Id follows Crytek, Lucas Arts

[WaitingForNehalem]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

It looks like you are the one who is uneducated. Two different viewpoints exist. 1001-2000 or 1000-1999 both represent the second millennium.

One is a populist cultural misnomer, the other is reality. Using the populist "viewpoint" one millenium only had 999 years, which contradicts the definition of the word quite clearly.

Yes I like the Gran Tursimo series too and if it was on the pc I could tell you the FPS but since it is not your question isn't valid.

It is exceptionally valid, and the core of the issue as to why platform bigots viewpoints, be they PC or console zealots, isn't worth much in discussions about differing gaming platforms. You cut yourself off from a whole bunch of games and then declare that your system of choice is 'the best' and can beat the others. It can't beat the others if it can't run the games at all.

Umm, 1001-2000 and 1000-1999 have the same amount of years. Except instead of counting 1001 as the starting year you choose 1000 as the starting year. 1+999=1000! I take it math isn't your strongest field.

CS is on the consoles, that seems to be the point you aren't getting. The mods that people really care about, come over.

Ooo, good job there. You googled Counterstrike and found there was an Xbox port. What you didn't read is that it was aweful and nobody plays it anyways because online console games don't last.

You know BenSkywalker, this is my thread and you don't contribute anything at all. You just give out personal attacks and horrible information so could you please go be arrogant somewhere else?

 

[Anubis]

This thread is comicial, so many people being stupid

 

[BenSkywalker]

Umm, 1001-2000 and 1000-1999 have the same amount of years. Except instead of counting 1001 as the starting year you choose 1000 as the starting year. 1+999=1000! I take it math isn't your strongest field.

Actually math is, it is precisely because of this that I am aware that the concept of 0 didn't exist when the modern calendar was created(Mayans are the ones that first started using it). Due to this the first year on the modern calendar was 1. There was never a year 0. If you can't figure the rest out, I'm sorry, I can't help you.

Ooo, good job there. You googled Counterstrike and found there was an Xbox port. What you didn't read is that it was aweful and nobody plays it anyways because online console games don't last.

Why the hell would I need Google to know about a game release? Perhaps you missed it the first few dozen times I said it- I'm not a platform bigot- I am a gamer. Trust me, it wasn't a big secret that they realesed CS on the XBox. Every gamer knew it when it happened. Some platform bigots missed it I'm sure.

You know BenSkywalker, this is my thread and you don't contribute anything at all.

Debunking your BS is something. Someone start a thread in the Vid forum telling everyone they should go buy a FX5200 they get ripped apart for idiocy as well they should.

You just give out personal attacks and horrible information so could you please go be arrogant somewhere else?

What horrible information? Reality? You do give the impression that is something you can't stand dealing with.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
Why do you spend most of your time in town? You picking up all the cups and plates you find? Just as a general hint- really no need for that. Also no need to grab every piece of raider armor off every guy you kill, really. I guess I just don't know people that suck as bad at inventory management as you are implying you do.

The game's carry limit is about 250lbs. The armor you wear is 45lbs. Assault rifle + RPG = 30 more pounds. Almost every enemy drops a chinese assault rifle and chest armor which is about 20 pounds per monster. That means after killing maybe 5-10 enemies, you need to warp back to town. To put that into perspective, my character in the PC version is carrying over 10,000lbs of items.

Maybe you and your console gamer friends would also be interested in buying a first person shooter where you spend 90% of the time playing tetris.

I play on all systems, I don't care what a game comes out for- if it's good, I can play it. I understand- you must hold on to your platform bigotry, it is important to you, I am far more interested in the games.

I own an Xbox too, but I can't play it because it's bricked right now. If you want to know why PC gamers rage on consoles, shit like this is why. I can get a Wii with 10 year old graphics and absolutely piss poor online, I can get a PS3 and accept paying $70 for a game, or I can get an Xbox that has a 100% chance of breaking down (I don't know a single person with their original 360). Either that or I could play games on the PC that I would own anyway and have backward compatibility with all games made in the last 20 years, including console games. I'm using a platform that's superior in every conceivable way, and yet developers will put all their work into making the game optimized for my bricked Xbox. I didn't even buy that thing to play games; I just wanted to use it as a cheap $200 media center, and it still broke.

DoF was brought to you by PC devs, and a lot of people use that as is simulates proper image distortion based on atmospheric issues when viewing objects at a great distance when the water content in the air reaches a certain point. With that said, GT doesn't use DoF. "Field of view"- btw- is in every 3D game ever made- it has to be- it's how you see and has nothing to do with blurring

I mixed up two different ideas in that last post. The "field of view" problem in console games is where the person you control has tunnel vision. It's fairly reasonable in most games, but it was very poorly done in Fallout 3. In Fallout, the FOV is set to 70 or 75 degrees. If course since you don't have tunnel vision while your character does, the game becomes very nauseating when rotating and moving around. The developers didn't do that just to be assholes. They did that because lowering the FOV means you need to render only 75 degrees of the world instead of 90 degrees.

Depth of field option in Fallout 3 and Dead Space supposedly represent the way your eye focuses on one distance at a time. If you're looking at me, the wall behind me will appear blurry. It has nothing to do with the atmosphere or refracting light or anything. Developers add that to the game and say "it makes it realistic" but really it's just to hide the fact that they don't want to pixel shade anything farther than 20 feet away, most likely because they can't. The more "realistic" approach would be if I could clearly see things that are at a distance. I can go outside in real life and see things a football field away without it appearing blurry (unless I'm not wearing glasses), so using the blur and saying it's realistic is just bullshit. They also use that argument with motion blur, and that too is a lame excuse not to draw the image properly.

It will very likely last until that time. Dead Space and Fallout 3 are only half a year old and neither of them even come close to maxing out the CPU. That E6600 has already lasted 3 years without a problem, and it'll be another 2+ before it comes a major issue. The budget still has another $300 to be spent over the next 2 years and I'm nowhere near requiring a video card upgrade.

Processor, RAM, mobo, vid card and OS- you didn't list off what you built with.

It's an E6600 at 3ghz, 4gb ram, 320gb OS drive and games are installed on a ~700gb "span" across 4 old hard drives. It was first built with Windows XP Pro but it was later upgraded to Vista Business when I switched the house over to Vista. The motherboard is an Asus P5LD2. Video card is a GeForce 7950GT. There was a time that it had a better video card, but my friend asked for it back because he was building an SLI setup.

My games computer is actually the second oldest computer in my house. My file server is newer and has a lot more CPU power, but it uses integrated video and has less ram.

There were lots of good console FPS games before that. Zero Tolerance on Genesis was good, Doom on SNES was good, Goldeneye for N64 was amazing, PS1 had the Medal of Honor series and I thought they played well.

You are kidding, right? I can only assume you weren't playing PC games during that timeframe. Fire up Goldeneye(the only game on your list that could possibly be confused with good) today and see how it plays. That game came out at the same time as Half-Life. Everything else on your list was absolute garbage. I've always played all the systems, it isn't something new for me

[/quote]
Wait you're saying Goldeneye is bad but Halo is good? Are you trolling?

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

I'm using a platform that's superior in every conceivable way, and yet developers will put all their work into making the game optimized for my bricked Xbox.

Exactly!

 

[BenSkywalker]

The game's carry limit is about 250lbs. The armor you wear is 45lbs. Assault rifle + RPG = 30 more pounds. Almost every enemy drops a chinese assault rifle and chest armor which is about 20 pounds per monster. That means after killing maybe 5-10 enemies, you need to warp back to town.

Why are you picking all that crap up is the question? Even wearing the power armor and helm and carryng one of each weapon(energy, small, large and melee) around I have no problems at all clearing out large areas between fast travels. Money an issue for you? I ran out of stuff to buy in the game before level 20. BTW- If you have higher strength and take strong back you can your carry limit closer to 300.

I can get a Wii with 10 year old graphics and absolutely piss poor online, I can get a PS3 and accept paying $70 for a game, or I can get an Xbox that has a 100% chance of breaking down (I don't know a single person with their original 360).

What country do you live in? PS3 games for $70?

Either that or I could play games on the PC that I would own anyway and have backward compatibility with all games made in the last 20 years, including console games.

Heh, you tried to get DOS games to work under Vista?

I'm using a platform that's superior in every conceivable way

Besides processor power, OS overhead, driver overhead, sketchy driver support and no idea what hardware configuration your code will be running on?

I didn't even buy that thing to play games; I just wanted to use it as a cheap $200 media center, and it still broke.

PS3 is a FAR better media center box, isn't even close. As far as hardware reliability, that is certainly a major issue for the 360 this gen. I got rid of my personal 360(kids still have theirs, so I still play it) and picked up a second PS3 to have in the living room because of how well it worked as a media server.

I mixed up two different ideas in that last post. The "field of view" problem in console games is where the person you control has tunnel vision. It's fairly reasonable in most games, but it was very poorly done in Fallout 3. In Fallout, the FOV is set to 70 or 75 degrees. If course since you don't have tunnel vision while your character does, the game becomes very nauseating when rotating and moving around. The developers didn't do that just to be assholes. They did that because lowering the FOV means you need to render only 75 degrees of the world instead of 90 degrees.

Huh? This was a problem native to the PC, and it was an issue as the PC didn't adjust when running widescreen resolutions- the consoles use a wider FoV by default as they natively ran widescreen. Odd that you would bring up a problem with the PC version that the consoles didn't have.

I can go outside in real life and see things a football field away without it appearing blurry (unless I'm not wearing glasses), so using the blur and saying it's realistic is just bullshit.

A football field? We were talking about GT5, some of the distances you are looking at on straights are over a mile, 14 football fields and some change At that distance, things should get blurry, but they don't as GT doesn't use DoF or any other blurs.

It's an E6600 at 3ghz, 4gb ram, 320gb OS drive and games are installed on a ~700gb "span" across 4 old hard drives. It was first built with Windows XP Pro but it was later upgraded to Vista Business when I switched the house over to Vista. The motherboard is an Asus P5LD2. Video card is a GeForce 7950GT. There was a time that it had a better video card, but my friend asked for it back because he was building an SLI setup.

2GBs of RAM, Vista and 2 video cards so far then. That sounds pretty close to where I'm at(not quite, but close).

Wait you're saying Goldeneye is bad but Halo is good? Are you trolling?

Goldeneye wasn't ever really good. PCs stomped consoles senseless for FPS in that era. Fire up HL, then fire up Goldeneye. Halo was at least playable compared to PC shooters of the era, Goldeneye wasn't. That was one of those titles the console bigots of the time thought was awesome and the PC boys rightly lauged their asses off at them.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

The game's carry limit is about 250lbs. The armor you wear is 45lbs. Assault rifle + RPG = 30 more pounds. Almost every enemy drops a chinese assault rifle and chest armor which is about 20 pounds per monster. That means after killing maybe 5-10 enemies, you need to warp back to town.

Why are you picking all that crap up is the question? Even wearing the power armor and helm and carryng one of each weapon(energy, small, large and melee) around I have no problems at all clearing out large areas between fast travels. Money an issue for you? I ran out of stuff to buy in the game before level 20.

All that crap is how you get money in the game. Aside from selling things, there's really no other way to get money.

I can get a Wii with 10 year old graphics and absolutely piss poor online, I can get a PS3 and accept paying $70 for a game, or I can get an Xbox that has a 100% chance of breaking down (I don't know a single person with their original 360).

What country do you live in? PS3 games for $70?

They cost $70 in Canada. PC games are only $50. PS3 games in Australia cost $110 ($90 US).

Either that or I could play games on the PC that I would own anyway and have backward compatibility with all games made in the last 20 years, including console games.

Heh, you tried to get DOS games to work under Vista?

Yes. They work just fine.

I'm using a platform that's superior in every conceivable way

Besides processor power, OS overhead, driver overhead, sketchy driver support and no idea what hardware configuration your code will be running on?

Processing power? According to those guys who run the Folding@Home project, a video card is 5x faster than a Cell processor. IBM states that the Cell processor only does ~250gflops at single precision (half the speed of a GeForce 8800GT), and 26gflops at double precision. Even my Phenom 9600 is capable of doing 29glops at double precision. An Intel i7 is more than twice that.

