my PC vs XBOX 360

times_champion

times_champion

times_champion

Associate
Joined
30 Oct 2004
Posts
364
I have had a PC since february this year with the following specs;
Pentium D 940 processor (3.2 dual core)
Geforce 7800GTX (256mb)
1gb DDR2 RAM
320gb HDD.

I am very happy with it and have just played through and completed Doom 3, Half-Life 2 and Call of Duty 2 all on top spec at 1280x1024 without a hitch. I have just started playing FEAR though, and even with AA off (but still top specs at that res) it is a little jumpy and stuttery when loading new sections. Is this something that an extra GB of RAM will solve, or do I need to get a 512mb graphics card (i will probably wait and get a DX10 one). Finally how does my PC compare to a 360, better or worse? I noticed that the Prey demo I tried on the 360 didnt look as good as on my PC but is it just that game?
 
Yup 512Mb of vid ram is required for the higher detail levels. I have just completed FEAR on my new machine. I first completed it at 800x600 with med detail levels no AA on an XP 3200 with 128Mb 9800Pro and it was a little jerky and stalled often for texture loads.

My new box I played at 1280x1024 with 4xAA and 8x anisotropic. Max details but no softshadows. Minimum frame rate during test was 47fps.

I've not used an Xbox 360, but my machine makes a PS2 look very poor. ;)
 
Extra RAM would probably help the stuttering - no doubt you're running it on high detail levels/resolution so the extra RAM will mean it has to load from the HDD less.
 
A decent PC will always have better video quality than a 360, this is something I've accepted but still sold my PC, got a little laptop and a 360. I simply can't afford or be bothered with constant hardware upgrades, software updates, bugs, cheats that the PC games have. I'd rather have a level platform to compete against people on, where patches downloaded themselves and whereI didn't have to worry about people cheating online.

Why I got a 360, I'd never try to say it had better graphics though. It's being displayed on a TV.. perhaps if I had a HD TV then it'd be almost the same but I don't and won't have for several years. The Xbox 360 does urinate all over the PS2 though as you'd expect, it's far newer! but I do enjoy the trouble free gaming I have on the Xbox 360 these days, I don't regret it at all. :D
 
from what ive seen the ps3 will exceed expectations, probably be better than most pc's, although with dx10 pc will probably become on par, but i watched a video on ps3 dirtbikes and i thought it was real at first =S. i think ill make a thread to show people, if i can dig out the video.
 
its not worth getting over excited with the ps3 because its graphics chip has been ready for a while now and the only thing its waiting on is the blue ray disk **** i reckon the graphics will be very good yes but they did say its better than 2x 6800 Ultras and tbh 6800 Ultras arent new
 
kitten are you trying to indicate that those benchmarks are proving him wrong or prompting to read the article? Cos firstly those benchmark settings are conservative and second even in Fear where apparently (according to the benches on that page you linked) the FPS is barely influenced, further on in the same article they demonstrate that infact it does make a big difference in minimum FPS and smoothing out gameplay: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/memory/display/2gb-ram_10.html
Although the tests measuring the fps rate in a pre-recorded demo-scene do not reveal any vital need for a lot of memory, the real situation is completely different. (snip..)
Click to expand...
(snip..) So, if you are a happy owner of an expensive high-performance latest-generation graphics card, go for a memory upgrade: 1GB will be not enough for your appetite.
Click to expand...
That is also only three games and doesn't include classic hoggers like BF2.
 
Last edited:
I've just remembered when I played Tomb raider legend on my PC in 'next gen' mode it played like cr*p, whereas obvioulsy the 360 version is silky smooth - does that mean my current PC isnt as good as the 360?
 
Tetras said:
kitten are you trying to indicate that those benchmarks are proving him wrong or prompting to read the article?<snip>
Click to expand...

Both, I and I stand corrected. :)

I read the article some time ago and did not remember all the points raised. I posted the link without re-reading the whole article. I shall remember to fully check my facts in future :o
 
Well the 360 is between the x1800 XT and x1900 XT, its better than the x1800 XT, but not better than the x1900 XT. :)

Another gb of ram will definately help Fear if your playing it maxed. :)
 
Nowadays the graphics card(s) are the heart of any good gaming system - I was running FEAR on max settings at 1680x1050 with 2GB RAM and a 7800GTX 256MB, which was OK but it stuttered and FPS dropped to under 30 occasionally.

After I upgraded to a 7900GTX 512MB it was much smoother, and I'm assuming that twice the amount of graphics memory played a big part in that.
 
LoadsaMoney said:
Well the 360 is between the x1800 XT and x1900 XT, its better than the x1800 XT, but not better than the x1900 XT. :)

Another gb of ram will definately help Fear if your playing it maxed. :)
Click to expand...

sorry but your wrong it has unified shaders which means it can switch power to whatever needs it more unlike both of those cards, and it is a generation ahead, ati will release their unified shader cards along with dx10 i believe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom