Question: Why is it that consoles can run games that more powerful PCs cant?

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: ibex333
Correct me if I am wrong, and I may be.... But aren't the current gen video cards by far more powerful than the GPU inside the xbox?

If so, why is it that the xbox can run so many modern games so damn well, when more powerful PCs cant? I heard something about how the consoles are "designed" for gaming and PCs are not. But that must be BS. Modern PCs have by far more power in every way. More ram, better video, cpu, etc... so what gives?

Maybe it's that the game devs are "optimizing" console games so they can run well on consoles? If so, why is it that PC games are not being optimized so well?

For example... GTA IV requires a monster of a PC to run well at high settings but a 360 can run it butter smooth with no issues. Sure it looks somewhat worse, but it runs just fine, and it will run on a big screen TV too, when the PC version will require a lot more to run on a monitor of the same size.

What is it about consoles that makes them so good at running modern games with mediocre hardware, and why is it that we cant have that something inside our PCs?

1. GTA4 doesn't require a monster graphics card, just a quad core (or high end dual core). It's probably a highly threaded game, that's not optimized for PC processors.

2. Most console games don't run at high settings. Most are low res, and visual quality settings aren't maxed out. In a game like GTA4, most of the visual setting options barely made any visual difference, but killed performance.

They really don't look that great. When you consider that the PS3 basically has a GeForce 7900 family card it is very impressive. But even $99 video cards like my Radeon 4850 will make any PC game look much better than the console version.

It's only a 7900 is shader performance, it's a 7600 in pixel and texel pushing ability.
And the Xbox 360 graphics chip has roughly equal power to a 790GX IGP, but with the massively fast (compared to what IGPs get) edram. Even still, my friend with a 790GX IGP is able to run most console ports with comparative visuals/performance to what the 360 gets. (1024x768, medium settings, no AA)

 

[hans030390]

It's mostly just optimization of the given hardware. On a console, you know the hardware will be consistent for anyone playing that game...you only have to develop for, at most, 3 specific consoles. With this, you can really optimize the game for that specific system and push it farther. Also, most ports to the PC are done poorly.

 

[jimhsu]

Originally posted by: toyota
also a lot of console games do have framerate issues. I know I have seen it mentioned during game reviews going all the way back to Quake 4 on the 360.

Highly relevant. Plus they DON'T show you the framerates.

Most people have a range of framerate tolerance between what they "think" their minimum framerate should be (e.g. 20 FPS) and what is actually intolerable (e.g. below 10 FPS). Note that this is a HUGE range percentage wise (100%). The console takes advantage of the fact that framerates aren't displayed heavily. Another way to say it is that without a FPS counter, most people tend to OVERESTIMATE their framerate (i.e. think the FPS is higher than it actually is) -- purely a psychosomatic effect. Motion blur further contributes to the effect, allowing for even lower frame rates to be used at little cost of perception. At least that is my experience.

 

[Clinkster]

On top of what other people have said, I'm pretty sure most Xbox games are capped at 30 fps. That's about half the frames of what we would deem "good".

 

[Stoneburner]

OS overhead might effect cpu usage but I don't see how it would bother GPU performance in a game that's not CPU bound. The XBOX 360 with its r500 GPU was quickly overrun by NVIDIA and ATI. Currently, we are about 4 generations past the r500? Even the r520 was superior to the r500. THere is no competition graphically between a PC and a console. Hell, the ps3 gpu is about 5 generations behind, IIRC.

 

[skyofavalon]

looks like there is plenty of competition graphically between PC and consoles.The best looking game released this year is a PS3 game

not bad for a system with a gpu 5 generations behind.

 

[dflynchimp]

Originally posted by: skyofavalon
looks like there is plenty of competition graphically between PC and consoles.The best looking game released this year is a PS3 game

not bad for a system with a gpu 5 generations behind.

pray tell, which game are you referring to?

 

[skyofavalon]

Uncharted 2

 

[MrK6]

Originally posted by: skyofavalon
looks like there is plenty of competition graphically between PC and consoles.The best looking game released this year is a PS3 game

not bad for a system with a gpu 5 generations behind.

