console graphics are about a month out of date by release, seeing as consoles are always the same hardware but PCs come in components and can be interchanged and upgraded
Will console graphics ever beat PC graphics?
- Thread starter 6unn3r
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well, I don't think consoles will surpass PC's in the graphics department any time soon. I'm OK with that. To me, console graphics are just fine where they are. Either way, we all know that with each generation there will be improvements. Now, we can't predict the future so we can't actually know whether or not consoles will reach or surpass the level of graphics we find in PC games. It might happen 5, 10, 20 years from now. Or, it might not.
...Scrumpmonkey said:
*shakes head*
Ok, gather around children. A graphics card with hardware acceleration works how? By performing pixel-operations on several pieces of memory in parallel. Various hardware manufacturers have created variants of this for their different graphics cards. Nvidia, ATI, Voodoo, etc.
But in reality, it is simply a computer engine performing memory operations based on an instruction set, on several memory areas at once.
You can use this in very structured and limited ways to perform some particular tasks very quickly - gpgpu processing. Not everything can be structured for acceleration this way. But there are a lot of tasks that can be thought of as intrinsically parallellizable. Some of those are possible to do in gpgpu processing. But it is limited, because of memory restrictions and simply the fact that the processor on that engine is separated from the cpu on a computer, which is needed to make simple, but necessary transformations underway.
What, then, if you actually had a programmable cpu on that bus? Instead of having a gpu with very, very limited capabilities? What about, say, six of those processors? And on a bus that actually has higher bandwidth peaks and significantly lower access-times than on the most cutting edge gpu card?
This is actually what we had to experiment with on the ps3, until the fucking assholes at Sony decided to drop linux support..
..anyway, where was I. Oh, yes. So what we have here is the same type of limitation that any computer has - it cannot produce more data than a cpu could possibly compute and transfer it on the bus - creating a system like that would require faster ram than we have. But it was possible to have faster ram than in a normal system, and link the elements on it.
If you compare that with a normal PC, it would be as if you had the gpu linked directly on the first layer of memory after the level2 cache.
So you lose the possibility of running the gpu on "peak", and serving it finished data (which is an expensive process - this is not an ideal solution). But you gain the possibility of directly accessing half-way or completely processed data - as well as have the option to transform data on the fly inside the graphics context.
If you don't see how that affects possibilities in animation technology, layered rendering engines, physics, scene interaction, or whatever else having to do with handling of graphical contexts - not just by opening up for use of more of those theoretically parallellizable tasks, but also to decrease the size of the time-steps between transformations - then you just need to change you opinion.
Yes but no.
Consoles have the ability to temporarily advance beyond what PCs have, but this is always a very short lived experience due to the consistently growing and evolving nature of the PC. A console may get ahead for a few weeks, but inevitably it's inability to evolve will catch up to it, and the PC will fly by.
Consoles have the ability to temporarily advance beyond what PCs have, but this is always a very short lived experience due to the consistently growing and evolving nature of the PC. A console may get ahead for a few weeks, but inevitably it's inability to evolve will catch up to it, and the PC will fly by.
Dollar for dollar, console graphics RAPE PC graphics. Try getting decent graphics in MW2 on a PC that costs the same amount on a PS3. If you want to spend $1500~$2000 on an elite gaming PC, they better be at least a little superior to that which can be produced on a $300 machine.
Perfectly reasonable, if you do enough research/wait for the right bargains to build a PC for $300, assuming that you can nab a free copy of Windows (that XP disc will probably do) or if you run the Linux and WINE gauntlet, that will match the PS3 on MW2's graphics. Why the hell did you pick MW2 since it looks fairly dire compared to, say, Uncharted 2, but that's beside the point.radioactive lemur said:
..except no one is going to saw over the branch they're sitting on. As painfully and thoroughly demonstrated with examples such as: the childish indignation of Valve, to the ignorant comments from Carmack and others in the industry when it comes to the practical use of parallel processing elements.Johnnyallstar said:
Remember, this is technology that's actually been available since the 80's, but never ended up being commercially viable and practical for use until now.
We have the same unfortunate thing with Netbooks/laptops and integrated chipsets - Nvidia actually made prototypes of computers like this several years ago. But the fact that the various giants are not interested in jumping too far ahead, and crashing their existing chip and software production lines, makes sure that it takes years upon years before the computers actually make it to the market.
That's the long and the short of that. What annoys me, though, is that a lot of people instantly go from "not economically sound" and to "not technologically superior". It simply doesn't work like that.
No, consoles will never leapfrog PCs in graphics. PCs are constantly available for upgrade, whereas a console isn't. I personally don't mind sacrificing a delay in graphic upgrades for the money I'm saving.
but the guy that designed all cars would have to have a way to make said car work and test it over and over again. This person would then have a prototype and sell it to a company. his car is as fast as the companies car. This person though can improve their own car but the only way for the consumers cars to improve is that the designers car improves.TBR said:
at least that's how I see it. also considering you have to design the game on the computer which requires the computer to be more advanced if the design is going to be more detailed.
Not quite so true.veloper said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenos_%28graphics_chip%29
The Xenos chip is far more advanced then that of the PS3. Basically the Xenos is an R500 series card (X1900) with some heavy modifications that bring it above its counterparts. The most notable difference is the unified shader architecture which offers a lot more flexibility in visuals.
What it comes down to is this.
The 360's Processor is indeed a simplified PowerPC tri-core processor each running two threads, thus giving us Six (6) logical cores. Even so, the 360's processor still does pretty well in general computing, but it's not quite viable for a PC. (Important thing to note is that almost all console CPUs are simplified so they basically do linear calculations such as physics and graphical based calculations. Console CPUs generally suck at things like AI. A PC's CPU is much, much faster at actual decision making, whereas console CPUs slow down a lot.)
The PS3's processor is more powerful then that of the 360s. But again, it's not made for general computing. It's a very, very good number cruncher though. In fact, it's good enough at doing it that many devs offload some of the graphical workload to the Cell processor. In fact they almost need to do it since the PS3's GPU is, to be frank, a piece of shit.
Sony could have easily worked in better GPU advancements with very little addition to the cost.
It is also worth noting that the 360's GPU has at least some DirectX 10 equivalent capabilities, where the PS3's does not.
...so pay attention, kids. Lesson for life here. Unless you bury your interests, your principles, and just pick the horse that's going to win - you'll actually end up using your university-education for raging at people who cannot read, on the internet.
That's how much of a failure you'll be if you think standards and properly programmed solutions - or just plain obvious truth - matter over a huge advertisement budget.
They don't.
Not only that - it's not just more successful to go for lies and bullshit - it's actually going to be negative for you if you stick to what you believe in. Really, don't do it. Unless it has something to do with your favourite multi-billion corporation ruling the world, obviously. Then pursue your dream, confidently.
That's how much of a failure you'll be if you think standards and properly programmed solutions - or just plain obvious truth - matter over a huge advertisement budget.
They don't.
Not only that - it's not just more successful to go for lies and bullshit - it's actually going to be negative for you if you stick to what you believe in. Really, don't do it. Unless it has something to do with your favourite multi-billion corporation ruling the world, obviously. Then pursue your dream, confidently.
I mean, "Beat" can kind of be looked at subjectively. It costs more to build a PC that can produce those amazing graphics than it does to drop 299 on a console and another 60 on a high-quality game, doesn't it? I know a lot of my buddies have incredible machines, including one guy that has built a full-on 3-D machine that he runs FFXIV on. I'm not really much of a PC guy, so i don't know. Can you folks out there build a PC capable of that screen shot's graphics for under $400? (I wouldn't be surprised if you could, actually. ;p)
$400 is what it costs on average to keep an existing PC up to date and capable of playing all the new games on high detail levels, every 2 to 3 years.VonBrewskie said:
Per month that amounts to $13. Full priced console games cost 60. Full price on PC is 50, though 60 is becoming more common. Then again we got Steam specials and prices drop fast within a couple months.
So, the break even point is at about 1 new game per month. After that PC gaming becomes cheaper, for gamers who can upgrade their own rigs.