Thw XBox never blew away the PC in graphics capabilities. The 2 platforms are designed to run on completely different displays and are optimized for each. Consoles run at low res with all the eyecandy features on, while PC games usually run at higher resolutions and the user has to balance how many of the graphical gizmos to turn on for exceptable framerates. If you put the XBox on a computer monitor and ran a PC at the same res with everything turned on, the XBox would not have blown away the PC in graphics even with the hardware available then.
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: fisher
haha. awesome.
btw i have to agree xbox didn't really ~blow away~ pc graphics when it came out. imho it didn't even blow away the dreamcast graphics, but that's just my opinion.
Wasn't the Xbox released at the end of '01?
(?)
. . . three years ago
The official launch was November 15th, 2001.
Sure . . . . until the 9700p was shortly available therafter, it "blew away" ati and nVidia's high-end desktop offernings (being more advanced than the then available GF3/rad 8500).
:roll:
The XBox GPU was *comparable* to the GF3 and R8500 (and having games written specifically for it and only needing to output 30FPS at 640x480 always helps), but I wouldn't say it "blew them away" (how could it? The XBox GPU basically *is* a GF3 with some modifications to the shaders). And certainly the GF4 cards (which were available 4 months after that, on March 1st, 2002) were a big step up on the PC side. The 9700Pro, available later in 2002, was easily twice as fast as a GF3 Ti200 in a lot of situations. So you've got 4 months of *parity* with PC graphics -- assuming you shelled out $300+ to get an XBox the day they came out.
Would that be an admission that you have no evidence for any of these XBox2/R480/R5XX claims beyond those Inquirer articles?
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: fisher
haha. awesome.
btw i have to agree xbox didn't really ~blow away~ pc graphics when it came out. imho it didn't even blow away the dreamcast graphics, but that's just my opinion.
Wasn't the Xbox released at the end of '01?
(?)
. . . three years ago
Sure . . . . until the 9700p was shortly available therafter, it "blew away" ati and nVidia's high-end desktop offernings (being more advanced than the then available GF3/rad 8500).
:roll:
No it didn't
I have an XBOX running on a 42" HDTV. Some games are written to take advantage of the HDTV and some are not (Halo is not :-/...go figure). The game's box specifies whether or not the game is HD.
The graphics are smooth and really nice for a console but it doesn't compare with my PC.
The graphics are smooth and really nice for a console but it doesn't compare with my PC.
QUOTE:
==========================================================
Besides, since when has the quality of the graphics correlated to how fun a game is to play?
-------------------------
--Matthias
==========================================================
Exactly. I don't really pay much attention once I am into a game as long as it's great gameplay.
==========================================================
Besides, since when has the quality of the graphics correlated to how fun a game is to play?
-------------------------
--Matthias
==========================================================
Exactly. I don't really pay much attention once I am into a game as long as it's great gameplay.
QUOTE:
===============================================
Would you shut up about the damn XBox2 (which has no set release date, is using a CPU that's largely unavailable, and is using a graphics chipset with no release date and a still-unconfirmed feature set)? This is almost as bad as that "6800 is 12% faster than a 9800Pro" crap you were stuck on a few months back.
And the original XBox hardly 'blew away' PC graphics at its release. Halo looks nice and all, but it's still running at 640x480, interlaced, with obviously subpar texturing and very repetitive (and fairly bland) levels. There have been some real nice-looking games released since then, but none of the launch titles were exactly stunning if you really looked at just the graphics.
===============================================
I agree. The new XBOX info is all over the place. I heard last week that they are now moving in the direction of an AMD 64 bit chip. Who knows and who really cares until microsoft formally releases details. I doubt it will rival PC graphics but I am sure they will be nice no matter what as will the new PS3 and Gamecube.
===============================================
Would you shut up about the damn XBox2 (which has no set release date, is using a CPU that's largely unavailable, and is using a graphics chipset with no release date and a still-unconfirmed feature set)? This is almost as bad as that "6800 is 12% faster than a 9800Pro" crap you were stuck on a few months back.
And the original XBox hardly 'blew away' PC graphics at its release. Halo looks nice and all, but it's still running at 640x480, interlaced, with obviously subpar texturing and very repetitive (and fairly bland) levels. There have been some real nice-looking games released since then, but none of the launch titles were exactly stunning if you really looked at just the graphics.
===============================================
I agree. The new XBOX info is all over the place. I heard last week that they are now moving in the direction of an AMD 64 bit chip. Who knows and who really cares until microsoft formally releases details. I doubt it will rival PC graphics but I am sure they will be nice no matter what as will the new PS3 and Gamecube.
apoppin
Lifer
What was available then for PC - Radeon 8500 and GF3 Ti500?
I remember the threads of early '02 . . . . PC was definitely "lagging" until 9700p.
Sure it was a short time but the X-Box was impressive (for its day)._______________________________________________________________________________________
Is that an "admission" thay you still read my posts . . . . i guess i'm flattered.Originally posted by: Matthias99
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: fisher
haha. awesome.
btw i have to agree xbox didn't really ~blow away~ pc graphics when it came out. imho it didn't even blow away the dreamcast graphics, but that's just my opinion.
Wasn't the Xbox released at the end of '01?
(?)
. . . three years ago
The official launch was November 15th, 2001.
Sure . . . . until the 9700p was shortly available therafter, it "blew away" ati and nVidia's high-end desktop offernings (being more advanced than the then available GF3/rad 8500).
:roll:
The XBox GPU was *comparable* to the GF3 and R8500 (and having games written specifically for it and only needing to output 30FPS at 640x480 always helps), but I wouldn't say it "blew them away" (how could it? The XBox GPU basically *is* a GF3 with some modifications to the shaders). And certainly the GF4 cards (which were available 4 months after that, on March 1st, 2002) were a big step up on the PC side. The 9700Pro, available later in 2002, was easily twice as fast as a GF3 Ti200 in a lot of situations. So you've got 4 months of *parity* with PC graphics -- assuming you shelled out $300+ to get an XBox the day they came out.
Would that be an admission that you have no evidence for any of these XBox2/R480/R5XX claims beyond those Inquirer articles?
:roll:
Why don't you do your own research? Try Google.com ("search" X-box II).
Here's "stuff" on 480/nV48 that is NOT from the inq
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.
I remember the threads of early '02 . . . . PC was definitely "lagging" until 9700p.
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.
Is that an "admission" thay you still read my posts . . . . i guess i'm flattered.
:roll:
Why don't you do your own research? Try Google.com ("search" X-box II).
You want *me* to go find articles to prove *your* position for you? Ha, that's a good one. You want to convince anybody, you're going to have to do the legwork for yourself.
What did I find with a quick search? Nobody frickin' knows anything for sure, or if they do, they aren't talking.
Actually, here's something interesting: TSMC says chipsets 'on schedule', XBox 2 GPU (but not necessarily R520) "nearing end of development".. Please note that this is an *actual* source, since they're quoting from a press conference given by TSMC. GamesIndustry thinks XBox2 will probably ship late 2005.
Well, hey, that's at least a start.
But even they're saying Q1 2005 at the *earliest* for R480, and nothing about the XBox2 or R500. That was also only published two days ago. Got anything from, say, before your earlier threads? You posted this:
On 10/01. Where's the evidence you were using when you wrote that?
Yeah I don't think XBox graphics ever have 'blown away' PC graphics; low rez, low textures and low fps have always made it look laughable to me. And to assume that the Xbox 2 is going to come out next year with a ultra-high end graphics card that's hardly more than a rumor, using a currently high-end processor, well that's simply put, dumb. Plus, the sheer cost of the console using that kind of tech would be staggering...it was a little more realistic for MS to take a hit on the boxes in 2001 even selling at 300 bucks...but nowadays the GPU alone on the supposed XBox2 specs would be 400 bucks easy. Besides, you seem to be counting on ATi to deliver a magic card in volumes enough to sell like Xbox2 will, when their current high-end cards are 6 months post-release and still scarce at best.
apoppin
Lifer
Originally posted by: Matthias99
i linked to the "evidence" in the threads. Did you read them?
i will REPEAT this once more - for all to read. I feel very free on AT to post rumors as rumors. The title of my post may not reflect that it is speculation . . . . . but then, so what?
IF you read my posts, you may get the feel for what is my opinion and where it came from. I haven't "hidden" any links from the Inq . . . . you may feel free to dismiss them if you wish.
What you "quoted" from me is taken WAY out of context - those are my CONCLUSIONS . . . . try reading the context again to see WHERE i got them from.
______________________________________________________________________
i remember the discussions we had here in GH late '01/early '02 - disputes actually with lots of flames - about the comparison of the X-box with then current PC graphics.
At the time, i took your side . ... .
. . . . however, the majority opinion (here) was that the x-box gfx was better than the pcs.
