xbox 360

[Tsosczb]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
I was just quoting what was out at the time. Which was an AMD XP 1800+. Since the Xbox runs at 480p, it does not require a fast processor to feed it information. In this case, the 733 was the right CPU for the job.

That doesn't make any sense. One system has a processor over twice as fast, and much more memory, and you're trying to rationalize that it is the same? Jesus christ...

It coincides with what I've been saying, the way the game consoles are set up makes them require much less power. And keeping with that pattern, the next generation of consoles are going to perform much better than currect PCs (just like how every other generation has done to PCs of their time), especially considering that some parts are more advanced than what PCs currently have.

The example was bad anyway, because the Athlon XP came out the year after the Xbox; and the Xbox was using parts that were already released, meaning even more of a delay.

I would not exactly consider that emulation. In addition, emulation is different depending on the architecture... Notice that the comparison you made was between two X86 chips. The Itanium isn't an X86 chip. The term emulation, IMO doesn't apply to a 64bit X86 CPU being backwards compatible with X86 32bit.

Go, on, keep up with your incredible extremely twisted examples... Fact is, emulation between two different architectures takes an extremely large performance hit. You can either believe that or not. But the facts are there.

While I never meant for it to be a profound example, it's still possible to reasonably conclude that PCs require more power to run the same. Even if you look at games ported to the PC, the requirements are certainly much higher than what the console had.

And the Itanium doesn't even have nearly the same proportion of performance degradation from emulation.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: Tsosczb

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
I was just quoting what was out at the time. Which was an AMD XP 1800+. Since the Xbox runs at 480p, it does not require a fast processor to feed it information. In this case, the 733 was the right CPU for the job.

That doesn't make any sense. One system has a processor over twice as fast, and much more memory, and you're trying to rationalize that it is the same? Jesus christ...

It coincides with what I've been saying, the way the game consoles are set up makes them require much less power. And keeping with that pattern, the next generation of consoles are going to perform much better than currect PCs (just like how every other generation has done to PCs of their time), especially considering that some parts are more advanced than what PCs currently have.

The example was bad anyway, because the Athlon XP came out the year after the Xbox; and the Xbox was using parts that were already released, meaning even more of a delay.

I would not exactly consider that emulation. In addition, emulation is different depending on the architecture... Notice that the comparison you made was between two X86 chips. The Itanium isn't an X86 chip. The term emulation, IMO doesn't apply to a 64bit X86 CPU being backwards compatible with X86 32bit.

Go, on, keep up with your incredible extremely twisted examples... Fact is, emulation between two different architectures takes an extremely large performance hit. You can either believe that or not. But the facts are there.

While I never meant for it to be a profound example, it's still possible to reasonably conclude that PCs require more power to run the same. Even if you look at games ported to the PC, the requirements are certainly much higher than what the console had.

And the Itanium doesn't even have nearly the same proportion of performance degradation from emulation.

Again, you fail to read what I wrote. I wrote that I simply used the Athlon XP 1800+ because that is what was out at the time. Replace that Athlon XP 1800+ with a P3 1Ghz if you will because it does not matter when taking into account a low end card such as the GeForce Ti 500. You can will still be able to play the same @ 640 X 480, just like the XBox renders with a P3 1Ghz or a Athlon 1800.

The performance on a console using PC parts such as the X-Box will not be that much faster with the same hardware. 10-15%, nothing more.

Besides all of this, the XBox was the most powerfull console to come out and if it only had a 733Mhz CPU, don't blame that on me or try and say that a 733 Mhz cannot be compared to a 1.4Ghz. Mhz is meaningless. PC's are now the king of the hill for gaming.


Edit ** Another thing you just do not understand is that consoles to date, have not offered anything better than 480P... That could change with the release of the XBox 360 and PS3, but no one knows at this point. The fact is that a PC could run 1024 X 768 beautifully while the consoles were stuck at 480P. I am aware than a very few select games were able to be ran at 720p, but very few due to the fill rate and texture memory requirement.

