Jump to content


Photo

Pc Or Console?


  • Please log in to reply
1200 replies to this topic

#1 azrach187

azrach187

    Wooer

  • (05) Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 509 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 21 May 2006 - 03:37 PM

In recent years, console gaming is built to those who worries less about tech specs. and just "insert-and-play." Where, PC gamers are those who eventually learn tech specs. to be "on-top-of-their-game." While console gamers rant and rave about new releases, PC gamers rant and rave on how their system would play the new release. Console gamers are easily wowed by graphics afforded by their machines. PC gamers are very demanding at the graphics they play. Console games becomes successful when the game mechanics is innovative, while in PC, game mechanics is expected to be in-depth.

Unfortunately, PC gaming is not console gaming. To be a PC gamer, you must really know what hardware upgrades are out there. PC gamers are a bit more sassy when it comes to graphics and realism. Internet connectivity is almost a must to a PC gamer.

Console gamers are a bit on a "take-it-as-it-comes" basis. Great product that comes out of the PC market, gets ported to consoles and usually is well recieved. On the other hand, great games on console that are ported to PC are met with lukewarm enthusiasm. A good example is Halo. It made waves for Xbox owners, but put most PC gamers to sleep.

A good culprit is that it wasn't really a great game, it's because Xbox have an FPS friendly controller. PC gamers on the other hand, have enjoyed true independence when it comes to controls provided by the good selections of keyboard, mouse, USB/Serial controllers such as the joystick and the game pad. So when Halo came to PC, it was laughed at by PC gamers.

Some port from PC that was very successful in the console departments are, but not limited to:
RTS: Command and Conquer series, Warcraft series, etc.
RPG: Ultima series, Dungeon and Dragon series, Elder Scrols series (Morrowind, Oblivion), etc.
FPS: Far Cry, Rainbow Six series, Red Faction, Half-Life, etc.
Action: Duke Nukem, Deus Ex, etc.

Ironically, some games are better left in the PC department, such as Counter-Strike, though it debuted for Xbox, playing it using a controller would be the same as driving a cow in a minefiled.

On the other hand, port from consoles tend to be taken as it is, mostly bought by those who have played it in the console. Such as:
RTS: Dune, etc.
RPG: Fable, Final Fantasy series, etc.
FPS: Halo, MDK2, etc.
Action: Metal Gear series, GTA series, Tony Hawk, Tomb raider Series, etc.

Like games developed mostly for PC, some games are best left for consoles. A shining example of-course is Halo. Microsoft thought they had a hit on their hand when it became the number one game for Xbox. They bravely invested on the on-line port only to be ridiculed by online gamers. Their mistake points to two things, one is that they forgot PC gamers use mouse, which makes it easier to fine tune the aim. The second mistake is that they heavily advertised it and even provided a free demo. Big mistake, PC gamers got a glimpse of the console phenom only to find it a little less than bland.

As a revenge, Halo 2 wasn't ported to PC, just yet. Microsoft instead, would release it for Windows Vista, reportedly, one of the first games only available to WinVis. Some people just don't learn...

The topic of-course isn't games ported to console or vise-versa. The topic is why would you stick to console or PC? Is it the games? Or is it because of technical reason? I manage to own both sets (including an Xbox 360) so I might as well come out clean that I do heavily favor the PC because I feel playing inside a box when playing consoles, while PC feels like running outside.

#2 itaChiMaRu

itaChiMaRu

    Chaser

  • (03) Newbie
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 77 posts
  • Location:JaPan
  • Interests:None, of pertinence..

Posted 21 May 2006 - 10:22 PM

Tol, it depends eh..

Pag first person shooters, I'd rather play it on the PC..
Mas madaling mag-target pag mouse ang gamit..

Pag mga Sports games naman like NBA or Car Sims, I prefer consoles..
It controls better pag console eh, mas accurate ang responses..

Bottom line, it all boils down to the game I am playing..

#3 mikeuwag

mikeuwag

    Experienced

  • (03) Newbie
  • PipPipPip
  • 35 posts
  • Location:Leyte
  • Interests:Anything under the sun

Posted 22 May 2006 - 12:55 AM

I've got a ps2 and a home computer and frankly, I play more games on my computer than I do on my ps2. I even play Final Fantasy 7 and 8 on the PC... heheheheh

#4 GM Ruy Lopez

GM Ruy Lopez

    Stranger in the Night...

  • (05) Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Making whores out of innocent girls.

Posted 22 May 2006 - 04:45 AM

PC still rules!

#5 Riot6

Riot6

    Looker

  • (03) Newbie
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 152 posts
  • Location:Sin City

Posted 22 May 2006 - 06:04 AM

Too expensive to keep upgrading my PC just to keep up with PC gaming hardware requirements.

So i bought a PS2 instead.

#6 joeglens

joeglens

    Looker

  • (03) Newbie
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Interests:Microcontrollers, Embedded Design, PS2, DS, Wii

Posted 22 May 2006 - 09:33 AM

before i was a hard core PC gamer but now i spend more time on my PS2 than on my PC.

Never felt wierd playing FPS on PS2 since i have my Keyboard/Mouse adapter

although what im going to say does not really translate better graphics but im saying that console optimizes its hardware better than PC since its very obvious that PC is a multiplatform that has many usage aside from games and to tweak the PC for maximum gaming performance you need to spend some more

PC has standards need to adhere so that other applications aside from games can run on it while console has its own standards just built around gaming. Until now the most expensive of processors for PC has only 64-bit databus and its even rare in consumer market since you need Windows XP x64 to fully optimize the usage of the processor and its very expensive, man 64-bit databus is 5th generation console which started during the release of PS1, N64, and Sega Saturn.

Now 6th Gen Console have 128-bit databus (PS2, Xbox, Dreamcast, GameCube). 128-bit databus PC only exist as servers and mainframes and uses 2 64-bit processors, so i wouldn't call them PC since the word "Personal" does not apply them in my opinion

Processor speed of PS2 doesn't even reached 500Mhz but a 500Mhz PIII with its 32MB graphic card, and 128MB of memory which runs on 32-bit databus can't compre to the processing power PS2 which only has 4MB Graphic Synthesizer and 32MB of memory but runs on 128-bit databus. The best PC graphics out there are base on SLI Technology

The 7th gen console are even more powerful with Xbox 360's 3.2Ghz IBM PowerPC tri-core codenamed "Xenon", PS3 is also 3.2 Ghz PowerPC but has 7 3.2 Ghz SPE and its codename is "Cell" the newest processor to be developed not just for console but other applications as well, especially military computing hardware. Its the architecture is totally different from current processors which either uses Von Neuman or Harvard architecture

I'll probably spend more time again on PC if someone can make a successful Emulators for 6th Gen Console. That's how i base my assumption that PC is more powerful than console.

#7 azrach187

azrach187

    Wooer

  • (05) Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 509 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 22 May 2006 - 12:45 PM

before i was a hard core PC gamer but now i spend more time on my PS2 than on my PC.

Never felt wierd playing FPS on PS2 since i have my Keyboard/Mouse adapter

although what im going to say does not really translate better graphics but im saying that console optimizes its hardware better than PC since its very obvious that PC is a multiplatform that has many usage aside from games and to tweak the PC for maximum gaming performance you need to spend some more

PC has standards need  to adhere so that other applications aside from games can run on it while console has its own standards just built around gaming. Until now the most expensive of processors for PC has only 64-bit databus and its even rare in consumer market since you need Windows XP x64 to fully optimize the usage of the processor and its very expensive, man 64-bit databus is 5th generation console which started during the release of PS1, N64, and Sega Saturn.

Now 6th Gen Console have 128-bit databus (PS2, Xbox, Dreamcast, GameCube). 128-bit databus PC only exist as servers and mainframes and uses 2 64-bit processors, so i wouldn't call them PC since the word "Personal" does not apply them in my opinion

Processor speed of PS2 doesn't even reached 500Mhz but a 500Mhz PIII with its 32MB graphic card, and 128MB of memory which runs on 32-bit databus can't compre to the processing power PS2 which only has 4MB Graphic Synthesizer and 32MB of memory but runs on 128-bit databus. The best PC graphics out there are base on SLI Technology

The 7th gen console are even more powerful with Xbox 360's 3.2Ghz IBM PowerPC tri-core codenamed "Xenon", PS3 is also 3.2 Ghz PowerPC but has 7 3.2 Ghz SPE and its codename is "Cell" the newest processor to be developed not just for console but other applications as well, especially military computing hardware. Its the architecture is totally different from current processors which either uses Von Neuman or Harvard architecture

I'll probably spend more time again on PC if someone can make a successful Emulators for 6th Gen Console. That's how i base my assumption that PC is more powerful than console.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought you were confusing the "64 bit" in console to the "64 bit support" of a PC. If you really believe consoles are "more powerful" than PC because they can't run console games, think again. I won't bore anyone with technical mumbo-jumbo for the simple fact that you are totally mistaken with "64 bit" in console to the "64 bit support" of a PC.