:roll:
Yes. There's nothing there but links to the Inquirer's articles and a bunch of nonsensical rambling. Here is EXACTLY what you posted in that thread:
i will REPEAT this once more - for all to read. I feel very free on AT to post rumors as rumors. The title of my post may not reflect that it is speculation . . . . . but then, so what?
Then... you're an idiot? Or just like yanking people's chains? You keep posting rumors and inq stories as if they're fact. In fact, you just did it again.
So... you just believe anything you read? Or at least that the Inq puts out? That seems to be where your opinions come from.
What you "quoted" from me is taken WAY out of context - those are my CONCLUSIONS . . . . try reading the context again to see WHERE i got them from.
I did. I'm not seeing it. Feel free to correct me if I missed something. Since you're clearly just going to keep avoiding the fact that you have no evidence, I'm done.
apoppin
Lifer
Originally posted by: Matthias99
Yes. There's nothing there but links to the Inquirer's articles and a bunch of nonsensical rambling. Here is EXACTLY what you posted in that thread:
i will REPEAT this once more - for all to read. I feel very free on AT to post rumors as rumors. The title of my post may not reflect that it is speculation . . . . . but then, so what?
Then... you're an idiot? Or just like yanking people's chains? You keep posting rumors and inq stories as if they're fact. In fact, you just did it again.
So... you just believe anything you read? Or at least that the Inq puts out? That seems to be where your opinions come from.
What you "quoted" from me is taken WAY out of context - those are my CONCLUSIONS . . . . try reading the context again to see WHERE i got them from.
I did. I'm not seeing it. Feel free to correct me if I missed something. Since you're clearly just going to keep avoiding the fact that you have no evidence, I'm done.
Since you're not "seeing it", i'm done also.
:roll:
miss you.
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.
NOTHING touched DoA3 for a good while. And it's still freakin' amazing! Also, what is up with this 640x480 crap? The XBox can scale to 720p and 1080i. 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.
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.
Better and blows away are not normally interchangeable terms, and this case is certainly no different. Better, maybe in some cases with some games. Blown away like you said? Most definitely not. When new consoles are released the first generation of games pretty much always look better than the computer games of the time. That doesn't neccesarily mean that the consoles are more powerful or have better graphical capabilities, because from a raw horsepower standpoint, top end PC's have always completely blown away consoles. Besides the major difference in display types for each which greatly affect the way the graphics look, consoles have one major advantage for developers and that is static single configuration hardware. Developers can always push console power to its limit because every system that will play their game will be exactly the same with the exact same configuration. Unlike PC developers who have to develop their games to work on a wide variety of hardware with vastly different performance capabilities. If PC developers wrote games to only work on the highest end hardware and nothing else, there would be no arguement as to who had better graphics.
Doom 3 was basically made to run on high end hardware. It definitely pushes the best CPU and best video card to their limits.
It doesn't push top end hardware at 640x480. Even so, it's graphics are clearly better than anything currently available on consoles.
apoppin
Lifer
Ok - let me rephrase what i should have originally posted: "the majority opinion (here) in '01/early '02 was that the x-box gfx blew-away the pcs gfx."
Thanks for pointing out an inconsistancy in my posts.
:roll:
edit: care to "search" for these threads? . . . . i am relying on my memory - as i earlier posted, I was on the 'other side' - the minority here - defending the PC . . . . at the time the x-box gfx LOOKED better.
apoppin
Lifer
i DID search . . . . x-box BLEW-AWAY the PC gfx of its day.
Anand's review
Even Uncle Tom is impressed
ON THE OTHER HAND we see lots of threads like:
I am disappointed at computer games' graphics......
Xbox vs. Geforce 4 ti4600's graphics capabilities (hint: xbox "won")
AND - as a bonus - here is Pariah's reply in this OLD thread (May 02)
there is lots more . . . . the opinion at the time - for the majority was - X-box was better . . . . lots better. (until gf4/r9700p)
:roll:
Anand's review
Even Uncle Tom is impressed
ON THE OTHER HAND we see lots of threads like:
I am disappointed at computer games' graphics......
Xbox vs. Geforce 4 ti4600's graphics capabilities (hint: xbox "won")
AND - as a bonus - here is Pariah's reply in this OLD thread (May 02)
You're kinda consistant even if your memory is fading .
there is lots more . . . . the opinion at the time - for the majority was - X-box was better . . . . lots better. (until gf4/r9700p)
:roll:
No duh. You're the one that brought up Doom III pressing highend hardware. Which it doesn't at the resolutions discussed here. The XBox graphics still weren't better than the PC at release. I'd say the Playstation 2 released a year earlier came far closer to graphically dominating the PC at release than the XBox did as PC graphics improved more during that year than the XBox did over the PS2.