Consoles give you absolutely no control over image quality. You have to live with what the game designers give you. With a PC you are free to use several means to increase image quality. Want higher resolution? Turn it up. Want AF? Turn in on. Want AA? Turn that on as well.

Consoles are great for mindless type action games. MMO's, FPS and RTS are PC dominated. I am sorry that pisses you off, but deal with it.

Edit 2 ** In addition to all of this, what does it matter if a PC uses a higher clocked chip to perform the same? If the PC has a chipped clocked at 3Ghz at the time of release when a console releases at 1Ghz, what is the difference? Mhz is meaningless to begin with... Take for instance the Pentium M.. Great chip, lower clock, higher performance. Mhz is meaningless! Performance is everything. So I can care less if the PC runs at 10Ghz or 2Ghz as long as it performs.

 

[mooncancook]

A: X360 > PC
B: No, PC > X360
A: No, you are a moron. your claim is base on speculation.
B: No, you are a moron for the same reason.

kind of funny, but that's what keeps this thread going. It'll be interesting to come back to this thread after X360 is released, and again after PS3 is released.

 

[Tsosczb]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
Again, you fail to read what I wrote. I wrote that I simply used the Athlon XP 1800+ because that is what was out at the time. Replace that Athlon XP 1800+ with a P3 1Ghz if you will because it does not matter when taking into account a low end card such as the GeForce Ti 500. You can will still be able to play the same @ 640 X 480, just like the XBox renders with a P3 1Ghz or a Athlon 1800.

Oh come on. So you're just making up numbers? Then why even say it as an example? Give me an effing break.

The performance on a console using PC parts such as the X-Box will not be that much faster with the same hardware. 10-15%, nothing more.

lmao, nice conjecture there.

Besides all of this, the XBox was the most powerfull console to come out and if it only had a 733Mhz CPU, don't blame that on me or try and say that a 733 Mhz cannot be compared to a 1.4Ghz. Mhz is meaningless. PC's are now the king of the hill for gaming.

Wow, no shit to that last sentence. We're basically near the eve of the next generation. No one was saying which is better based on current techology. It's obvious that PC parts have surpassed consoles by now. I hope you aren't referring to things that aren't even out yet.

Edit ** Another thing you just do not understand is that consoles to date, have not offered anything better than 480P... That could change with the release of the XBox 360 and PS3, but no one knows at this point. The fact is that a PC could run 1024 X 768 beautifully while the consoles were stuck at 480P. I am aware than a very few select games were able to be ran at 720p, but very few due to the fill rate and texture memory requirement.

I don't think you can even properly compare the two, because they're utilized differently. I was running my Gamecube through a TV tuner card, without any HD, and the quality was better than all but the most recent games I tried, which were from the last couple years.

Consoles give you absolutely no control over image quality. You have to live with what the game designers give you. With a PC you are free to use several means to increase image quality. Want higher resolution? Turn it up. Want AF? Turn in on. Want AA? Turn that on as well.

Yeah, also spend tons of money out your ass. Console games don't have those options because they are already optimized to run at a fast pace with the best graphics it can afford. Then you don't have to dick around with all those settings, and it throws the whole upgrading concept out the window.

Consoles are great for mindless type action games. MMO's, FPS and RTS are PC dominated. I am sorry that pisses you off, but deal with it.

Wow. WTF? Where the hell do you get this? Sure, the differences may make it easier for certian games, although that could change in the future. Naming a couple game genres is hardly swaying the argument.

Edit 2 ** In addition to all of this, what does it matter if a PC uses a higher clocked chip to perform the same? If the PC has a chipped clocked at 3Ghz at the time of release when a console releases at 1Ghz, what is the difference? Mhz is meaningless to begin with... Take for instance the Pentium M.. Great chip, lower clock, higher performance. Mhz is meaningless! Performance is everything. So I can care less if the PC runs at 10Ghz or 2Ghz as long as it performs.

...you were comparing parts from different years. That's not a good comparison. And it plays into the argument about efficiency. By the way, have you seen any specs for the XBox260 or PS3? Most of the parts would blow any current PC out of the water. And if you include the efficiency factor, that makes them just that much more ahead.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: Tsosczb

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
Again, you fail to read what I wrote. I wrote that I simply used the Athlon XP 1800+ because that is what was out at the time. Replace that Athlon XP 1800+ with a P3 1Ghz if you will because it does not matter when taking into account a low end card such as the GeForce Ti 500. You can will still be able to play the same @ 640 X 480, just like the XBox renders with a P3 1Ghz or a Athlon 1800.

Oh come on. So you're just making up numbers? Then why even say it as an example? Give me an effing break.

The performance on a console using PC parts such as the X-Box will not be that much faster with the same hardware. 10-15%, nothing more.

lmao, nice conjecture there.

Besides all of this, the XBox was the most powerfull console to come out and if it only had a 733Mhz CPU, don't blame that on me or try and say that a 733 Mhz cannot be compared to a 1.4Ghz. Mhz is meaningless. PC's are now the king of the hill for gaming.

Wow, no sh!t to that last sentence. We're basically near the eve of the next generation. No one was saying which is better based on current techology. It's obvious that PC parts have surpassed consoles by now. I hope you aren't referring to things that aren't even out yet.

Edit ** Another thing you just do not understand is that consoles to date, have not offered anything better than 480P... That could change with the release of the XBox 360 and PS3, but no one knows at this point. The fact is that a PC could run 1024 X 768 beautifully while the consoles were stuck at 480P. I am aware than a very few select games were able to be ran at 720p, but very few due to the fill rate and texture memory requirement.

I don't think you can even properly compare the two, because they're utilized differently. I was running my Gamecube through a TV tuner card, without any HD, and the quality was better than all but the most recent games I tried, which were from the last couple years.

Consoles give you absolutely no control over image quality. You have to live with what the game designers give you. With a PC you are free to use several means to increase image quality. Want higher resolution? Turn it up. Want AF? Turn in on. Want AA? Turn that on as well.

Yeah, also spend tons of money out your ass. Console games don't have those options because they are already optimized to run at a fast pace with the best graphics it can afford. Then you don't have to dick around with all those settings, and it throws the whole upgrading concept out the window.

Consoles are great for mindless type action games. MMO's, FPS and RTS are PC dominated. I am sorry that pisses you off, but deal with it.

Wow. WTF? Where the hell do you get this? Sure, the differences may make it easier for certian games, although that could change in the future. Naming a couple game genres is hardly swaying the argument.

Edit 2 ** In addition to all of this, what does it matter if a PC uses a higher clocked chip to perform the same? If the PC has a chipped clocked at 3Ghz at the time of release when a console releases at 1Ghz, what is the difference? Mhz is meaningless to begin with... Take for instance the Pentium M.. Great chip, lower clock, higher performance. Mhz is meaningless! Performance is everything. So I can care less if the PC runs at 10Ghz or 2Ghz as long as it performs.

...you were comparing parts from different years. That's not a good comparison. And it plays into the argument about efficiency. By the way, have you seen any specs for the XBox260 or PS3? Most of the parts would blow any current PC out of the water. And if you include the efficiency factor, that makes them just that much more ahead.

What is the XBox 260? I never heard of it. Well, you rebuttal was quite lame. I dissagreed with pretty much most of it, but since I have said my peace, not much more to comment on... I pretty much /yawned through the entire thing. Well, back to WoW, later dude.

 

[Chocolate Pi]

" Most of the parts would blow any current PC out of the water."

Are you referring to the small amount of RAM, the crappy in-order processors, or the lack of a required hard drive?

 

[Tsosczb]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
What is the XBox 260? I never heard of it. Well, you rebuttal was quite lame. I dissagreed with pretty much most of it, but since I have said my peace, not much more to comment on... I pretty much /yawned through the entire thing. Well, back to WoW, later dude.

Oh, I'm sorry, I've been console gaming SO DAMN MUCH that I just haven't gotten used to typing again. Because, you know, no keyboards for consoles[/untrue].

Basically, your examples sucked, and you didn't even use any real info in what you were saying. We weren't even talking about future systems, so there shouldn't be much of any speculation going on.

Originally posted by: Chocolate Pi
" Most of the parts would blow any current PC out of the water."

Are you referring to the small amount of RAM, the crappy in-order processors, or the lack of a required hard drive?

Yeah, totally. Do consoles have tons of RAM to waste on the operating system, other programs, and bloatware? NO! IT SUCKS!

Lmfao. "crappy in-order". Ok, so being in-order makes it worse? Please explain how. And while you're at it, explain how having three 3.2GHz processor cores is crappy.

And I'm not even bringing up the PS3 specs yet.

 

[compgeek89]

Tsos its obvious you are a console fanboy, go to IGN and get of PC forums.

 

[Tsosczb]

Originally posted by: compgeek89
Tsos its obvious you are a console fanboy, go to IGN and get of PC forums.

LMAO. The PC fanboy is telling me this. I'm not the one saying things like "zomg pc rawks ur sawks, respect da keyboard."

 

[Stoneburner]

What specs? You base your opinions off marketing hype? Why don't you just wait for the consoles to drop. Those 3.2 ghz cores might be absolutely crap for gaming, as anand's earlier report indicated. The ps3's spe's might be absolutely useless for even multi threaded games. YOu don't know yet so why base things on untested specs?

 

[Tsosczb]

Because the PC fanboys like numbers so much. They so desperately want their rig to be better that they throw around the most useless of numbers, and I'm just reminding them of the numbers they can't compete with.

And speaking of speculating, you seem to have the tone of a biased person who is condenming the parts he just mentioned were unreleased and untested.

 

[Stoneburner]

You must be quite dense considering everything I wrote was hypothetical. Here's the problem with your position... With PC hardware, there is a longstanding and evolving system of measuring numbers because tech updates frequently and there is a giant system of benchmarking. WIth the consoles though , it is a blank slate so you cannot compare the numbers. OF course you can compare a fx-57 to the x2 4800 or you can extrapolate the performance of a fx-59 when it is released. But you don't know anything about the consoles, one of them is using an entirely revolutionary processing system. You always have to remember that there still might be a cpu or memory bottleneck somewhere in the system. You can bring up the GPU's for either the ps3 or xb2 but can the cpu's keep up? Until you know these things, FUKK OFF.

 

[Tsosczb]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
You must be quite dense considering everything I wrote was hypothetical.

I know it was, that's why I said:

seem to have the tone of

Here's the problem with your position... With PC hardware, there is a longstanding and evolving system of measuring numbers because tech updates frequently and there is a giant system of benchmarking. WIth the consoles though , it is a blank slate so you cannot compare the numbers. OF course you can compare a fx-57 to the x2 4800 or you can extrapolate the performance of a fx-59 when it is released. But you don't know anything about the consoles, one of them is using an entirely revolutionary processing system. You always have to remember that there still might be a cpu or memory bottleneck somewhere in the system. You can bring up the GPU's for either the ps3 or xb2 but can the cpu's keep up? Until you know these things, FUKK OFF.

Funny, because I never said anything was better than the other, but used previous patterns and the known specs to speculate a reasonable result. Whereas some of these PC phreaks are toting the PC as the be-all end-all of gaming and everything else a PC can do.

 

[Stoneburner]

previous patterns and known specs? SOmehow you are still missing the point, you cannot come up with a reasonable result, you don't know a damn thing as to actual performance PERIOD. You say you have a reasonable expectation? Anand's article revealed another expectation based on the same info you have. With such a discrepancy it's clear everybody is shooting in the dark.

 

[Tsosczb]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
previous patterns and known specs? SOmehow you are still missing the point, you cannot come up with a reasonable result, you don't know a damn thing as to actual performance PERIOD.

No shit, dude. That's why I said "speculate". You do know what that means, yes?

You say you have a reasonable expectation? Anand's article revealed another expectation based on the same info you have. With such a discrepancy it's clear everybody is shooting in the dark.

So, they have their reasons, I have mine. It's not that hard to understand. And it's hardly a "shot in the dark", considering there are at least patterns and specs to go buy.

 

[mcmikemc]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
Edit ** Another thing you just do not understand is that consoles to date, have not offered anything better than 480P...

Do you even try to make sure you know what your talking about? Or do you just spew BS? There are plenty of games that support 720p and a few that support 1080i.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: mcmikemc

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
Edit ** Another thing you just do not understand is that consoles to date, have not offered anything better than 480P...

Do you even try to make sure you know what your talking about? Or do you just spew BS? There are plenty of games that support 720p and a few that support 1080i.

And of course another person who does not read... I believe my full quote says the following

Edit ** Another thing you just do not understand is that consoles to date, have not offered anything better than 480P... That could change with the release of the XBox 360 and PS3, but no one knows at this point. The fact is that a PC could run 1024 X 768 beautifully while the consoles were stuck at 480P. I am aware than a very few select games were able to be ran at 720p, but very few due to the fill rate and texture memory requirement.

I am talking progressive here, I can care less about interlaced. If you want to play interlaced games, more power to you. You proved yourself to be a bigger idiot than anyone who posted on this thread before you. At least others can read and not take quotes out of context.

Edit ** And for the record, please supply me with these abundance of games that support 720P and 1080i. The only ones you will be able to supply are the ones that do not tax the hardware to the limits, in which case is my point. Or if you do happen to find one, you can be sure that game is choppy in some areas...

 

[mcmikemc]

You're right, I did not read the rest of the post because I assumed you would not contradict yourself like an idiot after making a point.

That's like saying:

"No car goes past 60 mph. Blah blah blah there are few cars that go over 100 mph."

If you want to find out what games support 720p and 1080i go find out for yourself. I will even help you out with one 1080i game, GT4 for the PS2. You talk about the games like you?re an expert on the subject when you don't even know what games support 720p and 1080i which pretty funny.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: mcmikemc
You're right, I did not read the rest of the post because I assumed you would not contradict yourself like an idiot after making a point.

That's like saying:

"No car goes past 60 mph. Blah blah blah there are few cars that go over 100 mph."

If you want to find out what games support 720p and 1080i go find out for yourself. I will even help you out with one 1080i game, GT4 for the PS2. You talk about the games like you?re an expert on the subject when you don't even know what games support 720p and 1080i which pretty funny.

Definition of contradiction is "Something can and cannot be something at the same time and in the same way, in the same relationship" A lot of people are confused about what a contradiction is and jump the gun.

1. Since I was aware that there were some games that support higher resolution such as 720p and stated it in the same paragraph right after I had mentioned they only offered 480p probably means that you misunderstood my first sentance, or perhaps I did not clearly define it.

2. Therefore, since I did not contradict myself (proof is that I would have removed my first sentance, if that was the case) then I had to have meant something different when I stated "480p". So, when I stated my first sentance, I was commending on the *majority* of console games. The overwhelming majority do not support 720P and 1080i. Which is why I was able to state at the end of my paragraph that I was ware some games do indeed support 720p,

You see, the only thing you proved is that you didn't know what a contradiction is... You probably still do not understand it. A contradiction would be this: "Consoles today do not support 720p or 1080i" Then if I were to say "Consoles today support 720p and 1080i". That way, I am clearly defining what I did say and what I did not say... The only thing I can be faulted for is not clearly specifying my first sentence so that less intelligent people like you jump the gun and stop reading.

So, there you have it.. I hope you learned something. I know I did, I guess I have to be a legal writer to post on this forum, lest someone like you make a big deal because you have not the understanding to determine where a writer is going.

You also have to keep in mind that very few people contradict themselves within the same post. It just does not happen, because the average person knows what they are saying and therefore, presume the audience can understand.

 

[mcmikemc]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: mcmikemc
You're right, I did not read the rest of the post because I assumed you would not contradict yourself like an idiot after making a point.

That's like saying:

"No car goes past 60 mph. Blah blah blah there are few cars that go over 100 mph."

If you want to find out what games support 720p and 1080i go find out for yourself. I will even help you out with one 1080i game, GT4 for the PS2. You talk about the games like you?re an expert on the subject when you don't even know what games support 720p and 1080i which pretty funny.

Definition of contradiction is "Something can and cannot be something in the same way and in the same relationship" A lot of people are confused about what a contradiction is and jump the gun.

1. Since I was aware that there were some games that support higher resolution such as 720p and stated it in the same paragraph right after I had mentioned they only offered 480p probably means that you misunderstood my first sentance, or perhaps I did not clearly define it.

2. Therefore, since I did not contradict myself (proof is that I would have removed my first sentance, if that was the case) then I had to have meant something different when I stated "480p". So, when I stated my first sentance, I was commending on the *majority* of console games. The overwhelming majority do not support 720P and 1080i. Which is why I was able to state at the end of my paragraph that I was ware some games do indeed support 720p,

You see, the only thing you proved is that you didn't know what a contradiction is... You probably still do not understand it. A contradiction would be this: "Consoles do not support 720p or 1080i" Then if I were to say "Consoles support 720p and 1080i". That way, I am clearly defining what I did say and what I did not say... The only thing I can be faulted for is not clearly specifying my first sentence so that less intelligent people like you jump the gun and stop reading.

So, there you have it.. I hope you learned something. I know I did, I guess I have to be a legal writer to post on this forum, lest someone like you make a big deal because you have not the understanding to determine where a writer is going.

You also have to keep in mind that very few people contradict themselves within the same post. It just does not happen, because the average person knows what they are saying and therefore, presume the audience can understand.

LOL I did not jump the gun at all. You clearly contridicted yourself.

con·tra·dict (verb)

1. To assert or express the opposite of (a statement).
2. To deny the statement of. See Synonyms at deny.
3. To be contrary to; be inconsistent with.

Here is the link:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=contradicted



con·tra·dic·tion (noun)

1. a. The act of contradicting.
b. The state of being contradicted.
2. A denial.
3. Inconsistency; discrepancy.
4. Something that contains contradictory elements.

Here is the link:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=contradiction+


There is a contradiction in your post which is the reason I said you contradicted yourself. Words have more than one meaning which is why you must extract the meaning of the word from the context in which it is used.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: mcmikemc

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: mcmikemc
You're right, I did not read the rest of the post because I assumed you would not contradict yourself like an idiot after making a point.

That's like saying:

"No car goes past 60 mph. Blah blah blah there are few cars that go over 100 mph."

If you want to find out what games support 720p and 1080i go find out for yourself. I will even help you out with one 1080i game, GT4 for the PS2. You talk about the games like you?re an expert on the subject when you don't even know what games support 720p and 1080i which pretty funny.

Definition of contradiction is "Something can and cannot be something in the same way and in the same relationship" A lot of people are confused about what a contradiction is and jump the gun.

1. Since I was aware that there were some games that support higher resolution such as 720p and stated it in the same paragraph right after I had mentioned they only offered 480p probably means that you misunderstood my first sentance, or perhaps I did not clearly define it.

2. Therefore, since I did not contradict myself (proof is that I would have removed my first sentance, if that was the case) then I had to have meant something different when I stated "480p". So, when I stated my first sentance, I was commending on the *majority* of console games. The overwhelming majority do not support 720P and 1080i. Which is why I was able to state at the end of my paragraph that I was ware some games do indeed support 720p,

You see, the only thing you proved is that you didn't know what a contradiction is... You probably still do not understand it. A contradiction would be this: "Consoles do not support 720p or 1080i" Then if I were to say "Consoles support 720p and 1080i". That way, I am clearly defining what I did say and what I did not say... The only thing I can be faulted for is not clearly specifying my first sentence so that less intelligent people like you jump the gun and stop reading.

So, there you have it.. I hope you learned something. I know I did, I guess I have to be a legal writer to post on this forum, lest someone like you make a big deal because you have not the understanding to determine where a writer is going.

You also have to keep in mind that very few people contradict themselves within the same post. It just does not happen, because the average person knows what they are saying and therefore, presume the audience can understand.

LOL I did not jump the gun at all. You clearly contridicted yourself.

con·tra·dict (verb)

1. To assert or express the opposite of (a statement).
2. To deny the statement of. See Synonyms at deny.
3. To be contrary to; be inconsistent with.

Here is the link:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=contradicted



con·tra·dic·tion (noun)

1. a. The act of contradicting.
b. The state of being contradicted.
2. A denial.
3. Inconsistency; discrepancy.
4. Something that contains contradictory elements.

Here is the link:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=contradiction+


There is a contradiction in your post which is the reason I said you contradicted yourself. Words have more than one meaning which is why you must extract the meaning of the word from the context in which it is used.

If you use that term losely (like you are) then un-intelligent bad can be deduced from a contradiction and therefore, you should have continued to read, knowing that your definition of the word can apply to many things such as point #4, which you bolded.

If that is the case, then you are going to have to call all the scientific community a bunch of idiots, like you did me. Since, clearly definition #4 can be applied to pretty much anything complex... On a side note, some of the other definitions did not explain accurately what a contradiction is. Webster isn't going to be technical enough to explain clearly what is a contradiction and what is not.

 

[supastar1568]

sega dreamcast owned

i even have the T-shirt from preordering it at electronics boutique

 

[Tsosczb]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
I am talking progressive here, I can care less about interlaced. If you want to play interlaced games, more power to you.

So now there's something wrong with it being interlaced? Not only do you sound like you don't know crap about game consoles, but your ignorance is bleeding into other subjects as well.

Edit ** And for the record, please supply me with these abundance of games that support 720P and 1080i. The only ones you will be able to supply are the ones that do not tax the hardware to the limits, in which case is my point. Or if you do happen to find one, you can be sure that game is choppy in some areas...

So slowdowns never happen in in PC gaming? Oh, right, you sit there for 2 hours tweaking the plethora of minute settings before you actually play the game.

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
If you use that term losely (like you are) then un-intelligent bad can be deduced from a contradiction and therefore, you should have continued to read, knowing that your definition of the word can apply to many things such as point #4, which you bolded.

If that is the case, then you are going to have to call all the scientific community a bunch of idiots, like you did me. Since, clearly definition #4 can be applied to pretty much anything complex... On a side note, some of the other definitions did not explain accurately what a contradiction is. Webster isn't going to be technical enough to explain clearly what is a contradiction and what is not.

lmfao. You never know what you're talking about, do you. How in the hell is it not blatantly contradictory? You said one thing in one line, then another thing in another line that clearly can't coincide with the first. If things appear contradictiry, but really aren't, it is usually worded in a way to make things co-exist. You made an absolute, and then broke it.

Please, stop trying to sound intelligent.

Originally posted by: supastar1568
sega dreamcast owned

Quoted for truth.

 

[Emultra]

Without PC's, they wouldn't be able to make consoles as powerful, and still sell them for 300 bucks.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: Tsosczb

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
I am talking progressive here, I can care less about interlaced. If you want to play interlaced games, more power to you.

