Aqua-Soft ForumsWhich do you think is better (graphics wise)? Xbox or PC? I say PC. How else are the models and other graphical effects created? By the way, before any one says this topic is pointless (which it is, I know), me and my freind have been debating over which has better graphics. A high-end Fully-loaded PC, or an xbox. I just want to see what other people think.
Xbox graphics vs. PC graphics
Purely on system specs:
X-Box
--
CPU: 733 mhz
Main memory: 64mb
Further hardware details here for example.
Pc's
--
In contradiction to consoles, pc hardware varies hugely
from one to another, but your typical mordern pc probably contains:
CPU: 1,5-3,2 Ghz
Main memory: 512mb-4Gb (the latter for some lucky few)
GPU: 64-256mb (why aren't there 512mb and over videocards yet?)
This should be a no-brainer.
Pc's have way more power & can handle much higher resolutions.
Still...some games look better on consoles than on pc's.
Why?
I suspect this to be because of bad (=lazy) console to pc porting.
Anyone else have a better/more thorough opinion?
Well, PC games can be slower because there's all of Windows, services, background programs, etc.. slowing the system down. On a console, the game IS the OS. That speeds stuff up greatly.
well based on halo, id have to say xbox.
based on how one is a gaming console (although almost a PC) and the other is a PersonalComputer, i`m wondering why is this so important? They work differently and use different displays (computer display vs the TV) and like u can`t really compare Macs and PCs, u can`t really compare the two :slant:
i think its pretty silly to try and compare a console to a PC, seeing that there are a million different combinations of processors, ram, video cards, drivers, hdd rpm speeds, either ata or raid etc for PC's. But if really want a comparison: Doom 3 for Xbox, which will be coming out very soon, will never look as good as Doom 3 for PC on a system with an AMD64 FX processor, 1GB of DDR550 memory, and Dual SLi Nvidia GeForce 6800 Ultra PCI Express 256mb. But Doom 3 for Xbox WILL look better than Doom 3 for PC on a system with and 800mhz processor, 32mb of vid mem, and 256mb sdram mem.
If it's the quality of the picture, a PC monitor is capable of producing a sharper and clearer picture than any TV, including HD.
HD is really a computer display in the first place.
And if I recall, the X-Box is not HD capable yet.
So... NTSC/PAL on a TV with 4xx (can't remember) lines of resolution or SVGA or better at 1024 lines of resolution and higher.
As for graphics power, I'm waiting for X-Box 2. It will have an ATI VPU in it that will blow away the current nVidia GPU in the current X-Box. And it will be HD compatible. I heard that M$ already shipped the core developer kit with hardware out to the developers already. 3 G5 cpu's and an ATI VPU. Couldn't find out anymore specs yet, but I understand it no longer uses a hard drive.
Yep.. it's all about the display... TV can hide the small defects due to the poor resolution / low dpi.
it uses a graphics core of 250 mhz. sounds like geforce 4 ti because it has the same exact core clock. overall, nothing can match pc gaming for me, because it can do so much more than just games, (which my parents hated me doing) and i like the fact that you can upgrade your graphics card.
xbox does not have antialising or anisotrophic filtering so it seems to be smoother. also, it's a game console without any firewalls, viruses, or any other applications, which means all of the cpu is on the game. no hyperthreading required.
xbox is quite cheap so if you only want gaming and value, xbox is fine
so, for people that only wants to game, xbox is perfect.
for people that already have a good computer that can game alright, there's no need to buy another console, (and the tv too)
I've only used an xbox once (to play halo2 through), but i thought the graphics were horrible.
I mean i could see the potential there, but it seemed to be pixelated crap compared to all the pc gaming i've done. (it was a middle of the road tv the x-box was hooked up to).
Maybe i'm wrong, since that was the only time i've used a 'recent' console, but i won't be going out and buying one until i happen to see otherwise (which will be random since i don't care).
Reminds me of projectors too... subpar resolution for a computer monitor is touted as revolutionarily amazing resolution + blown up to 4 times the size = pixel smudged pap + insanely overpriced.
Sometimes i think 90% of the tech market consists of selling hardware 5 years before it is ready to go to market.
Xbox is a stripped down PC running a special version of Windows 2000 (or so I herd). The consoles use many different graphical tweaks to make the game run smoothly. So DooM 3 is not going to look as good on the Xbox as it does on the pc. I mean common, the total amount of texture memory required for ultra mode is over 500MB of vram. As stated above it depents on the display also. Seeing as how tvs show less detail, consoles reqiure less graphical power to impress people. One more thing, how do you think they create the games for the xbox? They sure as hell don't magically create them selves.
Xbox is a stripped down PC running a special version of Windows 2000 (or so I herd). The consoles use many different graphical tweaks to make the game run smoothly. So DooM 3 is not going to look as good on the Xbox as it does on the pc. I mean common, the total amount of texture memory required for ultra mode is over 500MB of vram. As stated above it depents on the display also. Seeing as how tvs show less detail, consoles reqiure less graphical power to impress people. One more thing, how do you think they create the games for the xbox? They sure as hell don't magically create them selves.
I am not sure if i know where you are going with this, i don't understand your point, are you adding a post to answer your own question? and what do you mean about magically self-creating games? I didn't see anybody even remotely hinting at that? :slant:
My freinds say you can only create an Xbox game with an Xbox. I was asking for everyone elses opinions so I how many people think which is better. As far as explaining everything to them, thats as easy as teaching a gold fish to live on land.
My freinds say you can only create an Xbox game with an Xbox.
Console games are made on PC's and Mac's in combination with a DevKit from the console's manufacturer.
like someone said, it's like comparing an apple to a bannana, comparing a neon tetra to a drawf gourami, comparing a granite stone to glass, and so forth. some people would find xboxes more convenient than pcs, and viceversa. but in graphical comparason, pcs win unless you have a seriously outdated graphics card.
i just realized that you shoulden't make these kinds of comparasons because everybody is diffrent. some likes hockey, some likes basketball. i, like ping pong and golf. we are all diffrent and special. it's our own preferences.
If it's the quality of the picture, a PC monitor is capable of producing a sharper and clearer picture than any TV, including HD.HD is really a computer display in the first place.
And if I recall, the X-Box is not HD capable yet.
So... NTSC/PAL on a TV with 4xx (can't remember) lines of resolution or SVGA or better at 1024 lines of resolution and higher.
As for graphics power, I'm waiting for X-Box 2. It will have an ATI VPU in it that will blow away the current nVidia GPU in the current X-Box. And it will be HD compatible. I heard that M$ already shipped the core developer kit with hardware out to the developers already. 3 G5 cpu's and an ATI VPU. Couldn't find out anymore specs yet, but I understand it no longer uses a hard drive.
It's quite interesting that the Xbox will go through the ATI route. I read at engadget that the next Playstation3 will carry a special custom form of the Nvidia 6800 series graphics.
It's quite interesting that the Xbox will go through the ATI route. I read at engadget that the next Playstation3 will carry a special custom form of the Nvidia 6800 series graphics.
Apparently M$ and nVidia had a falling out over pricing of their graphics components.
So M$ said screw you, let the contract expire and went to ATI. The new X-Box is supposed to be using the latest version of the XT series VPU. Can't wait to see what the final version looks like.
I may actualy get one, if the price is right.
And yea, Sony did recently ink a deal with nVidia to do the PS-3's graphics system.
I haven't heard anything about the details, but it should be interesting to see what they come up with.
Simple answer: PC
Complex: Even on a High Definition TV you are looking at the XBox running at about 1024x768 (the fact you sit further away means you don't notice detail loss compared to a PC) whereas most people now game on PCs at 1280x1024 or 1600x1200 (therefore more detail but also more GPU power needed). XBox and PC both use DirectX so there is nothing gained or lost there. nVidia have greatly improved their Hardware and Drivers since the release of the XBox so it's 2-0 PC.
The thing that makes some games look better on XBox than PC is that the game is converted at native resolution (1024x768) which means even improving the resolution on a PC isn't doesn't improve the graphics. So although the Polygons look cleaner at 1600x1200 on Halo, the textures are designed for you to be viewing at 1024x768 and look blurry in comparison.
My freinds say you can only create an Xbox game with an Xbox. *SNIP*
COOL! 
If you know what a PC is, and what a gaming console is, you know that u can`t really compare the two (especially in such a way that has only a small percentage to do with the console/PC hardware itself).
My freinds say you can only create an Xbox game with an Xbox.
Oh Oh... my turn.
Umm, in case you didn't know... an X-Box IS, more or less anyway, a stripped down PC designed to do one thing... play games.
Purely on system specs:
GPU: 64-256mb (why aren't there 512mb and over videocards yet?)
there arent because there's no chips fast enough to support that, putting the memory in, isnt the problem, i mean if you wanna you can get a vc w/ a gig but it wont run faster, i mean you can run nfsu2 on a 16mb vc if your chip is fast enough to process the graphics.
(Facist [about my questioning the lack of >256mb GPU's[/i)
]there arent because there's no chips fast enough to support that, putting the memory in, isnt the problem, i mean if you wanna you can get a vc w/ a gig but it wont run faster, i mean you can run nfsu2 on a 16mb vc if your chip is fast enough to process the graphics.
#1 So where would I get myself a 1 gig vc/GPU? Never seen one yet.
#2 You're telling me there's no difference performance-wise between let's say a 16mb GPU and a 256mb GPU with the same chipset? When I upgraded my former K6-2 pc from 32 to 96mb is was a major boost. The next memory upgrade to 384mb made it noticably fly, especially in loading times (I can remember being very happy when the loading times of JA2 turning into nothingness because of it). Now, you're telling me they do not make 1 gig GPU's because their chipsets do not contain the speed to benefit from it?
Are you sure this is true with my experiances illustrated above in mind?
#3 then why do system specs on games raise not only on cpu requirements, but also on GPU memory? 
I realize the games are programmed on the pc or mac, just because my freinds said it doesn't mean I said it. Then there is the most high-end card out there, The Wildcat Realizm 800.
EDIT: What I posted was really inappropriate and I have removed it.
Issue was resolved offline as it should have been done in the first place.
We're all adults here so let's act like it.... well ok there are some younger people here to.