Print

[deftonesmx17]

QUOTE(asnpcwiz @ Nov 29 2005, 10:39 AM)

But a console allows you to do so much more.

Right, are you sure about that one. I can think of tons of things I can do on my PC that I can't on a console, but can't think of one thing a console does that my PC doesnt.

QUOTE

I don't want this to become a console vs. PC war, so I'm just going to say I agree you that on a PC it looks better, but the point of the thread was to give input for people who want to buy games for their console...not the PC.

Sorry that 2 out of the 5 games I talked about are on PC also and I made a comment about them  

[deftonesmx17]

QUOTE(asnpcwiz @ Nov 29 2005, 10:55 AM)

I just didn't want this thread to be hijacked and become a pointless discussion on console vs. PC.

But didnt you hijack it? Others had mentioned that PC versions of COD 2 and Quake 4 looked better and it wasnt hijacked yet, so why come down on me for my opinions? Why did yoiu hijack the thread to talk about how you didnt want it to become hijacked?

[miggidy]

QUOTE(asnpcwiz @ Nov 29 2005, 04:39 PM)

To be honest, my PC at home is many times more powerful than the 360.

Really?
Do you have a tripple core 64-bit cpu in your PC?
I didn't even know those were available

[deftonesmx17]

QUOTE(miggidy @ Nov 29 2005, 12:05 PM)

Really?
Do you have a tripple core 64-bit cpu in your PC?
I didn't even know those were available

And did you know the tri-core IBM cpu is not that powerful in real world performance, not theoretical performance like M$ and IBM PR tell you? Take note the cache size on both the CELL and the Xenon, they are small and insufficient.

Here is another example of you feeding into the PR BS.

An AMD Athlon 64 3000 runs at only 1.8Ghz, but out performs a pentium 4 running at 3.2Ghz. Just like your "tripple core 64-bit cpu", it may sound more powerful, but in reality it isnt.

[deftonesmx17]

QUOTE(miggidy @ Nov 29 2005, 12:25 PM)

Which begs the question, how does his "real world performance" pc outperform the X360 in video game applications?

Don't get me wrong, the 360 is powerful, but only because of the GPU.

[LowProfileWurm]

I think it's wholesomely unfair to compare the 360 launch games to games on a PC platform that has been around for decades.  The architectures are different and the final silicon for wasn't ready until September.  How about if we put this PC vs. 360 power debate on hold until the 360 has some time to mature?

[DWells55]

QUOTE(LowProfileWurm @ Nov 29 2005, 12:41 PM)

I think it's wholesomely unfair to compare the 360 launch games to games on a PC platform that has been around for decades.  The architectures are different and the final silicon for wasn't ready until September.  How about if we put this PC vs. 360 power debate on hold until the 360 has some time to mature?

I think it's fair.  My 1.5 year old GeForce 6800 running Half Life 2 (how long ago was it released?) looks as good if not better than some of the 360 titles.

[deftonesmx17]

QUOTE(DWells55 @ Nov 29 2005, 01:09 PM)

I think it's fair.  My 1.5 year old GeForce 6800 running Half Life 2 (how long ago was it released?) looks as good if not better than some of the 360 titles.

Agreed and just for the sake of it, lets throw F.E.A.R. into the mix.

[LowProfileWurm]

QUOTE(DWells55 @ Nov 29 2005, 02:09 PM)

I think it's fair.  My 1.5 year old GeForce 6800 running Half Life 2 (how long ago was it released?) looks as good if not better than some of the 360 titles.

Ok.. then when the 360 is 1.5 years old, we'll compare the games to your GeForce (which has had the same basic architecture for the past 6 years) and see where we stand.  And just for the sake of it, lets compare games with less than 3 years of development time, ala HL2.

[DWells55]

QUOTE(deftonesmx17 @ Nov 29 2005, 01:15 PM)

Agreed and just for the sake of it, lets throw F.E.A.R. into the mix.

Exactly.  FEAR is stunning.

[KAGE360]

i think this whole compare PC to console will always be stupid.  people can argue on both sides till the cows come home.  a console is a base platform which developers can learn new ways to get more out of and exploit to new hieghts where a PC is always upgraded but held back by so much (bottleneck and lowest common spec).  look at Splinter Cell CT for the xbox, that was a 4 year old console but still put out graphics comparable to the PC version (minus AA and higher res at the time).  it is wrong for anyone to compare the 360 to a PC because nothing has even been developed on a finished 360 dev kit.  regardless of anyone being too stubborn to admit it, there is technology in the 360 that is beyond that in a PC and will be for atleast a year from now.  

