[whatsinaname]

Just a quick question but has there been a comparison done by anyone or has anyone seen any of the games that are out now for both the xbox360 and the PC and if so which currently are looking better?

From the limited amount I've seen I'd have to give the nod to the xbox360 and that makes me really sad since I'm a pc gamer lol. What do you guys think?

[pjbliverpool]

Originally Posted by whatsinaname

Just a quick question but has there been a comparison done by anyone or has anyone seen any of the games that are out now for both the xbox360 and the PC and if so which currently are looking better?

From the limited amount I've seen I'd have to give the nod to the xbox360 and that makes me really sad since I'm a pc gamer lol. What do you guys think?

There has been no objective comparison that I have seen. Some sites claim X360 superiority, some claim PC. None show comparison screenshots, framerates, confirmed graphical settings etc....

I suppose the candidates would be:

Call of Duty 2
Need for Speed: Most Wanted
King Kong (gamers edition)
Quake 4

Any more?

[Diplo]

The only one I've seen (in screenshots) is Call of Duty 2 which looks pretty much the same on both formats. However CoD2, whilst being pretty in action, isn't using too much cuttin' edge tech. I think a high-end PC still has the edge and this will only increase over time.

[Diplo]

Noticed this in the GameSpot review for Quake 4 on Xbo360:

The only real difference is in visual quality and performance. When running on a modern PC, Quake 4 looks fantastic, using the Doom 3 engine to display the alien world of Stroggos in a sharp, defined level of detail. A quick look up at the sky or at most of the game's wall and ground textures shows that the Xbox 360 version has significantly muddier textures. In addition, the frame rate is sort of a mess. Any time the action gets heated in a large or complex-looking area, the game starts to spin down to a surprisingly low frame rate, regardless of whether you're playing in HD resolution or on a regular TV. At some points, it gets so bad that the whole game starts to slow down, as well. You'll know when that's happening because the rate of fire on your weapons slows way, way down. Even when there's no action onscreen, just viewing the environments is enough to make the game run at a noticeably choppy rate. While there are still some cool-looking areas, the frame rate troubles drag down the entire experience.

Of course, that may be down to a bad port, but you wouldn't think it would be too difficult to do...

[ANova]

I've played NFSMW on both the pc and the x360 and neither look any better then the other imo.

[Reverend]

The only "fair" comparison between a console and the PC is if a screenshot was taken with the same number of pixels for both, provided all other 3D features are equal (number of pixels isn't exactly a "3D feature", now is it?). I don't think this will likely happen.

[Sxotty]

There is nothing "sad" about it if the 360 is better, in fact the 360 SHOULD be better for ow, I mean it has a triple core and a newer GPU than is available on the PC. The only "sad" thing is if it is not clearly better looking than a PC which it SHOULD be at the moment. Yes, yes I know PCs cost an exoritant amount in comparison, still a console should look amazing right when it is released. I personally think they missed out on the amazing titles at release, and for that reason it will never have the pazaz that it might otherwise have. In other words PC hardware will catch up by the time any good looking games come out for it.

[Rodéric]

I agree the wow factor is not there for XBox360, when I got my Dreamcast with Sonic Adventure, I was amazed, it was a whole new world compared to my PC; with XBox360 it just looks like my PC games (image quality wise, and unfortunately gameplay wise).

We'll have to wait before we see real "next-gen" titles, maybe "Gears of War" will be the first ?


[edit]
In fact PD0 look worse than PC games, everything's way too plastic/shiny.
CoD2 is fine.

[CMAN]

Am I correct in remembering when other consoles came out they seemed to slaughter the current high end computers, but that is not happening now. If the XBox360 was such an ambitious project, then why is it not more impressive to us (people without high end computers think it's the second coming)?

I remember reading an article from 1Up that rated XBox360 games and compared them to other consoles or the PC, and many games looked the same or worse. I can only think these "ports" are not taking advantage of the XBox360 due to the complexity of coding "correctly" for the platform.

