Will console graphics ever beat PC graphics?

[TelHybrid]

Consoles adhere to a set standard, that's set on its release date, never allowing for upgrades or improvement, all developers can hope to do is get the most out of the set standard hardware.

PC hardware is always being improved all the time. The limitations are simply whatever's newest at the time, as opposed to the hardware on a particular date, which could be something like 4 or 5 years old in the case of consoles.

The likelyhood of consoles surpassing PC is very low in terms of visuals. It is still possible however.

There is a major increase lately of the Xbox 360 hardware being used as the set standard for development, with no improvements made to sit the capabilities of a standard gaming PC. This has lead to Xbox 360 itterations of games having superior visuals to their PC counterparts.

There's also a new movement from many PC developers, that are focusing on mass marketing by making games have lower system requirements, to reach a wider demographic. PC gaming as a mainstream platform is slowly declining, however as an indie platform, and a platform for experimentation, it's still massive.

TLDR; It depends on the developers and other factors.

 

[Jandau]

No, because consoles are just lobotomized computers.

Also, if somehow a dedicated gaming console managed to come out with the cutting edge hardware dedicated soley to one thing, which is running games, it might theoretically beat an equally cutting edge PC since the PC has to handle a ton of other stuff in the background, but that lead would last a few months at most, before the PCs would overtake the console again.

Finally, the above example is never going to happen, simply because console development takes time. When designing a console, the designers need to decide on the hardware they are going to use. However, even if they use the best there is, by the time the console is ready (which likely takes a few years) something better will have come along.

So no, console graphics aren't going to beat PC graphics.

 

[Gigano]

The maximum graphics settings will always be better on PC, but since it takes a high-end PC to get them they will always be more expensive to see as well. Customization options - for graphics and other things - are the greater strength as I see it (and of course the greater variety of game types for PC).

While maintaining the same hardware, console developers get more intimate with that hardware over time, allowing for better graphics over time on consoles as well (case in point, PS2 launch games vs. God of War II). But it'll never reach the maximum settings of a brand new gaming PC at any one time.

With something like Uncharted 2 out, I don't really feel it's any problem. My (3 year old) then state-of-the-art gaming PC can't provide graphics of that quality, and upgrading it so it could would cost the price of a PS3 in itself. Taking advantage of that continuous edge is going to be beyond the economic abilities of most gamers, I fear.

 

[Ampersand]

No they probably won't however if you need your graphics to be better then those on consoles, then you are some kind of creepily obsessed graphics snob.

 

[TheScottishFella]

No, I don't think consoles will ever overtake, because consoles are in the market for years before they get an upgrade. With the PC it is always changing and a PC can be easily modded.

Nope.
No.
Never.
Because when you buy a console, that's the hardware you get.
When you buy a PC, you can upgrade the hardware.
So as long as they are still developing PC hardware, NO.

that's what I meant.

 

[WickedSkin]

Well consoles try with games like... Killzone 2. But no, they'll naver beat PC, no sir never!

 

[imnot]

The thing is, you need to upgrade and if you dont have a good computer you have to turn the settinngs down jut to reach a decent fps.

 

[coolman9899]

no they will not cause there are grapic card comeing out the fucking wazoo for the PC
while the console have new consoles coming out ever like 1,1/2 year or so

so NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

^learned that in buisness class sry had to XD^

 

[teisjm]

It doesn't matter that the graphics are made on a PC, when working with 3d, your viewport (where you do most stuff) doesn't display rendered models anyways, you won't even see advanced textures, correct lighting.
Most gaem models are made pretty low poly, and then use normals maps (a kind of texture that deforms the object when rendered, without alterig the geometry, hence making lighter models look way more detaield than their actual geometry)
Besides computers can make graphics thats years ahead of what you can put in a game anyways, like movie graphics, so the graphics that can be made isn't limited to what can be run inside a computer game, where it has to render in real-time.

Movies like Avatar (say what you want about puchahontas, but the visualswere amazing) are made on computers, and it'll still be years before you can put that kind of graphics into game anyways.

It's just a matter of prioritizing how heavy hardware you put in a console, but then again, if you use the state of teh art hardware in your console, before it's finished, better hardware will have come out, and computers have the, if rather pricy, dvantage of beeing continually upgraded, as often as new hardware comes out.

So basicly, while nothing is holding consoles back from beeig as powerfull as pc's (and most peoples PC's are not i league with teh PS3 anyways) unless you get the possibillity to stuffnew hardware into your console all the time, there'll always b a freashly updated PC with the shiniest of tshiny hardware thats more powerfull.

TLDR: theoretically, ye. practically, no.

 

[Whichi]

Imagine if instead of consoles you just had attachments, which you could connect to the back/front of the computer and it would allow you to play console games on it.

That way, you would not need a new console every few years in order to match the ever evolving PC graphics.

