Poll: Are high end PC graphics really that good?

[Shurikens and Lightning]

Now make fun of me you will but I am a console gamer, and the PC to me has been more of a tool than a game machine, except for the Civilization franchise and an assortment of others.

My question is: "Are graphics on the PC as spectacular as they sound?" I hear people all the time chanting how amazing the graphics on the PC are but I have a mid range Windows XP computer and am not capable of running Crysis or Modern Warfare without a fatal crash or low resolution. People with HD monitors and SLI w/ quad core CPUs, do they match up with 1080p on the XBOX or PS3? I really want to know since I dont have the cash to buy a high end PC. Is it worth the investment to produce life like graphics?

EDIT: I am not buying a PC but I just want to know how amazing graphics are with high end PCs.

 

[Obrien Xp]

Ah civilization, gotta love that game.

Well its worth the investment as long as there's support for lower end systems.

Purchase wise, go with SLI and Nvidia 9000 series. Good bet there that you'll last a long time.

 

[-Drifter-]

I'd say no, simply because I don't care about graphics that much. My 360 is quite capable of delivering a fine looking game, I don't need to be able to see every grain of dirt.

 

[Dys]

Now make fun of me you will but I am a console gamer, and the PC to me has been more of a tool than a game machine, except for the Civilization franchise and an assortment of others.

My question is: "Are graphics on the PC as spectacular as they sound?" I hear people all the time chanting how amazing the graphics on the PC are but I have a mid range Windows XP computer and am not capable of running Crysis or Modern Warfare without a fatal crash or low resolution. People with HD monitors and SLI w/ quad core CPUs, do they match up with 1080p on the XBOX or PS3? I really want to know since I dont have the cash to buy a high end PC. Is it worth the investment to produce life like graphics?

Neither of the true 1080p games can match up to the top 2 PC games in terms of visuals, fi that's what you mean. (I'm exagerating, there are several, not just two, my point is there are very few).

Yes, the graphics on PC are significantly better. If your computer is mid range you should really be running a newer O/S (memory dumping issues on XP are rather annoying, and the OS is not optimized for the last few gens of graphics hardware). It should be able to demolish every game you throw at it. My computer is a high/mid range rig that is four years old and it still runs everything well on high settings. Maybe format or reinstall your OS as you may have bugs.

 

[ctrl-alt-postal]

Yep, they are. Doesn't make the game any better if it be shit.
And, really, unless you are in a game you like to sit on mountaintops with a latte and take photo's, you are probably not going to lament a thousand background objects not rendered to photorealism.

 

[Veret]

I think the general rule is that a newly-released console is going to have roughly the same graphics as a new high-end computer. But consoles are only released once every generation, and you can get a new computer any day of the week. So if you want to split hairs, I think a top-of-the-line gaming rig will edge out the best consoles the vast majority of the time.

Honestly, though, if you're going to drop that much money on a gaming experience you might want to consider something other than graphics. Games like Crysis (and others of its ilk) spend so much time and money cranking up the polygon count that there's not much actual gameplay left to enjoy.

 

[Xanadu84]

A mid range computer can run Crysis and CoD fine. Have you tried? Because though max settings require a lot of power, lower settings are quite easy to meet requirements for. Getting a mid range computer, and doing periodic, cheap upgrades are the way to go.

The big issue here is the game: I know a guy with a quad core computer with a SLI of dual Geforce 285. He exclusively plays the original Counterstrike for games. Yeah, SLI or not, the game didn't look that impressive. There is only so much you can do with a given game, so PC never really has the opportunity to embarrass the competition. Consoles are not blatantly outclassed by a high end PC, the PC is just a solid winner amongst a field where they all look pretty good. A PC, even a modern day mid range one, will look better then a 360 or PS3 game. But it won't really alter the game experience for you. It is just a nice little fringe benefit. Of course, stuff running on the Cry engine tend to let PCs stretch there legs a little more, but still, graphics alone are not a reason to completely hop platforms when your tight on cash. If you're still interested in hopping to PC (And don't get me wrong, bless you for that, I love me some PC gaming) then do so with the reason being one of PC gaming more essential strengths: Mouse and Keyboard, Digital Distribution, Mods, Indie developers, more experimental projects, and versatility. If thats enough to give it a shot, then consider graphics the iceing on the cake.

