Will console graphics ever beat PC graphics?
- Thread starter 6unn3r
- Start date
Recommended Videos
With all of the PC gamers stating time and time again that this assertion is COMPLETELY false, it baffles me that there are people still going around saying PC gaming is a ridiculous money pit and requires an upgrade every year or two.lostzombies.com said:
If you're spending more than $600 to build the PC, and upgrading more than once every three years or so, you're doing it wrong (or you work with high-end CGI and/or you have a lot of dispensable income).
^^^ This (Denamic). But I'll also chuck in what I was going to say 
EDIT: Ruddy hell there were a lot of replies since the one I was "this"ing. Obviously a hot topic. Den's still up there somewhere...
-
It's a silly question, largely because there is no "standard PC" model to compare to, and the power level has varied massively over time, and even within each generation. Right now you can go out and buy a sub-1ghz netbook, or all the parts to build yourself an insanely powerful 8-core tri-SLI 1000w-PSU game annihilating monster, depending on your needs and how much you want to spend, and it's still a PC. The sheer total customisability of the PC platform in terms of graphics cards alone (from none/built-in mobile nastiness thru to several double-width PCI x16 turbonutters that require their own cooling and power feeds and each cost as much as a PS3) utterly nullifies the question.
It'd be like going back to the interwar period and asking "will stock family cars ever be able to outperform track racers?". Probably not, no, but there's a squillion different categories of motor race, whereas most "normal" cars fit a reasonably narrow size, performance and cost profile for the time they're in, as they're having to compete with fairly similar peers on both price and performance/quality. It's much the same as your choice being from Wii thru X360 to PS3 (a little economy car thru to a luxury tourer - with the DS/PSP representing scooters and everyday motorbikes).
You can have very lightweight dirt track racers with open frames and low cc engines that are fantastic on their own courses - and are a very cheap class of racing to get into - but would be beaten in a straight line on a tarmac road by an old Fiat 500 (these'd be your netbooks), or you can have fire-breathing dragsters and formula one paved-circuit cars where every part is custom designed and manufactured, and checked/replaced/improved after each race (your expensive game-focussed rigs).
So no, I doubt they ever will. They never really did, anyway, except for maybe the very early days of each generation - general purpose computers quite rapidly beat game-focussed consoles on sound and graphics not long after the start of each gen before this one, if they already weren't, and always were on top in terms of CPU performance. But they always were and still generally are more expensive... a computer at the same price as a console won't be as good as that console, as I've explained elsewhere.
Not everyone wants a formula one car, not for their everyday ride anyway, and the insurance & fuel bills are crippling
But it'll still piss all over a Veyron from a great height, never mind that the Bugatti is massively better in most ways compared to its equivalent from a few generations back (as is your grandmother's shopping hatch; a basic ford fiesta now could give a gen 1 GTi a run for its money, whereas the original fiesta would be nowhere). If having the absolute very best is your thing, put your money where your mouth is and get the custom-build track racer.
EDIT: Ruddy hell there were a lot of replies since the one I was "this"ing. Obviously a hot topic. Den's still up there somewhere...
-
It's a silly question, largely because there is no "standard PC" model to compare to, and the power level has varied massively over time, and even within each generation. Right now you can go out and buy a sub-1ghz netbook, or all the parts to build yourself an insanely powerful 8-core tri-SLI 1000w-PSU game annihilating monster, depending on your needs and how much you want to spend, and it's still a PC. The sheer total customisability of the PC platform in terms of graphics cards alone (from none/built-in mobile nastiness thru to several double-width PCI x16 turbonutters that require their own cooling and power feeds and each cost as much as a PS3) utterly nullifies the question.
It'd be like going back to the interwar period and asking "will stock family cars ever be able to outperform track racers?". Probably not, no, but there's a squillion different categories of motor race, whereas most "normal" cars fit a reasonably narrow size, performance and cost profile for the time they're in, as they're having to compete with fairly similar peers on both price and performance/quality. It's much the same as your choice being from Wii thru X360 to PS3 (a little economy car thru to a luxury tourer - with the DS/PSP representing scooters and everyday motorbikes).
