Will console graphics ever beat PC graphics?

[bojac6]

The question is so biased it's impossible to answer. I have a 386 sitting in my basement. My 360 looks a hell of a lot better than any game that can run on that PC. Does that count as a far comparison? On the other hand, my console is 5ish years old and my computer has a 1 year old graphics card, so my computer has the potential to look better than any console game, but I don't notice any appreciable difference (I don't have Crysis, that was an impressive screenshot). So if the first comparison is unfair, why is the second one fair? Are we saying that upgrading is an inherent function of PC gaming? That after the several hundred dollars you spend on your initial PC purchase, it's expected for you to spend several hundred more over it's life buying new hardware? If that's the base assumption, then sure, when your console is over a year old, PC graphics will look better. I don't know why we care.

The better question: Does it matter?

Crysis looks great, sure. Who gives a shit? The two games I've spent the last few months playing pretty much nonstop are Starcraft 2 and Minecraft. Starcraft 2 is hardly a realistic graphical powerhouse, it's a very stylized and ritualized gameplay that is fun.

Minecraft went the way I wish most games would go and cut back on graphics to make wonderful gameplay.

Hell, I still play Tetris, because it's addictive as hell. It's a fun game with simple graphics.

So tell me, what's the point of graphics looking better when it's still the same game you played 10 years ago, with new skins and fancier particle effects?

 

[archvile93]

Not unless the consoles are willing to become more expensive so they can afford the better parts.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

Everyone keeps saying consoles evolve in fixed steps every 5-8 years whereas PC's are always slowly evolving. and i don't understand that because my decent rig, that will admittedly become obsolete by next summer, can of course run Modern Warfare perfectly on high and native res, while another Xbox360(and PC)game, Assassins Creed 2 makes my PC bleed with its graphical demands. so what i up with that?

 

[FightThePower]

No because console technology only advances when a new console is made, whilst PC technology is constantly evolving.

There will be a point where graphics reach a plateau for both systems, but console will never top PC.

 

[JeanLuc761]

They love doing that, don't they.

But the whole question is silly - an XBox 360 is $150, which means that some RAM and a couple of coolers for a gaming PC will set you back more than that. A seriously powerful rig now costs as much as a PS3, a 3D LED HDTV, and a bunch of games put together. Yeah, with $2,500, you can make Crysis look as good as that, but is it worth it?

To play games?

PCs evolve, sure, but a new graphics card costs you more than a console, so that argument is moot. and come on now, how many people have a top-tier triple SLI running alongside a three years old CPU? Thought so.

The thing is, the number of people buying über-powered, nitrogen-cooled, megabucks desktop PCs is on the wane. Laptops continue to increase market share, because for 99.5% of the stuff that people do, an $800 laptop is totally sufficient. And a PS3 can easily compete with that.

Furthermore, it's funny how it's precisely the same people who spend thousands of dollars on a gaming system so they can brag about how much better everything looks who only actually buy 10% of their games. So potentially, sure, a PC will always be more powerful than any console.

The question is when people will stop programming games (or optimising graphics) for the handful of pirating, faux-élitist people out there.

I'm genuinely STAGGERED by the ignorance in this post. Everything you just said is a tired stereotype.

As has been said for years now, $600-700 will get you a PC that blows any console out of the water, and has more varied uses as well.

Secondly, I don't know a single person who buys "über-powered, nitrogen-cooled, megabucks desktop PCs," as that's an extremely small percentage of the PC gamers. Chances are, those people are either filthy rich, a hobbyist, or professional gaming is their actual job.

Third, your assumption that basically all PC gamers are filthy pirates. Bull. Fucking. Shit. Piracy is a problem, and it's more prevalent on PC than any other platform, I will not deny that. But you're still talking out of your ass. Xbox 360 piracy is rampant, Nintendo DS piracy is HORRIFYING. And yet, it's still only the PC that gets the flak for it.

Finally, your last sentence basically lost you any credibility you might have had. You basically think that PC gamers have no right to their platform of choice?

Folks, I believe we have a console elitist here.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

Possibly not, but I have never honestly seen that big a a difference. I have played on extremely high end PCs and while the graphics a slightly better, it is never that significant.

Someone call the fire department. We have an elitist flame-war brewing here.

 

[6unn3r]

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.

Not really a silly question if it gets this many replies and opens up a world of friendly banter and free thinking....

Ideas?

See?

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

NEVER!

 

[Wintermoot]

no since PC,s are modular (a user can upgrade its capabilities whenever they want) basicly means PC programmers have no limits unlike consoles that have set limitation,s

 

[NotSoNimble]

My console beats my PC for graphics.

So yeah.

