I would like to know technically why consoles can handle games better than PC with much higher specs?

Battousai001

Senior member
Oct 27, 2004
214
0
0
I would like to know technically how and why console such as the XBOX 1 (or the PS2) can handle games (graphically intensive) with its hardware compared to a hardware of a PC with the same or slightly more higher specs than the XBOX 1? I am really curious as to how the consoles do that specially the XBOX with just these specs: modified Pentium III 733Mhz processor and an "xgpu" gpu (ive even read somewhere its just like a gforce 4 variant)with a 64MB RAM on an nvidia chipset

I know if you have a PC with the same specs of the xbox 1 like a 733Mhz or an older gpu with a 64mb ram and play games with pc version lets say "halo" pc version or splinter cell pc version theres definitely no chance you can play it, or play it in a decent fps and graphics. Lets just say again a PC hardware spec with higher than xbox 1 lets say 1.5ghz processor and a gforce 3 or gforce gpu and play "halo" Pc version I think it is still impossible to play that game. while on an xbox or ps2 you can play it at its intended fps and at the highest graphical details. And while on the PC if you want to play games that just like on a console (games with a pc version counterpart) you will be needing extreme hardware specs of 2-3+ghz processor power, gforce 6600 or 7800 if you want to play games at its highest detail and decent fps.

moreover, the hardware specs of the xbox 1 can still handle new games made for both xbox1 and the pc (2005) while these new games cant be handled by PC hardware anymore if you still have the same pc hardware a year before. For example Doom 3, if you have an xbox 1 you have purchased three years ago you will likely still be able to play Doom 3, but if you have a PC you purchased also two or three years ago lets say an athlon xp or a sempron with a geforce 4 ti or just a geforce fx5200 you dont have a chance to play doom 3 the way it was intended to be played (and worst you might not even be able to play it at all on the specs you have three years ago).

I was wondering, could there be any regulation for game developers and hardware manufacturers that in order for you to play new games for the PC you need to always get the new hardware all the time while on consoles its a different thing? technically I have learned that in consoles there is a different set of processing instructions for its hardware than that of a PC but how about the xbox1? and lastly, correct me if im wrong but I was also thinking pc hardware lets say two years ago is much more stronger and powerful than consoles three years ago (xbox, ps2) but why cant it still handle newer games the way console handle newer games?

correct me if im wrong guys. :)
 

bersl2

Golden Member
Aug 2, 2004
1,617
0
0
Because you can optimize your code out the wazoo on consoles, since all hardware is exactly alike.

Of course, in the long run, better hardware always beats extensive optimization. As Donald Knuth said, "We should forget about small efficiencies, about 97% of the time. Premature optimization is the root of all evil." It just so happens that due to the nature of game software, it often (but not always) falls in that 3%.
 

Drakkon

Diamond Member
Aug 14, 2001
8,401
1
0
when you are running an OS that isnt soley dependent on a wide range of drivers, interfaces, and screens, and can program for specific hardware, a ton of optimizations and generalizations can be made thus the games on a console can be optimized to run on that hardware and take full advantage of it.
 

Ryland

Platinum Member
Aug 9, 2001
2,810
13
81
Originally posted by: bersl2
Because you can optimize your code out the wazoo on consoles, since all hardware is exactly alike.

Bingo.

PC's are general purpose machines unlike consoles thus the consoles can be optimized in their hardware and software for what is needed for games.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
Xbox 1 plays most games at 480p resolution while most PC games are played at roughly 720p or even higher. 360K screen pixels vs. 780K or 1.2M screen pixels.

The difference in rendering complexity is actually higher than the difference in pixels: a PC game will have better lighting effects and higher-resolution textures layered on each other to form the scene.

Doom3 at just 640x480 will run reasonably well on fairly old PC hardware.

But as noted above, the PC code must be more general-purpose to work on dozens of different graphics processors, while Xbox code can be tweaked to the limit for its single fixed GPU.
 

jfall

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2000
5,975
2
0
Optimized for one specific hardware setup
Output at much lower resolution
OS is dedicated to running games and nothing else
 

flexy

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2001
8,464
155
106
on PC the high-end rigs with the great gfx-cards are usually in the single digit percentages - compared to the majority of PCs with either mediocre specs or even low-end specs.

