Any one have a 360 and a 7800gt or gtx in there computer?

[Nextman916]

I played the COD2 demo many times for x360 already at various locations. The PC version is still alot sharper graphics wise, textures and such, even if the 360 were hooked up to an HDTV also the game looks alot more jaggy on the 360 than the PC without aa enabled.

 

[SPARTAN VI]

Originally posted by: Crescent13
I played the COD2 Demo.

It ran great on my 6600GT, and 3200+ winchester (nonoverclocked) at 1280x1024 with 16x AF. I also played the demo on the xbox 360. It looks much better on my comp.

It's common knowledge now that the CoD2 kiosk demo's have no AA enabled, and as far as I can tell, 4x or less AF. They probably didn't even flip the HDTV switch.

I thought the same as you, too, when I went to my BestBuy and criticized the crap out of the aliasing and crappy texture filtering. Then a geek squad guy walked over and popped in his copy, played him, and won 10% off any geek squad service (like I need it...) In any case, it looks significantly better and doesn't sacrifice performance to do so (and he still didn't enable 1080i). Reviews at IGN and Gamespot weren't lying when they felt the XBOX360 version looked better. I'd argue otherwise, but it comes pretty damn close.

 

[Nirach]

I don't know any of the FPS rates. But I've played both.

Both seemed perfectly acceptable to me, but I don't often play games

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

I honestly hope MS/Sony shorten the console cycle to 3 years in an attempt to outdo each other and in the longrun cause the collapse of the console industry like Atari did. That way all these devs move back to the proper gaming medium: the PC.

That is not something you would want for 2 reasons:

1) Games - console games offer variety not seen on PC. Just because someone's world revolves around FPS, it doenst mean consoles do not push boundaries of other gaming genres. Most importatnly, a lot of developers create games for the PC and consoles because this is the only way they can make money. If only PC games existed, the intial development costs might not make the project favourable for the PC alone. For example, HL2 sold 1.4 million copies after something like 4 months. Halo 2 sold 3 million copies in like 3 weeks. From a developer's pespective, you'd rather want PC's to disappear since not only do you make less $$$, but you spend way more hours trying to make the game playable on DX1 hardware.

2) $$$ from consoles pours right into Nvidia's and ATi's pockets. This point is especially relevant to PC gamers like you, since that is what helps to keep R&D costs down (and going) when Nvidia and ATI consider next generation chips. How many Xbox360s and PS3s will be sold? Both consoles will sell more chips for each firm than either of their current generations across all of its product lines (ie. x1300, x1600, x1800).

 

[TSS]

yknow comparing how many pixels 1280x720 is, its closer to 1024 x 768 (about 135K more) then 1280 x 960 (about 300k less.) and i belive most native resolutions on LCDs these days is 1280x1024. (which is about 390k pixels more).

but anyways, everybody knows that as time goes on better games will come along that will use more of the console's recourses, work better and so on. but still i think the PC will be better from the R600/G80 generation on. the games will look better over time on the consoles but they cant keep up with the raw proccessing power that the PC keeps getting generation after generation. but untill the R600/G80 generation comes out the xbox will look better and run smoother, simply because PC games need to be compatible with too much hardware to really crank up stuff. but i'd imagine around the unreal engine 3 generation of games the PC will take the lead again in term of visual VS frames per second performance.