 

[Flying-Emu]

Yes.

There is no compare to the power of a high-end gaming rig, especially in the middle of a console generation. The simple fact is that a console will never get a hardware update, whereas computers can get fairly regular upgrades (about twice per console generation to be "top of the line"). Therefore, PCs are almost always capable* of better graphics.

*Notice: Capable, not necessarily always true.

 

[McGee]

4 Major reasons why they are better:
1. Higher than 1080 resolution, 32 inch monitors can run at 2560 x 1600
2. Lots of antialiasting to produce extremely smooth edges
3. Antistrophic filtering for high resolution distant textures
4. Higher resolution textures in general.
There's more but these are the most obvious to the eye.

 

[TMAN10112]

Yes, if you have the rig for it, PC graphics really are that good (Have you even seen Crysis on high settings?).

Some games look astoundingly better on a high-end PC then on a console.

 

[ShotgunShaman]

Yes, a top-o'-the-line PC will beat a console in graphics, but that doesn't mean much in the end.

 

[teh_outlawl]

PC will always be better than consoles in terms of graphics. I actually lol'd at the quality of the PS3 graphics when I first saw it. Also the keyboard and mouse is better than a control pad IMO, which is another advantage of using a PC. As for price PCs aren't that expensive when you factor in the TV that you have to buy to display 1080p for consoles plus other peripherals (surround sound, etc.).

TL;DR PCs > Consoles for graphics. Pricewise things are as expensive as you want to make em.

 

[Flour]

[...]

Having not read your post before watching the pictures, I thought the screenshots were for Morrowind until I saw the last one.

do they match up with 1080p on the XBOX or PS3?

Many 360 and PS3 games aren't even 720p. Even less(about 13 for PS3 and 360 combined) are 1080p and those are all simple games with repeated textures and nothing too graphically difficult to display(bloom is one of the main problems, especially for the 360 which uses a graphics card that is unable to properly display bloom)

 

[Poomanchu745]

The simple answer is yes. The long answer is more complicated. I am a heavy PC gamer but still own a PS3 and 360 for whatever reason because they don't get a lot of use. But I don't really ever hardly sit back and say "wow" these PC graphics look great. That is until I switch to the 360 and can tell a big difference. Even on games like Uncharted 2 where the graphics are great I still make out the jagged textures that I don't ever notice on PC games.

Its just not possible for 3 year old graphics cards to compete with SLi top of the line (whatever else you want to call it) graphics cards that are being released today.

At the end of the day it is as simple as that.

 

[Horticulture]

There's a noticeable difference, but it's not earth-shattering. A lot of games are optimized for the 360 and don't stress faster PCs that much, even at high settings/resolutions. That said, even sub-$100 graphics cards available these days are significantly better than the generations-old GPUs in the 360/PS3.

 

[Erana]

its not so much the texture detail and what not as it is the fluidity of movement, being uninterrupted by lag/hangups, etc.

Still, it was nice to see Bioshock with all the effects pumped up on my sister's sex machine computer.

 

[Fenring]

For the average everyday game, sure, it'll look better and that'll be great. It'll build immersion and more fun just to look at. That being said, I still play an Original Xbox copy of Morrowind GOTY, and enjoy it just as much as many current gen games.

Still, it was nice to see Bioshock with all the effects pumped up on my sister's sex machine computer.

Please never make another statement that could so easily be made into a joke, it makes me feel like I'm letting the world down when I don't say it.

 

[jamesworkshop]

http://www.thesixthaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/crysis2007-12-2421-38-48-42.jpg
yeah PC is king

 

[elricik]

I honestly can't really tell the difference. I mean can your really count the grains of sand that fly up when your running across a desert while blowing people's brains out? I can't, I'm too busy causing anarchy.

 

[the_dancy_vagrant]

Depends highly on the game. If the developer intended it to look good, it can look absolutely astounding on a PC. If graphics are not as huge of a concern for the developer then hey just won't look as good. Crysis gets toted out often enough as an example and I have to say...with all the settings turned to full it looks amazing. It's still a crappy game, but by god it's pretty as a picture.

Of course, you'll pay far more for the PC than for a console. There's also the fact that console ports are just that...nothing more than a port. So it follows the old adage 'pretty graphics does not a good game make'.