X Box 360 compared to PC Graphics

willhub · 31 Dec 2007 at 14:41

helmutcheese said:
@ psychas, the Ps3 and 360's CPU look impressive on paper as a Cell and a Tri Core but they are not as powerfull overall as todays Intel CPU's.

Ye the CPU's are bottlenecked by the GPU In games I rekon

deadkomodo said:
Exactly. I love seeing omg 1k PC and huge monitor has way better IQ *runs another 3dmark* whilst on the laptop slags of consoles

Mario galaxy rules was really fun to play... wait it does not at 1980 by 1020 it must suck.

Get real

Honestly do you think everyone just buys PC's to run 3DMark LOL?

chronicbint · 31 Dec 2007 at 14:42

willhub said:
GOW was XBOX exclusive so nothing to say those other games wont come out on the PC eventually..

Ease of use? Consoles win? Only racing games I mean trying to play a FPS on an Xbox is hell.

I played through GRAW2 and Rainbow Six Vegas on the 360 and enjoyed them both a lot. Its not hell at all, its just slightly less accurate and takes more time getting used to on a console.

Also prefer it for games such as PES 2008, Fight Night 3(love boxing games

), beatem ups.

All I am saying is consoles and PC's both offer some great gaming experiences these days.

Gashman · 31 Dec 2007 at 14:42

console graphics are utter rubbish compaired to PC, i have PS3 with 37" 1080P LCD, no game on my console looks as good as the same game on PC. consoles are like being short sighted without glasses, PCs are like having perfect 20/20 vision by comparison

Kmodo · 31 Dec 2007 at 14:43

helmutcheese said:
You have to remember something, this is the PC SECTION, not Console.

I played games on a C64 and Amiga1200 on a 14" CRT in my bedroom so no it dont mean it sucks if not 1920x1080, they were not made a High Deff machines like the 360 and PS3 are.

You have dug too deep a hole now, no going back .

Great you played games in the past :rolleyes:

I from the start stated I liked PC and Console gaming. I also stated for value you can not beat a console.

I choose gameplay over graphics anyday

willhub · 31 Dec 2007 at 14:43

chronicbint said:
I played through GRAW2 and Rainbow Six Vegas on the 360 and enjoyed them both a lot. Its not hell at all, its just slightly less accurate and takes more time getting used to on a console.

Also prefer it for games such as PES 2008, Fight Night 3(love boxing games ), beatem ups.

All I am saying is consoles and PC's both offer some great gaming experiences these days.

Aye its hell for me tho thats why I like PC's

.

chronicbint · 31 Dec 2007 at 14:44

Gashman said:
console graphics are utter rubbish compaired to PC, i have PS3 with 37" 1080P LCD, no game on my console looks as good as the same game on PC. consoles are like being short sighted without glasses, PCs are like having perfect 20/20 vision by comparison

Exaggeration ftw?

Kmodo · 31 Dec 2007 at 14:47

willhub said:
Honestly do you think everyone just buys PC's to run 3DMark LOL?

Will buddy ol pal you know round here people talk about benching more than gaming

willhub · 31 Dec 2007 at 14:48

deadkomodo said:
Will buddy ol pal you know round here people talk about benching more than gaming

Yea we all do benching but we all play games too

.

BTW Cry**** is the new 3DMark

J.D · 31 Dec 2007 at 14:48

deadkomodo said:
Learn to read i.e disposable income does not mean who actually earns the most LOL

Yep

. We all make mistakes and mine is (Big Buddha) cheese orientated.

On topic.

As you will see from the posts made in this thread that your view is not shared by the majority. You say that on your 40 odd inch screen that AA is irrelevant. If you didn't mean that in any way then it didn't sound like it when I mentioned about the AA thing. On top of that you have less power, capped frame rates, bad design build (3 rings of death and Falcon isn't much better) and all the peripherals you can buy for the PC can not be shared onto Consoles. Well not in quality from what I've used, heard about and read about.

Just about every game except PGR4 and all fighting titles can be had and looking better on the PC so why bother if you can afford both?. I've already said that for the people who can't afford or don't like using PC for games then everything you say is what they want to hear. Now on the terms of using both I have my opinion and you have yours. You won't change mine or the majority and I don't expect to change yours

.