No, that's simply a false statement. This has always been a PC centric forum where consoles have generally been perceived as toys compared to PC gaming. I know because I remember arguing in favor of consoles being comparable to the PC in graphics when the new consoles came out and facing a wall of opposition. There absolutely was no majority opinion that the XBox blew away the PC, none at all, not even close.
apoppin
Lifer
False?! more likely your memory
- read the above post you missed while you were typing . . . .:roll:
Your old quote (again):
The majority - MOST of the posters (here) voted for the xbox over the PC gfx when it was first introduced.
Did you read the thread you posted? Almost everyone said the PC had superior power.
"I have seen the xbox and it is impressive... I still prefer PC gaming."
"chip for chip the nv25 is better"
"So the Geforce4 Tis can do everything the Xbox can do in higher resolutions and faster too. "
"Spec to spec a high-end PC with a Ti 4600 would hand the Xbox's ass to it in a hand basket."
"If you are looking at the graphics chip alone, the Ti 4600 is faster."
" I have no money to buy new hardware but then these are all theroetical that geforce 4 ti will dominate."
"GF4 Ti4600 <---- winner "
"4600 easily.With the XBox, you are forced to game in low resolutions. For this reason, I don't see myself spending $300 on a game console anytime soon."
"Try playing a PS2 on a monitor and you'll see how ugly it really is and how much better a PC looks, I play all my games in 1280x1024x32/FSAA x2/Quincunx, I have a GF4 Ti4400 and consoles look grainy and blured."
"Anyone who owns an X-Box (not article reading parrots) can easily answer this question.............
Not even a contest when compared to a GF3 and a decent PC ....... let alone the GF4 4600"
Not sure why you keep posting my post either. Looks rather non-committal to me. With an unlimited budget the PC rocks consoles. When constrained to a $300 budget the console wins in a landslide.
"I have seen the xbox and it is impressive... I still prefer PC gaming."
"chip for chip the nv25 is better"
"So the Geforce4 Tis can do everything the Xbox can do in higher resolutions and faster too. "
"Spec to spec a high-end PC with a Ti 4600 would hand the Xbox's ass to it in a hand basket."
"If you are looking at the graphics chip alone, the Ti 4600 is faster."
" I have no money to buy new hardware but then these are all theroetical that geforce 4 ti will dominate."
"GF4 Ti4600 <---- winner "
"4600 easily.With the XBox, you are forced to game in low resolutions. For this reason, I don't see myself spending $300 on a game console anytime soon."
"Try playing a PS2 on a monitor and you'll see how ugly it really is and how much better a PC looks, I play all my games in 1280x1024x32/FSAA x2/Quincunx, I have a GF4 Ti4400 and consoles look grainy and blured."
"Anyone who owns an X-Box (not article reading parrots) can easily answer this question.............
Not even a contest when compared to a GF3 and a decent PC ....... let alone the GF4 4600"
Not sure why you keep posting my post either. Looks rather non-committal to me. With an unlimited budget the PC rocks consoles. When constrained to a $300 budget the console wins in a landslide.
You need to work on your searching skills. The "I'm disappointed with computer games" thread was about a guy saying his Dreamcast had better graphics than a PC, which I have never seen anyone argue. And the entire thread is people ripping him for making the claim that PC's have crappy graphics. Read the whole thread next time, not the just the title.
apoppin
Lifer
Actually i read about thirty threads and even confused the links for awhile.
Your quote was considered "significant" in that particular thread . . . . it basically said they were great for each respective system and molified everybody.
You are also missing Tom's comments: "Stunning. . . extraordinary graphics.," and Anand's xbox "outshine the best PC games" :
Plus you missed the following culled from these threads:
Yes, ONE of the threads i posted was not the one i intended . . . . the GF4 obviously is "better" than the gf3/4 hybred in the xbox.
Do you need a thousand more quotes from this forum to see that you and I (i was defending the PC gfx)and a few others were the MINORITY; most were favoring the xbox gfx.
:roll:
edit:
My searching skills are Xlint; my LINKING skills SUCK. I posted one thread by mistake (as noted above).
And you NEVER mentioned what you thought of Anand and Tom's assesment of the X-box "stunning and extraordinary" "outshining the PC's" gfx.
:roll:
:thumbsdown:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
-
Facebook
Twitter