1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

Xbox 360 and PlayStation3 have roughly 1/3 the graphics performanceof high-end PC cards

Discussion in 'ATI' started by NV55, Nov 17, 2007.

  1. NV55

    NV55 Guest

    So how much more powerful are these high-end PCs than the latest
    generation of consoles?

    "It's absolute nonsense to think that consoles are at the cutting
    edge," said Roy Taylor, vice president of content relations at Nvidia,
    the world's biggest manufacturer of graphics cards.

    "As good as consoles are, they are so far behind the PC gaming
    experience that there is no comparison.

    "In terms of raw processing power, the high-end PCs are at least three
    times more powerful."

    Nvidia provides the graphics grunt for the PlayStation 3, while rival
    ATI provides the imaging hardware for the Xbox 360.

    Mr Taylor points out that the latest graphics cards can draw twice as
    many pixels, twice the screen resolution, as a PlayStation 3 or Xbox
    360.

    The latest games are employing DirectX 10 tools developed by
    Microsoft, which are used by developers to get the best out of the
    high-end and middle-range graphics cards.

    Mr Taylor said the new tools and the new hardware had given developers
    a library of effects to play with.

    Nvidia's latest high-end graphics cards, the 8800 series, can easily
    produce graphical effects that tax the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3,
    such as motion blur, depth of field and volumetric smoke.

    Mr Taylor said: "Fog, smoke or mist in games until now have been flat
    and don't respond to objects. Volumetric effects mean they are dynamic
    - a helicopter can now displace cloud or smoke, or a character can
    step through the fog realistically."


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7096891.stm

    when was GeForce 8800 released? late 2006
    when was PlayStation3 released? late 2006

    so during the same time, PlayStation3 graphics were roughly 1/3 of
    highend PC graphics.

    1 year has passed.

    Nvidia has not yet released anything that's really more powerful
    (other than the 8800 Ultra) but they are getting ready to release
    the refresh of G80 / 8800 in a few months (Q1 2008). This new GPU
    hasn't got an official name yet (it's not G92) so I will call it NV55
    or G90 for now. It's also known as GeForce 9800 but that isn't
    official either. Regardless of name, the new GPU/card is meant to
    have roughly 3 times the performance of G80 / 8800. So that's roughly
    (very roughly) 9 times more powerful than the graphics chips in Xbox
    360 or PlayStation3.

    I am sure similar comparisons can be made with AMD/ATI R600
    and the upcoming (Q2 2008) R700.
     
    NV55, Nov 17, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. NV55

    Jonah Falcon Guest

    How much do you pay for a state-of-the-art PC and how much do you pay
    for a 360/PS3?

    Many graphic cards cost $400. So do Xbox 360 Premiums and 20GB PS3s.
     
    Jonah Falcon, Nov 17, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. NV55

    NV55 Guest


    what you don't seem to understand is, at the start of past console
    generations
    i.e PS1 in 1995, PS2/Xbox in 2000, 2001, $300 consoles were
    actually ahead of state-of-the-art high-end PC graphics cards, at
    least for a short time.
    not so with this generation, the HD consoles were actually, in most
    ways, behind PCs from the start.
     
    NV55, Nov 17, 2007
    #3
  4. Yes, even with DX9 I was amazed how good to smoke looks in Call of Duty 4.

    Crysis also has some smoke stuff/effect going on !

    Smoke is probably the latest and greatest/newest addition to recent games.
    (Much better implemented than previous games !)

    It adds a lot of graphical big bang to the game if you get what I am saying
    for example:

    Call of Duty 4: General smoke across the ground when people walk there or
    stuff explodes, looks very good and believable.

    Call of Duty 4: Rocket launcher, smoke trail, nice effect.

    Crysis: Explosions, smoke trails, but too much like a painting but still
    good (maybe a bit too much smoke ? ;))

    Crysis: Volumetric smoke it seems in alien spaceship ! Very nice ! ;)

    Especially in Call of Duty 4, the smoke plays a big role in creating a
    believeable surrounding.

    I totally dig the smoke !

    When I saw the nvidia demo for dynamic smoke I didn't get it at first... I
    was like what's the big fucking deal with the smoke ?

    So you can make some smoke dance inside a fucking aquarium big fucking deal
    ? What's so great about that ?

    But now that I have played Call of Duty 4 and Crysis I dig it/understand and
    see how important it is for games/graphical representation !

    SMOKE is DOPE ! ;) =D LOL.

    Bye,
    Skybuck.
     
    Skybuck Flying, Nov 17, 2007
    #4
  5. NV55

    Jordan Guest

    Of course an Nvidia exec is going to say that, the PC market is their
    bread and butter.