you guys keep comparing ports and even if its done right (CoD2) or half assed (Q4) its still just a port and not a game developed soley for the console.  i understand you cant do a direct comparison of any kind of CPUs (Power PC, Intel or AMD) but if the power PC CPU isnt nearly as powerful as quoted then why did all 3 of the console companies choose Power PC when its generally more pricey then the other options??  it was a developer from Bizarre Creations who stated that both of the next gen consoles (ps3 and 360) get around 90% of their power is measured by their GPU but that doesnt mean that the CPUs are anything to sneeze at.  

you guys want to compare games then how about compare FEAR to condemned??  they are both developed by the same developer and i think may even use the same engine (read it was rumored but not sure if true) and i have played both.  both are also developed just for the respected platform and not a port.  though the gameplay is different that doesnt mean that you cant compare texture, poly count, lighting, effects, and other such graphical accomplishments and come up with a better opinion to where each platform stands.  condemned clearly looks better IMHO and i dont see why anyone would argue this point.  PGR3 is another perfect example, stack those graphics against ANY PC racer and it will beat it hands down.  so you see that when put on an even playing feild that the 360 clearly comes out regardless of opinions.  sorry for the long rant but this is all stupid to bicker about which is better when its clear that everyone favors their own platform of choice.  

[deftonesmx17]

QUOTE(KAGE360 @ Nov 29 2005, 02:35 PM)

 i understand you cant do a direct comparison of any kind of CPUs (Power PC, Intel or AMD) but if the power PC CPU isnt nearly as powerful as quoted then why did all 3 of the console companies choose Power PC when its generally more pricey then the other options??

They all chose the PPC because of price (yeah it was cheaper), power consumption, and heat dispersion.

About FEAR and condemned, I havent played condemned, but how do the physics stack up against FEAR.

[LowProfileWurm]

QUOTE(KAGE360 @ Nov 29 2005, 03:35 PM)

i think this whole compare PC to console will always be stupid.  people can argue on both sides till the cows come home.  a console is a base platform which developers can learn new ways to get more out of and exploit to new hieghts where a PC is always upgraded but held back by so much (bottleneck and lowest common spec).  look at Splinter Cell CT for the xbox, that was a 4 year old console but still put out graphics comparable to the PC version (minus AA and higher res at the time).  it is wrong for anyone to compare the 360 to a PC because nothing has even been developed on a finished 360 dev kit.  regardless of anyone being too stubborn to admit it, there is technology in the 360 that is beyond that in a PC and will be for atleast a year from now.  

you guys keep comparing ports and even if its done right (CoD2) or half assed (Q4) its still just a port and not a game developed soley for the console.  i understand you cant do a direct comparison of any kind of CPUs (Power PC, Intel or AMD) but if the power PC CPU isnt nearly as powerful as quoted then why did all 3 of the console companies choose Power PC when its generally more pricey then the other options??  it was a developer from Bizarre Creations who stated that both of the next gen consoles (ps3 and 360) get around 90% of their power is measured by their GPU but that doesnt mean that the CPUs are anything to sneeze at.  

you guys want to compare games then how about compare FEAR to condemned??  they are both developed by the same developer and i think may even use the same engine (read it was rumored but not sure if true) and i have played both.  both are also developed just for the respected platform and not a port.  though the gameplay is different that doesnt mean that you cant compare texture, poly count, lighting, effects, and other such graphical accomplishments and come up with a better opinion to where each platform stands.  condemned clearly looks better IMHO and i dont see why anyone would argue this point.  PGR3 is another perfect example, stack those graphics against ANY PC racer and it will beat it hands down.  so you see that when put on an even playing feild that the 360 clearly comes out regardless of opinions.  sorry for the long rant but this is all stupid to bicker about which is better when its clear that everyone favors their own platform of choice.  

Bravo!  Good points.  But the PPC was cheaper.  FYI.

[KAGE360]

oh ok, i thought in the past PPC was considered more pricey in the past (thought i read because of PPC and being developed by lockheed martin co. those were the reasons that the model 3 arcade board was so expensive)  but i do remember reading about power consumption and heat.  thank for clearing that up  

surprised you have no other comments though deftones, im happy you seem to agree with me on the whole comparison fiasco  

[DWells55]

QUOTE(KAGE360 @ Nov 29 2005, 02:35 PM)

look at Splinter Cell CT for the xbox, that was a 4 year old console but still put out graphics comparable to the PC version

Too bad it can't een hit the 30FPS mark on the two Xbox's I've played it on.  And what's the co-op FPS? 15?

And at the end of the day, it's STILL 640x480.  No Anti-Aliasing or Antisoptric Filtering either...

Not to mention Xbox games have a huge advantage: every person who runs the game has the EXACT SAME specs.  So they know exactly what to optimize the game for, soemhting that us PC gamers don't get...

I just think the 360 games are really not using it's hardware very well....