|
|
|
Nvidia vs ATI
|
|
|
otester
Suspended permanently
|
28. June 2004 @ 13:12 |
Link to this message
|
|
ATI get their money from the Nintendo Gamecube!!!!!1
oli
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
JSRife
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
3. July 2004 @ 07:28 |
Link to this message
|
|
I am just saying, I think it is funny the PS2 comes out when? 2001? 3-4 years later the machine is still playing awesome newest games with no problems at all. I realize the top Computer games for the PC are better, but not a whole lot better, they are comparable. I mean the PC version of a game on PS2 might have a few pretty colors the PS2 doesn't and the graphics may be a tad better, but overall they are about the same. You take a Video Card from 2001 and try to play new games, it will be total shit. It seems to me the Video game systems stay up to date longer than Video cards do. You take a new Video game system, lets say the PS3, it's not out yet, but I am just saying. The PS3 will be playing games with no problem for 4 years easy, even as the graphics get better along with the games getting better, how many generations of video cards will you go through in the life time of the PS3? As the games get better and better you will go through a few video cards while the game machine is still playing them with no problems.
Jason Rife
|
|
Praetor
Moderator
|
3. July 2004 @ 08:30 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
3-4 years later the machine is still playing awesome newest games with no problems at all
Well I could say the same thing about a computer -- it doesnt take all that much processing power to play games with no AA, no ANSIO, 800x600 and prolly 24bit color so it's no doubt consoles can keep up.
Quote:
I realize the top Computer games for the PC are better, but not a whole lot better, they are comparable
Uh....... dont see Doom3 coming out for PS2 anytime soon. For that matter, I dont see anything from PS2 (or any console) with anything more advanced that what would be considered DirectX7
Quote:
I mean the PC version of a game on PS2 might have a few pretty colors the PS2 doesn't and the graphics may be a tad better, but overall they are about the same.
WHOA! Dang dude .... take GTA3 for instance -- if you can run the PS2 version at 1600x1200 lemme know ;P
Quote:
You take a Video Card from 2001 and try to play new games, it will be total shit.
There's a reason it plays like crap -- those older procs dont have native dyanamic volumetric processing capability and have to brute force it -- which they done have the clock speed to do either.
Quote:
even as the graphics get better along with the games getting better
Again, like I said.... "getting better" needs to be taken with a grain of salt ... no AA, no ANSIO, low-resolution ... suddenly "getting better" doesnt seem all that great.
Quote:
As the games get better and better you will go through a few video cards while the game machine is still playing them with no problems.
I might consider eating my words if (a noncrippled version of) Doom3 comes out for a console.
|
Moderator
|
3. July 2004 @ 10:06 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
3-4 years later the machine is still playing awesome newest games with no problems at all.
There's a very, very simple reason for this. The hardware for PS2 has remained the same for that 4 years. There's no variable. The games are all made to run on a standard hardware spec.
The hardware advances for PC's take place at an incredibly fast pace. The game developers are constantly pushing to make the most of these advances in their new games so, as a consequence, the older generation of hardware gets left further and further behind.
Comparing PS2 to PC is apples to oranges.
My killer sig came courtesy of bb "El Jefe" mayo.
The Forum Rules You Agreed To! http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487
"And there we saw the giants, and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight" - Numbers 13:33 |
|
Praetor
Moderator
|
3. July 2004 @ 10:06 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Comparing PS2 to PC is apples to oranges.
Prolly closer to comparing apples with pictures of apples.
|
|
otester
Suspended permanently
|
3. July 2004 @ 11:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
i like apples just as much as I like oranges thank you and that applies to pics of apples and apples thankyou very much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
oli
|
|
Praetor
Moderator
|
3. July 2004 @ 11:55 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
.i like apples just as much as I like oranges thank you and that applies to pics of apples and apples thankyou very much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lets not drift too much off topic ;-)
|
|
otester
Suspended permanently
|
4. July 2004 @ 01:16 |
Link to this message
|
|
just wanted to prove my point, some people prefer apples to oranges and oranges to apples, just like ATI and NVIDIA.