MHayes · 31 Dec 2007 at 14:51

psychas said:
im not sure how consoles get such good looks of the games as the hardware in them are not so good i read somewhere that graphics in xbox 360 and ps3 if you compare to pc something like 6800ultras in sli and they have only 512mb of ram and so on not, sure about cpu i heard that ps3 has 3.ghz or something 12 cores? maybe thats were power comes from

That is where Sony went wrong IMO, they went crazy on the CPU and skimped on the GCard. What games are CPU limited, even sillier was to go with a 7 core beast, I mean multi threaded games are in their infancy, it was a rather bold move. And these days with multi platform games, games have to be ported to all systems so it doesn't do them any favors.

J.D · 31 Dec 2007 at 14:56

MHayes said:
That is where Sony went wrong IMO, they went crazy on the CPU and skimped on the GCard. What games are CPU limited, even sillier was to go with a 7 core beast, I mean multi threaded games are in their infancy, it was a rather bold move. And these days with multi platform games, games have to be ported to all systems so it doesn't do them any favors.

Aye. Microsoft got it right on the CPU side of it even though the IBM chips are meant to be nothing compared to an AMD X2 CPU nevermind a dual core conroe. Microsoft got just what they needed and Sony just went OTT. Saying that though. The future need for R&D to sort Sony's CPU out for the next console might be evaded by just working on the cell. Microsoft will prob link up with Intel for the new Xbox's CPU I'd imagine.

Kmodo · 31 Dec 2007 at 14:57

J.D said:
Yep . We all make mistakes and mine is (Big Buddha) cheese orientated.

On topic.

As you will see from the posts made in this thread that your view is not shared by the majority. You say that on your 40 odd inch screen that AA is irrelevant. If you didn't mean that in any way then it didn't sound like it when I mentioned about the AA thing. On top of that you have less power, capped frame rates, bad design build (3 rings of death and Falcon isn't much better) and all the peripherals you can buy for the PC can not be shared onto Consoles. Well not in quality from what I've used, heard about and read about.

Just about every game except PGR4 and all fighting titles can be had and looking better on the PC so why bother if you can afford both?. I've already said that for the people who can't afford or don't like using PC for games then everything you say is what they want to hear. Now on the terms of using both I have my opinion and you have yours. You won't change mine or the majority and I don't expect to change yours .

Bud you have to understand my games don't really overlap and I would not like to just restrict myself to one format. For me 8xAA, 16XAF ect really do not mean a great deal compared with gameplay. Capped framerates well again even with an UBER PC the unoptimised games can send your framerates crashing randomly and end up being far less imerssive than a constant framesrate.

I own these three and I love them all
PC (RTS, MMO, FPS)
Wii (Nintendo's 1st party games and other novelty fun stuff),
360 (chillaxing on my sofa and playing Sports, Racing, Beat em up, 3rd person games)

For me hassle free gaming (not worrying about patches, drivers, upgrades) for two thirds of my gaming is brilliant.

helmutcheese · 31 Dec 2007 at 15:02

Patches fix issues and add better weapons and items (take BioShock with newer/better Plasmids).

I dont see diff from a 1st to 3rd person view, both are suited to a PC and Mouse/KB.

Max Payne and Hitman are 3rd and makes no real diff to controling in 1st view like Cod4 and BioShock.

The PC dont not have auto aim in most games but you dont need as a Mouse/KB are far more accurate,

Kmodo · 31 Dec 2007 at 15:06

helmutcheese said:
Patches fix issues and add better weapons and items (take BioShock with newer/better Plasmids).

I dont see diff from a 1st to 3rd person view, both are suited to a PC and Mouse/KB.

Max Payne and Hitman are 3rd and makes no real diff to controling in 1st view like Cod4 and BioShock.

The PC dont not have auto aim in most games but you dont need as a Mouse/KB are far more accurate,

K 3rd person... do I feel bad playing tombraider, assassins creed ect with a handset? No it feels right these games were designed with them in mind afterall.

EDIT: played max payne on PC felt right but gears of war you may argue that it looks slightly better on PC but seriously it feels better on 360 IMO.

helmutcheese · 31 Dec 2007 at 15:09

I aint getting at you, but both you and J.D seem to prefer 3rd with a Controler and 1st with a Mouse/KB, I simply dont see any difference as both are same (some games even allow you to switch views).

I accept a fighting game can be controled better by a controler and a console does give it the arcade feel lacking in the PC versions and some driving games like GT cant be felt on a PC.

For any game where you move a person about be it 1st or 3rd a Mouse/KB will work well.

Thats why the console games have auto aim, it be near impossible to snipe a headshot from 300 meters without it.

J.D · 31 Dec 2007 at 15:10

deadkomodo said:
Bud you have to understand my games don't really overlap and I would not like to just restrict myself to one format. For me 8xAA, 16XAF ect really do not mean a great deal compared with gameplay. Capped framerates well again even with an UBER PC the unoptimised games can send your framerates crashing randomly and end up being far less imerssive than a constant framesrate.

I own these three and I love them all
PC (RTS, MMO, FPS)
Wii (Nintendo's 1st party games and other novelty fun stuff),
360 (chillaxing on my sofa and playing Sports, Racing, Beat em up, 3rd person games)

For me hassle free gaming (not worrying about patches, drivers, upgrades) for two thirds of my gaming is brilliant.

We are worlds apart then (maybe just by age as you seem young). Tried the Wii and it was fun but the lasting appeal was for one night only. Four of my m8's think the same as well but maybe used it a few times more. We all just got bored and went back to the PC. The 360 just doesn't have the titles for me to want one apart from PGR4, Fight Night 3 and a few other titles that are on their way to the PC so that makes it less attractive to me as there's not enough to entice me. My PS2 pads on my PC help me out for some games and my force feedback wheel does my racing and my mouse and keyboard do my FPS/strategy titles. I just prefer to do all my gaming on my PC.

Edit: Well from your edit I see you mention frame rate crashing with unoptimised games. Well I've seen PLENTY of slowdown on the Xbox360 in hectic moments on the screen???. How is that any different at all?. I'm sorry but it's not hard or exactly rocket science to optimise your own games and in record time. Once set that's usually it with no need for the messing about.

chronicbint · 31 Dec 2007 at 15:11

lol, plenty of rubbish in this thread

The original question has already been answered, IQ = PC has won.

Consoles in the living room, PC in the office/den/cave. Everyones a winner.

J.D · 31 Dec 2007 at 15:13

helmutcheese said:
I aint getting at you, but both you and J.D seem to prefer 3rd with a Controler and 1st with a Mouse/KB, I simply dont see any difference as both are same (some games even allow you to switch views).

I accept a fighting game can be controled better by a controler and a console does give it the arcade feel lacking in the PC versions and some driving games like GT cant be felt on a PC.

For any game where you move a person about be it 1st or 3rd a Mouse/KB will work well.

Thats why the console games have auto aim, it be near impossible to snipe a headshot from 300 meters without it.

Very true. Matrix: Path of Neo was one you could use both as well as hitman and so on. Both do work just as well but I do prefer the pad for 3rd person as long as I can still be sharp with my aiming. Whatever makes me feel more comfortable will get used so that is game dependant.

Kmodo · 31 Dec 2007 at 15:14

helmutcheese said:
I aint getting at you, but both you and J.D seem to prefer 3rd with a Controler and 1st with a Mouse/KB, I simply dont see any difference as both are same (some games even allow you to switch views).

I accept a fighting game can be controled better by a controler and a console does give it the arcade feel lacking in the PC versions and some driving games like GT cant be felt on a PC.

For any game where you move a person about be it 1st or 3rd a Mouse/KB will work well.

It is not just the view it is the games themselves if they are designed origninally for console they feel better with a controller and in general they are not multiplayer games i.e. you can chill on your sofa and play them.

Whereas FPS are more just click people heads very quickly i.e. need mouse and keyboard on a desk close to screen

(Nothing like assassins creed)

Hope you kinda get me now?

Lightnix · 31 Dec 2007 at 15:15

I think the PC would benefit from having a turn based RPG.

(going to run away now)