I didn't even buy that thing to play games; I just wanted to use it as a cheap $200 media center, and it still broke.

PS3 is a FAR better media center box, isn't even close. As far as hardware reliability, that is certainly a major issue for the 360 this gen. I got rid of my personal 360(kids still have theirs, so I still play it) and picked up a second PS3 to have in the living room because of how well it worked as a media server.

I picked the Xbox because I wanted a cheap media server. The model with no hard drive is only $200, and I can't build a whole PC for that much. You're right that the PS3 is a much better choice for such a job, but then it's $400 and that just ruins it. I ended up building a media computer from maybe 50% old parts. It's a Phenom 9600, some cheap motherboard, and 2gb of ram. Total cost was something like $200 for all the parts I needed. I already had a hard drive, case, and PSU that I could use.

I mixed up two different ideas in that last post. The "field of view" problem in console games is where the person you control has tunnel vision. It's fairly reasonable in most games, but it was very poorly done in Fallout 3. In Fallout, the FOV is set to 70 or 75 degrees. If course since you don't have tunnel vision while your character does, the game becomes very nauseating when rotating and moving around. The developers didn't do that just to be assholes. They did that because lowering the FOV means you need to render only 75 degrees of the world instead of 90 degrees.

Huh? This was a problem native to the PC, and it was an issue as the PC didn't adjust when running widescreen resolutions- the consoles use a wider FoV by default as they natively ran widescreen. Odd that you would bring up a problem with the PC version that the consoles didn't have.

It's very common for consoles to have silly FOV values. Xbox 360's Fallout 3 had the 75 fov, Halo 2's FOV was 70. Killzone 2 also has a messed up FOV but I'm not sure what the value is.

It's an E6600 at 3ghz, 4gb ram, 320gb OS drive and games are installed on a ~700gb "span" across 4 old hard drives. It was first built with Windows XP Pro but it was later upgraded to Vista Business when I switched the house over to Vista. The motherboard is an Asus P5LD2. Video card is a GeForce 7950GT. There was a time that it had a better video card, but my friend asked for it back because he was building an SLI setup.

2GBs of RAM, Vista and 2 video cards so far then. That sounds pretty close to where I'm at(not quite, but close).

???
Did you actually read before you started typing? That computer has had literally no upgrades since I bought it. I bought it with an E6600, 4gb ram, and a 7950GT video card. What does it have right now? It has the exact same parts. And I like how you're trying to tack Vista onto the price of upgrading a gaming platform. Yeah those schools and offices that upgrade operating systems sure are for hardcore gaming platforms. My mom's laptop has Vista too, I guess that makes her a hard core gamer.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker


Goldeneye wasn't ever really good. PCs stomped consoles senseless for FPS in that era. Fire up HL, then fire up Goldeneye. Halo was at least playable compared to PC shooters of the era, Goldeneye wasn't. That was one of those titles the console bigots of the time thought was awesome and the PC boys rightly lauged their asses off at them.

Ive always been a PC fanboy as you put it but Goldeneye was an amazing game, if you cant see that you are an even larger retard then you are making yourself out to be in this thread

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
We should be able to max out any new game with the graphics power we have today but most developers are just lazy coders.

lolol and you know this how?

 

[frythecpuofbender]

You guys have it way too technical and ass backwards.
Gaming is mainstream nowadays, just like movie-going. It was to be expected that the biggest and most expensive titles would degenerate to a common denominator so that they are digestable by the average Joe and his Hockey Mom.
Consoles are only as guilty as they are widespread. If PC would be as easy to use and a little cheaper and had an install base of 10million+ (Geforce8 or higher) we would all cry that the games for PC have become shitty.
Just get used to the fact that your old hobby isn't as l33t as it once was and that you have to cope with the occasional Michael Bay explosion-fest, just like all the shit Hollywood is churning out.
If you want to complain, complain about the fact that the average joe has an IQ that would make Gump proud and that good education and higher sophistication seems to be sorely lacking. Do you really think the average gamer would read through all the backstory a DEUS EX provided back in the day? Dream on.

btw Valve had a nice little Steam statistic a while ago, where they found out that only 15% of all players finished their games, and those are pretty mainstreamy for my taste.