You can have very lightweight dirt track racers with open frames and low cc engines that are fantastic on their own courses - and are a very cheap class of racing to get into - but would be beaten in a straight line on a tarmac road by an old Fiat 500 (these'd be your netbooks), or you can have fire-breathing dragsters and formula one paved-circuit cars where every part is custom designed and manufactured, and checked/replaced/improved after each race (your expensive game-focussed rigs).
So no, I doubt they ever will. They never really did, anyway, except for maybe the very early days of each generation - general purpose computers quite rapidly beat game-focussed consoles on sound and graphics not long after the start of each gen before this one, if they already weren't, and always were on top in terms of CPU performance. But they always were and still generally are more expensive... a computer at the same price as a console won't be as good as that console, as I've explained elsewhere.
Not everyone wants a formula one car, not for their everyday ride anyway, and the insurance & fuel bills are crippling
But it'll still piss all over a Veyron from a great height, never mind that the Bugatti is massively better in most ways compared to its equivalent from a few generations back (as is your grandmother's shopping hatch; a basic ford fiesta now could give a gen 1 GTi a run for its money, whereas the original fiesta would be nowhere). If having the absolute very best is your thing, put your money where your mouth is and get the custom-build track racer.
Im going to come out of nowhere and say yes...then add a big technically.
It is possible that the moment a new console comes out, it is using secret technology that Nvidia or Radeon didn't get their hands on. Suddenly, Consoles have something PCs don't, and could have better graphics. However, once that happens, it will be a few months until PCs have something comparable, then something better. And then it will be the consoles entire life cycle before they get a chance to get on top again. This generation is particularly in favor of PCs graphics wise, because its been so long since they made new hardware. I'm pretty sure that when the 360 came out, I had a single core computer, and now I have 6 times that.
Also, Crysis isn't that hard to run on high anymore, and it was never difficult to run for a remotely decent gaming PC
It is possible that the moment a new console comes out, it is using secret technology that Nvidia or Radeon didn't get their hands on. Suddenly, Consoles have something PCs don't, and could have better graphics. However, once that happens, it will be a few months until PCs have something comparable, then something better. And then it will be the consoles entire life cycle before they get a chance to get on top again. This generation is particularly in favor of PCs graphics wise, because its been so long since they made new hardware. I'm pretty sure that when the 360 came out, I had a single core computer, and now I have 6 times that.
Also, Crysis isn't that hard to run on high anymore, and it was never difficult to run for a remotely decent gaming PC
I think at this point, even though console graphics will never overtake a PC, that gap can appear to become a little smaller sometimes. A lot of what keeps some of the newest console games still looking good is special software that is written to do specific tricks with the dated graphics processor or using forced perspective to give the illusion that what you see rendered is bigger and more detailed than it really is.
It's funny that this is has not always been the case as far as PC graphics outdoing console graphics. I can remember when computers from certain companies shipped with non-upgradable hardware like the Commodore 64 or Amiga. At the most, you could increase RAM and add other specific purpose devices to it, but the graphical capabilities were always hard set. Like today, special software functions had to be written to achieve new effects with the dated hardware.
Even in the early 90s when the Sega Genesis and Super Nintendo were on the market, they were doing things that PCs could only dream of doing graphically. It was simpler times though with less-complicated hardware. The Xbox 360 and PS3 are essentially PCs with proprietary hardware and software of their own that can't be upgraded, that is all that still keeps them classified as Consoles.
At the end of the day though, what really matters is the gameplay. It can look good, but if it's unplayable then it's a waste of money. Bells and whistles are good and all but it's a waste of money if you're falling through the scenery.
It's funny that this is has not always been the case as far as PC graphics outdoing console graphics. I can remember when computers from certain companies shipped with non-upgradable hardware like the Commodore 64 or Amiga. At the most, you could increase RAM and add other specific purpose devices to it, but the graphical capabilities were always hard set. Like today, special software functions had to be written to achieve new effects with the dated hardware.
Even in the early 90s when the Sega Genesis and Super Nintendo were on the market, they were doing things that PCs could only dream of doing graphically. It was simpler times though with less-complicated hardware. The Xbox 360 and PS3 are essentially PCs with proprietary hardware and software of their own that can't be upgraded, that is all that still keeps them classified as Consoles.
