|
Console vs PC
|
|
Member
|
22. January 2008 @ 14:14 |
Link to this message
|
quick question would my pc be better or worse than a ps3/360
3 gig ram
320 gig HD
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600 2.4
ATI 3870 800/1125
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
Senior Member
|
22. January 2008 @ 14:18 |
Link to this message
|
depends. What games are you comparing to it? In all, I would image your PC is better than the consoles, but viruses/malware can hinder performance, as well as defraging. How do you measure fps in console games anyway? Dont they all stay the same at 34 no matter what's happening?
|
Member
|
22. January 2008 @ 14:23 |
Link to this message
|
|
ya but in terms of raw power will i be able to play every 360 game that comes out on full or will they get to good for my pc without upgrade
|
Senior Member
|
22. January 2008 @ 14:46 |
Link to this message
|
Yes.
Think of it like this: you wont see Crysis (most graphically advance game in the world for PC) coming out for the 360 or PS3 ever.
|
Member
|
22. January 2008 @ 21:09 |
Link to this message
|
|
that was how i thought of it then i thought that maybe there games were just coded badly and would advance further. but there is also Farcry 2 coming out using cryengine 2 and as far as i know it is coming out for consoles. Ya i just started this thread to prove a point to my freind, but now i am just curious. thanks
|
Member
|
22. January 2008 @ 22:48 |
Link to this message
|
another question this is off topic but i dont want to put a nwew thread in this section.
but with my pc i am only getting 60 fps in css why is this
|
Member
|
22. January 2008 @ 23:48 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Freekman:
another question this is off topic but i dont want to put a nwew thread in this section.
but with my pc i am only getting 60 fps in css why is this
I havnt played CSS but most games put a limit on frame rates to help with stability. It has to do with the 'tick rate' of the servers, the rate at which the network and physics code run.
Usualy the frame rate can be unlocked somewhere in the games config files.
|
|
mauro125
Newbie
|
23. January 2008 @ 00:02 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
23. January 2008 @ 08:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
well if it does come out, the graphics will be lowered to medium settings, or something like that as a PS3 does not have a 8800GTX in it. My point being if the 8800GTX can only get 25-30FPS on very high, then the PS3's graphics could pro probably only get half that frame rate.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
23. January 2008 @ 09:07 |
Link to this message
|
Your PC is unquestionably more powerful than either console. It depends what sort of monitor you're using as to whether you get a better picture or not. Right now there's no game out there that your PC can't handle at 1080p resolution to some extent except for Crysis, which isn't out on consoles. Even if it does, it'll be a cut down version since the consoles just aren't powerful enough to handle it.
Your frame rate in CSS is 60 because you're using VSync. If you turn that off it'll be higher.
|
Member
|
23. January 2008 @ 11:59 |
Link to this message
|
I havnt played CSS but most games put a limit on frame rates to help with stability. It has to do with the 'tick rate' of the servers, the rate at which the network and physics code run.
Usualy the frame rate can be unlocked somewhere in the games config files.
oooooooo the thing is with my 7600gt i used to get like 100 fps same configs but you make it seem like it is better to keep it this way so i wont fiddle
|
Member
|
23. January 2008 @ 12:08 |
Link to this message
|
o ya vsync is on i just turned everything on cause i could. doesn't vsync sync with your refresh rate or something, like what exactly is it
and that realease info is just hype watch him he seems pretty sure about no console realease
http://www.stage6.com/EA-Crysis/video/18...nterview---GTtv
also what hardware does crytek use to test these kinds of games are they unrealeased or what, because nothing seems to be able to play it that well
and how come whenever i play crysis i can never find other kinds of amo besides incinerary
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23. January 2008 @ 12:09
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
23. January 2008 @ 12:39 |
Link to this message
|
Indeed, Vsync is designed to stop flickering lines on your screen that can sometimes occur when the refresh rate of your monitor is lower than that of the game's frame rate, and it's no bad thing having it on. Often, however, it is useful to disable it to monitor your frame rate accurately. I typically only enable Vsync in games which have flickering problems. The only recent example I can think of is Doom 3, and I think you'll agree that's not exactly recent.
As for Crysis I can't help you there, I've not played it much, but the hardware requirements are steep because it's designed as an "industry-leading" game. In other words, it's the first example of the sort of graphics and gameplay to be expected from future games. Typically the first game to be released in a set like this has slightly higher requirements than most future games as the engine hasn't yet been fully optimised. On the whole though, I do think Crytek took it a bit too far next time. The golden days of 2004-2006 are over, when a new, faster card came out every few days!
|
Member
|
23. January 2008 @ 15:13 |
Link to this message
|
|
i dissagree i dont think that they should make the games worse they should make them as good as possible
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
23. January 2008 @ 15:16 |
Link to this message
|
|
Eh?
When did I say they'd made games worse?
|
Member
|
23. January 2008 @ 17:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
you said tey went to far and i think that they should go as far as possibbl
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 25. January 2008 @ 00:37
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
23. January 2008 @ 17:49 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well, there's nothing stopping games designers making a game that is impossible to run on any current PC, but what would be the point? Nobody would buy it until they could actually play it! You have to strike the right balance.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
24. January 2008 @ 14:41 |
Link to this message
|
|
the PS3 has a 7800GTX, it wont be able to play, esp with AA. itll have to be at 1024 x 768.
but consoles are cheaper than PCs.
oh and the 360 has an ATI Xenon GPU, which is kind of like a crap x2900gt (aka kind of like the 7800GTX)
MGR (Micro Gaming Rig) .|. Intel Q6600 @ 3.45GHz .|. Asus P35 P5K-E/WiFi .|. 4GB 1066MHz Geil Black Dragon RAM .|. Samsung F60 SSD .|. Corsair H50-1 Cooler .|. Sapphire 4870 512MB .|. Lian Li PC-A70B .|. Be Queit P7 Dark Power Pro 850W PSU .|. 24" 1920x1200 DGM (MVA Panel) .|. 24" 1920x1080 Dell (TN Panel) .|. |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
24. January 2008 @ 15:26 |
Link to this message
|
The PS3 doesn't have a Geforce-style card, it's the RSX, which will perform differently in some areas to others, but essentially it will perform about the level of a 7800, so as such would never be able to run games in 1080p at a high detail level.
|
Member
|
24. January 2008 @ 23:36 |
Link to this message
|
|
so basicly in the end my pc kicks a consoles ass
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
25. January 2008 @ 09:23 |
Link to this message
|
It does indeed. That's the spirit! Of course you do technically need a monitor capable of displaying 1080p to say that!
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
25. January 2008 @ 11:49 |
Link to this message
|
which then needs a minimum res of 1920x1200. aka 24" +.
also most ps3, if not all bar GT are made with 720p res, not 1080p, and even COD4 has 600P res.
MGR (Micro Gaming Rig) .|. Intel Q6600 @ 3.45GHz .|. Asus P35 P5K-E/WiFi .|. 4GB 1066MHz Geil Black Dragon RAM .|. Samsung F60 SSD .|. Corsair H50-1 Cooler .|. Sapphire 4870 512MB .|. Lian Li PC-A70B .|. Be Queit P7 Dark Power Pro 850W PSU .|. 24" 1920x1200 DGM (MVA Panel) .|. 24" 1920x1080 Dell (TN Panel) .|.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
25. January 2008 @ 12:09 |
Link to this message
|
|
Which makes the PC even better.. :)
|
Senior Member
|
25. January 2008 @ 13:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well, if this is a PC vs. Console thread then let me contribute.
PCs are technically stronger then consoles. They have better graphics, more perfomance, and if done right, games can look alot better then their console counterparts.
Consoles however, are cheaper, more convinient, and consoles have alot more fun exclusives.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
25. January 2008 @ 13:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
Heh, I think that last point may be personal opinion, but otherwise that's a pretty valid summary.
|