oli
|
|
JSRife
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
4. July 2004 @ 05:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
The point I was trying to make is....If you are a big time gamer, the gaming systems don't get out dated as fast as a Video Card. Technologys are different yes, but who cares about technology when the games are looking nothing short of great. As far as the greatest video card having better graphics over the PS2 or Xbox or so on, I would agree totally. You compare a Video Game machine 4 years old to a brand new $400 Video card it better have better graphics, the sad thing is, the graphics aren't kicking it's ass, just a little better. When the PS3 does arrive on the shelves it will be matching the X800 or Nvidia 6800, that's the other sad thing about it all. And the PS3 will be playing up to date games for years easy and by this time you will have bought 2 generations of video card since the x800 and 6800...Funny stuff...As far as Video Resolution on the screen on a Video game machine, I got a 35 Inch flat screen tv, it will look good enough, I'm sure of it.
Jason Rife
|
|
Praetor
Moderator
|
4. July 2004 @ 06:49 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
but who cares about technology when the games are looking nothing short of great.
You missed my comment about console games looking "great". No offense to console fans -- consoles fill a very important niche but there isnt a snowball's chance in hell that we'll be seeing a game like Doom3, Painkiller or FarCry out on consoles (not to mention damn near any RTS game) -- hell even an older game like UT99 -- if you can get it to run at 1280x1024 on a console lemme know ;-)
Quote:
You compare a Video Game machine 4 years old to a brand new $400 Video card it better have better graphics, the sad thing is, the graphics aren't kicking it's ass, just a little better.
I dunno what to say to you man. I really dont. This is so much like the "video cards are all the same" argument.... have you seen the shit comin' from ... hell, even then GeForce3? Dont get me wrong, for whatever consoles cost nowadays and the fact that they have a "standard" hardware platform, consoles fill a very important niche but ... damn -- how can you just sit (or stand hehe) there and say console graphics can even hold a candle of PC graphics? Hell, anything since GeForce4Ti (~Radeon9500+) will kick a console around left right and centre. I would strongly advise you spend a quick 5 minutes on google searching up shots of Doom3, UT2004, FarCry, Painkiller, Halflife2 or whatnot ... then factor in the fact they arent running on some puny 800x600 resolution -- now you can argue that you dont see a difference between those graphics and console graphics and I have no problem with that -- it's a matter of perception and "exposure" but at a technical level, console graphics are nothing to be impressed with next to a good tower. Hell, I'll even save you the trouble:
FarCry
http://www.levels4you.com/sections/farcry/pictures/ss_315.jpg
http://www.levels4you.com/sections/farcry/pictures/ss_313.jpg
http://www.levels4you.com/sections/farcry/pictures/ss_314.jpg
UT2004
http://www.planetunreal.com/ut2004/screenshots/02.jpg
http://www.planetunreal.com/ut2004/screenshots/06.jpg
http://www.planetunreal.com/ut2004/screenshots/15.jpg
Doom3
http://www.doomworld.com/shots/doom3_120603/01.jpg
http://www.doomworld.com/shots/doom3_031904/revenant.jpg
http://www.doomworld.com/shots/doom3_092203/revenant.jpg
HalfLife2 (ugh! ;-P)
http://www.halflife2.net/image_files/screenshots/06.jpg
http://www.halflife2.net/image_files/screenshots/01.jpg
http://www.halflife2.net/image_files/screenshots/22.jpg
Painkiller
http://www.strategyinformer.com/shooters/pictures/screenshots/painkiller-9.jpg
http://www.strategyinformer.com/shooters/pictures/screenshots/painkiller-12.jpg
http://www.strategyinformer.com/shooters/pictures/screenshots/painkiller-4.jpg
Ground Control 2
