When will we have high def console games?

[Pariah]

I didn't see any comparison to PC graphics in the THG article which I skimmed, so I didn't see any point in commenting on it. You just assumed on your own that they liked XBox graphics better. The quote you gave does not refer to any specific games, it starts off with "the possibilities offered by NVIDIA's processor." They weren't talking about actual graphics they had seen, just what the console was potentially capable of on paper.

Which leaves us with one opinion from Anand where he thought a couple of XBox titles looked better than PC games. That hardly qualifies for the statement that "the majority opinion (here) in '01/early '02 was that the x-box gfx blew-away the pcs gfx."

edit:

whoops, I cut off the THG quote one line to soon. They do mention actual graphics in the preceding statement, but still don't refer to any specific games and don't directly compare them to PC's making their relevance not very strong.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Pariah
I didn't see any comparison to PC graphics in the THG article which I skimmed, so I didn't see any point in commenting on it. You just assumed on your own that they liked XBox graphics better. The quote you gave does not refer to any specific games, it starts off with "the possibilities offered by NVIDIA's processor." They weren't talking about actual graphics they had seen, just what the console was potentially capable of on paper.

Which leaves us with one opinion from Anand where he thought a couple of XBox titles looked better than PC games. That hardly qualifies for the statement that "the majority opinion (here) in '01/early '02 was that the x-box gfx blew-away the pcs gfx."

edit:

whoops, I cut off the THG quote one line to soon. They do mention actual graphics in the preceding statement, but still don't refer to any specific games and don't directly compare them to PC's making their relevance not very strong.

Look, you and i are on the same side. . . . . always have been with regards to PC vs console gfx.
:roll:

However, i DO remember ONE time where i felt very discouraged having to "defend" my beloved PC gfx almost constantly in AT Forums (GH/OT/Software/Video) . . . . and that was when the X-box first got popular.. .. . perhaps you felt "above" the fray then and didn't feel they way i did.

i am not going to go on and on about nitpicking these minor points re: "majority" and "blew-away" . . . . HOWEVER - i believe my original point is that - this NEXT time i am even more concerned that the X-Box II WILL destroy the PC (gfx-wise) unless r520/nv50 and/or SLI are here first.

IF you are going to discount Tom's and Anand's comments as "irrevelant" and ignore the other quotes i posted, there is nothing further i CAN say.

i'm tired anyway.

Peace 'n aloha.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: apoppin
this NEXT time i am even more concerned that the X-Box II WILL destroy the PC (gfx-wise) unless r520/nv50 and/or SLI are here first.

Why are you "concerned"?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: apoppin
this NEXT time i am even more concerned that the X-Box II WILL destroy the PC (gfx-wise) unless r520/nv50 and/or SLI are here first.

Why are you "concerned"?

Why not?

First, i will have to defend PC gfx AGAIN (although this time i have these old threads marked so i can cut and paste my old replies) against the console (and fight the urge to get one).

Then - years later - i will probably feel compelled to waste time explaining my inconsistencies and 'what i remember', over-and-over in the forum . . . .
:roll:

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Yes, but -- now listen to this, it's important -- THE GPU IN THE XBOX IS A MODIFIED GF3. If you take a GF3 and run your games at 640x480 and increase the details until you get ~30FPS, you'll get results pretty close to what the XBox produces.

Now listen closely, no you won't. Take Splinter Cell for example. Run it at 640x480 on a PC with a GF3 or 8500 and let me know which one looks better. Wait, I'll help you out, I've already done it and the XBox version definitely looks way better. And this was with an 8500.

Which it runs like crap on, since it was designed to specifically run on the XBox (which is a GF3). ALL the RADEON cards have had performance issues with all the SC games, because they don't have NVIDIA's extra shadowing hardware. If you're saying that it "looks" better (IQ-wise) on the XBox -- I don't know. It's a port, and I know they've had graphical issues with the engine on some PC videocards (mostly RADEONs), because they optimized the hell out of it for the XBox GPU.

digit-life article where a Ti200 and R8500 ran SC (at 800x600) -- The 8500 is slower than the Ti200, and they didn't run a Ti500. The Ti200 puts out 16FPS at 800x600 (although I don't know how demanding the demo they ran is relative to the game as a whole). I don't think it would be beyond a Ti500 to put out 30FPS at 640x480.

