Will console graphics ever beat PC graphics?
- Thread starter 6unn3r
- Start date
Recommended Videos
My cheap PC isn't all that great but I can run all my favourite titles on high - very high graphics. Sure, I had to uninstall Crysis after my Windows 7 trial ran out and I could only run it at a level that caused horrible graphics glitches but what you should be saying is that 'Will console graphics ever beat the potential of PC graphics?'
What my PC runs and what it could run if I bought several hundred dollars worth of the latest hardware are two completely different things. Even if the next console generation can run 'Crysis Guy vs. the Na'vi: Episode 7, Let's just kill them beforehand, part 2, 40d, etc.' they will only beat the potential of PCs for about a week.
Also, I'm Australian so a new console game, or an old one occasionally (Halo 3 and Saints Row 1 bizarrely), will cost me a good $120AUD, while a new game on steam will cost me anything from $88AUD (Bugger off MW2) to $40AUD (Dead Rising 2). So in my personal opinion I'll only give a shit about consoles when upgrading my computer becomes more expensive than buying my games on the console.
What my PC runs and what it could run if I bought several hundred dollars worth of the latest hardware are two completely different things. Even if the next console generation can run 'Crysis Guy vs. the Na'vi: Episode 7, Let's just kill them beforehand, part 2, 40d, etc.' they will only beat the potential of PCs for about a week.
Also, I'm Australian so a new console game, or an old one occasionally (Halo 3 and Saints Row 1 bizarrely), will cost me a good $120AUD, while a new game on steam will cost me anything from $88AUD (Bugger off MW2) to $40AUD (Dead Rising 2). So in my personal opinion I'll only give a shit about consoles when upgrading my computer becomes more expensive than buying my games on the console.
gotcha. that makes sense. A there is no doubt in my mind that PC's are capable of a higher level of detail. Still, don't you have to include the price of a hi-def monitor in that 400 dollars? Those are pretty pricey aren't they? (I don't know.) Also, with my PS3 for example, I did one minor 65$ upgrade to put a 320gb HD in, but other than that my PS3 has been untouched since 2007. I do think though that the price of peripherals tends to up the cost of my console a bit. But it's a one time cost.veloper said:
No because PC's will always be more powerful (larger and more compatible with various hardware) so they can't be beaten.
No.
An explanation: A PC, even a fairly "weak" one, has at it's command resources that shame a console. A game optimized to use the exact hardware/software configuration of a relevant gaming pc of the era will look better than the equivalent console game.
Of course, there is an addendum. A PC game does not, necessarily, look better than it's console counterpart as the PC version of a game has to be able to scale in relation to the hardware. There is no such need in the Console version because the hardware will be, for all intents and purposes, identical across all iterations of the console. If the developer chooses to not let the game scale, then the result will not look any better. As a further addendum, just because the PC has more power doesn't mean it has unlimited power. My old gaming machine certainly put my 360 to shame on all fronts and yet It struggled to play GTA IV because little work had been done to optimize it for the PC platform.
So, the real answer is up in the air. Theoretically, it ought to be no if we compare optimized games. Realistically, the PC game often looks identical to the console counterpart. In actual fact, there are times when the PC version has worse graphics in spite of having more power at it's command.
An explanation: A PC, even a fairly "weak" one, has at it's command resources that shame a console. A game optimized to use the exact hardware/software configuration of a relevant gaming pc of the era will look better than the equivalent console game.
Of course, there is an addendum. A PC game does not, necessarily, look better than it's console counterpart as the PC version of a game has to be able to scale in relation to the hardware. There is no such need in the Console version because the hardware will be, for all intents and purposes, identical across all iterations of the console. If the developer chooses to not let the game scale, then the result will not look any better. As a further addendum, just because the PC has more power doesn't mean it has unlimited power. My old gaming machine certainly put my 360 to shame on all fronts and yet It struggled to play GTA IV because little work had been done to optimize it for the PC platform.
So, the real answer is up in the air. Theoretically, it ought to be no if we compare optimized games. Realistically, the PC game often looks identical to the console counterpart. In actual fact, there are times when the PC version has worse graphics in spite of having more power at it's command.
Yes. The day that a console company can patent something that is so much more advanced by leaps and bounds than anything ever and then sell it via their individual console, we'll have a console that exclusively has teh power to be the best graphics on teh market. But that day will never come.
I love Crysis. It's open-ended mission structure is just... awesome. People say it has poor gameplay and shining graphics, but honestly, I think the gameplay is sheer amazing, and the graphics just add to the immersion. Once the "WOW!" factor wears off, there's a surprisingly tactical action FPS in there!Xzi said:
There is a measurable improvement in the hardware of gaming PCs between Christmases. It takes a full generational cycle to see the same improvement in consoles. So no, consoles will never match PCs in terms of graphical capability.
Monitors last many PC upgrades and 22" screens have become so cheap, so there's just no point factoring them in.VonBrewskie said:
Neither do I calculate the cost of the TV you need. You'd prolly have a TV and a monitor (and a PC) anyway even if you didn't play any games at all.
Hell, I didn't even factor in the cost of a console itself and PC gaming still comes out favourably.
If we knew how long the current console cycle was going to be (always used to be 5 years), we could do something like $500 / X years, for a console gamer who got the PS3 at launch in november 2006 and will buy the PS4 at launch aswell.
Suppose a PS4 in 2012 before xmas, then that would be $7/month for an up-to-date console VS $13/m for a PC.
No.
Because it's impossible to update Graphic cards in consoles.
And that after a month of a new console, some hardware dev will make a better one.
Because it's impossible to update Graphic cards in consoles.
And that after a month of a new console, some hardware dev will make a better one.