http://www.games-fusion.net/images/groundcontrol2_1.jpg
http://www.games-fusion.net/images/groundcontrol2_7.jpg
http://www.games-fusion.net/images/groundcontrol2_9.jpg
CnC Generals - Zero Hour
http://www.cncgeneralsworld.com/gallery/ss177.jpg
http://www.cncgeneralsworld.com/gallery/ss154.jpg
http://www.cncgeneralsworld.com/gallery/ss138.jpg
Now that I've covered the practical, "real world" portion, let's look at theoretical and have a white-paper comparison; I dunno which you want to favor over the other and I'll be glad to decimate both but I would think the Xbox have a superior hardware platform so let's look at that. It's a fair statement to make that the XGPU powering the Xbox, while on paper is supposed to be a modified GF3Ti in reality is sits between the GF3Ti and GF4Ti. Let's pull up some specs:
XGPU
100-125 Million Triangles/sec
3.7 Billion AA samples/sec
5.3GB/sec memory bandwidth
32MB video card
GeForce4Ti4600
136 Millio triangles/sec
4.8 Billion AA samples/sec
10.4GB/sec memory bandwidth
128MB video card
Now on paper even a 3 generation old video card will teach the Xbox a lesson in performance -- again the Xbox deserves credit for being able to pack quite a bit of performance into that little wee box etc but it doesnt hold a candle to even a 2 year old tower. And let's not forget that the GF4Ti was but a DirectX8.1 card only and has no direct support for DirectX9... let's have a look at that. From Microsoft.com
Quote:
For example, DirectX 8.1 introduced support for pixel shaders and vertex shaders, which are advanced 3-D graphics functions. Hardware makers such as NVIDIA and ATI then created products that supported the DirectX feature set. The GeForce 3 was the first NVIDIA graphics chipset that was fully DirectX 8.1-compliant, meaning it has support in its own hardware for all of the 3-D functions and special effects that are part of the DirectX 8.1 specification. The more magic the 3-D card can do itself, the less work the CPU has to do, which is a very good thing because your frame rates go up and your computer has more brainpower to use for shooting at you.
Quote:
What does DirectX 9 bring to the party? Among other things, it includes a very powerful new feature called High Level Shader Language (HLSL). It sounds complicated, but?well, OK, it is complicated. In a nutshell, game developers can use DirectX 9 video cards to easily produce even more advanced effects without putting more burden on the CPU, taking DirectX 8.1's pixel and vertex shaders to the next level. If you are upgrading your 3-D card, a DirectX 9-compliant card will be the most future-proof choice you can make.
From a coding perspective, DX9 makes all the fancy special effects that used to be a pain to implement in DX8 fairly simple (and better looking -- hence PC GameDev has an initial visual advantage) and from a playback perspective, DX9 can be summarized in two words: dynamic and volumetric -- everyone seems to like to tout the dynamic part of the spec' and yeah that's fine and dandy -- the big muscles come out with the volumetric shit though (if you've ever done 3D rendering in a volumetric world, you'll know what I mean).
Quote:
When the PS3 does arrive on the shelves it will be matching the X800 or Nvidia 6800, that's the other sad thing about it all. And the PS3 will be playing up to date games for years easy and by this time you will have bought 2 generations of video card since the x800 and 6800...Funny stuff...
Perhaps... but get this: the X800 and 6800 are available now and I can play these damn fine games now. By the time the PS3 comes out (when is that for argument sake?), PC architecture will have evolved quite radically with DDR2 and PCIX -- now unless consoles will be shipping with either of those, it's no longer a contest like it is now.
Quote:
As far as Video Resolution on the screen on a Video game machine, I got a 35 Inch flat screen tv, it will look good enough, I'm sure of it.
I suspected as much. "35 inch" doesnt mean shit -- honest! You can have a 10 billion inch TV and it will still run at 800x600 -- translation: a halfass resolution, certainly not worthy of the video chip in that box (seriously, when the GF3 came out, the favored resolution was 1024x768 -- the XGPU is technically superior to the GF3 but because of the limitations of TVs they can only push out 640x480 and 800x600). Also, dont forget I can set my tower to play on a 35 inch tv too -- of course i have to sacrifice the resolution to drop to that level but i guess it's doable. Now it's fine and dandy that you like your consoles :) So if you didnt get what I just said i'll simplify: the size of the screen doesnt make a difference -- I was talking about resolution which is screensize independent. Now if you have your console and you're happy with it, that's all that matters to you and that's kewl -- just dont start a PC vs Console rant without being prepared/open-minded (i.e., you started off this entire comparison by making a statement and end it by making an opinion)
Cheers.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 4. July 2004 @ 06:50
|
|
JSRife
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
4. July 2004 @ 07:27 |
Link to this message
|
|
Not meaning to argue with you Praetor, but Far Cry is out on PS2 Xbox, dunno about Gamecube. I heard they are making Doom 3 for Xbox, however PS2 and Gamecube can't handle it, but again these are 3-4 year old Systems should be expected. Now on the subject of the PS3, don't know the release date on it, guessing this Christmas or next for sure it should be out, and it will be handling any game with no problems guarenteed. It will be comparable even more to CPU Video cards than the current Game systems, which the current game systems are very impressive seeing how dated they are and still giving us present games, well almost all games that is.
Jason Rife
|
|
Praetor
Moderator
|
4. July 2004 @ 08:57 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Not meaning to argue with you Praetor
By all means, argue! It keeps us all sharp!
Quote:
Far Cry is out on PS2 Xbox, dunno about Gamecube. I heard they are making Doom 3 for Xbox, however PS2 and Gamecube can't handle it
I know about Xbox's Doom3 -- which is why I said above (or at least I think I said), "a noncrippled version" -- perhaps at a resolution of 800x600 (normal TV's maximum), they may be the same (and at that I seriously doubt but I'll explain that in a second) -- the difference really kicks in when you kick up the resolution ... the Xbox simply will not be able to keep up with the raw pixel (and more importantly, texel) count. There's simply no way; above I outlined the GeForce4Ti as well as the XGPU -- on paper the GF4Ti royally gives the XGPU an asskickin (and I'm pretty sure you would agree in practise it also does) -- and Doom3 runs like CRAP (and I mean utter CRAP -- even on 800x600) on a GeForce4Ti4600 (i.e., negative framerates) -- so it is a fair assumption to make that, if Doom3 ships for Xbox, there isnt a snowball's chance in hell it will be the same version (and I dont mean levels and stuff -- I mean graphical depth and quality) as the PC version. In all honesty anything short of a 9800XT/5950U will choke out on Doom3.
As for FarCry -- I didnt know they had a PS2 version (see? it pays to argue hehe) -- but again, even if they were identical in graphical intensity (which I doubt but am unable to prove because I dont have the specs on the PS2 graphcial processor) -- the PC version pulls ahead if only for the fact that one can play at a much more "enjoyable" 1280x1024 rather than a limited 800x600.
Quote:
Now on the subject of the PS3, don't know the release date on it, guessing this Christmas or next for sure it should be out, and it will be handling any game with no problems guarenteed. It will be comparable even more to CPU Video cards than the current Game systems, which the current game systems are very impressive seeing how dated they are and still giving us present games, well almost all games that is.
Very true however keep in mind that (a) TVs are, by far and large, limited to 800x600 resolution and (b) it's not like PC Architecture and gaming will just "pause" while the PS3 has its moment in the sun -- people will still be expanding on different advancements and stuff.
About your argument about the "35 inch tv" -- you do have a valid point and I would suspect that many "casual gamers" would agree with you in that "bigger screen makes up for smaller resolution" -- to a degree this is personal taste and such however purely from a technical perspective (without getting into the architectures of TVs and such), consoles, although limited to this crummy resolution -- do do an excellent job of crunching out very nice graphics and since i dont spend much time with consoles i wont knock it too much -- purely from a technical point however, if we define "better" roughly as "better visuals" -- the "limitations" of a TV turn out to be the saving grace for consoles -- by using a lower resolution, consoles can get away with showing less details and special effects per frame than on most computers which in turn translate (roughly) to smoother gameplay and (perceptually) better/equal graphics -- of course if you compare them both on equal footing (i.e., PC playing via TV-out at 800x600), again there's not a snowball's chance the Xbox can keep up :)
|
|
otester
Suspended permanently
|
4. July 2004 @ 09:00 |
Link to this message
|
|
Gamecube has graphics nearly the same (or the same) as the XBOX i have played on it, on various games, the qualitys very good. PS2, the games will run on the PS2 because the game will be made to play on it to satisfaction, but the graphics wont be amazing compared to the Gamecube and XBOX.