Did you not read the thread? There isn't a single game played on a console that doesn't look like crap when compared to playing it on a PC.

 

[tommo123]

Originally posted by: skyofavalon
looks like there is plenty of competition graphically between PC and consoles.The best looking game released this year is a PS3 game

not bad for a system with a gpu 5 generations behind.

couldn't possibly be because most games released on the PC are just ports of the console games?

 

[vj8usa]

Originally posted by: skyofavalon
looks like there is plenty of competition graphically between PC and consoles.The best looking game released this year is a PS3 game

not bad for a system with a gpu 5 generations behind.

Five generations behind? The PS3's GPU is roughly comparable to a 7800GTX - that's only 2 generations behind GT200.

Also, the only reason that there's any "competition" between console and PC games in terms of graphics is that most big budget games that come out on PC nowadays are just console ports. Remember Crysis? That was developed only for PCs, came out almost 2 years ago, and STILL looks better than any console game out there.

 

[tomaccogoats]

I played Killzone 2 and just couldn't come to terms with the fact that's it's on a 7800. Just imagine what'll happen in 3 years when the new consoles hit. I think it's going to start reaching a point where people will be happy with how a game 'looks', and instead they will focus on how it 'feels', specifically more advanced physics such as cars skidding through the streets, how water splashes, person-environment interaction, etc.

 

[Cogman]

You can do a lot of tricks with a platform when you know EXACTLY what hardware the system will run on. Console games are designed with that sort of knowledge from the beginning (That is why you can't adjust video settings with a console game). PC games are given a wide range of resolutions to deal with, and a wide range of machines to match it with. So, most PC game manufactures go the route of having 4 different quality settings (sometime more, with fine tuning options) and a plethora of resolutions available.

 

[Insomniator]

Regardless of the exact reasons, its pretty sad that PC graphics are held back so much by consoles. Yes its amazing how good a $300 console can make a game look, but the improvement you would get by moving to a $1200 PC is just sad.

High res and some AA/AF do not make me want to game on a computer. I used to only game on the PC... I used to enjoy tinkering with settings and such and would just play the game to see the graphics. Then I got a PS3... 80 percent of the graphics quality... 1 time cheap ass purchase... no worries about settings/drivers etc... plug and play.

I definitely see both sides of the equation and I'm sure I'll be back on the PC for a month or two after my next big overhaul... but as long as PC games are basically ported console games I see no reason to stick to a consistently upgraded computer. At least the PC still has Starcraft going for it.

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: vj8usa

Originally posted by: skyofavalon
looks like there is plenty of competition graphically between PC and consoles.The best looking game released this year is a PS3 game

not bad for a system with a gpu 5 generations behind.

Five generations behind? The PS3's GPU is roughly comparable to a 7800GTX - that's only 2 generations behind GT200.

I think he confused card release cycles with chip generations. Nevertheless RSX is truly an outdated old piece compared to even the 4800-series, forget 5800s...

Also, the only reason that there's any "competition" between console and PC games in terms of graphics is that most big budget games that come out on PC nowadays are just console ports.

Multi-platform development != cheap porting, let's stop right here.
IMO recent big budget games on PC are typically NOT console ports but get their own polished PC version - Modern Warfare 2 is hardly a console port, they definitely pay extra attention to its PC version especially when it comes to MP.

Remember Crysis? That was developed only for PCs, came out almost 2 years ago, and STILL looks better than any console game out there.

And that's even more hilarious when you consider the fact that it does not look exceptional anymore on PC nowadays, rather like an average good-looking game...

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: ibex333
This might be a dumb question but are there any video cards capable of upscaling?

They all support it.

Most console games don't run at a high resolution even if connected to a hdtv. Here is a list of some real rendering resolutions and settings used by games on the 360&ps3:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241

Also, most games just aren't ported well.

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: tomaccogoats
I played Killzone 2 and just couldn't come to terms with the fact that's it's on a 7800. Just imagine what'll happen in 3 years when the new consoles hit. I think it's going to start reaching a point where people will be happy with how a game 'looks', and instead they will focus on how it 'feels', specifically more advanced physics such as cars skidding through the streets, how water splashes, person-environment interaction, etc.