IMO the XBox 360 is more powerful if coded correctly for. However, by the time games come out coded for the XBox 360, high end computers will probably already have caught up. Graphic cards have gone crazy the last couple of years in performance increases. Look at the NV30 compared the the current 512 MB 7800 GTX or the 8500 Pro to a X1800 XT. Plus consumers are willing to pay more with SLI set ups too.

[RussSchultz]

I think the magnitude of the 'leap of performance' is getting less and less visible.

Going from 2d scrollers to 3d was a big change. Going from non-textured to textured was a big change.

Now its just smoother, more pixels, and more polygons, with a few cinematic details added. There's no giant paradigm shifts happening.

[Diplo]

Originally Posted by Sxotty

There is nothing "sad" about it if the 360 is better, in fact the 360 SHOULD be better for ow, I mean it has a triple core and a newer GPU than is available on the PC.

I think a few factors are influencing this: The main one being that developers have been under real pressure to get games released for the 360 launch date. This has inevitably meant that most have just ported existing games from existing consoles or PC (how many 360 launch titles are NOT sequels or ports?). I doubt many have even really bothered to optimise threads for triple-core or managed memory efficiently. It's probably been the old, "Does it compile? Then ship it!" attitude that exists in most software houses when under pressure (*cough*).

Give it time and we'll have a better idea of what the machine can do...

[digitalwanderer]

I'm agreeing with Diplo on the "wait and see" approach.

Most reports I've been hearing from PC gamers I know who see the X360 have been inclined to mention the lack of AA as a real disapointment to 'em.

[cloudscapes]

Of course people will argue that the 360 does have AA, but at the moment we're only seeing 2XAA, which is almost like having none on a big enough TV if you ask me. That's a shock to PC gamers who are used to 4X minimum.

[mcsven]

Originally Posted by RussSchultz

I think the magnitude of the 'leap of performance' is getting less and less visible.

Going from 2d scrollers to 3d was a big change. Going from non-textured to textured was a big change.

Now its just smoother, more pixels, and more polygons, with a few cinematic details added. There's no giant paradigm shifts happening.

I agree. However I wonder what the next big leap will be?

Not strictly graphically related, the next biggie for me in FPSs is fully deformable scenery - which would have to be tied to a large increase in AI capability to make a viable game. I'd love to be able to decide my own route through Doom 3 for instance.

[pjbliverpool]

Originally Posted by CMAN

IMO the XBox 360 is more powerful if coded correctly for. However, by the time games come out coded for the XBox 360, high end computers will probably already have caught up.

Putting cost aside the X360 isn't even remotely as powerful as the highest end PC's.

Even a single GPU GTX 512 system is on a par with the PS3, but the highest end systems would have two of these beasts in. You could even go for the versions which are overclocked as standard.

This is probably the most powerful stock gaming PC you can get today:

AthlonX2 4800+
2GB DRR400
Creative X-Fi Fatality
2x EVGA 7800GTX 512MB Blackpearl editions (600/1800)

An X360 certainly isn't packing as much gaming muscle as that. In fact I doubt it even has half.

[Sxotty]

That is what I said Diplo

I said that later titles will look better, but if they take to long to come out they will not overlap the window wherein the Xbox 360 is superior to a PC.

I say we blame it on longer development times, if that is really true, then maybe a console will never again have that window to shine in...But really that just means they need dev kits out earlier.

[Nite_Hawk]

Just from having played the demo kiosk (granted, the real versions of games are apparently nicer looking), I wasn't very impressed. The lack of AA was pretty distinct, and the games didn't really look that terribly next gen anyway.

I imagine they'll be able to do some pretty nice things with the harder with the second generation of games, but like others have said, PC hardware will have evolved by then as well. I think probably the best argument right now is that you can get near top-end PC performance for $300, which is fairly compelling if you don't have a decent PC already.

Still, I'm personally sticking with my PC.

Nite_Hawk

[pakotlar]

I saw COD2 Xbox360 on a 50" Plasma @ Best Buy today, and quite honestly it looks amazing. I'm a bit perplexed as to how they didn't include 8xAF in the game, but I very seriously doubt that is due to a lack of processing power on the hardware end. It looked like it does on my $1500 machine (minus AA, ofcourse, as this was the pre-release demo) and ran a good clip smoother. Also, for the first time in my life, I could actually see myself enjoying an FPS with a game controller. I don't know what it is about the xbox360 controller, but it feels are responds heads and shoulders above anything I've ever used. I was previously a big fan of the DS2, but compared to this pad, DS2 feels like moving wooden fingers. It's just smoother, and more responsive. I had good accuracy, and fast reflexes. And I got the same visceral feel of combat that I did on my PC. The A.I wasn't dumbed down to reflect console controls and there was none of that fucking auto-aim that has plagued console shooters since the dawn of time. I give it a big thumbs up. I will be picking one up asap.

[AlStrong]

Originally Posted by Sxotty

I say we blame it on longer development times, if that is really true, then maybe a console will never again have that window to shine in...But really that just means they need dev kits out earlier.

I think the biggest problem is that the CPU architectures of these consoles keeps changing every generation.

[Doomtrooper]

Originally Posted by pjbliverpool

Putting cost aside the X360 isn't even remotely as powerful as the highest end PC's.

Even a single GPU GTX 512 system is on a par with the PS3, but the highest end systems would have two of these beasts in. You could even go for the versions which are overclocked as standard.

This is probably the most powerful stock gaming PC you can get today:

AthlonX2 4800+
2GB DRR400
Creative X-Fi Fatality
2x EVGA 7800GTX 512MB Blackpearl editions (600/1800)

An X360 certainly isn't packing as much gaming muscle as that. In fact I doubt it even has half.

I think you are overlooking the fact the PC's platform was not designed for games, no overhead on a console. I would take a X-box 360 up against any high end PC like above anyday at HD resolution. In fact the nice thing about the 360 is it capable of delivering the graphics the the above PC system at the price of one 7800 GTX.
Could you buy a PC today with a triple core CPU @ 3.2 Ghz with a 512 meg PS3 video card @ 500 mhz with 10 meg of ebedded Dram for $400. Add with that the seamless voice interaction with friend online makes it in my opinion a good excuse to dump PC gaming in general.

Basing assumptions on games on 1st gen releases is not wise, some of the games being released latley on last gen consoles are only now fully utilizing their potential.
All this come from a former PC gaming 'addict', I'm all for cheap entertainment and IBM, MS$ and ATI have made a gamers heaven especially if you own a HD TV.

[pjbliverpool]

Originally Posted by Doomtrooper

I think you are overlooking the fact the PC's platform was not designed for games, no overhead on a console.

And your overlooking the fact that those graphics cards were designed precisely for gaming. That RAM is no different than what you will find in a console and that CPU was designed with games performance in mind and is no different (in basic design philosophy) than that which powers the previous king of consoles: the xbox.

So the PC has an operating system, do you know how much CPU power that takes up when the games running? Well it takes zero when a games not running so why would it be any different? As for the memory it takes up, well PC's have tons to spare anyway.

I would take a X-box 360 up against any high end PC like above anyday at HD resolution.

Then you would lose. Badly. I honestly can't believe you would attempt to compare the performance of such a system to the X360. How about going and looking at the benchmarks and resolutions that thing can output in the games that are on both systems and then ask yourself if the X360 could do the same.

In fact the nice thing about the 360 is it capable of delivering the graphics the the above PC system at the price of one 7800 GTX.

I guess you missed the part were I said putting cost aside? Everybody knows consoles are far cheaper, we don't need yet another person trying to change the basis of a perfectly well defined argument in order to influence its outcome. Just stay on topic.

Could you buy a PC today with a triple core CPU @ 3.2 Ghz with a 512 meg PS3 video card @ 500 mhz with 10 meg of ebedded Dram for $400. Add with that the seamless voice interaction with friend online makes it in my opinion a good excuse to dump PC gaming in general.

And what does your opinion have to do with which is more powerful?

Basing assumptions on games on 1st gen releases is not wise, some of the games being released latley on last gen consoles are only now fully utilizing their potential.

So you would prefer to wait while the PC's power doubles every year to compare the two? Yes thats a lot more wise to make the comparison fair. This is when the consoles have their biggest advantage because PC game graphics develop faster than console game graphics. Yes last gen console are hitting their peaks now and just look at that compared to what the PC is outputting. Its a clear generation ahead (being on a par with the xbox's successor).

All this come from a former PC gaming 'addict', I'm all for cheap entertainment and IBM, MS$ and ATI have made a gamers heaven especially if you own a HD TV.

Im all for the best entertainment system I can afford. If thats a PC why should I care if others don't think its worth it? Perhaps they don't have as much disposable income?

[AlphaWolf]

I don't think you can look at the high end PC's for a comparison to consoles, you have to look at the target market. Developers aren't targetting the high end, they are targetting the whole range. For the PC market that means they have to make compromises, they have to invest development time and resources for supporting older hardware, time that could have gone to improving other areas. For consoles they don't have to make that comprise, they don't have a moving target.

[Doomtrooper]

Originally Posted by pjbliverpool

So you would prefer to wait while the PC's power doubles every year to compare the two? Yes thats a lot more wise to make the comparison fair. This is when the consoles have their biggest advantage because PC game graphics develop faster than console game graphics. Yes last gen console are hitting their peaks now and just look at that compared to what the PC is outputting. Its a clear generation ahead (being on a par with the xbox's successor).

PC power does not relate to double the game experience, there hasn't been a PC game released EVER that warrants a $3000 dollar investment period. Especially in the last couple of years PC gaming has gone all MORPG, yawn.

Im all for the best entertainment system I can afford. If thats a PC why should I care if others don't think its worth it? Perhaps they don't have as much disposable income?

I was once to claim the same, but you like myself will always be a minority as developers target the INSTALLED user base, not 1% of the market that buy high end expensive cards.

As for losing in "frame rate" to a high end PC at 1080i resolution or 1080x1920 with a DUAL 7800 GTX vs. a Xbox 360, "frame rate" doesn't equal better graphics, developers make better graphics.

[Mintmaster]

Originally Posted by pjbliverpool

Even a single GPU GTX 512 system is on a par with the PS3, but the highest end systems would have two of these beasts in. You could even go for the versions which are overclocked as standard.

Don't forget that the GTX 512MB has twice the memory and 2.5 times the bandwidth.

It all comes down to developer skills, though. We haven't seen anything near the true capabilities of PC hardware, because developers have to have at least a DX8 fallback (due to DX8 users as well as Xbox original).

In a year's time I fully expect consoles to have superior graphics, but then the PC will take over again soon after. As long as the computer industry can convince us to spend over $1000 on a new PC, then it remains reasonable for a gamer to spend over $200 on a video card. A couple of years from now, $200 will run over XB360 and PS3. Then PC games can start to push new limits again.

[Guden Oden]

Originally Posted by pjbliverpool

An X360 certainly isn't packing as much gaming muscle as that. In fact I doubt it even has half.

Actually, it has a lot more gaming muscle than any PC you might care to assemble today.

While it might not have the brute horsepower of your crude and wasteful supercharged big-block V8 PC, it more than makes up for it in other ways. For example it has over five times the floating point calculation capability of any PC processor out today. The CPU and GPU are both tightly integrated where the GPU has direct read and write access to the CPU's L2 cache across a bidirectional 10+ GB/s read AND write link, and 20+ GB/s main memory subsystem. Can you name any PC processor that comes close to 10GB/s bus speed, much less in both directions simultaneously? Furthermore, the GPU's shaders have random access to main memory, a feature that isn't slated even for DX10. The GPU has enough on-chip bandwidth to do 4xAA with very little penalty, and thanks to eDRAM, fillrate is going to be monstrously fast, particulary with transparencies and such.

Sure, all this power needs special care in order to be untapped, but if all problems are solved with more MBs, more MHzses, more pipes and more add-in boards like in a PC, then price is going to zoom away off into the stratosphere. Like with the PC you quoted the specs of in your post...