Discussion in 'Games' started by andymiesta, Apr 3, 2006.
Hey who thinks the xbox 360s graphics are better than the 800 gto2 ?????
Not me. The only games I've played were Call of Duty 2 and some NFL game, both at 1080i on my friends 42 inch plasma and it was jaggier than Call of Duty 2 on my pc at 1024x768 with no AA!
I dont even want to imagine Xbox360 on a standard tv.
Though I have heard that the reason games dont run or look great right now on the 360 is because the R500 and the graphics API on the xbox is similar to directX 10 so when a game like Call of Duty 2 is ported to 360, it doesnt run as well because the game was coded with the DirectX 9 platform. Native xbox 360 games like Gears of War should show the real power of the R500, but I have to see that to believe it.
another part of your problem is you're using 1080i, and its meant for 720p. 1080i= 1920x1080 interlaced (aka jagged) 720p=1280x720 native. Responding to original post, I'm sorry to say I think Xbox360 has better graphics then X800GTO2. Something about a crazy GPU that we're probably going to see with R600.
well all ive seen on the 360 so far is multiple reflective surfaces and large draw distances. problem is both look like crap. (btw this was in 720p) COD2 looked like crap compared to my 9600. and halo2 looked worse then the original xbox. what developers were doing is just upping surfaces and polygon counts not making it more lifelike or realistic...
The onli game i played on the 360 was call of duty 2 which didnt look tht great call of duty is build for a mouse and keyboard i think
I was watching my friends little brother play that new RPG for the XBox 360 on a big screen High definition TV. The draw distance wasn't all that impressive to me It looked like there was no AF. All the textures started to get fuzzy about 5 meters from your character. Everything within that distance looked pretty good though. Oh... I still think the graphics card in the 360 is much better than an X1800 or probably even a 1900. I just think the programs aren't using it right yet. I suspect the next generation of PC video cards will at least equal, and probably surpass the XBox graphics though.
HAHAHAAH what kind of question is that, your compairing a console entertainment system to a video card.
thats like asking if my telephone is better then you mothers suv's rear view mirrow, it just doesnt make sense to ask.
am not compering the console to a video card i mean the graphics what do u think powered the nintendo gamecube ATI graphics
Even tho some off the games sucked for the gamecube the graphics way
The xbox 360 is powered by a ATI 500 MHz graphics processor just lyk in a pc divvy
it also has the nearly the same memory as my pc (xbox360 512 MB of 700 MHz GDDR3 RAM)
If ya think about its just lyk a mini pc wot u can only play games on it even tho its got a Built-in Media Center Extender for Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005
happy pc gaming
I dont think any XBOX360 game is running at the full potential yet, Im sure I read somewhere that game developers cant even use all 3 CPUs on the machine yet
they are stillrunning single thread games. once the developers crack the dual core pc realm by creating true dual core games then they will prolly be doing the same on the 360 and ps3. it just doesnt make any sence to have to make 2 versions of the same game just so you can port to pc and older systems...
Yeah Andy, simply put, the 360 DOMINATES just about every graphics card on the market. Sure developers are partially retarded and decided to use that power for "awesome explosions" and stuff, but if people put there minds to it the 360 is an UNBELIEVABLE MONSTER OF A MACHINE.
It's the only graphics card capable of some feature (don't remember) on Windows Vista right now. I really don't remember, but it's also more powerful than even the R580 core in computers. I don't know if the X1900XTX is more powerful or not, but I don't think so, and even if it is it doesn't have the features of the 360's graphics card. With unified shader(?) architecture, and free 4x AA?(or AF), which to this day I don't see the point in either of them (AA/AF), and that Vista feature, and the 3-core processor are all years ahead of the computer industry for some reason.
well actually the ati chip in the 360 is quite similer to the x1800/x1900. all three have unified shaders i think anyway.. but consoles that are equaled in specs with their pc brethran will always be much faster as they dont have the compatability and optimization penalties of copmuters. making and optimizing a game for one platform is alot easier then making one for hundreds of thousands of combinations...
Very true kenny, as you can see by the Xbox and PS2, even a 733mhz P3 and 64mb in some graphics card the Xbox has (no idea the specs) can STILL keep up with games like Doom 3. Which means since the 360 is MORE powerful than even the most powerful single processor or single graphics card computers, obviously the 360 is gonna be unbelievable. Imagine Doom 3 with real people, except the people aren't real lol
Actually, what's wrong with comparing a console and a graphics card?
There is nothing really wrong with comparing the two since they are extremely similiar, when a PC is designed for gaming. You just have to take into account that PCs do multiple things. Additonal programs and bloated OS' are installed on PCs taking up resources, where as consoles do one thing, and they do it well. Every resources is invested into gaming with no real room for anyting else. So a console is more like a large SUV rear veiw mirror, where a PC is like a very slightly smaller mirror with about 12 different gadgets on it. You can't see behind you quite as well, but hey look! You can do all this other stuff too.
alright lol, let me start over, didnt mean to insult.
you asked between the console and a video card, you mean the consoles graphic power, and a PCs?
id say currently xbox360 has much better then average pc hardware. 32 pixel pipelines isnt to be seen on a pc video card for some time i think.
the xbox360 also has games designed for solely for it. pc games are often optimized so they will also accept intel-amd, ati, nvidia, windows XP, windows ME, this ram, that mouse, this sound card, that cpu. So games run much more efficiantly on xbox360.
so not only is the hardware slightly stronger, the games are also utilizing it better. so yes your SUV mirrors lose... im sorry heres $2.
wait 32 piplines? why havnt i heard of this!?
yeah really lol
WTF are you talking about?
48 pipelines buddy.
WTF are you talking about?
where does it say the 1900 has 48 pixel pipelines... i see 48 pixel shaders. L2R buddy, 1900 has 16 pixel pipelines with 3 pixel shaders per pipeline. all i can find for xbox is "48-way parallel floating-point shader pipelines" but im not sure of compairing that to pc video card pipelines.
so i cant say for sure what xbox 360 has but i know its 16 or more, and i know x1900 is no more then 16.
That's a good article. Kind of hard to understand though.
Anyways, with two x1900's in crossfire, I think that would shame the xbox360.
Oblivion runs on my PC @ 1280x720 widescreen with 4xAA and 16xAF and HDR , everything maxed out on my X1900XTX and loads faster and runs better than it does on the XBOX 360.
Oh, and just so everyone knows for sure.
What is contained in the XBOX 360 is as close to a X1900 as anything.
from : http://www.xbox.com/en-US/hardware/xbox360/nextgengraphics.htm
From ATI's website, for the X1900XTX (which runs as 650 Mhz btw, not 500 Mhz like the X360.. shhesh, even the X1900XT runs faster.)
core speed doesnt mean overall better performance...my x1600xt is running at 685 mhz we all definetly know x1900 out performs it.
Yes core speed doesn't mean a whole lot, the architecture and pipelines matter more.
Separate names with a comma.