Last time I checked any console game - Killzone 2 included - sucked when it comes to graphics compared to games on my PC.

Also playing FPS on consoles are simply pathetic - no wonder nobody ever actually created a shared MP system: we would've killed all console sales in few weeks by running circles with our keyboard-mouse around buttons-smashing console blokes.

 

[jlee]

I was playing UT2004 on my TV last night - on a Radeon HD 4650, IMHO it looks as good or better than most console titles..

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: Insomniator
High res and some AA/AF do not make me want to game on a computer. I used to only game on the PC... I used to enjoy tinkering with settings and such and would just play the game to see the graphics. Then I got a PS3... 80 percent of the graphics quality... 1 time cheap ass purchase... no worries about settings/drivers etc... plug and play.

I definitely see both sides of the equation and I'm sure I'll be back on the PC for a month or two after my next big overhaul... but as long as PC games are basically ported console games I see no reason to stick to a consistently upgraded computer. At least the PC still has Starcraft going for it.

Boy, I hear you. My last two PC game purchases have been less than stellar. I purchased DiRT (the original) and was worried about potential Starforce malware. I also had to rename some files to get the game to work with CPUs that have more than 4 threads running (i.e. my i7 920 CPU) and not crash when a race was started up. Street Fighter 4 had FPS issues with running multiple GPUs, so I have to disable one card before launching this game too.

The console versions of both of these games look worse graphically, but they don't waste my time trying to get them to work and I can resell my console purchases any time I want to.

 

[GundamSonicZeroX]

Originally posted by: ibex333
For example... GTA IV requires a monster of a PC to run well at high settings but a 360 can run it butter smooth with no issues.

It's easier to have a ported game use the CPU, that's why ports often 'recommend' 2.8GHz CPUs and 2GB of RAM and a GeForce7/Radeon X1k series video card.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: GundamSonicZeroX

Originally posted by: ibex333
For example... GTA IV requires a monster of a PC to run well at high settings but a 360 can run it butter smooth with no issues.

It's easier to have a ported game use the CPU, that's why ports often 'recommend' 2.8GHz CPUs and 2GB of RAM and a GeForce7/Radeon X1k series video card.

that 2.8 cpu requirement is a single core P4 which is slow as ass so your comment about ported games using the cpu makes no sense.

 

[CottonRabbit]

Originally posted by: ibex333
Thanks for the replies... What I still don't get is why doesn't console performance suffer as the resolution increases? I don't own a console but from what I saw and heard a console game will run just as good on a small TV as it will on a big one.

I don't think you understand the difference between resolution and screen size. A 22in 720p hdtv has the exact same resolution as a 120in 720p projector. You sit farther back on larger screens, so you don't notice the pixels.

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: Insomniator
Then I got a PS3... 80 percent of the graphics quality...

Priceless.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln

Originally posted by: ibex333
Thanks for the replies... What I still don't get is why doesn't console performance suffer as the resolution increases? I don't own a console but from what I saw and heard a console game will run just as good on a small TV as it will on a big one.

Performance can and does suffer (or improve) pending a few settings.

Perfect Dark on the N64 had options for hi-res and widescreen. Changing these settings definitely affected performance. It was noticeable because even at the most basic (lowest) settings, Perfect Dark was pushing the N64 extremely hard.

Most games don't really do that. A lot of times games are locked or capped at certain framerates, between 30 and 60. So, for example, if the developer locks a game at certain framerate you probably won't be able to tell any performance difference if you run the game at a lower resolution since the framerate is capped. And, of course, a lot of games are just upscaled like previously mentioned. They aren't running at native 1080p.

I loved messing with that game in an emulator, using those settings it definitely made the game feel far more modern and definitely helped show how advanced it was for its time. When I go and try to play it on my N64 its a relative slide show, even on the default settings, and I begin to wonder how I ever played that game at all :laugh:

 

[PingSpike]

I think its just because most PC games these days are just half assed console ports.