At the end of the day though, what really matters is the gameplay. It can look good, but if it's unplayable then it's a waste of money. Bells and whistles are good and all but it's a waste of money if you're falling through the scenery.
I think consoles will mostly be behind PCs graphics wise but eventually all of these systems will become equal once we achieve holodeck level of game/image/interaction. We'll all probably be dead by then though.
The question is so biased it's impossible to answer. I have a 386 sitting in my basement. My 360 looks a hell of a lot better than any game that can run on that PC. Does that count as a far comparison? On the other hand, my console is 5ish years old and my computer has a 1 year old graphics card, so my computer has the potential to look better than any console game, but I don't notice any appreciable difference (I don't have Crysis, that was an impressive screenshot). So if the first comparison is unfair, why is the second one fair? Are we saying that upgrading is an inherent function of PC gaming? That after the several hundred dollars you spend on your initial PC purchase, it's expected for you to spend several hundred more over it's life buying new hardware? If that's the base assumption, then sure, when your console is over a year old, PC graphics will look better. I don't know why we care.
The better question: Does it matter?
Crysis looks great, sure. Who gives a shit? The two games I've spent the last few months playing pretty much nonstop are Starcraft 2 and Minecraft. Starcraft 2 is hardly a realistic graphical powerhouse, it's a very stylized and ritualized gameplay that is fun.
Minecraft went the way I wish most games would go and cut back on graphics to make wonderful gameplay.
Hell, I still play Tetris, because it's addictive as hell. It's a fun game with simple graphics.
So tell me, what's the point of graphics looking better when it's still the same game you played 10 years ago, with new skins and fancier particle effects?
The better question: Does it matter?
Crysis looks great, sure. Who gives a shit? The two games I've spent the last few months playing pretty much nonstop are Starcraft 2 and Minecraft. Starcraft 2 is hardly a realistic graphical powerhouse, it's a very stylized and ritualized gameplay that is fun.
Minecraft went the way I wish most games would go and cut back on graphics to make wonderful gameplay.
Hell, I still play Tetris, because it's addictive as hell. It's a fun game with simple graphics.
So tell me, what's the point of graphics looking better when it's still the same game you played 10 years ago, with new skins and fancier particle effects?
Not unless the consoles are willing to become more expensive so they can afford the better parts.
Everyone keeps saying consoles evolve in fixed steps every 5-8 years whereas PC's are always slowly evolving. and i don't understand that because my decent rig, that will admittedly become obsolete by next summer, can of course run Modern Warfare perfectly on high and native res, while another Xbox360(and PC)game, Assassins Creed 2 makes my PC bleed with its graphical demands. so what i up with that?
No because console technology only advances when a new console is made, whilst PC technology is constantly evolving.
There will be a point where graphics reach a plateau for both systems, but console will never top PC.
There will be a point where graphics reach a plateau for both systems, but console will never top PC.
I'm genuinely STAGGERED by the ignorance in this post. Everything you just said is a tired stereotype.Archangel357 said:
As has been said for years now, $600-700 will get you a PC that blows any console out of the water, and has more varied uses as well.
Secondly, I don't know a single person who buys "über-powered, nitrogen-cooled, megabucks desktop PCs," as that's an extremely small percentage of the PC gamers. Chances are, those people are either filthy rich, a hobbyist, or professional gaming is their actual job.
Third, your assumption that basically all PC gamers are filthy pirates. Bull. Fucking. Shit. Piracy is a problem, and it's more prevalent on PC than any other platform, I will not deny that. But you're still talking out of your ass. Xbox 360 piracy is rampant, Nintendo DS piracy is HORRIFYING. And yet, it's still only the PC that gets the flak for it.
Finally, your last sentence basically lost you any credibility you might have had. You basically think that PC gamers have no right to their platform of choice?
Folks, I believe we have a console elitist here.
Possibly not, but I have never honestly seen that big a a difference. I have played on extremely high end PCs and while the graphics a slightly better, it is never that significant.
Someone call the fire department. We have an elitist flame-war brewing here.
Someone call the fire department. We have an elitist flame-war brewing here.
no since PC,s are modular (a user can upgrade its capabilities whenever they want) basicly means PC programmers have no limits unlike consoles that have set limitation,s