 

[KMFJD]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker


Goldeneye wasn't ever really good. PCs stomped consoles senseless for FPS in that era. Fire up HL, then fire up Goldeneye. Halo was at least playable compared to PC shooters of the era, Goldeneye wasn't. That was one of those titles the console bigots of the time thought was awesome and the PC boys rightly lauged their asses off at them.

Ive always been a PC fanboy as you put it but Goldeneye was an amazing game, if you cant see that you are an even larger retard then you are making yourself out to be in this thread

I tend to agree with BenSkywalker, Goldeneye is/was crap compared to the PC FPS of the same era, however it was great compared to console fps's of that era

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: KMFJD

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker


Goldeneye wasn't ever really good. PCs stomped consoles senseless for FPS in that era. Fire up HL, then fire up Goldeneye. Halo was at least playable compared to PC shooters of the era, Goldeneye wasn't. That was one of those titles the console bigots of the time thought was awesome and the PC boys rightly lauged their asses off at them.

Ive always been a PC fanboy as you put it but Goldeneye was an amazing game, if you cant see that you are an even larger retard then you are making yourself out to be in this thread

I tend to agree with BenSkywalker, Goldeneye is/was crap compared to the PC FPS of the same era, however it was great compared to console fps's of that era

Please provide a list of games (PC or console) that made Goldeneye look like crap around the time of its release. Half-Life is the only thing I can think of that might be in the ballpark. System Shock 2 didn't come out until two years later. Quake II was around the same time as Goldeneye, but I don't know if I would compare it favorably. Unreal Tournament and Counter-Strike weren't released until 1999, but the they offered a fundamentally different experience anyway.

 

[BenSkywalker]

All that crap is how you get money in the game. Aside from selling things, there's really no other way to get money.

To buy what? I had everything for my house, every plan and a huge stock of all consumables bought before hitting level 20 in the game, what do you need all that money for? It isn't like there is really all that much to buy in the game.

They cost $70 in Canada. PC games are only $50. PS3 games in Australia cost $110 ($90 US).

Ouch, here there is only a $10 difference.

Processing power? According to those guys who run the Folding@Home project, a video card is 5x faster than a Cell processor.

Read the fine print, the PC and Cell are very different in the way the calculate out power per chip in use.

IBM states that the Cell processor only does ~250gflops at single precision (half the speed of a GeForce 8800GT), and 26gflops at double precision. Even my Phenom 9600 is capable of doing 29glops at double precision. An Intel i7 is more than twice that.

Now that sounds more like you are getting an idea, the Cell being roughly ten times the power of your processor(unless you can come up with some good DP uses for CPUs playing games).

It's very common for consoles to have silly FOV values.

No, it isn't at all. FOV values should be as close to possible to what your FoV will be when looking at the display. The FoV on a monitor will tend to be wider as you are sitting closer to it. It really has almost no impact at all on performance(fire up HL2 and run some benches, you can adjust the FoV in the console).

Did you actually read before you started typing? That computer has had literally no upgrades since I bought it. I bought it with an E6600, 4gb ram, and a 7950GT video card.

You need 4GB of RAM under XP for what precisely? Why did you upgrade to Vista?

Yeah those schools and offices that upgrade operating systems sure are for hardcore gaming platforms.

The corporation I work for is paying extra to get every new machine delivered with XP. I don't know of any business moving to Vista.

Ive always been a PC fanboy as you put it but Goldeneye was an amazing game, if you cant see that you are an even larger retard then you are making yourself out to be in this thread

Go play the games both, now. Then come back here and try to run off at the mouth, you'll realize how moronic you sound.

Please provide a list of games (PC or console) that made Goldeneye look like crap around the time of its release.

First thing I would suggest is to go back and play Goldeneye first before getting into this discussion. I don't think people realize how bad that game was. I still own the game, still have a functioning N64- the game is pretty much unplayable. The game is pretty much unplayable, Unreal, Quake and HL to name a few are still very much playable today.

I tend to agree with BenSkywalker, Goldeneye is/was crap compared to the PC FPS of the same era, however it was great compared to console fps's of that era

I'd agree that Goldeneye was by far the best shooter seen on consoles at that point, that doesn't mean it was close to the PC's offering of the era.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

IBM states that the Cell processor only does ~250gflops at single precision (half the speed of a GeForce 8800GT), and 26gflops at double precision. Even my Phenom 9600 is capable of doing 29glops at double precision. An Intel i7 is more than twice that.

Now that sounds more like you are getting an idea, the Cell being roughly ten times the power of your processor(unless you can come up with some good DP uses for CPUs playing games).

Did you even read what he wrote? His Phenom 9600 beats a cell processor. That's what I mean when I say you give horrible information. No wait, I can't stand "dealing with reality." :roll:

 

[BenSkywalker]

Did you even read what he wrote? His Phenom 9600 beats a cell processor.

Your name is after a processor architecture?

That's what I mean when I say you give horrible information. No wait, I can't stand "dealing with reality."

How about this- you tell me what gaming calculations use DP. Whatever level you want to use is fine by me, just show me what calculations utilized by a CPU for gaming benefit in any way from DP. The SP performance is what matters, and Cell still crushes i7 and handily so.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Did you even read what he wrote? His Phenom 9600 beats a cell processor.

Your name is after a processor architecture?

That's what I mean when I say you give horrible information. No wait, I can't stand "dealing with reality."

How about this- you tell me what gaming calculations use DP. Whatever level you want to use is fine by me, just show me what calculations utilized by a CPU for gaming benefit in any way from DP. The SP performance is what matters, and Cell still crushes i7 and handily so.

Woo, so instead of admiting you're wrong you just make fun of my screen name. Man you're really mature. Ok, maybe this will make you go away:

PC IS THE WORST GAMING PLATFORM EVER. BENSKYWALKER IS ALWAYS RIGHT AND IS INFALLIBLE. PS3 HAS THE MOST POWERFUL PROCESSOR IN THE UNIVERSE WHICH IS WHY IT CAN RUN GRAN TURISMO 5 SINCE IT HAS THE BEST GRAPHICS IN THE UNIVERSE.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
How about this- you tell me what gaming calculations use DP. Whatever level you want to use is fine by me, just show me what calculations utilized by a CPU for gaming benefit in any way from DP. The SP performance is what matters, and Cell still crushes i7 and handily so.

Single precision calculations are offloaded to the video card. That $105 video card I linked to earlier in the thread, the Radeon 4850, has a total shading power of 1tflop. That's roughly 4x as fast as a PS3. Most articles I've seen about the PS3 say it does 250gflops, the first result I found on google says 200gflops. Bottom line, you get much more processing power out of modern computer parts, not ones that were made 3-4 years ago.

 

[frythecpuofbender]

The SP performance is what matters, and Cell still crushes i7 and handily so.

I can't believe some people are still arguing over such things.
When you can't beat a competitor directly, invent some sub-section benchmark where you pretend to rule and confuse your fanboys or pretend that noone has harnessed the power of playstation yet, cause the developers are too dumb.
haha
There is no game or application on PS3 that dethrones a similar one on a modern PC. The processing power of the PS3 might theoretically be all nice and high but what good does it do if it can't be used without studying japanese for a decade so that you are able to decrypt SONY's internal docs for the thing?

And when I look at KILLZONE2 and other AAA-top-tier PS3 games that don't even render in 720p internally and with no AA whatsoever I wonder if they should have put a second Geforce7900 in there instead of 7 cell cores.

People have to realize how many pixels more a PC can push nowadays.
720p= 921699
1080p=2073600

A PC with any GTX2XX card is able to render more than twice as many pixels plus Anisotropic filtering and AA enabled while maintaining roughly the same performance.

 

[dguy6789]

I can't believe anyone is actually arguing that the PS3 has more hardware muscle than a modern PC. A PC with an i7 and any 4800 graphics card blows the PS3 away. The only reason they could be even remotely close is due to the inherent advantages of a console over a PC by being dedicated hardware to program for versus a range of hardware a PC game is programmed to run on.(Even then the aforementioned PC will look better and run better) Consoles have been known for doing more with less. If a console existed with those specs(i7, HD 4800, etc..) it would be in a different league from anything seen on the PS3.

