360 speed equal to?

JUMPURS · 12 Jan 2006 at 21:09

Well he must have problems with his PC if he cant get Quake iv to run better on that than on the 360, i know the demo runs a lot worse on the 360 than on my rig, and from what i am told it is a terrible conversion.
I have not played the full version of COD2 on the 360, but i will get a hold off it from a guy in work and i will see first hand.
I have said above it is more powerfull than a GTX, but not by much at all.

benjo plz. · 12 Jan 2006 at 21:12

NokkonWud said:
An Xbox360 is definitely more powerful than a 7800GTX, I know my friends can't output normal maps to the degree his 360 can.

He also has a 4400+ X2 and 4gb RAM. Even he says his Xbox360 is more powerful.

It can't be that powerful, as if their would be, there would be a market for them. The only reason the 360 is fast is because its not running background things like an OS.

This is only speculation, but a system with an FX60 and a G71 would walk all over the 360.

Naffa · 12 Jan 2006 at 21:13

Phnom_Penh said:
It can't be that powerful, as if their would be, there would be a market for them. The only reason the 360 is fast is because its not running background things like an OS.

thats not true, how do you even know that it is faster? and there wouldnt be a market for them, as consoles are consoles. not pcs.

benjo plz. · 12 Jan 2006 at 21:14

naffa said:
thats not true, how do you even know that it is faster?

How do I know whats faster?

Naffa · 12 Jan 2006 at 21:14

Phnom_Penh said:
How do I know whats faster?

the 360.

Metalface Mark · 12 Jan 2006 at 21:15

I stuck my shuttle on my High def TV a few weeks ago for a go of COD2, with cpu at 2.6ghz (oppie) and X1800XT i was able to run at 720p resolution at a constant 60fps with 4x AA and 8x AF, looked just the same as running on the xbox. I guess its hard to judge since the games that are the same are ports.

At 1280x1024 with the same stuff on my monitor the frame rate would drop quite often, so i guess its quite easy to look decent at a relatively low resolution (monitor wise anyway).

benjo plz. · 12 Jan 2006 at 21:16

naffa said:
the 360.

That was really applying to what NokkonWud said, should have quoted tbh.

JUMPURS · 12 Jan 2006 at 21:20

InwardSinging said:
I stuck my shuttle on my High def TV a few weeks ago for a go of COD2, with cpu at 2.6ghz (oppie) and X1800XT i was able to run at 720p resolution at a constant 60fps with 4x AA and 8x AF, looked just the same as running on the xbox. I guess its hard to judge since the games that are the same are ports.

At 1280x1024 with the same stuff on my monitor the frame rate would drop quite often, so i guess its quite easy to look decent at a relatively low resolution (monitor wise anyway).

That is the kind of comparisons i like to see.
Same game, same screen, only diff is the PC i think is running 8 x AF, and i dont think the 360 does.
The 1800XT is pretty much on a par with the GTX, maybe a little faster than the 256 version??
And they can run the same.

Naffa · 12 Jan 2006 at 21:27

Phnom_Penh said:
That was really applying to what NokkonWud said, should have quoted tbh.

fair enough.

i think that on paper the 360 looks far far far better than any pc on the market today and unfortunately there isnt a real way to test whether it actually is.. people may suggest:

"Look at the framerates" - nooo look at Quake 4

then pc fanboys will say
"Well thats because its rubbish" < thats rubbish.

"Look at the graphics" - this maybe used.. but you have to take into
account that at the moment the 360s power is
noway near being fully harnessed. a pc also
displays this differently so the image quality would
also be different.

in short what im saying is..

YOU CANT COMPARE THE TWO.. SO DONT TRY

DaveyD · 12 Jan 2006 at 21:42

naffa said:
fair enough.

i think that on paper the 360 looks far far far better than any pc on the market today and unfortunately there isnt a real way to test whether it actually is.. people may suggest:

"Look at the framerates" - nooo look at Quake 4 then pc fanboys will say
"Well thats because its rubbish" < thats rubbish.

"Look at the graphics" - this maybe used.. but you have to take into
account that at the moment the 360s power is
noway near being fully harnessed. a pc also
displays this differently so the image quality would
also be different.

in short what im saying is..

YOU CANT COMPARE THE TWO.. SO DONT TRY

But Quake 4 and CoD 2 are both the only games that you CAN legitimately compare PCs and Xbox 360. Quake 4 does have the odd dodgy framerate issues, as it's quick, poorly optimised game for the 360. It's not the best game in the world, but it's a laugh non the less. True, hardware cannot be directly compared, but performance can be still, and that's how you can match specs.

On paper PCs will look a lot better in the coming year or so. But the Xbox is going to last 5+ years, and I seriously doubt most of todays top-end PCs will last 5+ years and still be able to play new games that are also graphically impressive. Sure, you'll probably get a lot better looking games on PC in 5+ years, but the Xbox 360 + PS3 should be reaching their peaks at that time graphically too.

benjo · 12 Jan 2006 at 21:51

naffa said:
YOU CANT COMPARE THE TWO.. SO DONT TRY

You could if you ran 3dmark on both xbox and pc, and then ran an xbox 360 optimised benchmark on both of them, then see the difference in scores and bingo

taking into account the pc will have to be uber.. but i dont think this will happen so i'll go now

NokkonWud · 12 Jan 2006 at 23:17

JUMPURS said:
Well he must have problems with his PC if he cant get Quake iv to run better on that than on the 360, i know the demo runs a lot worse on the 360 than on my rig, and from what i am told it is a terrible conversion.
I have not played the full version of COD2 on the 360, but i will get a hold off it from a guy in work and i will see first hand.
I have said above it is more powerfull than a GTX, but not by much at all.

Well, I was mainly talking about Call of Duty 2, Quake 4 is basically the same, I don't know why this is, but it just doesn't feel right on the Xbox360 (I think you are right regarding a lazy converstion). But CoD 2 certainly runs better on the 360 (I also never said it ran bad on his PC).

Phnom_Penh said:
It can't be that powerful, as if their would be, there would be a market for them. The only reason the 360 is fast is because its not running background things like an OS.

This is only speculation, but a system with an FX60 and a G71 would walk all over the 360.

The Xbox360 is running an OS in the background.
Also, of course technology that isn't available will be quicker than technology that is, so thats a none comment

GordyR · 12 Jan 2006 at 23:52

naffa said:
but you have to take into
account that at the moment the 360s power is
noway near being fully harnessed. a pc also
displays this differently so the image quality would
also be different.

In all fairness though the power of a high end PC isn't being even remotely used either. Games based on the Unreal 3 engine should look far better than anything currently on either platform and should run fine on what is considered a good video card now. By the time these games are out it should run well even on mid-range cards.

Jabbs · 13 Jan 2006 at 00:39

I thought the Unreal 3 engine was a killer for current pc cards, i recall reading they expect a user to have 2x7800gtx's to make it run sweet and it ran fine on the 360 as it was ?, i could be wrong but remember reading a big article on it from the publishers.

GordyR · 13 Jan 2006 at 00:43

Jabbs said:
I thought the Unreal 3 engine was a killer for current pc cards, i recall reading they expect a user to have 2x7800gtx's to make it run sweet and it ran fine on the 360 as it was ?, i could be wrong but remember reading a big article on it from the publishers.

Thats not what I remember reading... I'll see if I can dig up some info mate.

Edit: Here you go:

Taken from here.

Next-generation consoles will have no problems with Unreal Engine 3 games, but PC gamers don't need to worry, according to Rein. He said that a video card based on an Nvidia 6600GT, the kind currently available for around $250, will be able to handle games based on the engine easily

And another from here.

Eurogamer: What system would you have to build or buy to makes sure there are no compromises in an Unreal Engine 3 game?

Mark Rein: This is pretty much it, what we're running here. A really fast high end processor, either Intel or AMD, a GeForce 6800, half a gig to a gig of RAM would be good

So it seems current mid-range cards should be able to handle it. I guess thats even better than I thought!

I guess 2xGTX's in SLI will still be needed for super high resolutions with loads of AA but then the 360 version will only be running in 1280x720 (and possibly less if they do what they did on PGR 3) and will likely have little or no AA. I think it's safe to say current video cards could handle games based on the engine at that resolution pretty easily.

Jabbs · 13 Jan 2006 at 13:29

Good post and some good links

, i will wait and see when it comes out tbh, seen too much of this in the past and when the game comes out it never runs as they say.

The vids on gamespot don't really look anything to get over excited about yet, time will tell i guess.

GordyR · 13 Jan 2006 at 13:37

Jabbs said:
Good post and some good links , i will wait and see when it comes out tbh, seen too much of this in the past and when the game comes out it never runs as they say.

The vids on gamespot don't really look anything to get over excited about yet, time will tell i guess.

Indeed mate, we can never really be sure until we have the final version in our hands. However if Epic's previous engines are anything to go by I would expect the Unreal 3 technology to be pretty well optimised. I don't think PC gamers will have anything to worry about.

Jimbo Mahoney · 13 Jan 2006 at 15:04

Let's not forget the Xbox runs things at lower res too...

CossackNoodle · 13 Jan 2006 at 15:17

as far as im aware the xbox 360 hardware is not as powerful as pc processors etc but as it is a console it will run games better simple as that but pc hardware is more powerful say u put a 360 processor in a pc somehow

Naffa · 13 Jan 2006 at 15:45

i thought that the 360 ran games at a resolution of 1280x1024 or there abouts. which is more than i do on my pc, 1024 for newer games but games like css i run at 1152. the 360 has a minimum of 2xAA if i remember, but i think that M$ wernt expecting people to react to the lack of anti aliasing as badly as they did in PGR3. so maybe this 2x maybe stepped upto 4x.. and 4x anti aliasing would have definaltely been on PGR3 if the developers had more time on their hands.. so maybe future titles may feature this level of aa.