Pc graphics. No where near as good as consoles !

MatTheCat said:
This is interesting in that the 60FPS or nothing approach adopted by many PC gamers (including myself) is a relatively recent phenomenon that has only come about due to the emergence of consoles as being the predominant AAA gaming platforms. Prior to PS4, 360, it was very normal for newly released PC titles to run on reasonably high end rigs at around 30-40FPS if the settings were turned up. When BF2 was released, (just prior to consoles) the top end cards at the time were the ATI 850X or the Nvidia Geforce 6800 GTX. With all settings maxed in BF2, sub 30 FPS could be expected at times, even with those latest cards. This was the way that I always remembered PC gaming before the consoles which lead to a constant upgrade itch due to the ever persistent feeling that your gaming expierence could always be so much better.

Back on topic. PC gaming is a very different beast to console gaming and PC gamers are very different beasts to console gamers. A PC gamer is an obsessive compulsive who iw either willing or feels compelled to pile a great deal of his financial and mental resources into his gaming rig. Console gamers on otherhand, generally couldn't tolerate either the price or the effort required for gaming PC's and simply want something that sits next to the TV in the front room, is cheap, and is as simple as turning on and off. This describes the majority of people and no matter how much the shiny sparkling gfx and smooth frame rates of a PC version of a game is dangled in front of thier noses, they just aren't going to be motivated to go for it.

To be honest, the average console gamer is probably a more balanced and rounded human being than the average PC gamer. In this regard, I find it curiously interesting that the only country in the world where the market for PC versions of AAA titles is greater than the markets for thier console counterparts, is Germany.
Click to expand...

Not true for everyone. Any gamers that loved Q3 (and earlier) have been obsessed with high FPS for quite a long time :)
 
NirK said:
I expect if you tried to run Uncharted 3 or Crysis 3 at whatever resolution it is on the PS3 on a 8800GTX it would run very well...
Click to expand...
The xbox 360 & PS3 GPU's are more like a 7800GTX

I.E Around half the speed & power of a 8800GTX....;)


The 8800gtx didn't even come out till a year after the xbox360 was released...;)

GeForce 8800 GTX release date = 8 November 2006
7800gtx release date = June 22, 2005
Xbox360 release date = November 20, 2005
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Mmm but if you read the thread earlier someone was saying that he thought Uncharted 3 would not run on a 8800GTX as well as it does on PS3... I was explaining that the resolution on PC makes a bigger difference then you would expect and that if a PC ran at the same resolution as a PS3 it could easily run any of the games (except for appalling ports such as GTA4 for example)

For example 1280x720 Vs 1920x1200 is 2.5x the amount of pixels to render... which is going to be ~2.5x worse performance just from changing the resolution... I know it sounds obvious but people do not seem to realise how much of a difference it makes....

For example most of the PS4's power will go on actually rendering games at 1080p and the 8gb RAM will get nice textures... I doubt PS4 games will look much better than Tomb raider on a high end PC tbh...
 
Last edited:
Woden said:
They are right though, for the vast majority of PCs, the graphics won't be as good as a console, and certainly not as good as the PS4 or NextBox.

Graphics on PCss can be far, far better than consoles. We all know that, but our PC's are hardly the norm. Most people pick up their PCs off the highstreet rather than build their own and spend less on the whole system than we might on the GPU alone.
Click to expand...

This summarizes the entire situation very well.
 
Wish my pc had graphics as good as this
screenshot20546.jpg
screenshot17285.jpg
screenshot22074.jpg
oh wait that's not PS4
Youtube is full of pcars trailers labeled as GT6 though from people trolling fanboys :D
 
Last edited:
To be fair the big difference I notice when playing on consoles is how bad the load times are more than the graphics a lot of the time. And with PS4 having a HD rather than SSD, I can't see that changing any time soon.
 
HangTime said:
To be fair the big difference I notice when playing on consoles is how bad the load times are more than the graphics a lot of the time. And with PS4 having a HD rather than SSD, I can't see that changing any time soon.
Click to expand...

Come to think of it, same here. I played through the original god of war games on the PS3 that had "HD" remakes and the graphics where slightly better than a PS2, but it was nice and fluid gameplay and the loading times where pretty damn good. I played both from start to finish (1 and 2) and really enjoyed both, regardless of their graphics. Exactly the same deal with RE4 and code veronica also.

Graphics don't mean anything when the storyline and gameplay supersede them. They only start to matter when the storyline is lacklustre and the gameplay is boring, ie crysis 2.
 
NirK said:
What?

I am talking about the price of buying hardware + buying games....
Click to expand...

the thing people dont factor is pretty much every 'console gamer' home will have a PC too, the price differential between a £300 office PC and a £600 mid range gaming PC is the same cost as a console not to mention most every game tends to cost about £10 more on consoles than the PC version, of course if your going for a couple of 690's the cost will be higher, but to get just as good as the consoles the costs are fairly comparable.
 
melvis said:
the thing people dont factor is pretty much every 'console gamer' home will have a PC too, the price differential between a £300 office PC and a £600 mid range gaming PC is the same cost as a console not to mention most every game tends to cost about £10 more on consoles than the PC version, of course if your going for a couple of 690's the cost will be higher, but to get just as good as the consoles the costs are fairly comparable.
Click to expand...

Very debatable there. 90% of people, probably more, buy laptops, rather than desktops. While in a desktop it could be as simple as chucking in a £200 GPU and hoping that the rest of the system doesn't bottleneck it, for most people it's actually a matter of buying a monitor and full desktop system instead of a laptop - which not many people want to do nowadays.
 
Most peoples experience with gaming PC's will be £300 pieces of **** that stutter and jerk on anything above low settings..so I can understand people saying consoles are better.
 
James J said:
Graphics don't mean anything when the storyline and gameplay supersede them. They only start to matter when the storyline is lacklustre and the gameplay is boring, ie crysis 2.
Click to expand...
Whilst I don't disagree that graphics can be a minor consideration in games I can't agree that this has any relevance to the console vs PC debate and better/worse graphics quality.

For instance, the graphics in a game like Sword and Sorcery are extremely basic by today's standards and easily playable on PC, consoles and mobile devices. Graphical prowess means little in that game.

However, if you're playing a game like Black Ops 2 and you have the choice between 800x600, very low texture quality and few/low quality effects and a PC playing with 4x the pixels, high res textures, aa, more effects then graphics 100% matter. The game is going to be more enjoyable and easier to play on the latter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom