How the PC Is Making Consoles Look Out of Date

[1Kurgan1]

But with consoles becoming increasingly out of date, the dollars are starting to go the way of the PC again. That's the whole point of that article.

The problem is, this can swing two ways. 1) Them giving more support to the PC 2) Them continuing like they are because many games release for PC and Console, and they can only make it look so great on PC while still having it on consoles.

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

Ok. What ATi GPU was top dog in 2005 when the 360 was released with basically an X1900 under the hood?

It's not nearly that simple, as discussed many many times in the past. You can't just relate the console gpus to an existing card. Both the PS3 and 360 had DX10 features before DX10 cards were released, that work went back into cards later released for the pc market.

 

[qubit]

The problem is, this can swing two ways. 1) Them giving more support to the PC 2) Them continuing like they are because many games release for PC and Console, and they can only make it look so great on PC while still having it on consoles.

Yeah, good point. It's certainly not a black and white situation at all.

Still though, the news in my OP does show that the PC is not a "dying gaming platform" as some vested interests try to make out.

 

[ctrain]

It's not nearly that simple, as discussed many many times in the past. You can't just relate the console gpus to an existing card. Both the PS3 and 360 had DX10 features before DX10 cards were released, that work went back into cards later released for the pc market.

Well, kinda. You have low level hardware access unlike PC, there's all kinds of hackery and trickery that isn't available or wasn't sane to use for whatever reason, like architectural differences.

What goes into DX versions is usually decided by a grand committee of developers / MS and then hardware follows. Apparently geometry shader was entirely Microsoft's doing.

 

[EchoMan]

"The article includes three videos that give a fantastic insight into where PC graphics are headed, including a version of Epic's Unreal engine, Crytek's Cryengine 3, and DICE's Frostbite 2 engine. Considering that these leaps in eye candy are only possible with the current state of PC graphics, we wonder how long consoles will be the target platform for development of blockbuster games."

Consoles will be the target platform for a long time to come. The infrastructure/hardware is there, no needing to upgrade constantly to play flashy new looking games that lack substance, story, balance, mechanics like on a PC.

Considering these Engines were just revealed when would you see a title besides BF3 utilizing the Engine in PC games? At least 2 years from now. What the word on Dice making their Engine usable to other Devs?

The whole thing is a rather moot point.

 

[erocker]

Yeah, good point. It's certainly not a black and white situation at all.

Still though, the news in my OP does show that the PC is not a "dying gaming platform" as some vested interests try to make out.

Which is why your OP should of just been posted in one of the existing threads that we have here. But meh, if you guys want to start a new thread for every snippet of news relating to identical topics on this forum, whatever.

 

[qubit]

Which is why your OP should of just been posted in one of the existing threads that we have here. But meh, if you guys want to start a new thread for every snippet of news relating to identical topics on this forum, whatever.

I did actually check in the gaming section before I posted my OP. If I had felt that there was something sufficiently similar, I would have posted it there. I guess these things are also subjective to a degree too. I'm sorry of I missed it.

Which thread do you think is similar to this one?

 

[Widjaja]

That's typically not true. At launch consoles are often ahead, then the card with some of that console R&D gets released months later. It's not all downhill as there's points later on when developers learn how to better max out the console. They typically don't become obsolete visually for 2-3 years after launch.

I agree with this.

I remember when I started getting into PC gaming back when XBOX360 and PS3 came out.

I paid more for my PC than a console in upgrades and my PC was still getting owned by console performance.

Since consoles can not be upgraded like a PC it only makes sense console are truly out of date due to what would be considered old hardware in PC terms.

This could mean console ports may become better performing for PC though as specs exceed console performance by a great margin.

 

[ShiBDiB]

I did actually check in the gaming section before I posted my OP. If I had felt that there was something sufficiently similar, I would have posted it there. I guess these things are also subjective to a degree too. I'm sorry of I missed it.

Which thread do you think is similar to this one?

any current game thread....

 

[1Kurgan1]

I agree with this.

I remember when I started getting into PC gaming back when XBOX360 and PS3 came out.

I paid more for my PC than a console in upgrades and my PC was still getting owned by console performance.

Since consoles can not be upgraded like a PC it only makes sense console are truly out of date due to what would be considered old hardware in PC terms.

This could mean console ports may become better performing for PC though as specs exceed console performance by a great margin.

Did you factor in that your PC was also probably running a bunch of extra processes in the background while gaming. You want to compare them closer, you need to make a pure gaming rig and cut the crap background processes out.

Not saying the console weren't closer when they came out, because they obviously were. But the advantage they have is less running on them, as they aren't used like a PC. And the other nice thing is, games are perfectly optimized, since there is only 1 hardware configuration.

 

[Widjaja]

Did you factor in that your PC was also probably running a bunch of extra processes in the background while gaming. You want to compare them closer, you need to make a pure gaming rig and cut the crap background processes out.

Not saying the console weren't closer when they came out, because they obviously were. But the advantage they have is less running on them, as they aren't used like a PC. And the other nice thing is, games are perfectly optimized, since there is only 1 hardware configuration.

Certainly did.
Yet the consoles were cheaper than a PC.
Sure the console only did one thing while the PC did more but still the PC which would be a of greater price should have been pretty close to the performance of a console back then IMO.

Not having lesser performance and needing to run at 1024 x 768 to get the same frame rate while a console like the XBOX360 is playing at 720p.
But that was years ago now.

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

and again almost no game out there is truly running 720p in general most games on console run at a resolution below 1024x768 and it gets up scaled so its moot even during the time when the consoles were released they were barely hitting the standard res of an old CRT from 20 years ago

 

[Mussels]

and again almost no game out there is truly running 720p in general most games on console run at a resolution below 1024x768 and it gets up scaled so its moot even during the time when the consoles were released they were barely hitting the standard res of an old CRT from 20 years ago

mmmhmm. not to mention that the consoles can barely manage 30FPS half the time.

 

[KainXS]

consoles may be out of date now but when released they usually lead to development for PC, look at the 360's GPU, was the precursor to the radeon HD line.

 

[Mussels]

consoles may be out of date now but when released they usually lead to development for PC, look at the 360's GPU, was the precursor to the radeon HD line.

yeah, but that doesnt mean PC followed those designs. they ended up quite different in architecture.

 

[entropy13]

consoles may be out of date now but when released they usually lead to development for PC, look at the 360's GPU, was the precursor to the radeon HD line.

Not really a precursor. It's more like whatever weaknesses the 360 GPU have would be fixed in the PC GPUs, but nothing would be done in addressing those weaknesses in the 360's GPU.

 

[Tartaros]

consoles may be out of date now but when released they usually lead to development for PC, look at the 360's GPU, was the precursor to the radeon HD line.

Most of the cases is the opposite. Most of advances are made in pc, almost every new technology comes to pc long way before arrives in consoles.

And that's why pc gaming will never die and why all the people saying pc gaming is dead is wrong, pc it's an open platform. It's cheap, everyone with a pc can make a game and there are no restrictions. Consoles can't beat that.

 

[Over_Lord]

Exactly! I will believe it when i see it!

Epic are far too busy with Gears Of War 3 (360) and then (probably) Gears Of War 4 (720 launch title that will rake in the dough!)

microsoft pays them hefty bounty

"The article includes three videos that give a fantastic insight into where PC graphics are headed, including a version of Epic's Unreal engine, Crytek's Cryengine 3, and DICE's Frostbite 2 engine. Considering that these leaps in eye candy are only possible with the current state of PC graphics, we wonder how long consoles will be the target platform for development of blockbuster games."

Consoles will be the target platform for a long time to come. The infrastructure/hardware is there, no needing to upgrade constantly to play flashy new looking games that lack substance, story, balance, mechanics like on a PC.

Considering these Engines were just revealed when would you see a title besides BF3 utilizing the Engine in PC games? At least 2 years from now. What the word on Dice making their Engine usable to other Devs?

The whole thing is a rather moot point.

Crysis 2 wont even have DX11 at launch - FAIL
EPIC's stupid engine requires 3xGTX580 to run DX11 at the moment
Frostbite 2 is exclusive to EA and DICE and no modding support


EDIT:

THis forum SERIOUSLY NEEDS AUTOMERGED DOUBLEPOST!!

 

[pr0n Inspector]

wrong thread

 

[KainXS]

Not really a precursor. It's more like whatever weaknesses the 360 GPU have would be fixed in the PC GPUs, but nothing would be done in addressing those weaknesses in the 360's GPU.

because its a console

Most of the cases is the opposite. Most of advances are made in pc, almost every new technology comes to pc long way before arrives in consoles.

And that's why pc gaming will never die and why all the people saying pc gaming is dead is wrong, pc it's an open platform. It's cheap, everyone with a pc can make a game and there are no restrictions. Consoles can't beat that.

this gen it was not like that most of the time
the PS3 and 360s cpu's are both based on Cell development which never came to PC until years later and still failed
the 360's GPU was an improved X18XX which had tech that didn't surface till the HD2XXX series came out, the PS3's however was just a butchered PC GPU

the last time a console came out that was a direct(and I mean direct) result of PC development at the time was when the Xbox 1 came out(because it was basically a PC)

 

[entropy13]

because its a console

Exactly. It was outdated to begin with. It was only ahead of its time "just a bit", as it is more of a half-step in-between the two generations of GPUs rather than a full line ahead.

 

[qubit]

the 360's GPU was an improved X18XX which had tech that didn't surface till the HD2XXX series came out, the PS3's however was just a butchered PC GPU

I remember when the PS3 came out, there were articles explaining the arcitecture of the machine and that it was so different that it couldn't be compared to a PC, especially graphics processing.

Nowadays I just read that it's basically an nvidia 7800 GPU customized for the PS3, so I don't know what to believe.

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

its basically a 6800 ultra / 7800gt in terms of what it can give performance wise, The cell cpu on the PS3 was ment to do all gpu tasks but developers didnt want that kind of pipeline so sony added a gpu for them to use, untill they could use the Cell CPU more effectively. Sony hasnt been known for great design choices, look at the PS4 which was going to use larrabee and got shelved lol

 

[Mussels]

I remember when the PS3 came out, there were articles explaining the arcitecture of the machine and that it was so different that it couldn't be compared to a PC, especially graphics processing.

Nowadays I just read that it's basically an nvidia 7800 GPU customized for the PS3, so I don't know what to believe.

its the CPU thats hard to compare, not the GPU.

 

[1Kurgan1]

Certainly did.
Yet the consoles were cheaper than a PC.
Sure the console only did one thing while the PC did more but still the PC which would be a of greater price should have been pretty close to the performance of a console back then IMO.

Not having lesser performance and needing to run at 1024 x 768 to get the same frame rate while a console like the XBOX360 is playing at 720p.
But that was years ago now.

Consoles were cheaper obviously because it was a 1 trick pony, not going to argue that they weren't cheaper, because they were, but thats like saying buying 2 tires for your car is cheaper than 4. If you got 4 bald tires, 2 isn't going to get the job done, so if you need the PC util, the console cost won't matter much as you need more than what it can do.

Also, I don't think PC's were behind at all, it may have seemed so because of the resolution, I mean heck, since like 2002 I was running my PC games at 1280x1024.