i didnt know there was a difference but i dont really care since the console graphics are still amazing
Will console graphics ever beat PC graphics?
- Thread starter 6unn3r
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's a game of leapfrog. When a new console hits, it's based around current PC hardware and has the advantage of being a machine designed from the ground up to do nothing but play games, and achieves parity or exceeds PC capabilities temporarily, and then new PC hardware makes the PC pull away.
Also, back in the day, the NES beat out the PC graphically, largely because the thing could scroll levels, when the PC was still stuck using single screens.
Also, back in the day, the NES beat out the PC graphically, largely because the thing could scroll levels, when the PC was still stuck using single screens.
The whole point behind consoles is to sacrifice a bit of currency for convenience and ease-of-use.
Oh, and keep in mind that these games are made on PCs before they're put on consoles. These PCs often have graphics cards somewhere in the $4000-range, because they need to render the cinematics that are, on the console, pre-rendered.
Oh, and keep in mind that these games are made on PCs before they're put on consoles. These PCs often have graphics cards somewhere in the $4000-range, because they need to render the cinematics that are, on the console, pre-rendered.
As the image was loading, I thought: Ooh, nice picture of the forest-HOLY SHIT! It's like they photoshopped the HUD of Crysis into real life. Those are some sweet graphics.6unn3r said:
OT: It might. Consoles have to run on up-to-date graphics engines while PCs can always exceed at the cost of a higher price. I'm sure a gaming console can surpass the strength of a PC, but I doubt it would be marketable, given a $1000+ pricetag.
I've been a PC user all my life and have never owned a console, but I honestly thought that the situation was the way around, Console's having games with the most awesome graphics ever made, God of War 3 comes to mind.
But I've also never played Crysis cause the year isn't 2050 BC where the average PC can run the game. ^.^
But I've also never played Crysis cause the year isn't 2050 BC where the average PC can run the game. ^.^
It's not the case, PC games always have the better graphics, you just need the better computer.adrian_exec said:
If you built GOWIII to run on a computer a high end one would thrash the Ps3 graphics.
Oh and play crysis
it's a good game, and the first one is falling back to average graphics anyway.I guess you are right. I've never had a good enough PC to run all the latest games on high(ultra) settings and still maintain playable frames per second. So my misconception must be from that reason alone.Fluffles said:It's not the case, PC games always have the better graphics, you just need the better computer.adrian_exec said:
If you built GOWIII to run on a computer a high end one would thrash the Ps3 graphics.
Oh and play crysis
sure PCs you can upgrade to the infinity, 16GB of ram, quad GPUs whit 2GB of DDR5 ram each, ultra fast 500mb/s SSD hard drives, multiple core CPUs at over 3Ghz each core(and a price tag running nearly on the price of a small car) consoles give you very VERY good graphics for a mere 300 dollars, thats whi the incentive to expend several thousand dollars on top notch PCs is vanishing, and if the succes of the wii tell us anithing is that horsepower not neccesarily mean better, ill play mario galaxy any day over Crysis, and im pretty sure Uncharted 2 and Gears of War 2 look a hundred times better than ANY PC whit a 300 dollars price tag, so until you can build me a PC at that price tag that can give me the same performance im not gonna be convinced (and the same amount of games because lets face it each year there are less and less PC "exclusives" really worth it, and even less that really could push that brand new 5 thousand dollar monster you just build because you could)
PS: have you noticed that PC gamers have been usin Crysis for over 3 years now on theyr cries of PC is better than consoles? (there isnt any other game that really push computers?)
PSS: i have a decent rig for work purposes (i just added an average GPU for gaming), Core i7 6GB DDR3 RAM whit a Nvidia 280 1GB, 23 inch led monitor, 500watt THX logitech speakers, not TOO spectacular but it run Crisys like butter, and just about ANITHING i trow at it at maximum quality (as long as i dont get too greedy whit the resolution and AA/AF wich at 23 inchs is no too neccesary) also have all 3 current gen consoles and the one i play the most is my PS3 (online mostly) second my 360, faaar third my WII, and FAAAAAAAAAR fourth the PC (only game i really played in the last two years is StarcraftII)
PS: have you noticed that PC gamers have been usin Crysis for over 3 years now on theyr cries of PC is better than consoles? (there isnt any other game that really push computers?)