 

[Jules]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
I can't believe anyone is actually arguing that the PS3 has more hardware muscle than a modern PC. A PC with an i7 and any 4800 graphics card blows the PS3 away. The only reason they could be even remotely close is due to the inherent advantages of a console over a PC by being dedicated hardware to program for versus a range of hardware a PC game is programmed to run on.(Even then the aforementioned PC will look better and run better) Consoles have been known for doing more with less. If a console existed with those specs(i7, HD 4800, etc..) it would be in a different league from anything seen on the PS3.

Lulz.

 

[skace]

There are many things wrong on both sides of this ridiculous argument, however, you've never sounded like such a troll before, Ben.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Woo, so instead of admiting you're wrong you just make fun of my screen name.

What? I wasn't making fun of your screen name at all, I found it rather odd that you don't seem to understand processor architecture when you chose a screen name based on a processor architecture.

Single precision calculations are offloaded to the video card.

You must run a lot of DX11 games then. For those of us that can't get DX11 games yet, that isn't possible atm unless the game happens to support PhysX. Until we get CS rolling, PC games are stuck with x87(with all the ignorance in this thread I should point out that that is x86's FPU).

Bottom line, you get much more processing power out of modern computer parts, not ones that were made 3-4 years ago.

Processing power that can't be used at the moment.

There is no game or application on PS3 that dethrones a similar one on a modern PC.

GT5 and Forza3 both easily, soundly and utterly demolish anything comparable on the PC by a staggering amount. Nothing is close.

The processing power of the PS3 might theoretically be all nice and high but what good does it do if it can't be used without studying japanese for a decade so that you are able to decrypt SONY's internal docs for the thing?

Given the level of capacity I have seen displayed in this thread, it is what I would expect most of the people here to do. Someone with a hint of sense might think to look to the guys who wrote the documentation in the first place, IBM. Cell was designed in the US

And when I look at KILLZONE2 and other AAA-top-tier PS3 games that don't even render in 720p

KZ2 does render at 720p, it doesn't render at 1080p.

People have to realize how many pixels more a PC can push nowadays.
720p= 921699
1080p=2073600

GT5 runs at 1080p.

I can't believe anyone is actually arguing that the PS3 has more hardware muscle than a modern PC.

Noone here is. We have some people that give the impression that they couldn't pass an elementaty reading comprehension test though.

There are many things wrong on both sides of this ridiculous argument, however, you've never sounded like such a troll before, Ben.

Trolling how? Debunking a bunch of ignorance and lies? PCs are cheaper was the main topic I took issue with, then we had a whole bunch of technical ignorance on display to go along with it. Then there were the posts talking about how great the selection of PC games was while consoles weren't selling quality games.... seriously? I have sales numbers, review numbers, specification breakdowns, and cost analysis on my side. They have a whole truck load of ignorance

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Single precision calculations are offloaded to the video card.

You must run a lot of DX11 games then. For those of us that can't get DX11 games yet, that isn't possible atm unless the game happens to support PhysX. Until we get CS rolling, PC games are stuck with x87(with all the ignorance in this thread I should point out that that is x86's FPU).

The vast majority of floating calculations in a game are related to rendering, not physics. This is why my 3 year old E6600 is only about 60% loaded in Dead Space and about 70% loaded in Fallout 3. You yourself said Intel/AMD processors have a severe lack of single precision power, and yet we're not restricted by it in any way. Do you know why that is? It's because the CPU doesn't handle that; the video card does. This goes to show that having a powerful CPU inside the PS3/Xbox was a complete waste of money. We've been saying this for years.

Bottom line, you get much more processing power out of modern computer parts, not ones that were made 3-4 years ago.

Processing power that can't be used at the moment.

Because Derek and Anand must own a time machine. When their video card reviews are testing a card's ability to render at 2560x1600 resolution, it's clearly from the future.

People have to realize how many pixels more a PC can push nowadays.
720p= 921699
1080p=2073600

GT5 runs at 1080p.

If you google for "gt5 prologue resolution", you'll find many references saying it only runs at 1280x1080, so basically it's upscaled by 50%.