oli
|
|
Praetor
Moderator
|
4. July 2004 @ 09:06 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Gamecube has graphics nearly the same (or the same) as the XBOX I have played on it, on various games, the qualitys very good.
That is, however a subjective statement .... do you happen to know the hardware powering the Gamecube? I dont which is why i refrained from commenting about it which is why i made generic console statements :)
|
|
JSRife
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
4. July 2004 @ 09:13 |
Link to this message
|
|
I know the Xbox, PS2, Gamecube are pretty much putting out the same quality graphics overall. I never cared for the Gamecube, I use to have one and the Controller on that sucks the big one. From what I take in, the Xbox is pure power, it has a Hard-drive built in and the most memory, the Gamecube is bassically the same thing just stripped down alot with no DVD play back option, because it has those tiny little wanna be disc, and the PS2 is just getting old it's the oldest current system out, but the Controllers on PS1 and PS2 are world class. I will say this much though, I had Soul Calibur 2 for the Gamecube and I played Soul Calibur 2 for the PS2 and the Gamecubes version was a tiny bit better graphic wise, I don't know if it was the difference in tv quality, but yeah the Gamecube was a little more colorful. I think the PS3 and Xbox 2 are going to shock the world when they come out, they will be world class for sure. I don't know if Nintendo is making a Gamecube 2 or what? haven't heard anything, I guess right now it's hard to tell who will have the better system when the new ones arrive.
Jason Rife
|
Moderator
|
4. July 2004 @ 09:21 |
Link to this message
|
|
I can't believe this "console vs. PC" debate has gone this far.
There is virtually no argument as to which has the better graphics and performance. How about a nice little analogy :)
Consoles are like a Mustang GT, a very good all around fast car but it's made for mass consumption. Performance gets sacrificed to meet a specific price point in order to guarantee a large amount of sales. It's "good enough" for most.
High end PCs are like a Ferrari. Nothing is sacrificed in order to reach a pinnacle of pure power and performance. Sales aren't going to be anywhere near the Mustang's numbers but Ferrari knows for a fact that there are more that enough people who want the best performance available to make a profit.
My killer sig came courtesy of bb "El Jefe" mayo.
The Forum Rules You Agreed To! http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487
"And there we saw the giants, and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight" - Numbers 13:33
|
|
JSRife
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
4. July 2004 @ 09:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
Xbox Stats
CPU ------733MHZ Intel Custom Pentium 3
Front side bus-----133Mhz-1.0GB/sec
Ram ---- Micron 64Mb DDR SDRAM
Memory---- Bandwidth 6.4GB/Sec bus
Storage---- 8 GB Hard disk (western digital, 5400RPM
Graphics-----250 Mhz Custom designed Nv2X
Max Polygon-----125M/sec
Simultaneous textures-----4.8 G/sec
Pixel fill rate-----12W
Compressed textures---4.8G/sec
Max resolution----1920x1080 (HDTV req)
Mpeg 2 support----Yes (standard DVD)
HDTV----Yes (HDtv cable req)
Media Comm. Processor-----200 Mhz Processor custom designed by Nvidia, controls hard disk, dvd, controls hight speed ethernet...AND SO ON.....
Jason Rife
|
|
Praetor
Moderator
|
4. July 2004 @ 09:26 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I can't believe this "console vs. PC" debate has gone this far.
LOL
Quote:
the Xbox is pure power, it has a Hard-drive built in and the most memory
Somebody correct me here because I'm just guessing .... 20GB 5400RPM 2MB ~ATA66 with 32MB of memory (plus 32MB for the XGPU) .... compare that to a ... computer? Seriously, NOT a chance ... hell , we can even up the ante: 160GB 7200 8MB ATA133, 256MB of memory -- i dont think even after modding we'll find a configuration like that -- but even still -- it sucks the big one next to a decent computer -- with a computer, sure you fork a lot of money but (a) you get much more use out of it and (b) even just for gaming, the PC, spec for spec, owns the arena. Furthermore, you've essentially just said that the Xbox is a computer -- harddrive, ram etc -- and as far as computers go -- it sucks the big one :)
Nephilim makes a good point -- PCs are for everyone either because of cost, "coolness" however if you want performance, PC is the way to go.
|
|
JSRife
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
4. July 2004 @ 09:29 |
Link to this message
|
|
I wouldn't go that far with it. You wouldn't buy a new Ferrari every year or two now would you, if the Game machine is the Mustang GT it's going strong for 3-4 years , I would expect a little more from the Ferrari. By the way, would love to own a new Mustang GT, plenty fast enough..Heh heh
Jason Rife
|
|
Praetor
Moderator
|
4. July 2004 @ 09:34 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I would expect a little more from the Ferrari
If you are suggesting that PC graphics are just a "little" better than console graphics, have a read at my previous two or three posts. Now unless you've got some undeniable proof (either by spec or real-world) we can look at, PC's do kick the console arse -- that was, actually, the role of the modern console -- to be a cheaper gaming platform.
|
|
JSRife
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
4. July 2004 @ 09:38 |
Link to this message
|
I know dude! but, look at the Max resolution on the Xbox....1920x1080...Of course you need a HDTV, but hey it's good.
Jason Rife
|
|
JSRife
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
4. July 2004 @ 09:41 |
Link to this message
|
|
Anyway, I'm not really so much comparing a PC to a Video game machine, PC wins hands down always will. I am just comparing A video game system to a Computer with a really good video card, and comparing the two, you need a good video card to do so.
Jason Rife
|
|
Praetor
Moderator
|
4. July 2004 @ 09:45 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I know dude! but, look at the Max resolution on the Xbox....1920x1080...
DAMMMMN! :) Now we're talking heehee -- ok so I think the issue about "average Xbox owners" is settles (i.e., avg meaning people without those ultrahigh-resolution TVs). Heehee, moving on:
- For those who have those fancy ass TVs keep in mind you can also output your PC to it at whatever resolution it supports
- Again, spec for spec, the PC still wins --- and especially so at those insane resolutions -- unless the games (i.e., Doom3) come pre-crippled so that consoles can crunch through it. Like I mean, just stop and think about it: Xbox is what: 733Mhz or something? My system here in the 2.2Ghz ballpark with 32 times as much memory and a superior video card can, at the most, get roughly 20fps off Doom3 (all the way down to -8fps) -- all at 800x600 -- there's no way in hell the Xbox will be able to even hold a candle to a computer -- especially when one starts crunching the resolution up towards 1920x1080 -- I would hazard a guess that anything short of an FX53/P4EE+ and a 6800/X800 will have incredible difficulty playin in that ballpark of a resolution.
|
Moderator
|
4. July 2004 @ 23:24 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I'm not really so much comparing a PC to a Video game machine
Backpedaling now? Very reminiscent of the factory PC thread you started.
Quote:
I wouldn't go that far with it. You wouldn't buy a new Ferrari every year or two now would you, if the Game machine is the Mustang GT it's going strong for 3-4 years , I would expect a little more from the Ferrari
It was a frickin' analogy for crying out loud.
My killer sig came courtesy of bb "El Jefe" mayo.
The Forum Rules You Agreed To! http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487
"And there we saw the giants, and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight" - Numbers 13:33
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
JSRife
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
5. July 2004 @ 04:16 |
Link to this message
|
|
Bad analogy I guess.. HEH HEH
Jason Rife
|
|