PSS: i have a decent rig for work purposes (i just added an average GPU for gaming), Core i7 6GB DDR3 RAM whit a Nvidia 280 1GB, 23 inch led monitor, 500watt THX logitech speakers, not TOO spectacular but it run Crisys like butter, and just about ANITHING i trow at it at maximum quality (as long as i dont get too greedy whit the resolution and AA/AF wich at 23 inchs is no too neccesary) also have all 3 current gen consoles and the one i play the most is my PS3 (online mostly) second my 360, faaar third my WII, and FAAAAAAAAAR fourth the PC (only game i really played in the last two years is StarcraftII)
People keep using Crysis because you've only been able to run it maxed out with a good framerate on a single GPU since fairly recently.enriquetnt said:
..in tiny, tiny increments..Lt Blasphemer said:
It's idiotic, really. I've always been interested in new technology. I've owned the cutting edge systems, and programmed for them since the first Voodoo chipset turned up.
But then when I get excited about integrated buses with a shared memory pool between a gpu and multiple programmable cpus (the ps3) - then I'm a console fanboy who doesn't know anything.
Strange how that works.
Now this is an interesting question. When a person thinks "graphics" that person, I'd wager, doesn't know the mind-boggling depths of the features and technology one can find in modern graphics cards and accelerators.
Anti-aliasing, shaders, memory, memory interface AND type, core clock, stream processors, and the gigabytes on top of gigabytes that make the hardware run as efficiently as possible; the list goes on, and this all before the specific technologies exclusive to the chipset manufacturer, AND the hardware being used to display allllll of this.
Now, consider the following: At a certain point, graphical technology will advance to a point where our organic eyes can't tell the difference between one generation of graphics and the next.
To apply that thought to the topic, there will come a day when the difference between console graphics and PC graphics will be undetectable to the human eye; indeed, the ONLY difference will be in the numbers involed in that paragraph of techno-babble above.
Furthermore, even when technology advances to the point where photo-realism is the norm, there will still be popular and exceptional games that outright deny such graphics. Beyond what Nintendo, et al. have been doing in the past year or so, there have been plenty of games that go for an artistic approach instead of looking "real," such as Okami, Zelda: Wind Waker, and Mad World; this is all without even considering the very small, VERY enjoyable flash-based games that one can find on the Internet.
Bottom line: This question is completely moot. Disregarding most of my rambling gibberish, that last paragraph, I think, answers the topic question. The debate just doesn't matter.
On the other hand, who's the twit who took the time and effort to think of all this and type it out, eh?
Anti-aliasing, shaders, memory, memory interface AND type, core clock, stream processors, and the gigabytes on top of gigabytes that make the hardware run as efficiently as possible; the list goes on, and this all before the specific technologies exclusive to the chipset manufacturer, AND the hardware being used to display allllll of this.
Now, consider the following: At a certain point, graphical technology will advance to a point where our organic eyes can't tell the difference between one generation of graphics and the next.
To apply that thought to the topic, there will come a day when the difference between console graphics and PC graphics will be undetectable to the human eye; indeed, the ONLY difference will be in the numbers involed in that paragraph of techno-babble above.
Furthermore, even when technology advances to the point where photo-realism is the norm, there will still be popular and exceptional games that outright deny such graphics. Beyond what Nintendo, et al. have been doing in the past year or so, there have been plenty of games that go for an artistic approach instead of looking "real," such as Okami, Zelda: Wind Waker, and Mad World; this is all without even considering the very small, VERY enjoyable flash-based games that one can find on the Internet.
Bottom line: This question is completely moot. Disregarding most of my rambling gibberish, that last paragraph, I think, answers the topic question. The debate just doesn't matter.
On the other hand, who's the twit who took the time and effort to think of all this and type it out, eh?
The PC engine uses different features to the console version. Each machine is optimized accordingly, a PS3 is different to a 360 is different to an average PC. It would be naive to think that Crytek isn't pushing the graphics as far as they can on PC because that has been the main draw of the Cryengine since it's conception.Xzi said:
Just because an engine is scalable to work on many machines, doesn't mean it can't also be pushed further than its standard settings!
In terms of sheer grunt, PC gaming will most like always be on top. No console can match top-of-the-line PCs for raw processing power. It's just not possible.Mafoobula said:
But games like LIMBO, Team Fortress 2, Braid, Zelda: Wind Waker, Okami; games that don't push "realism" - will still benefit from extra processing power! With more machinery to work with, with less boundaries, there come less in the way of an artist to achieve their ultimate vision! Saying "the debate doesn't matter" is a silly thing to say. The only reason you can get artistic games like the ones you mentioned is because technology adjusted to allow for these kinds of flippant art styles and graphics.
Bottom line: you're silly, stop being silly.