First and foremost, PC were generally built to run applications. The gaming arm was a byproduct or harnessing the power of the PC. As it stands, PC gamers are still treated as such, using a powerful machines for fun.

The problem with emulators basically evolves around copyright infringements. I remember in the late 90's when an enterprising company released a program so that you can play PS1 on a PC, costing a mere $50. Sony came down on the company hard, which was forced to withdrew the product. As PS1 slowly slid into obscurity, the company re-released its product, but by then no one is a bit interested.

A lesson learned, is that the game giants could care less if emulators are created on a machine that is impossible to earn profits from or is not worth the lawsuits. That is why it is easier to find PS1, NES (Super Famicom), N64, Sega /Master System/Genesis/Saturn, emulators if you are really creative enough in Google.

Hackers have had success in the past running PS2 and Xbox games in PCs, even as we speak, hacker are hard at work finding a way to play Xbox 360 games in PC. Do you really think there's a market once they have found a way? Yeah, right. Try going against a giant like Microsoft.

Emulators are basically sharewares/freewares. None or really small profit. I understand that some programmers are gifted enough to share their knowledge for free, but it is all a matter of economics. Are there emulators for PS2 and Xbox? Of-course. Are they in the internet? I don't doubt it. Is it worth the effort? No. For mere pocket change, you can go buy a PS2 and Xbox consoles and dive in the bargain bin to buy $2 games.

Especially nowadays, games are "ported" to console and PC (vise-versa) and released at the same time. Do you think game developers aren't aware of emulators? Why would I make a game for a console and PC, only for PCs to emulate the console games? Why not just throw money away?

Unfortunately, business/money/politics, is the reason why emulators appear only after the system is gone to console cemetery. Not that PC "aren't powerful" enough.

Obviously you have not played the likes of F.E.A.R. and Half-Life 2 in a gaming PC. If so, you wouldn't have any doubt.

#8 BlackWizard

BlackWizard

    Chevalier Vampire!!!

  • (09) Manic Poster
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3282 posts
  • Location:Sa kalye, sa basurahan. Kahit saan...

Posted 22 May 2006 - 02:58 PM

Console Gaming pa rin.

Natuto akong mag-gaming wala pa akong PC.
(Famicom)

Hindi pa rin mawawala yung satisfaction na namamaltos na yung mga daliri mo after hours and hours of gaming.


#9 jebaooBo

jebaooBo

    Voyeur

  • (02) Sinless
  • 2 posts

Posted 22 May 2006 - 03:21 PM

IT REALLY DEPENDS ON WHAT GAMES YOU PLAY AND HOW FREQUENT YOU PLAY. I STARTED OUT AS A CONSOLE PLAYER AND I THOUGHT IT WAS THE BEST.I WAS ENJOYING IT FOR A YEAR OR SO BUT WHEN I TRIED PC GAMING I JUST GOT HOOKED!......FIRST OF ALL, PC GAMING HAS "THE' BEST GAMES IN THE PLANET! 2NDLY,PC GAMEPLAY IS FAST AND VERY RESPONSIVE! AND 3RDLY, CONSOLE GRAPHICS CANNOT EVEN COME CLOSE TO PC GAME GRAPHICS! ONCE YOUVE BUILD THE RIGHT MACHINE,ITS YOUR ALL IN ONE MACHINE--FOR WORK AND PLAY!! ENJOY COMPADRES!!!

#10 azrach187

azrach187

    Wooer

  • (05) Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 509 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 22 May 2006 - 03:51 PM


Hindi pa rin mawawala yung satisfaction na namamaltos na yung mga daliri mo after hours and hours of gaming.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This comment cracked me up! So true. You aren't a gamer until you have proven blisters on your hand!

:lol:

Edited by azrach187, 22 May 2006 - 03:51 PM.


#11 Kurtsky Keigee

Kurtsky Keigee

    Kid at Heart

  • (01) Lurker
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10407 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 May 2006 - 04:18 PM

Its more expensive pag pc gaming, just look at the hardware requirements of todays games getting higher, you need to upgrade & upgradfe, as to console gaming, just need the console, sit bakc and relax..

#12 azrach187

azrach187

    Wooer

  • (05) Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 509 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 22 May 2006 - 04:43 PM

Its more expensive pag pc gaming, just look at the hardware requirements of todays games getting higher, you need to upgrade & upgradfe, as to console gaming, just need the console, sit bakc and relax..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Very true.

But here's the catch, PC gamers (not casual gamers, mind you) knows that before they dwelve deeper in PC gaming. PC gamers demands the upgrades. Likewise, console gamers asks for better and better games as time moves on, PC gamers ask to push the technology farther, almost every week.

Edited by azrach187, 22 May 2006 - 04:44 PM.


#13 Phrozhen.Khold

Phrozhen.Khold

    Photographer Kuno

  • (11) Wyld
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6834 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:The Fridge
  • Interests:Photography

Posted 22 May 2006 - 06:29 PM

I'm more of a PC gamer rather than a console gamer... it is true that gaming actually depends on the availability of games and what system they could run at its best...

#14 joeglens

joeglens

    Looker

  • (03) Newbie
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Interests:Microcontrollers, Embedded Design, PS2, DS, Wii

Posted 23 May 2006 - 07:24 AM

i didn't confuse 64-bit console with 64-bit support PC, check my 64-bit link on my previous post to learn more about it. And mostly I'm talking about the databus, its the highway of information between components on the motherboard. No matter how fast the processor is if the databus is too narrow it will be overwhelmed by the slower processor with a wider databus since it takes less time to deliver more data, not process.

Just look at the requirements of running a PS1 emulator, if your PC processor is less than 400Mhz it lags very much. why since it takes two cycles to deliver a 64-bit data of a PS1 on a 32-bit databus of a PC.

And just to make clarifications as i stated earlier it never meant better graphics. Im talking about the computational power of the whole system.

#15 azrach187

azrach187

    Wooer

  • (05) Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 509 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 23 May 2006 - 10:17 AM

i didn't confuse 64-bit console with 64-bit support PC, check my 64-bit link on my previous post to learn more about it. And mostly I'm talking about the databus, its the highway of information between components on the motherboard. No matter how fast the processor is if the databus is too narrow it will be overwhelmed by the slower processor with a wider databus since it takes less time to deliver more data, not process.

Just look at the requirements of running a PS1 emulator, if your PC processor is less than 400Mhz it lags very much. why since it takes two cycles to deliver a 64-bit data of a PS1 on a 32-bit databus of a PC.

And just to make clarifications as i stated earlier it never meant better graphics. Im talking about the computational power of the whole system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dude. It's very obvious you are not a PC gamer. 64-bit support for PC have come and gone. As a matter of fact, hardly any processor (even for laptops) isn't manufactured without 64-bits. The link you gave is outdated even before it was put in the net. As a matter of fact, I've gone through two 64-bit processor before that page was even created.

The AMD64 was released September 2003. It's old news not just to PC gamers, but to PC users in general. As a matter of fact, processors now runs DUAL CORES such as AMDs Opteron with 2 64-bit microprocessors and Pentium D which boast basically the same thing.

400Mhz? What do you mean? There's two different benchmark for Pent. and AMD processors. Dude, you can find processors that run at 2000Mhz HT operating at 1.8Ghz on AMD cheaper than say, a PS1 game console. At the same price you can get a Pentium at 800MHz operating at 3.0Ghz. Don't get yourself tangled up with procs spec since both CPUs run diffrently than the other.

I don't know how you can consider yourself a PC gamer if your PC is under par to the games being released today. It is like saying you are a gamer, but only owns the old famicom to back it up.

Since you like to do research before answering. I could have told you that you don't need to go very far looking for SLI video cards. We have been discussing this on the thread just above the video games thread. As a matter of fact, I have my system pictured here.

Oh, so just you know, I do own most console games including the newest Xbox 360. That is why I am brave enough to start a thread like this one. Yes, I am also disappointed at the 360 which after all the hype, is crappy. It tries to handle games realeased both to PC and 360, but graphic intensive games such as "Oblivion" becomes very laggy in 360 while PC (gaming ones) never had problems. As a matter of fact some console gamers thought the graphics on "Oblivion" was cutting edge. Yes. For them. PC gamers thought they're okay.

I suggest you drop by PC threads to see where "we" sit nowadays.

#16 BlackWizard

BlackWizard

    Chevalier Vampire!!!

  • (09) Manic Poster
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3282 posts
  • Location:Sa kalye, sa basurahan. Kahit saan...

Posted 23 May 2006 - 03:22 PM

Sapul!!!

#17 alex_lowe

alex_lowe

    Philanderer

  • (09) Manic Poster
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3797 posts

Posted 23 May 2006 - 03:50 PM

PC ako kasi you have the options for your upgrades..
console do have their own upgrades pero d katulad ng PC..

what i mean is the graphics...:D

#18 joeglens

joeglens

    Looker

  • (03) Newbie
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Interests:Microcontrollers, Embedded Design, PS2, DS, Wii

Posted 23 May 2006 - 06:39 PM

after all the things that i have said you still haven't get my idea that the consoles are evolving faster than PC base on computational power

i didn't say 64-bit processors doesn't exist as i stated earlier they are commonly used in server grade platforms and are now working its way to mainstream market.

AMD64 was release 2003, Intels own version EM64T was released 2004 but Playstation 2 was release to public in March 1999 in japan. Sega Dreamcast was release 15 months before PS2. Heck, even Nintendo64 was release June 1996 in Japan. (I will say Atari's jaguar would be the first 64-bit console but its different since it uses 2 32-bit processors but uses 64-bit graphic processor)

During those time consoles already entered the 64-bit computing era for consumers while during the release of AMD64 which is 2003, 7 or so years late, its still most commonly used in server grade platforms. I have to omit Supercomputers here since they don't belong to the cosumer market

And now with the release of Xbox360, consoles are now entering the 128-bit era of computing for consumers.

Yeah you might complain, WTF is this all they can deliver for next gen. I dont blame you since 7th gen just started. Developers had hard time coping with new technologies, if you scan the internet regarding PS3 you see some developers complaining developing games for the PS3 would be tough as hell. That's why i didnt'y buy YET an xbox360. once the technology matures (I estimate maybe within the next year or so, just like PS2) i'll buy it. Same goes for PS3, ill wait until technology in PS3 matures before buying it. Although Wii is a different story since im planning on pre-ordering it ever since watching how it performs during E3, and there is some months to polish their technology before its release, im excited not because of graphics but because of the controller.

so bottom line again Console evolved much faster the PC. But im not saying this will last forever. Sooner or later PC will probably outrun consoles in the computational power race for consumer market.

#19 azrach187

azrach187

    Wooer

  • (05) Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 509 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 23 May 2006 - 07:56 PM

after all the things that i have said you still haven't get my idea that the consoles are evolving faster than PC base on computational power

i didn't say 64-bit processors doesn't exist as i stated earlier they are commonly used in server grade platforms and are now working its way to mainstream market.

AMD64 was release 2003, Intels own version EM64T was released 2004 but Playstation 2 was release to public in March 1999 in japan. Sega Dreamcast was release 15 months before PS2. Heck, even Nintendo64 was release June 1996 in Japan. (I will say Atari's jaguar would be the first 64-bit console but its different since it uses 2 32-bit processors but uses 64-bit graphic processor)

During those time consoles already entered the 64-bit computing era for consumers while during the release of AMD64  which is 2003, 7 or so years late, its still most commonly used in server grade platforms. I have to omit Supercomputers here since they don't belong to the cosumer market

And now with the release of Xbox360, consoles are now entering the 128-bit era of computing for consumers.

Yeah you might complain, WTF is this all they can deliver for next gen. I dont blame you since 7th gen just started. Developers had hard time coping with new technologies, if you scan the internet regarding PS3 you see some developers complaining developing games for the PS3 would be tough as hell. That's why i didnt'y buy YET an xbox360. once the technology matures (I estimate maybe within the next year or so, just like PS2) i'll buy it. Same goes for PS3, ill wait until technology in PS3 matures before buying it. Although Wii is a different story since im planning on pre-ordering it ever since watching how it performs during E3, and there is some months to polish their technology before its release, im excited not because of graphics but because of the controller.

so bottom line again Console evolved much faster the PC. But im not saying this will last forever. Sooner or later PC will probably outrun consoles in the computational power race for consumer market.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dude. I'm beggining to question your technical knowledge. I was about to take you seriously. You are talking GPU. Graphics Processing Unit not CPU.

Well, here's a wake-up call. PCs have CPUs and GPUs. CPU is the main processor. GPUs resides in the video card (please visit the video card so you at least know what I mean) in a computer running SEPARATELY from the cpu. Consoles on the other hand have one that runs both the graphics and the game itself.

You are confusing yourself. Don't forget Commodore 64... the first 64-bit computer... in 1982! You need to research deeper on the number "64". I won't even try to explain the technical difference between a Nintendo 64 and AMD 64 because I already know you have no idea what you are talking about.

Dude, as PC gamers are talking 128memory video cards, as you're talking 64. As PC gamers (now) talks 2 video cards (SLI) which have 512 memory which basically runs a Gig, not a single console game could touch, even the infamous PS3. How about a Quad SLI? Oh wait. Thats 4 video cards! That could be... let me see... 2 Gigs of processing power! Uhm... where is the Xbox 360 at? at 128!?!

Oh, I forgot to mention the PC CPU currently runs at the average speed of... 3.4Ghz, minus GPU. Xbox 360 is at 3.2Ghz... but wait, that's it!

But this is the funnist part. The games you play in consoles are developed in PCs.

Dude. Theres an addage among gaming community: "PCs you built is absolete in three months." I wonder how console catches up? It would pay for you to know that consoles, especially the ones you glorify now, are made by hardware manufacturers of PCs, such as nVidia, ATI, Intel and AMD. We breathe this everyday. The parts they build a console from might be cutting edge as it comes out. But before it hits the shelves, PC deems those parts fast becoming absolete. Yes. The video card inside Xbox 360 is already absolete to PC gamers.

You really think hardware develops before software? Then I know you're not a gamer. Games in PC requires so much resources that few could actually enjoy the true potential of the game, until later. You don't believe me? Visit the video card thread. Some PC owners are now enjoying games made three years ago, since the prices of hardware is much lower.

Which company is dumb enough to build a hardware no software could process? For the future? Right. Video card companies issues cards to the consumers as soon as a new technology is develop so software developers could soon capitalize.

I know you scans the net for answers. Most of mine are, fortunately, experience. Did you ever actually play any recently released PC games? I'd be totally piss if you EVEN compare any games close to the benchmark of any PC games, currently.

I could tell you this much my Xbox 360, although I recieved as a gift, now sits in the corner after the hype died down. Is the graphics and processing unit as good as any PC? Yes. LIke a PC I built three years ago! While it struggles to keep all the polygons as FPS (frame for decond) plummets to 10fps, the same game I play in PC, cruises at 140-160 fps.

The funny part is that I am a gamer, PC and consoles. Yes I enjoy both, since some games are fun in consoles and absent in PCs. Yes, more than likely, I'll purchase a Wii and PS3 as it comes out. Like the Xbox 360, I will be the first to point out the flaws.

And yes, I measure each console and PC seperately but equal. I am defensive at times because I measure each console and PC at the bottom line: the games. It doesn't matter if a console is twenty times faster than my PC, if the game plays crappy, then it isn't worth very much now is it? Just a hint, at times I'm not in the internetnet, I'm playing Monopoly in NES (Famicom) with a freind.

#20 joeglens

joeglens

    Looker

  • (03) Newbie
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Interests:Microcontrollers, Embedded Design, PS2, DS, Wii

Posted 23 May 2006 - 08:42 PM

hahahahaha commodore64 a 64-bit computer. Dude do you know the real reason it was called commodore64. it was called that way since it has 64KB of RAM, dude that thing has 8-bit 6510 microprocessor.

And im talking about datawidth on the CPU

Let me tell you this, computational power is base on the databus multiplied by the instruction cycle speed of the CPU, No matter how big your memory or how fast your processor is the speed will be limited by the datasize in needs to travel in the motherboard. Its like a highway, you can fit more cars on an 8 lanes highway than in 4 lanes. We're talking the volume of data that comes from the processor to the neccessary outputs

ok Athlon 64 at 3.2Ghz 64-bit, Xbox360 3.2 Ghz but 128-bit . Data throughput is twice as much and GPU is not yet included in the calculation of overall system performace. every cycle, xbox360 delivers twice the amount of processed data than Athlon64

I know how they develop games for console. They use Dual processors server grade platforms that isn't available at your local computer shop. We are talking about PERSONAL COMPUTERS after all isn't it. Why drag into the topic about supercomputers and Mainframe computers if they are not use for personal computing.

you said it yourself PC you made today obsoletes in 3 months. But console doesn't since its already in top form tuned for maximum performace. Its the developers that need much training to make the best out of it.

I cant argue with you that it all boils down to games, i very much agree with you. We have a saying that Fancy hardware doesn't sell game machines. It takes great games to sell fancy hardware. And right now my Great Games preference are all in the console market. And that's why I prefer consoles.

I scan the internet for proof. And i do base my commecnts on experience i just use the net to back-up my claims. I am a hardware developer after all, so i know my stuff.

And all i can tell you about your Xbox360 is that its part of the batch of 360s that was rushed for production and reeks of unpolished technology since MS want to lead the 7th gen console race




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users