impressive graphics... like Gran Turismo 4, Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, and Resident Evil 4. Imagine you upgrade your PC as often as your consoles. You'd spend like 10x as much money on the PC and near the end of that period some of the developers would be making PC games that run like shit on your PC, limiting you to old games until you upgrade... whereas at the end of that same period, all of the new console games would still run like a dream. Yeah, if you're willing to spend even more money (like me, and many of the people at this forum) to keep the PC updated it's not as bad... but that's a price we've decided we are willing to pay. A gaming PC just can't beat the cost effectiveness of a console.

I dont want innovative. I want fun games. In my opinion, nintendo's third party games are shitty.

If they're third party they're not Nintendo games. Yes, it's partially Nintendo's fault that the GC didn't get good third party support... but the developers almost always go to the place where they think they can get the most money. Nintendo released the GC too late and didn't beef up their system enough to compensate for the delay, making Sony's PS2 a much more lucrative system to develop for. They also supposedly had some bad relations with Square (developer of the Final Fantasy games)... which seem to be over because they released a game or two for the GC near the end and they are on the list of developers of Revolution games. If the Revolution is as revolutionary as it is made out to be and turns out to be the most popular system you can bet that better third party games will head their way. They move in the direction the market fluctuates.

Also, when you go too long without changing the way you interact with games in some way the games can become stale as the developers start to run out of new gameplay ideas. Imagine still playing games with an 8-directional digital joystick and a single button (or even without the button). I mean, there's only so much that could be done with input that simplistic. For the games to get more advanced the game systems have to advance in the way that you interact with the games. You can still make simplistic games as always... but the more complex inputs give the developers more freedom to come up with new fun types of gameplay. We've been using the same analog sticks and buttons/triggers for more than a decade. I think it's time for something new... and if Nintendo is building it into their systems you can bet they think (but there's no guarantee) it will open up new fun and interesting opportunities for games. If there's anything to be said about Nintendo's work it's that fun gameplay is the top priority.

 

[Smack500]

Nice info about next gen consoles:

http://hardware.gamespot.com/Story-ST-x-1939-x-x-x

Screenshots PS3 game (2 days to vegas):
http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/2daystovegas/screenindex.html

and let me say: WOW

Screenshots XBOX 360 (2days to vegas):
http://www.gamespot.com/x360/action/2daystovegas/screenindex.html

and let me say again: WOWOWOWOW

Why bring this game up, isnt it for the ps3,xbox360, and the PC. So I dont see how it helps resolve anything.

 

[KU_]

Ummm... that's the whole point of having an upgradeable system with an almost universal OS. You can't expect a static system like the NES to keep up with a PC that keeps getting upgraded. The problem is that this expandability of the PC (along with other factors, like versatility) makes it much more expensive to get the same graphics quality. If you buy one decent video card, or a new hard drive, or a couple of good sticks of RAM, or a new CPU, or a new sound card... you probably just spent as much money on that one part as a whole console costs. Even at the end of the lifecycle of the current consoles they are still able to pump out some impressive graphics... like Gran Turismo 4, Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, and Resident Evil 4. Imagine you upgrade your PC as often as your consoles. You'd spend like 10x as much money on the PC and near the end of that period some of the developers would be making PC games that run like shit on your PC, limiting you to old games until you upgrade... whereas at the end of that same period, all of the new console games would still run like a dream. Yeah, if you're willing to spend even more money (like me, and many of the people at this forum) to keep the PC updated it's not as bad... but that's a price we've decided we are willing to pay. A gaming PC just can't beat the cost effectiveness of a console.

Thanks. I didn't know that. :| Please refresh my memory where I said a PC can beat the cost effectiveness of a console. That's right I didn't. PC's are for the more competitive gamer IMO. If you put alot of money into a kick @ss rig, you better believe your dedicated to gaming.

 

[OCybrManO]

Thanks. I didn't know that. :| Please refresh my memory where I said a PC can beat the cost effectiveness of a console. That's right I didn't.

Thanks. I didn't know that. :| Please refresh my memory where I said that you said a PC can beat the cost effectiveness of a console. That's right I didn't. Only the first two sentences directly address what was said in your posts. The rest is on a related topic (the consequences of extra expandability and versatility)... and a very valid point of discussion considering that most of the gaming population consists of either people in school or working in relatively low-paying jobs. You should also note that I'm not here to create a lengthy, extremely well thought out, and entirely on-topic discussion about the merits of PCs and consoles in terms of power, affordability, fun, or any other aspect. I merely post here because, at this very minute, I have nothing better to do.

Also, the "dedicated" gamers are a niche market in the gaming industry. The market is dominated by casual gamers.

 

[Smack500]

I pretty much agree with OCybrManO, in it depends alot on your finances. Compared which is best for your buck, no question the console wins. However for us that can afford to spend $1,000 every 2-3 yrs or so (you can build close to a top of the line system for that), pcs will end up being better (specs wise), until consoles become upgradable.


Specs released so far Ive seen

Xbox 360 (4q 2005)
3.0ghz
256mb ram
Ati video card probally comparable to next gen card to be release (post x800)

ps3 (1q 2006)
4ghz
512mb ram
Nvidia graphics probally comparable to next gen card they release (post GeForce 6800)

TOTL PC (Present time)
3.6ghz
1-2gb of ram
Ati x800 or GeForce 6800

 

[No-live 2]

Why bring this game up, isnt it for the ps3,xbox360, and the PC. So I dont see how it helps resolve anything.

First link was about the next gen consoles and specs and stuff (As it is asked in the first post) . You would know this if you actually read it , instead of moaning.
The other 2 links just gave some screenshots as an addon to my post. Hope I wont get banned for this


sjeez...

 

[Smack500]

Also even though the pc is expensive compared to a console, it isnt that bad. You dont need to be rich or well off, to be able to spend $1,000 every 2-3 years. I know because Im considered poor by most, and Im working part time (and going to college).

 

[No-live 2]

Also even though the pc is expensive compared to a console, it isnt that bad. You dont need to be rich or well off, to be able to spend $1,000 every 2-3 years. I know because Im considered poor by most, and Im working part time (and going to college).

Keep up the good work champ

 

[Smack500]

Lol, I wasnt trying to brag or anything. I was just trying to show an example, and I brought up going to college as to explain why I am working part time.

 

[$kelet0r]

Besides your pc is so so much more than a games platform

 

[Smack500]

Pcs are not just for gaming either buddy. There are so many other uses its not funny. For example, I do alot of video and photo editing, just for home purposes. Which it helps alot to have a nice pc when using some of those aplications.

 

[No-live 2]

Lol, I wasnt trying to brag or anything. I was just trying to show an example, and I brought up going to college as to explain why I am working part time.

I didnt say you were, I really meant that lol, ah nevermind then...

 

[Sir Phoenixx]

Specs released so far Ive seen

Xbox 360 (4q 2005)
3.0ghz
256mb ram
Ati video card probally comparable to next gen card to be release (post x800)

ps3 (1q 2006)
4ghz
512mb ram
Nvidia graphics probally comparable to next gen card they release (post GeForce 6800)

TOTL PC (Present time)
3.6ghz
1-2gb of ram
Ati x800 or GeForce 6800

The most powerful PC configuration I've seen so far is:

Ahtlon 64 FX-55
4GB RAM (4 sticks of 1GB, Although you could get 2gb sticks if you wanted. (I've seen larger ones too.))
Double PCI-Express 512MB (overlocked stock) Geforce 6800 Ultra cards (for a total of 1024MB of video memory)

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

The most powerful PC configuration I've seen so far is:

Ahtlon 64 FX-55
4GB RAM (4 sticks of 1GB, Although you could get 2gb sticks if you wanted. (I've seen larger ones too.))
Double PCI-Express 512MB (overlocked stock) Geforce 6800 Ultra cards (for a total of 1024MB of video memory)

er 4gb of ram on that socket is so godamn pointless... :bonce: it's just running circles around itself looking for something to do. If anything it's increasing latency.

 

[SimonomiS]

So whats the best set-up for a PC you can get for the same price? Sounds like a good challenge.

 

[KU_]

So whats the best set-up for a PC you can get for the same price? Sounds like a good challenge.

People always say PC's cost way to much. Well, if a console could do everything a PC could, it would be just the same price.

 

[Smack500]

I thought everyone knew anymore then 2gb is just pointless, actually if anything it would hurt more then help. Also in benchmarks the p4 3.6 EE is faster then the athlon fx-55.

It doesnt matter much anyway all of those specs will be different for the pc once the consoles are released (the next gen vcs, and cpus should be coming out very soon). However the console specs are set, unless what the specs released early wasnt true.

 

[Smack500]

People keep bringing up the price. You get what you pay for imo, a top of the line pc is good for tons more then just gaming. Whens the last time you did any of these on your xbox: copied a dvd or cd , how about type a report, merge photos, order a vacation package, convert your tapes to dvd, download mods for your games, run lab tests, code, dl prono (jk), etc,etc.