That would be called "emulators"

That would effectively get rid of the sloppy corprate machine that feeds off of our money.... as if Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft are ever going to do that.

Sega refuses to allow people to use Bleem, and nintendo highly reccomends that you don't download emulators for forgotten or hard to acquire NES games uness you own the cartrige, or paid them on their Wii Shopping network

 

[JeanLuc761]

That would be called "emulators"

That would effectively get rid of the sloppy corprate machine that feeds off of our money.... as if Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft are ever going to do that.

Sega refuses to allow people to use Bleem, and nintendo highly reccomends that you don't download emulators for forgotten or hard to acquire NES games uness you own the cartrige, or paid them on their Wii Shopping network

I do love me some emulators. Crash Bandicoot: Warped at 1680x1050 with 4xAA? Yes please!

 

[omicron1]

Every new console generation, graphics take a jump ahead of PCs. They'll have similar hardware, but the developers on console (especially during the second cycle on any given platform) are able to optimise to a particular feature set. Then, PCs catch up, and about halfway through the generation the consoles are left in the dust.

Put it this way: Red Dead Redemption could have been released in 2005. Had it been programmed then, it would've worked as a launch title. And it would've looked better than anything else out there at the time. Then, in 2007, we got Crysis - that's still the best-looking game on the market, although the mass market is drawing level with it, and as of 2008-09, it became practical to get a computer to run it on.

However: Launch titles are generally not as good as what comes later. Compare Call of Duty 2 to Call of Duty 4, for instance. Same platform, HUGE difference in graphics. As people use a system, they learn how to make better looking games. It's that simple.

So, in summary, consoles and PCs play leapfrog in capabilities, not so much in actualities.

And as an afterthought, graphics are plateauing. Age of Empires 3 looks just about as good as StarCraft 2, despite them being released FIVE YEARS apart. (RTSs plateaued in 2005 on PC) And there's no real reason to make graphics better than Crysis' graphics, is there? (FPSs plateaued in 2007 on PC)

The graphics arms-race isn't over, but it's in the final few battles. I predict maybe one more console generation, in 2012 or so, unless they find some new dimension of graphical focus to work on. Screenshots from this new generation, crucially, will not wow gamers very much. They'll look almost the same as current-gen screenshots, just with the rough edges removed. Then we'll all settle down and make games based on variety, not on looking better. And I will be happy.

 

[DanielDeFig]

Sure. For the first six months it's released. Then a new, shiny computer with specs that outmatch the console is released to the masses.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

I don't think the OP will get even one person to vote in favor of consoles. It's such an obvious question. You can upgrade PCs, you can't upgrade consoles, so no.

 

[bz316]

Nah. Not to bash consoles or anything but I think it's been pretty well-summed up so far. Consoles only get a hardware update once per "generation," whereas PC's can be constantly upgraded every time a new and better component comes out. Any advantage consoles ever have hardware-wise (if they ever had or ever will have one), will be extremely temporary at best.

 

[spinFX]

Of course not... Everything in a console is available on a PC and sooner. Like the graphics card that the Xbox's had on release had been available for PCs for like a year.

 

[milkkart]

Depending on your PC, consoles may already be beating it. Just depends on your graphics card. Realistically though, they never will, because it is not feasible to put 4 GPUs in a console- it would be too expensive to sell. There's no comparison and no reason to compare them. PCs are custom built, consoles are built in numbers with the most power for the lowest price. Are people really still having this discussion? Or did PC fanboy elitists just decide they needed to flex their ego?

yup, pretty sure this guy is just waving his e-peen.

 

[Eagle Est1986]

That said, if SONY were to announce tomorrow that the PS4 would have two of those Cell things and an nVidia 480 (or maybe a GTX 500 if such a magical thing existed), then it would be a different story.
If they could find anyone theoretical enough to program for it.

The PS3 has 8 cell processors (though 1 is a back up), so I'd like to think the PS4 would have more. It doesn't really have a very powerful graphics card though, which is why developers can struggle to get the best out of it, most are used to the standard PC setup.
[small]Just thought I'd throw that in there, don't mind me.[/small]

 

[mParadox]

Crysis..is...pretty.....

IN all seriousness, no. Consoles cannot beat PC in terms of graphics. Ever. If they do, then...well...let's just say your time has come again.

Sorry got a bit HL2 there.

 

[lancashirered]

Hmmm, in the current rasterisation graphics card arms race consoles will never beat the pc. Simply because PC's can always be made more up to date, but PC's also can't radically change architecture with each generation, as it would require many large companies to co-operate. Consider the fact that real time ray tracing (true 3d) can be achieved on 3 cell processors (the cell is pretty cheap), consoles may yet be able to innovate ahead of the PC... Now who here would buy a new graphics card that is unable to play anything but the lastest games??