Trolling how? Debunking a bunch of ignorance and lies? PCs are cheaper was the main topic I took issue with, then we had a whole bunch of technical ignorance on display to go along with it. Then there were the posts talking about how great the selection of PC games was while consoles weren't selling quality games.... seriously? I have sales numbers, review numbers, specification breakdowns, and cost analysis on my side. They have a whole truck load of ignorance

What exactly have you debunked? Your entire argument about the price of PC gaming basically relied on you saying that you spend too much money on computer parts and therefore everyone else must also be doing the same. I've been using a $300 video card for 3 years now and it still works. When BF1942 was popular, I was playing it on a GeForce 4 MX440 and it worked great. When I bought Half-Life in 1999, I was playing it on integrated ATI Rage graphics, and that too worked without issue. Lots of people are playing games like Sims and WoW on integrated graphics.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
I'd agree that Goldeneye was by far the best shooter seen on consoles at that point, that doesn't mean it was close to the PC's offering of the era.

Oh, I'm sorry. I seem to remember you saying:

Goldeneye wasn't ever really good.

You say Unreal, Quake, and Half-Life make Goldeneye look like garbage? Uhh. Goldeneye definitely has muddy textures and these games may offer a decent visual upgrade, but I don't find them any more "playable" today. In fact, I find Quake and Half-Life incredibly boring now, but I just went through Goldeneye again no more than a month ago. This is all incredibly subjective, and you really have no grounds to say that PCs offered significantly more gaming value than consoles.

Honestly, I don't know why this is portrayed as an "us vs. them" thing. It's a shame if fewer developers are producing for the PC, but, barring consumer rights issues and DRM, it's still a good time to be a gamer, no matter what platform you prefer.

 

[BenSkywalker]

The vast majority of floating calculations in a game are related to rendering, not physics. This is why my 3 year old E6600 is only about 60% loaded in Dead Space and about 70% loaded in Fallout 3.

Your CPU is only loaded that much as PC devs can't write FP heavy code for the PC, it wouldn't run.

You yourself said Intel/AMD processors have a severe lack of single precision power, and yet we're not restricted by it in any way.

Yes, we are, badly. Why do you think physics still suck on PC games? Why do you think the particle system in games is laughable? Why do you think we can't see water moving properly in game? Why do PC racing games get butchered by their console counterparts?

Why do you think Microsoft is putting CS into DirectX?

Because Derek and Anand must own a time machine. When their video card reviews are testing a card's ability to render at 2560x1600 resolution, it's clearly from the future.

That's rendering power, although it is a process by definition. I have already pointed out that PC GPUs are far ahead of consoles atm, as is the amount of RAM they have at their disposal. What they lack is computational power on the CPU side.

If you google for "gt5 prologue resolution", you'll find many references saying it only runs at 1280x1080, so basically it's upscaled by 50%.

GT5P is upscaled, GT5 isn't.

What exactly have you debunked? Your entire argument about the price of PC gaming basically relied on you saying that you spend too much money on computer parts and therefore everyone else must also be doing the same. I've been using a $300 video card for 3 years now and it still works.

12x10 0x aa 24fps. Same settings, 33FPS. Same settings, 18.9 FPS. I can't even post Crysis benches as your board can't run it using the settings used for normal testing. So dropping settings way down, bottoming out the res on older PC games your board can hit between 19 and 33FPS average. I'd love to see how your board handles Cryostasis right now(doesn't tend to be as easy on hardware as Crysis). I guess if that is what you consider to be OK for gaming, then yeah, you could probably save money versus buying a console. For me, I like to be able to you know, play the games that are coming out on the PC to consider it a gaming PC

You say Unreal, Quake, and Half-Life make Goldeneye look like garbage?

In terms of playabilty? Absolutely. I can not play through Goldeneye anymore, the mechanics, controls and gameplay are all far too painful to deal with to tollerate. I can still play through the older PC titles.

This is all incredibly subjective, and you really have no grounds to say that PCs offered significantly more gaming value than consoles.

I'm the one in this thread getting bashed for defending the consoles, but I call a spade a spade.