Many developers (MANY, not all) wont even even bother to write code to utilize the super-high-end hardware since the 2% of geek-machines are no market to make money with. They usually write for the majority of people/PCs which are mid-range. FEW exceptions (D3, HL2, FEAR etc.) but i still think many of those game-engines do not even REALLY demand everything the hardware could give. Often it's just bad/slow code.

On the console each part has the same hardware and developers will use this hardware and squeeze out the last ounce of performance.

Look at STILL a high-number of games on PC right now, let's say example GTA:SA....and then look how horrible and dated the graphics are and ask yourself why is that ?

Edit:

and yes, add OS-overhead and much lower resolution and you might get the idea.
 

vegetation

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2001
4,270
2
0
Xbox1, PS2, etc all run internally 640x480. Try running that resolution on your old PC. It will run just as good. Heck, we were using 640x480 10 years ago. It's old.

 

boran

Golden Member
Jun 17, 2001
1,526
0
76
now GTA:SA is a bad example, because the reason why it looks so bad is because it is a console port.
 

HamburgerBoy

Lifer
Apr 12, 2004
27,111
318
126
Originally posted by: sandorski
I think that's more of a myth than reality.

Depends on the game, I think. The X-Box has a 733Mhz Celeron, a Geforce4, and 64MB of RAM, right? My computer is a 1.4Ghz Thunderbird, a 9200, with 512MB fo RAM. Even still, the console lags quite a bit less on games like Deus Ex 2, Thief 3, and Halo.
 

manno

Senior member
Dec 1, 2000
384
0
0
Depends on the game, I think. The X-Box has a 733Mhz Celeron, a Geforce4, and 64MB of RAM, right? My computer is a 1.4Ghz Thunderbird, a 9200, with 512MB fo RAM. Even still, the console lags quite a bit less on games like Deus Ex 2, Thief 3, and Halo.[/quote]

It' has a geforce 3
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
640x480 versus 1600x1200

6x4 is also 'dead' in new consoles . . . :p
. . . and 16x12 is higher than most PC gamers use [also]
:Q

the REAL reason is that games developers have to code for the low-end video cards that most PC users have . . . if they coded only for the top rigs it would guarantee the new game's failure [or $200 PC games]
 

Battousai001

Senior member
Oct 27, 2004
214
0
0
Thanks guys for the replies, it is starting to become clear but not that much. Thanks for reminding me too that console resolution is low which is 640X480 but why does the graphics and details look so damn good on the TV? Like the games I play on console (PS2) it is quite comparable to the highest resolution on the PC? I tried comparing the resolution of NBA Live and the console version looks much better than the PC version with a far more processing power than the console?

On the PC when I try lower the resolution from 1280X1024 to 1024X780 and to 800X600 with all the details at max the graphics gets awful while at the console its crisp and it looks 1280X1024 and looks anti-aliased too! just try puttig the monitor and the tv side by side together and you will see what I mean.

And moreover does that mean the processor power of five year old PC's can "technically" run new games of 2005 if and only if it is configured just like that of a console (code games specially for that PC setup only)? in other words PC hardware four years ago until now is FAR way far powerful than XBOX 1, PS2 and Gamecube?

To be continued.... :)
 

Gatt

Member
Mar 30, 2005
81
0
0
Originally posted by: Battousai001
Thanks guys for the replies, it is starting to become clear but not that much. Thanks for reminding me too that console resolution is low which is 640X480 but why does the graphics and details look so damn good on the TV? Like the games I play on console (PS2) it is quite comparable to the highest resolution on the PC? I tried comparing the resolution of NBA Live and the console version looks much better than the PC version with a far more processing power than the console?

On the PC when I try lower the resolution from 1280X1024 to 1024X780 and to 800X600 with all the details at max the graphics gets awful while at the console its crisp and it looks 1280X1024 and looks anti-aliased too! just try puttig the monitor and the tv side by side together and you will see what I mean.

And moreover does that mean the processor power of five year old PC's can "technically" run new games of 2005 if and only if it is configured just like that of a console (code games specially for that PC setup only)? in other words PC hardware four years ago until now is FAR way far powerful than XBOX 1, PS2 and Gamecube?