    The problem is that PC games are not now, nor have they ever been,
    designed for the cutting edge. They're designed for the lowest common
    denominator. That's why console games consistently out-perform the PC
    world. Developers have a solid graphics platform that they can beat
    the heck out of. They don't have to worry about someone only having
    128 MB of video ram, etc. They know the platform and develop to it.

    Plus when developers do have the balls to up the ante a bit and force
    people into new graphics cards you end up with device driver
    nightmares, Direct X bullshit, and all the rest.

    It's way, way simpler to just buy a new console every couple of years
    to stay current.

    - Jordan
     
    Jordan, Nov 17, 2007
    #5
  6. NV55

    Jordan Guest

    Which doesn't really matter because those high end PC cards aren't
    going to be fully utilized for several more years yet.

    It's simple economics on the part of developers. Yes, they could make
    a game for a $400 video card, and the 10,000 or so people who have
    that card would be very happy. Or they can make a game for a Radeon
    9600 and sell much more. What do you think they're going to do?

    - Jordan
     
    Jordan, Nov 17, 2007
    #6
  7. No. Crysis just came out yesterday and the most powerful cards
    cannot run in at very high settings.
     
    Interesting Ian, Nov 17, 2007
    #7
  8. NV55

    Jonah Falcon Guest

    Most people don't have Vista. heh
     
    Jonah Falcon, Nov 17, 2007
    #8
  9. NV55

    Tom Guest

    I bet this---

    Quad Core Extreme QX6850 chipset (a extreme duo-core would even make due
    easily)
    Nvidia 8800 Ultra 756mg video card
    2GB PC8500 DDR2/1066 memory
    LCD Display 1680x1050

    Would run it no problem, but your talking some bucks for this setup.
     
    Tom, Nov 17, 2007
    #9
  10. And how much more expensive are they? A high-end PC can cost you
    thousands of dollars. And if you want to stay on the "cutting edge"
    you have to keep spending money. That's not realistic for 99% of the
    people out there.
    Actually, consoles are at the cutting edge. The PC industry is a whole
    different beast. Nobody could possibly argue that the Playstation 3
    and the Xbox 360 aren't cutting edge... for the console industry.
    How many everyday Joes are into PC gaming... or can even afford it?
     
    The alMIGHTY N, Nov 19, 2007
    #10
  11. When the Playstation 2 debuted in Japan in late 2000, there were
    already high-end graphics cards more capable... not many, but they
    existed. I don't know about the Playstation generation, but the
    Playstation 2 started off behind the curve and never recovered. Even
    when the GameCube and Xbox, both of which were significantly more
    powerful than the Playstation 2, debuted, they were not as good as
    high-end PCs.
     
    The alMIGHTY N, Nov 19, 2007
    #11
  12. NV55

    slayerman89 Guest

    Only because it's been optimized so poorly and been washed over as
    'quality'. I could make a game using Bitblit(2D sprite/mask based
    imaging) that would crash the greatest computer in the world and my
    game would look like crap. I would go so far as to say that COD4 looks
    twice as good as Crysis and runs twice as fast. Crysis is a fun game,
    but they hyped up the graphics so much it seems like the only way they
    could back it up is to cripple the game so it lags out on good
    machines.

    But that would be giving them credit and saying they crippled it on
    purpose.
     
    slayerman89, Nov 20, 2007
    #12
  13. NV55

    nv55 Guest

    Actually, the PlayStation2 debuted in Japan in EARLY 2000, March 2000
    to be exact. the most powerful PC card out at the time was the
    GeForce256 DDR and the PS2 was MUCH more powerful as far as pixel
    fillrate, polygon rendering, and bandwidth performance. even when the
    GeForce 2 GTS and Ultra came out a few months later, the PS2 was still
    ahead. the PS2 was also ahead of the original Radeon. it wasn't
    until early 2001 when the GeForce3 came out that PCs started to pull
    ahead of the PS2. now it is true that when Gamecube and Xbox came
    out in late 2001, that PCs were equal or slightly ahead of those
    consoles in performance. but not by nearly as much as PCs were ahead
    of Xbox 360 and PS3 when they launched.
     
    nv55, Nov 23, 2007
    #13
  14. NV55

    nobody Guest

    I'm thinking of buying a new video card, but as good as the cards
    are, the support isn't really there. Bad drivers, Freezing out
    win2k, forcing use of vista when vista isn't ready, games that run
    at 15 fps, fast but ugly monitors.

    I'm thinking of picking up a PS3 or Xbox for the short term and
    check back when Vista and quad core technologies eventually mature.
     
    nobody, Dec 10, 2007
    #14
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.