Will console graphics ever beat PC graphics?
- Thread starter 6unn3r
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No,you can build your own PC or have it built to order, you can specify what your PC has down to its every component, The most you can hope to change in a console is the Hard-drive.
You could argue that consoles may have that some day but that would really defeat the purpose of a console in that you don't have to worry about system requirments. (Unless you count the difference between PSX and PS3)
You could argue that consoles may have that some day but that would really defeat the purpose of a console in that you don't have to worry about system requirments. (Unless you count the difference between PSX and PS3)
No, and IMO that hasn't mattered since the NES. Graphics are nice, but that's only one of many aspects of a game, and since i'm not a fan of RTS and only like FPS's every once in a while (two genres that I think do much better on PCs), I prefer to play most of my games on consoles.
http://www.fastcompany.com/1654947/intel-50-core-knights-corner-cpu-chip-massively-parallel-computinglancashirered said:
the future is either Software solvers or Cloud computing
I'm sorry but your argument here doesn't make sense, to extend your metaphor: You can't win a formula one race while driving a welding torch, on the other hand you can play games on a pc, your comparison/metaphor is invalid. Therefore the original argument is correct considering most of the early playtesting for console games is done on a pc it is true that the pcs are further ahead.TBR said:
No, I don't think they could ever beat them, but as consoles get more and more powerful, they could certainly equal them.
Realistically, I'd say that maybe in 3-4 generations consoles and PCs will be equal in terms of graphics power. We're actually closer now, the PS3 is capable of pumping out sone pretty amazing graphics, so maybe even in 2 generations PCs and consoles will be equal.
But wait, if we're all on equal footing, how will we be able to assert our fanboyishness? How will we justify that we're better than someone else because of our game playing machine choice?
That should be interesting to see.
Realistically, I'd say that maybe in 3-4 generations consoles and PCs will be equal in terms of graphics power. We're actually closer now, the PS3 is capable of pumping out sone pretty amazing graphics, so maybe even in 2 generations PCs and consoles will be equal.
But wait, if we're all on equal footing, how will we be able to assert our fanboyishness? How will we justify that we're better than someone else because of our game playing machine choice?
That should be interesting to see.
You're missing the massively obvious point here, gaming PCs will never be as cheap or user friendly as consoles.6unn3r said:
It's all about price. The vast majority of gamers have neither the time or rediculous amount of money to spend upgrading their PC every 2 years to play the new games at their best settings.
You're post is basically the same as someone who owns a Ferrari going to a Ford forum, posting a picture of your car and saying 'Will fords ever be able to go as fast as my car?)
consol game graphics are set to work on the consol, but it does not mean the next line of consols when they come out will out compeat pc cards...then only thing is PC grphic cards are always being updated so if you got the money it is no problem.
With all of the PC gamers stating time and time again that this assertion is COMPLETELY false, it baffles me that there are people still going around saying PC gaming is a ridiculous money pit and requires an upgrade every year or two.lostzombies.com said:
If you're spending more than $600 to build the PC, and upgrading more than once every three years or so, you're doing it wrong (or you work with high-end CGI and/or you have a lot of dispensable income).
^^^ This (Denamic). But I'll also chuck in what I was going to say 
EDIT: Ruddy hell there were a lot of replies since the one I was "this"ing. Obviously a hot topic. Den's still up there somewhere...
-
It's a silly question, largely because there is no "standard PC" model to compare to, and the power level has varied massively over time, and even within each generation. Right now you can go out and buy a sub-1ghz netbook, or all the parts to build yourself an insanely powerful 8-core tri-SLI 1000w-PSU game annihilating monster, depending on your needs and how much you want to spend, and it's still a PC. The sheer total customisability of the PC platform in terms of graphics cards alone (from none/built-in mobile nastiness thru to several double-width PCI x16 turbonutters that require their own cooling and power feeds and each cost as much as a PS3) utterly nullifies the question.
It'd be like going back to the interwar period and asking "will stock family cars ever be able to outperform track racers?". Probably not, no, but there's a squillion different categories of motor race, whereas most "normal" cars fit a reasonably narrow size, performance and cost profile for the time they're in, as they're having to compete with fairly similar peers on both price and performance/quality. It's much the same as your choice being from Wii thru X360 to PS3 (a little economy car thru to a luxury tourer - with the DS/PSP representing scooters and everyday motorbikes).
You can have very lightweight dirt track racers with open frames and low cc engines that are fantastic on their own courses - and are a very cheap class of racing to get into - but would be beaten in a straight line on a tarmac road by an old Fiat 500 (these'd be your netbooks), or you can have fire-breathing dragsters and formula one paved-circuit cars where every part is custom designed and manufactured, and checked/replaced/improved after each race (your expensive game-focussed rigs).
So no, I doubt they ever will. They never really did, anyway, except for maybe the very early days of each generation - general purpose computers quite rapidly beat game-focussed consoles on sound and graphics not long after the start of each gen before this one, if they already weren't, and always were on top in terms of CPU performance. But they always were and still generally are more expensive... a computer at the same price as a console won't be as good as that console, as I've explained elsewhere.
Not everyone wants a formula one car, not for their everyday ride anyway, and the insurance & fuel bills are crippling
But it'll still piss all over a Veyron from a great height, never mind that the Bugatti is massively better in most ways compared to its equivalent from a few generations back (as is your grandmother's shopping hatch; a basic ford fiesta now could give a gen 1 GTi a run for its money, whereas the original fiesta would be nowhere). If having the absolute very best is your thing, put your money where your mouth is and get the custom-build track racer.
EDIT: Ruddy hell there were a lot of replies since the one I was "this"ing. Obviously a hot topic. Den's still up there somewhere...
-
It's a silly question, largely because there is no "standard PC" model to compare to, and the power level has varied massively over time, and even within each generation. Right now you can go out and buy a sub-1ghz netbook, or all the parts to build yourself an insanely powerful 8-core tri-SLI 1000w-PSU game annihilating monster, depending on your needs and how much you want to spend, and it's still a PC. The sheer total customisability of the PC platform in terms of graphics cards alone (from none/built-in mobile nastiness thru to several double-width PCI x16 turbonutters that require their own cooling and power feeds and each cost as much as a PS3) utterly nullifies the question.
It'd be like going back to the interwar period and asking "will stock family cars ever be able to outperform track racers?". Probably not, no, but there's a squillion different categories of motor race, whereas most "normal" cars fit a reasonably narrow size, performance and cost profile for the time they're in, as they're having to compete with fairly similar peers on both price and performance/quality. It's much the same as your choice being from Wii thru X360 to PS3 (a little economy car thru to a luxury tourer - with the DS/PSP representing scooters and everyday motorbikes).
You can have very lightweight dirt track racers with open frames and low cc engines that are fantastic on their own courses - and are a very cheap class of racing to get into - but would be beaten in a straight line on a tarmac road by an old Fiat 500 (these'd be your netbooks), or you can have fire-breathing dragsters and formula one paved-circuit cars where every part is custom designed and manufactured, and checked/replaced/improved after each race (your expensive game-focussed rigs).
So no, I doubt they ever will. They never really did, anyway, except for maybe the very early days of each generation - general purpose computers quite rapidly beat game-focussed consoles on sound and graphics not long after the start of each gen before this one, if they already weren't, and always were on top in terms of CPU performance. But they always were and still generally are more expensive... a computer at the same price as a console won't be as good as that console, as I've explained elsewhere.
Not everyone wants a formula one car, not for their everyday ride anyway, and the insurance & fuel bills are crippling
But it'll still piss all over a Veyron from a great height, never mind that the Bugatti is massively better in most ways compared to its equivalent from a few generations back (as is your grandmother's shopping hatch; a basic ford fiesta now could give a gen 1 GTi a run for its money, whereas the original fiesta would be nowhere). If having the absolute very best is your thing, put your money where your mouth is and get the custom-build track racer.
Im going to come out of nowhere and say yes...then add a big technically.
It is possible that the moment a new console comes out, it is using secret technology that Nvidia or Radeon didn't get their hands on. Suddenly, Consoles have something PCs don't, and could have better graphics. However, once that happens, it will be a few months until PCs have something comparable, then something better. And then it will be the consoles entire life cycle before they get a chance to get on top again. This generation is particularly in favor of PCs graphics wise, because its been so long since they made new hardware. I'm pretty sure that when the 360 came out, I had a single core computer, and now I have 6 times that.
Also, Crysis isn't that hard to run on high anymore, and it was never difficult to run for a remotely decent gaming PC
It is possible that the moment a new console comes out, it is using secret technology that Nvidia or Radeon didn't get their hands on. Suddenly, Consoles have something PCs don't, and could have better graphics. However, once that happens, it will be a few months until PCs have something comparable, then something better. And then it will be the consoles entire life cycle before they get a chance to get on top again. This generation is particularly in favor of PCs graphics wise, because its been so long since they made new hardware. I'm pretty sure that when the 360 came out, I had a single core computer, and now I have 6 times that.
Also, Crysis isn't that hard to run on high anymore, and it was never difficult to run for a remotely decent gaming PC
I think at this point, even though console graphics will never overtake a PC, that gap can appear to become a little smaller sometimes. A lot of what keeps some of the newest console games still looking good is special software that is written to do specific tricks with the dated graphics processor or using forced perspective to give the illusion that what you see rendered is bigger and more detailed than it really is.
It's funny that this is has not always been the case as far as PC graphics outdoing console graphics. I can remember when computers from certain companies shipped with non-upgradable hardware like the Commodore 64 or Amiga. At the most, you could increase RAM and add other specific purpose devices to it, but the graphical capabilities were always hard set. Like today, special software functions had to be written to achieve new effects with the dated hardware.
Even in the early 90s when the Sega Genesis and Super Nintendo were on the market, they were doing things that PCs could only dream of doing graphically. It was simpler times though with less-complicated hardware. The Xbox 360 and PS3 are essentially PCs with proprietary hardware and software of their own that can't be upgraded, that is all that still keeps them classified as Consoles.
At the end of the day though, what really matters is the gameplay. It can look good, but if it's unplayable then it's a waste of money. Bells and whistles are good and all but it's a waste of money if you're falling through the scenery.
It's funny that this is has not always been the case as far as PC graphics outdoing console graphics. I can remember when computers from certain companies shipped with non-upgradable hardware like the Commodore 64 or Amiga. At the most, you could increase RAM and add other specific purpose devices to it, but the graphical capabilities were always hard set. Like today, special software functions had to be written to achieve new effects with the dated hardware.
Even in the early 90s when the Sega Genesis and Super Nintendo were on the market, they were doing things that PCs could only dream of doing graphically. It was simpler times though with less-complicated hardware. The Xbox 360 and PS3 are essentially PCs with proprietary hardware and software of their own that can't be upgraded, that is all that still keeps them classified as Consoles.
At the end of the day though, what really matters is the gameplay. It can look good, but if it's unplayable then it's a waste of money. Bells and whistles are good and all but it's a waste of money if you're falling through the scenery.
I think consoles will mostly be behind PCs graphics wise but eventually all of these systems will become equal once we achieve holodeck level of game/image/interaction. We'll all probably be dead by then though.