So now there's something wrong with it being interlaced? Not only do you sound like you don't know crap about game consoles, but your ignorance is bleeding into other subjects as well.

Edit ** And for the record, please supply me with these abundance of games that support 720P and 1080i. The only ones you will be able to supply are the ones that do not tax the hardware to the limits, in which case is my point. Or if you do happen to find one, you can be sure that game is choppy in some areas...

So slowdowns never happen in in PC gaming? Oh, right, you sit there for 2 hours tweaking the plethora of minute settings before you actually play the game.

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
If you use that term losely (like you are) then un-intelligent bad can be deduced from a contradiction and therefore, you should have continued to read, knowing that your definition of the word can apply to many things such as point #4, which you bolded.

If that is the case, then you are going to have to call all the scientific community a bunch of idiots, like you did me. Since, clearly definition #4 can be applied to pretty much anything complex... On a side note, some of the other definitions did not explain accurately what a contradiction is. Webster isn't going to be technical enough to explain clearly what is a contradiction and what is not.

lmfao. You never know what you're talking about, do you. How in the hell is it not blatantly contradictory? You said one thing in one line, then another thing in another line that clearly can't coincide with the first. If things appear contradictiry, but really aren't, it is usually worded in a way to make things co-exist. You made an absolute, and then broke it.

Please, stop trying to sound intelligent.

Originally posted by: supastar1568
sega dreamcast owned

Quoted for truth.

Actually, I was going to let this die, but after your post, I just couldn't leave it be.

First of all, your 6 of your 8 definitions used its own word to define it. That is a laughable definition. I cannot believe you would use something like that (actually I can). What you used was as moronic as someone saying "What is a car?" "A car is a car" Wow, that was informative. Again, none of your definations are accurate except save for 1. But even that definition didn't clearly define what it is and what it is not. Therefore, you still have no idea on what the law of contradiction is.

Again, it is laughable that you bolded the definitions that use its own word for the definition. How pathetic is that?

Fact is that you didn't read what I wrote and wanted to make a defence for being a dumbass. That is the only conclusion I come up with. Most people at AT are just interested at taking one sentance out of a paragraph and quoting it, instead of reading the entire paragraph and quoting it. Again, you are the dumbass for jumping the gun.

Lets face it, even if I gave you the benifit of the doubt on the contradiction, you still spoke before you knew what I was saying. You still commented without reading more than the first line. Then you try and shield it by trying to take a twist and say I contradicted myself and went on tangent. Fact is, even if I did contradict myself (which I did not, since I did not violate the law of contradiction) you still should have read what I wrote before any type of rebuttal. But, you didn't, and that made you look like a dumb ass.

So, read before you write. Then if you have a problem with what I say, then by all means, say it. I have no problem with a dissagrement, but I have a problem with a half-ass attempt at a rebuttal who didn't even read my entire post.

Again, I am sorry that you feel the need to defend consoles... I am sorry that your E-Peen was offended by the fact that computers can do more than consoles and have more graphics options. You can play with your inferior console, that is not a problem with me. But don't try and pretend like they are superior, because they are not.

Edit * You quote

So slowdowns never happen in in PC gaming? Oh, right, you sit there for 2 hours tweaking the plethora of minute settings before you actually play the game.

Now I know why you are pro console... Because you became frustrated with the video settings within a game menu... You spend hours trying to figure out how to enable OpenGL and turn on AA... Yes, for you a console is better, you proved it with your 2 hour tweaking statement. Anyone who spends 2 hours tweaking their settings for a game, clearly isn't intelligent enough to use a PC for games properly. No wonder you are so anti-PC, because you cannot figure them out. I am glad the truth finally came out!

PS. Did you figure out how to plug in your new console? Or put the disc in the console drive? I'll wait a few hours while you figure it out...