Nobody's saying it wasn't an impressive console system (considering the price, etc.) But it certainly doesn't compete with a GF4Ti4600 in terms of 3D graphics, which was available less than 4 months after the XBox's launch.

NOTHING touched DoA3 for a good while. And it's still freakin' amazing!

It's very shiny, I'll give it that. I don't think it's the be-all end-all of console graphics, though, as many seem to.

Also, what is up with this 640x480 crap?

Um.... 95% of the XBox games only run in 480i or 480p?

The XBox can scale to 720p and 1080i.

With a HANDFUL of titles.

And Soul Calibur 2 running on an HDTV at 720p is simply awesome looking! A GeForce 3 or TI4600 ain't comin' anywhere close to it.

Yes, SC2@720p on a good HDTV looks *very* nice, mostly because Namco built an engine that keeps it running at 60fps almost all the time (though you can definitely get it to slow down if you do multiple flashy moves at the same time). No, a GF3 running PC games is not going to look that good, mostly (IMO) because PC titles aren't wrapped nearly so tightly around the graphical hardware as console games -- this is a case where they optimized the hell out of the game engine for the console hardware, and it shows. I still think a Ti4600 can do better than the XBox; however, there are very few exactly comparable situations. The 4600 can run comparable framerates at higher resolution settings, in games with far larger and more detailed environments -- but I don't know of many PC game engines that could cram that much detail into such a small space as one of the SC2 arenas.

The XBox 2 will DEFINITELY surpass the PC in graphics once it's introduced. But like always, the PC will catch up probably a year later. It will go back and forth like this for a looooong time.

I don't know. Its graphics chip would have to be quite an advance to beat today's $400-500 PC video cards and still come in at a reasonable console price. We'll have to see what ATI has up their sleeve.

 

[obeseotron]

They always take shortcuts to get consoles in at a cost of around $400 so they can launch at $299. High end PC graphics cards are so expensive because they have a ton of extremely fast RAM, and next to no one buys them. Consoles on the other hand do not need nearly as much graphics RAM, 640x480 resolution and the texture sizes necessary for that resolution don't place as great a premium on size and speed. MS will get the chips from ATI by the million, not thousands like high end graphics card makers, they won't use as much RAM which will save money, no hard disk, which saves money, and they'll be buying the CPU's from IBM by the million, which will also save them a bunch of money. If you think about it, it actually does make sesnse that a brand new Highend R520 might be $500, while an XBOX2 based on the R520 is $300. Halo 3 (just an example obviously) will probably run a lot better on a XBOX2 than on a R520, and even the next batch of GPU's beyond that. Anyone run Halo 1 on a Geforce3 or 4? It sucks because PC games use bigger textures and more advanced effects to compensate for t he larger resolution.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: apoppin
this NEXT time i am even more concerned that the X-Box II WILL destroy the PC (gfx-wise) unless r520/nv50 and/or SLI are here first.

Why are you "concerned"?

Why not?

First, i will have to defend PC gfx AGAIN (although this time i have these old threads marked so i can cut and paste my old replies) against the console (and fight the urge to get one).

Why feel that you need to defend anything? It's not one over the other, y'know... You can actually own both a console AND a pc, and enjoy a much larger library of gaming experiences.

I just think it's silly to miss out on such games as Mortal Kombat Deception, Halo 2, Fable, Burnout 3, Gran Turismo, Forza Motorsports, Ratchet and Clank, Jak 3, ESPN NFL/NHL, etc... I could go on seemingly forever naming off high quality games that (for some irrational reason) people refuse to be a part of.

 

[Regs]

I don't know what all this bull crap is about hardware. I thought everybody would know that the presentation of the game is not made up by the hardware but depended on the hardware. If the game developers don't utilize what's if front of them, like a powerful PC, then the game is going to look like crap. However with the X-Box the developers know they are making a game for an audience that all have the same machine. If you want a simple answer of which one is more powerful in regards to hardware, PC kicks the living crap out of an X-Box.

Why haven't we've seen Far Cry on the X-Box? Because the X-Box would butcher it to hell and gone. And good luck trying to compare D3 @ 1024x768 Max Detail on a 9800pro to a 680x480 low detail replicate on the X-Box.

This is why I hope D3 and HL2 (if it ever comes out) revitalize the gaming industry for the PC. Bring on Quake 4 and the new Hexen please.