Will console graphics ever beat PC graphics?

[Soviet Steve]

No, the PC isn't locked down to a specific set of specifications, unlike consoles.

You might be able to use the console power more effectively because you know exactly what you have to work with, but the PCs are moving as fast as technology is released, so they will always be ahead.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

They go through planning, development, production then release. Take the PS3 for example, the graphics card in a PS3 was mid to high range workstation card by the time the PS3 was released (Nvidia 7800 GTX).

7800 GTX wasn't a workstation card it was a high end home computer card. It's part of the GeForce line (although noone uses the line name anymore) whereas nVidia's workstation cards are Quadro line.

Workstation cards are also a shitty choice for gaming, too.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

One thing that could hold consoles back would be console manufacturers keeping consoles RAMtarded.

 

[Exort]

Err. Did you get that bit the wrong way round?

No, becuase computer come out first, and console are based on it.

 

[Exort]

Impossible, given the way consoles are designed and released. They go through planning, development, production then release. Take the PS3 for example, the graphics card in a PS3 was mid to high range workstation card by the time the PS3 was released (Nvidia 7800 GTX). Simply can't happen, PC always has something better just released or coming down the pipe.

Any nvidia card with GTX means mid-high (more toward the high) end gaming graphic card.

 

[sanguinator]

i didnt know there was a difference but i dont really care since the console graphics are still amazing

 

[sanguinator]

i didnt know there was a difference but i dont really care since the console graphics are still amazing

 

[mikespoff]

PC is a dynamic and upgradeable platform - consoles have to be standardised for their lifetime.

So, no.

 

[Talal Provides]

It's a game of leapfrog. When a new console hits, it's based around current PC hardware and has the advantage of being a machine designed from the ground up to do nothing but play games, and achieves parity or exceeds PC capabilities temporarily, and then new PC hardware makes the PC pull away.

Also, back in the day, the NES beat out the PC graphically, largely because the thing could scroll levels, when the PC was still stuck using single screens.

 

[Enigmers]

The whole point behind consoles is to sacrifice a bit of currency for convenience and ease-of-use.

Oh, and keep in mind that these games are made on PCs before they're put on consoles. These PCs often have graphics cards somewhere in the $4000-range, because they need to render the cinematics that are, on the console, pre-rendered.

 

[Siuki]

As the image was loading, I thought: Ooh, nice picture of the forest-HOLY SHIT! It's like they photoshopped the HUD of Crysis into real life. Those are some sweet graphics.

OT: It might. Consoles have to run on up-to-date graphics engines while PCs can always exceed at the cost of a higher price. I'm sure a gaming console can surpass the strength of a PC, but I doubt it would be marketable, given a $1000+ pricetag.

 

[adrian_exec]

I've been a PC user all my life and have never owned a console, but I honestly thought that the situation was the way around, Console's having games with the most awesome graphics ever made, God of War 3 comes to mind.

But I've also never played Crysis cause the year isn't 2050 BC where the average PC can run the game. ^.^

 

[thom_cat_]

I've been a PC user all my life and have never owned a console, but I honestly thought that the situation was the way around, Console's having games with the most awesome graphics ever made, God of War 3 comes to mind.

But I've also never played Crysis cause the year isn't 2050 BC where the average PC can run the game. ^.^

It's not the case, PC games always have the better graphics, you just need the better computer.
If you built GOWIII to run on a computer a high end one would thrash the Ps3 graphics.
Oh and play crysis it's a good game, and the first one is falling back to average graphics anyway.

 

[adrian_exec]

I've been a PC user all my life and have never owned a console, but I honestly thought that the situation was the way around, Console's having games with the most awesome graphics ever made, God of War 3 comes to mind.

But I've also never played Crysis cause the year isn't 2050 BC where the average PC can run the game. ^.^

It's not the case, PC games always have the better graphics, you just need the better computer.
If you built GOWIII to run on a computer a high end one would thrash the Ps3 graphics.
Oh and play crysis it's a good game, and the first one is falling back to average graphics anyway.

I guess you are right. I've never had a good enough PC to run all the latest games on high(ultra) settings and still maintain playable frames per second. So my misconception must be from that reason alone.

 

[enriquetnt]

sure PCs you can upgrade to the infinity, 16GB of ram, quad GPUs whit 2GB of DDR5 ram each, ultra fast 500mb/s SSD hard drives, multiple core CPUs at over 3Ghz each core(and a price tag running nearly on the price of a small car) consoles give you very VERY good graphics for a mere 300 dollars, thats whi the incentive to expend several thousand dollars on top notch PCs is vanishing, and if the succes of the wii tell us anithing is that horsepower not neccesarily mean better, ill play mario galaxy any day over Crysis, and im pretty sure Uncharted 2 and Gears of War 2 look a hundred times better than ANY PC whit a 300 dollars price tag, so until you can build me a PC at that price tag that can give me the same performance im not gonna be convinced (and the same amount of games because lets face it each year there are less and less PC "exclusives" really worth it, and even less that really could push that brand new 5 thousand dollar monster you just build because you could)

PS: have you noticed that PC gamers have been usin Crysis for over 3 years now on theyr cries of PC is better than consoles? (there isnt any other game that really push computers?)

PSS: i have a decent rig for work purposes (i just added an average GPU for gaming), Core i7 6GB DDR3 RAM whit a Nvidia 280 1GB, 23 inch led monitor, 500watt THX logitech speakers, not TOO spectacular but it run Crisys like butter, and just about ANITHING i trow at it at maximum quality (as long as i dont get too greedy whit the resolution and AA/AF wich at 23 inchs is no too neccesary) also have all 3 current gen consoles and the one i play the most is my PS3 (online mostly) second my 360, faaar third my WII, and FAAAAAAAAAR fourth the PC (only game i really played in the last two years is StarcraftII)

 

[Talal Provides]

PS: have you noticed that PC gamers have been usin Crysis for over 3 years now on theyr cries of PC is better than consoles? (there isnt any other game that really push computers?)

People keep using Crysis because you've only been able to run it maxed out with a good framerate on a single GPU since fairly recently.

 

[Zer_]

The current generation of consoles is obsolete by a long shot.

[http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v358/SuperFriendBFG/Unigine/?action=view&current=00012.jpg]

Can you count the polygons?

 

[nipsen]

No, pc keeps upgrading and updating. Console only updates every couple of years.

..in tiny, tiny increments..

It's idiotic, really. I've always been interested in new technology. I've owned the cutting edge systems, and programmed for them since the first Voodoo chipset turned up.

But then when I get excited about integrated buses with a shared memory pool between a gpu and multiple programmable cpus (the ps3) - then I'm a console fanboy who doesn't know anything.

Strange how that works.

 

[Random Argument Man]

Another big bad never!

However, does graphics matter?

 

[Zer_]

No, pc keeps upgrading and updating. Console only updates every couple of years.

..in tiny, tiny increments..

It's idiotic, really. I've always been interested in new technology. I've owned the cutting edge systems, and programmed for them since the first Voodoo chipset turned up.

But then when I get excited about integrated buses with a shared memory pool between a gpu and multiple programmable cpus (the ps3) - then I'm a console fanboy who doesn't know anything.

Strange how that works.

The shared memory limits the speed of the RAM on the GPU. Remember, GPUs always will have faster RAM than standard system memory. Sure, the Cell is a good processor, but that GPU is horrible... It's a massive bottleneck.