To be continued.... :)

First, yes, PC hardware from 3-4 years ago is an order of magnitude more powerfull as long as it is rendering at low res, without many graphics features, and 30fps. Put another way, a 1ghz Pentium/Tbird would blow the doors off any of those systems running the exact same software under the exact same display.

Second, the detail looks "good" because TV's are so low res that they are Blurring the output onto the monitor so that the rough edges and low res textures aren't very visible. But a monitor is such a high quality display that it doesn't blur to hide deficiencies, if there's poor looking graphics, a Monitor will show it.

If you could output the Consoles graphics to a monitor, you'd see the same poor quality.

Consoles are very, very, poor quality graphics. Take any given port, such as the popular GTA, and side-by-side compare screensshots. What you see on the Tv is technological trickery developed to hide deficiencies in broadcast material. What you see on the PC is how bad the graphics really look.

It's like comparing broadcast TV today, to High Definition material. It looks just fine, so long as you don't have something around to show you how bad it really looks without the tech tricks.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
still u would shat urself if u saw ur 1ghz tbird from 5 years ago doing this http://gr.bolt.com/oldsite/previews/scr..._colossus/shadow_of_the_colossus2b.jpg
http://vgamers.de/screenshots/wanda/statue03_003.jpg
http://www.gamersmark.com/miscimages/media/1243/11112539381.jpg
http://www.crunkgames.com/previews/ps2/dq8/media/dq8-09.jpg
http://www.dqshrine.com/dq/dq8/dq8-17.jpg
http://www.rpgfan.com/pics/dq8/ss-017.jpg


even if they could wring the power out of old pc hardware, it wouldn't be worth the effort. look at half life 2 sales vs halo. halflife 2 sold 1.7million in 2 months. halo 2 sold 5 million in 3 weeks.
 

Battousai001

Senior member
Oct 27, 2004
214
0
0
Originally posted by: Gatt
Originally posted by: Battousai001
Thanks guys for the replies, it is starting to become clear but not that much. Thanks for reminding me too that console resolution is low which is 640X480 but why does the graphics and details look so damn good on the TV? Like the games I play on console (PS2) it is quite comparable to the highest resolution on the PC? I tried comparing the resolution of NBA Live and the console version looks much better than the PC version with a far more processing power than the console?

On the PC when I try lower the resolution from 1280X1024 to 1024X780 and to 800X600 with all the details at max the graphics gets awful while at the console its crisp and it looks 1280X1024 and looks anti-aliased too! just try puttig the monitor and the tv side by side together and you will see what I mean.

And moreover does that mean the processor power of five year old PC's can "technically" run new games of 2005 if and only if it is configured just like that of a console (code games specially for that PC setup only)? in other words PC hardware four years ago until now is FAR way far powerful than XBOX 1, PS2 and Gamecube?

To be continued.... :)

First, yes, PC hardware from 3-4 years ago is an order of magnitude more powerfull as long as it is rendering at low res, without many graphics features, and 30fps. Put another way, a 1ghz Pentium/Tbird would blow the doors off any of those systems running the exact same software under the exact same display.

Second, the detail looks "good" because TV's are so low res that they are Blurring the output onto the monitor so that the rough edges and low res textures aren't very visible. But a monitor is such a high quality display that it doesn't blur to hide deficiencies, if there's poor looking graphics, a Monitor will show it.

If you could output the Consoles graphics to a monitor, you'd see the same poor quality.

Consoles are very, very, poor quality graphics. Take any given port, such as the popular GTA, and side-by-side compare screensshots. What you see on the Tv is technological trickery developed to hide deficiencies in broadcast material. What you see on the PC is how bad the graphics really look.

It's like comparing broadcast TV today, to High Definition material. It looks just fine, so long as you don't have something around to show you how bad it really looks without the tech tricks.

Im back..

What do you mean by:

"Second, the detail looks "good" because TV's are so low res that they are Blurring the output onto the monitor so that the rough edges and low res textures aren't very visible."

How can the TV do such a thing? like TV graphics looks so fine specially for broadcast material, playing DVD's and playing games.

And does that mean monitors are High definition?

I havent tried outputing the PC graphics out of the TV yet as I cant locate the TV out cable of my video card. But does that mean if I output the PC graphics with low resolution to a TV screen it will be good looking just like that of a console?

And if PC's are that way powerful than consoles why is that emulating console games in a PC is such an impossible feat (specifically for the XBOX 1 which is more of a PC hardware assembled in a black box) or is it just because of the complexity of doing/coding an emulating software (how about removing the OS and emulating the entire console process)?

Lastly, how technologically advance are digital PC monitors compared to TV sets that are not High Definition? Is there a website or a screen shot comparison of how ugly the graphics of console in reality?

 

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,938
6
81
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
still u would shat urself if u saw ur 1ghz tbird from 5 years ago doing this http://gr.bolt.com/oldsite/previews/scr..._colossus/shadow_of_the_colossus2b.jpg
http://vgamers.de/screenshots/wanda/statue03_003.jpg
http://www.gamersmark.com/miscimages/media/1243/11112539381.jpg
http://www.crunkgames.com/previews/ps2/dq8/media/dq8-09.jpg
http://www.dqshrine.com/dq/dq8/dq8-17.jpg
http://www.rpgfan.com/pics/dq8/ss-017.jpg


even if they could wring the power out of old pc hardware, it wouldn't be worth the effort. look at half life 2 sales vs halo. halflife 2 sold 1.7million in 2 months. halo 2 sold 5 million in 3 weeks.
Did you look at those SS before posting them?
They really really don't look great.
 

Battousai001

Senior member
Oct 27, 2004
214
0
0
Originally posted by: Lonyo
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
still u would shat urself if u saw ur 1ghz tbird from 5 years ago doing this http://gr.bolt.com/oldsite/previews/scr..._colossus/shadow_of_the_colossus2b.jpg
http://vgamers.de/screenshots/wanda/statue03_003.jpg
http://www.gamersmark.com/miscimages/media/1243/11112539381.jpg
http://www.crunkgames.com/previews/ps2/dq8/media/dq8-09.jpg
http://www.dqshrine.com/dq/dq8/dq8-17.jpg
http://www.rpgfan.com/pics/dq8/ss-017.jpg


even if they could wring the power out of old pc hardware, it wouldn't be worth the effort. look at half life 2 sales vs halo. halflife 2 sold 1.7million in 2 months. halo 2 sold 5 million in 3 weeks.
Did you look at those SS before posting them?
They really really don't look great.


Oh Im sorry about that, I didnt understand the post. is that the "real" look of a console graphics outputing on a monitor?
 

VIAN

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2003
6,575
1
0
The XGPU is a Super Geforce3 actually. And it is in some respects better than the Geforce4.

1. Consoles are standardized hardware. This means that when develpors code, they don't have to worry about mutliple platforms, ex. Intel, AMD, or different RAM sizes or anything like that. They are able to use it to the fullest extent without caring. You can't do that on the PC because there are so many different combinations of hardware and PC developers what to get as many people to play their game as possible, so they can't make the graphics too crazy or nobody would be able to play it or, at least, not the amount of people that they want. Frankly, I'm amazed PC gaming exists.

2. Consoles, let's say the XBOX, run their games at 640x480 resolution and doesn't always run at 30fps. Halo didn't run at 30fps always, sometimes it dipped below. I can't even remember the last time I ran at 800x600, let alone 640x480. PC developers recommend settings so that you play at 60fps most of the time. Consoles are different, and developers can customize certain things to work better for them, ex. taking polygons away from the scenery to appy to the character models. In PC, you can't do that; well, not to the extent that console people do it.

3. When a console first releases, coding for it is difficult because it's something develpers aren'te used to. This is why generally you see the best graphics for the consoles 3-4 years into the life of the console.
 

Battousai001

Senior member
Oct 27, 2004
214
0
0
I would like to ask, what is the "128bit" or "256bit" on consoles referring to? is that the cpu or the gpu? in the PC the highest commercially available cpu are 64bits right? I often see consoles boasting before that it is "64bit", "128bit" and now "256bit".