 

[Woodsey]

Possibly not, but I have never honestly seen that big a a difference. I have played on extremely high end PCs and while the graphics a slightly better, it is never that significant.

Someone call the fire department. We have an elitist flame-war brewing here.

What were you playing?

 

[Imp Poster]

I guess there will soon be a Playstation 4, and an XBox UberMegaMax or whatever name they will give it, and that will take their abilities to the next level - though as others say, because the hardware is then locked in, the PC will tend to inch away over it again. Really PC and console development is the same, its just consoles come in less frequent and bigger instalments. PC is small increments all the time.

My educated guess tells me that the next xbox will be called the Xbox 720.

I agree with what you said.

 

[Miffmoff]

Simple answer is no

there will be a point in the future where they simply cannot develop better graphics so consoles wont have better graphics but will eventually match them

As it stands right now, a pc graphics card is already out of date as soon as it's released and PCs have the advantage of being able to swap out their graphics cards as soon as you want. Consoles need to be built from the ground up again to incorporate a new graphics card so yeah, they can't match PCs for graphics atm but development has a limit of possiblity

I still love my console though

 

[Daverson]

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeell... that's something of a complex question.

Firstly, PC games usually allow for customizable graphics. It's not uncommon for some users to put their graphics setting "one step beyond" what their system can really handle, just because it looks prettier, whereas other will cut the graphics to lower than they know works, for the added stability and increased frame rates.

Secondly, games that are designed for consoles will be worked to give the maximum graphics for that particular console, meaning that if it is ported to PC, it usually won't look any better than it does on the system it was designed for. A lot of developers tend to work primarily with consoles these days, so there's no real need for them to move beyond the requirements of consoles systems, simply because PC gamers, never mind those with specs higher than the console in question, tend to make up less than half of their audience.

Finally, if you consider a console and PC with the same hardware, a console will always win out on graphics, because it doesn't need to run as much in the background (console operating systems are much simplier, compared to PC operating systems). Of course, at the present time, it's possible to upgrade a PC later in it's operation, because of Moore's Law, simply put, about every 1.5 years semiconductor devices half in size and power requirements, but double in speed. Of course, what a lot of people don't realize though, it that there is a limit to Moore's Law*, meaning you can only fit a finite amount of computing power in a given space. Of course, it's very likely that by the time we do hit this limit the actual difference in graphical quality will be completely negligible, though it's likely that consoles will be somewhat cheaper.

*Semiconductor devices simply can't be built at smaller scales, because Quantum effects tend to rear their ugly head, the most simple semiconductor, for example, the PN junction, doesn't work if the p-type and n-type substrates are only a few atoms wide, due to the wave nature of electrons. This doesn't even begin to factor in effects such as metal migration, that you'd see in CMOS devices. If you don't understand this explanation, don't worry, very few people do!

 

[Vigormortis]

Personaly ive always been a pc gamer so i am a bit biased on this issue, however i think it's worth a look. Bellow is a screenshot from Crysis on the PC. Can consoles ever hope to match up to graphics like this? Given that it takes a pc to program and build a console game will there always be some measure of downgrading to make any given game work on a console? Or since the constant upgrading and updating of pc's is neverending will it take a console sent back in time to beat pc's on graphics and looks alone?

Ideas?

Yes, they can, and likely will. When the next generation of consoles hit the market they will probably outpace PC hardware at the time. Most console companies pay oodles of cash to get hold of not only the most powerful PC hardware at the time, but to modify it to increase it's capabilities. However, upon release, it's maybe one to five months (at most a year) before PC's begin to far outpace console hardware. It's always been, and will always be, a cyclical process.

 

[bojac6]

They love doing that, don't they.

But the whole question is silly - an XBox 360 is $150, which means that some RAM and a couple of coolers for a gaming PC will set you back more than that. A seriously powerful rig now costs as much as a PS3, a 3D LED HDTV, and a bunch of games put together. Yeah, with $2,500, you can make Crysis look as good as that, but is it worth it?

To play games?

PCs evolve, sure, but a new graphics card costs you more than a console, so that argument is moot. and come on now, how many people have a top-tier triple SLI running alongside a three years old CPU? Thought so.

The thing is, the number of people buying über-powered, nitrogen-cooled, megabucks desktop PCs is on the wane. Laptops continue to increase market share, because for 99.5% of the stuff that people do, an $800 laptop is totally sufficient. And a PS3 can easily compete with that.

Furthermore, it's funny how it's precisely the same people who spend thousands of dollars on a gaming system so they can brag about how much better everything looks who only actually buy 10% of their games. So potentially, sure, a PC will always be more powerful than any console.

The question is when people will stop programming games (or optimising graphics) for the handful of pirating, faux-élitist people out there.

I'm genuinely STAGGERED by the ignorance in this post. Everything you just said is a tired stereotype.

As has been said for years now, $600-700 will get you a PC that blows any console out of the water, and has more varied uses as well.

Secondly, I don't know a single person who buys "über-powered, nitrogen-cooled, megabucks desktop PCs," as that's an extremely small percentage of the PC gamers. Chances are, those people are either filthy rich, a hobbyist, or professional gaming is their actual job.

Third, your assumption that basically all PC gamers are filthy pirates. Bull. Fucking. Shit. Piracy is a problem, and it's more prevalent on PC than any other platform, I will not deny that. But you're still talking out of your ass. Xbox 360 piracy is rampant, Nintendo DS piracy is HORRIFYING. And yet, it's still only the PC that gets the flak for it.

Finally, your last sentence basically lost you any credibility you might have had. You basically think that PC gamers have no right to their platform of choice?

Folks, I believe we have a console elitist here.

You don't actually seem to disagree all that much. Your statement that people who buy "the megabucks PCs" is pretty much exactly what Archangel said when said that buying those machines is "on the wane" and most people just get an "$800 laptop." His point was that to play Crysis on the settings that make it look that good, you do need a several thousand dollar machine.

Next, on piracy. Quite frankly, I could, right now, pirate any PC game because it's very easy. I have no idea how to pirate a 360 or DS game. Do I need to mod my system? Where do I get the games from? Are you talking about illegal, cracked copies you can buy in China and Russia that most westerners can't get their hands on? Or is there really some method to do this that is as easy as bittorrent with PC games?

And finally, Archangel never said you don't have a right to the platform of choice (which isn't really a right anyways. The right is the right to own property, more specifically, spend your money how you choose). He said that he wonders when developers will give up on it. He's not denying you any rights, you're free to buy any gaming platform you want. But if you buy an N64, don't expect new games to be developed, because there is no money for developers in it. And frankly, the PC gaming market is shrinking. Only big name, PC-only brands, like Starcraft 2 and Civ 5, which were the best selling video games when they were released, are able to compete with console games.

You always have the right to upgrade your PC. Hell, I need to do it because Civ5 can only run in Dx9 on my system. But the market is shrinking and the console market is growing.

Nothing Archangel said sounds console elitist to me, it's pretty much true.

 

[JeanLuc761]

You don't actually seem to disagree all that much. Your statement that people who buy "the megabucks PCs" is pretty much exactly what Archangel said when said that buying those machines is "on the wane" and most people just get an "$800 laptop." His point was that to play Crysis on the settings that make it look that good, you do need a several thousand dollar machine.

Next, on piracy. Quite frankly, I could, right now, pirate any PC game because it's very easy. I have no idea how to pirate a 360 or DS game. Do I need to mod my system? Where do I get the games from? Are you talking about illegal, cracked copies you can buy in China and Russia that most westerners can't get their hands on? Or is there really some method to do this that is as easy as bittorrent with PC games?

And finally, Archangel never said you don't have a right to the platform of choice (which isn't really a right anyways. The right is the right to own property, more specifically, spend your money how you choose). He said that he wonders when developers will give up on it. He's not denying you any rights, you're free to buy any gaming platform you want. But if you buy an N64, don't expect new games to be developed, because there is no money for developers in it. And frankly, the PC gaming market is shrinking. Only big name, PC-only brands, like Starcraft 2 and Civ 5, which were the best selling video games when they were released, are able to compete with console games.

You always have the right to upgrade your PC. Hell, I need to do it because Civ5 can only run in Dx9 on my system. But the market is shrinking and the console market is growing.

Nothing Archangel said sounds console elitist to me, it's pretty much true.

It's possible I let my emotions get ahead of me or misinterpreted his intent, but I do see a lot of elitism from his post (as well as a lot of things that are factually wrong).

$700 and you can run Crysis perfectly at max settings.

Piracy on PC is indeed a simple task compared to other systems, I'll grant you, but the fact is that PC is the only one that people use as an excuse. The assumption as to just how many people on PC are decent, honest people is more than a little aggravating as well.

Finally, the last line of his "The question is when people will stop programming games (or optimising graphics) for the handful of pirating, faux-élitist people out there."
Really comes across as inflammatory.

 

[zombays]

HAH! Good joke! Never!

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

Sadly no, cause you can't Mod/modify consoles as PC's...

 

[JeanLuc761]

-snip-

Right, I clearly misinterpreted your intent and for that I apologize. Your wording didn't really convey your position very well.

I would like to see the 80-90% of all PC games are pirated though.