Will console graphics ever beat PC graphics?
- Thread starter 6unn3r
- Start date
Recommended Videos
My educated guess tells me that the next xbox will be called the Xbox 720.SuperNashwan said:
I agree with what you said.
Simple answer is no
there will be a point in the future where they simply cannot develop better graphics so consoles wont have better graphics but will eventually match them
As it stands right now, a pc graphics card is already out of date as soon as it's released and PCs have the advantage of being able to swap out their graphics cards as soon as you want. Consoles need to be built from the ground up again to incorporate a new graphics card so yeah, they can't match PCs for graphics atm but development has a limit of possiblity
I still love my console though
there will be a point in the future where they simply cannot develop better graphics so consoles wont have better graphics but will eventually match them
As it stands right now, a pc graphics card is already out of date as soon as it's released and PCs have the advantage of being able to swap out their graphics cards as soon as you want. Consoles need to be built from the ground up again to incorporate a new graphics card so yeah, they can't match PCs for graphics atm but development has a limit of possiblity
I still love my console though
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeell... that's something of a complex question.
Firstly, PC games usually allow for customizable graphics. It's not uncommon for some users to put their graphics setting "one step beyond" what their system can really handle, just because it looks prettier, whereas other will cut the graphics to lower than they know works, for the added stability and increased frame rates.
Secondly, games that are designed for consoles will be worked to give the maximum graphics for that particular console, meaning that if it is ported to PC, it usually won't look any better than it does on the system it was designed for. A lot of developers tend to work primarily with consoles these days, so there's no real need for them to move beyond the requirements of consoles systems, simply because PC gamers, never mind those with specs higher than the console in question, tend to make up less than half of their audience.
Finally, if you consider a console and PC with the same hardware, a console will always win out on graphics, because it doesn't need to run as much in the background (console operating systems are much simplier, compared to PC operating systems). Of course, at the present time, it's possible to upgrade a PC later in it's operation, because of Moore's Law, simply put, about every 1.5 years semiconductor devices half in size and power requirements, but double in speed. Of course, what a lot of people don't realize though, it that there is a limit to Moore's Law*, meaning you can only fit a finite amount of computing power in a given space. Of course, it's very likely that by the time we do hit this limit the actual difference in graphical quality will be completely negligible, though it's likely that consoles will be somewhat cheaper.
*Semiconductor devices simply can't be built at smaller scales, because Quantum effects tend to rear their ugly head, the most simple semiconductor, for example, the PN junction, doesn't work if the p-type and n-type substrates are only a few atoms wide, due to the wave nature of electrons. This doesn't even begin to factor in effects such as metal migration, that you'd see in CMOS devices. If you don't understand this explanation, don't worry, very few people do!
Firstly, PC games usually allow for customizable graphics. It's not uncommon for some users to put their graphics setting "one step beyond" what their system can really handle, just because it looks prettier, whereas other will cut the graphics to lower than they know works, for the added stability and increased frame rates.
Secondly, games that are designed for consoles will be worked to give the maximum graphics for that particular console, meaning that if it is ported to PC, it usually won't look any better than it does on the system it was designed for. A lot of developers tend to work primarily with consoles these days, so there's no real need for them to move beyond the requirements of consoles systems, simply because PC gamers, never mind those with specs higher than the console in question, tend to make up less than half of their audience.
Finally, if you consider a console and PC with the same hardware, a console will always win out on graphics, because it doesn't need to run as much in the background (console operating systems are much simplier, compared to PC operating systems). Of course, at the present time, it's possible to upgrade a PC later in it's operation, because of Moore's Law, simply put, about every 1.5 years semiconductor devices half in size and power requirements, but double in speed. Of course, what a lot of people don't realize though, it that there is a limit to Moore's Law*, meaning you can only fit a finite amount of computing power in a given space. Of course, it's very likely that by the time we do hit this limit the actual difference in graphical quality will be completely negligible, though it's likely that consoles will be somewhat cheaper.
*Semiconductor devices simply can't be built at smaller scales, because Quantum effects tend to rear their ugly head, the most simple semiconductor, for example, the PN junction, doesn't work if the p-type and n-type substrates are only a few atoms wide, due to the wave nature of electrons. This doesn't even begin to factor in effects such as metal migration, that you'd see in CMOS devices. If you don't understand this explanation, don't worry, very few people do!
Yes, they can, and likely will. When the next generation of consoles hit the market they will probably outpace PC hardware at the time. Most console companies pay oodles of cash to get hold of not only the most powerful PC hardware at the time, but to modify it to increase it's capabilities. However, upon release, it's maybe one to five months (at most a year) before PC's begin to far outpace console hardware. It's always been, and will always be, a cyclical process.6unn3r said:
You don't actually seem to disagree all that much. Your statement that people who buy "the megabucks PCs" is pretty much exactly what Archangel said when said that buying those machines is "on the wane" and most people just get an "$800 laptop." His point was that to play Crysis on the settings that make it look that good, you do need a several thousand dollar machine.JeanLuc761 said:
Next, on piracy. Quite frankly, I could, right now, pirate any PC game because it's very easy. I have no idea how to pirate a 360 or DS game. Do I need to mod my system? Where do I get the games from? Are you talking about illegal, cracked copies you can buy in China and Russia that most westerners can't get their hands on? Or is there really some method to do this that is as easy as bittorrent with PC games?
And finally, Archangel never said you don't have a right to the platform of choice (which isn't really a right anyways. The right is the right to own property, more specifically, spend your money how you choose). He said that he wonders when developers will give up on it. He's not denying you any rights, you're free to buy any gaming platform you want. But if you buy an N64, don't expect new games to be developed, because there is no money for developers in it. And frankly, the PC gaming market is shrinking. Only big name, PC-only brands, like Starcraft 2 and Civ 5, which were the best selling video games when they were released, are able to compete with console games.
You always have the right to upgrade your PC. Hell, I need to do it because Civ5 can only run in Dx9 on my system. But the market is shrinking and the console market is growing.
Nothing Archangel said sounds console elitist to me, it's pretty much true.
It's possible I let my emotions get ahead of me or misinterpreted his intent, but I do see a lot of elitism from his post (as well as a lot of things that are factually wrong).bojac6 said:
$700 and you can run Crysis perfectly at max settings.
Piracy on PC is indeed a simple task compared to other systems, I'll grant you, but the fact is that PC is the only one that people use as an excuse. The assumption as to just how many people on PC are decent, honest people is more than a little aggravating as well.
Finally, the last line of his "The question is when people will stop programming games (or optimising graphics) for the handful of pirating, faux-élitist people out there."
Really comes across as inflammatory.
Right, I clearly misinterpreted your intent and for that I apologize. Your wording didn't really convey your position very well.Archangel357 said:
I would like to see the 80-90% of all PC games are pirated though.
I think the biggest reason is price. PC gamers are willing to throw down above $2000 on a computer, while people have trouble spending $300 on a console, its just the way the market works. Let put it like this, the screen shot given by the OP is probably on a computer that is >$3000. I find that if you take a PC that is $300 and compare it to a PS3 that is also $300, then obviously the PS3 would be crazy better. Most people can not tell the slight differences anyway. So yes PC graphics will always be slightly better until they start charge $2000 for a PS3.
I should probably stop responding to this thread after my royal @#$!-up a few posts above, but here we go again.Msalyani said:
Yes, some PC's cost $2000. As a general rule, those are over-priced, pre-built systems that anyone with some knowledge in PC's could build for less than half that price.
Wait, how old is your computer? Mine's getting on but it still runs everything that I throw it on high or a mixture of Medium and high. (It cost $1500 AUS though).GrizzlerBorno said: