shortround
Newcomer
Well, if it IS stable 60 FPS then we can assume that is in fact it's minimum break- being that it's synced with the TV, any time it drops below 60 it would have to go all the way to 30.
COD2 benches..a comparison point?
- Thread starter Bill
- Start date
- Status
Last edited by a moderator:
How can the XB360 have lower loading times?! The PC is guarenteed a HDD, no optical disk streaming, likely a faster HDD than XB360's on any modern PC, more RAM for storing data... 
scooby_dooby
Legend
Shifty Geezer said:How can the XB360 have lower loading times?! The PC is guarenteed a HDD, no optical disk streaming, likely a faster HDD than XB360's on any modern PC, more RAM for storing data...
Windows? Also, this guy was on a premium, with HDD caching, i'm sure. Not to mention a couple extra CPU cores for decompressing data.
This is silly, only one person has made one minor mention of the most important factor in this comparison:
That number of players isn't even possible on the X360 and given all the smoke grenades going off, im sure if it were possible to run this custom demo on the X360 it would be seriously bogged down aswell, certainly below its usual average whatever that may be.
Another thing to note is that 60fps doean't mean the game runs at 60fps all the time, it simply means it never goes above 60fps. Doom 3 on the PC was exactly the same. Also, many, many console games claim 30 or 60 fps but then display visible slowdown under gameplay which proves they are not maintaining anything like those framreates.
Here is another set of CoD 2 benchmarks showing higher scores in what is almost certainly a more typical gameplay scenario (being taken from the demo):
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1867250,00.asp
The GTX scores 52fps at 1280x1024 (and so 60fps at 720p is not out of reach) but drops to 37fps with 4xFSAA/8xAF applied. However we have no idea if they are actually active in the X360 version.
Now its almost certain that the GTX is being held back severely by its limited 256MB framebuffer since the X1800XT maintains 55fps with FSAA/AF and so 60+fps at those settings and 720p is likely.
So my conclusion based on this is that the X360 version runs faster than the PC version on a GTX 256MB, but equal or slower to the X1800XT. The GTX 512MB thanks to its extra memory and clock sped will likely wipe the floor with both. If you can afford SLI, then any of the setups would leave the X360 version standing.
That number of players isn't even possible on the X360 and given all the smoke grenades going off, im sure if it were possible to run this custom demo on the X360 it would be seriously bogged down aswell, certainly below its usual average whatever that may be.
Another thing to note is that 60fps doean't mean the game runs at 60fps all the time, it simply means it never goes above 60fps. Doom 3 on the PC was exactly the same. Also, many, many console games claim 30 or 60 fps but then display visible slowdown under gameplay which proves they are not maintaining anything like those framreates.
Here is another set of CoD 2 benchmarks showing higher scores in what is almost certainly a more typical gameplay scenario (being taken from the demo):
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1867250,00.asp
The GTX scores 52fps at 1280x1024 (and so 60fps at 720p is not out of reach) but drops to 37fps with 4xFSAA/8xAF applied. However we have no idea if they are actually active in the X360 version.
Now its almost certain that the GTX is being held back severely by its limited 256MB framebuffer since the X1800XT maintains 55fps with FSAA/AF and so 60+fps at those settings and 720p is likely.
So my conclusion based on this is that the X360 version runs faster than the PC version on a GTX 256MB, but equal or slower to the X1800XT. The GTX 512MB thanks to its extra memory and clock sped will likely wipe the floor with both. If you can afford SLI, then any of the setups would leave the X360 version standing.
Tap In said:
Thats an xbox fansite, im waiting for a less biased review. I mean, the guy doesn't seem to understand that whacking the resolution up is obviously going to negatively impact the performance of the PC version.
I would have put more stock in his words if he has listed both the PC specs and the setiings that he was running on, and then posted some comparison screenshots.
pjbliverpool said:
check out their other 360 reviews 78% for Need For Speed and 77% for King Kong
hardly an X360 shill they review all games
http://totalgames.net/
http://totalgames.net/pm/8
Last edited by a moderator:
Tap In said:
Nevertheless, it still doesn't fill me with confidence when they claim the PC version has lower performance when its a know fact that a GTX 512 SLI machine would totally obliterate the X360's framerate at the same settings in the game. Yes that PC setup is far more expensive than the X360, but are we having a performance discussion or a "bang for your buck" discussion? (sorry I have to include that disclaimer since it seems whenever a PC performance vs X360 performance discussion starts turning in the PC's favour, someone inevitably brings up cost).
scooby_dooby
Legend
pj you'd never admit it anyways even if a dozen reviews say the same thing. The console can never be better than the PC, never!
How do you know it's noit the 3cored CPU making the biggest impact in framerate? How do you know if IW programmed the PC version to take advantage of PC multi-cored CPU's? I can gaurantee you any time they spent multi-threading the engine for PC's was a fraction of the time they dedicated to tapping the X360's 3cores.
How do you know it's noit the 3cored CPU making the biggest impact in framerate? How do you know if IW programmed the PC version to take advantage of PC multi-cored CPU's? I can gaurantee you any time they spent multi-threading the engine for PC's was a fraction of the time they dedicated to tapping the X360's 3cores.
scooby_dooby said:
No really, I will admit it if I see some reasonable evidence. All I have seen so far is a couple of xbox fan sites claiming that they "think" they can see the X360 looking a little better. And those same sites also claim it performs better which can easily be proven wrong.
I admit I will be dissapointed if the 360 version looks better (even though im getting one) because I know the PC is capable of the same (and more) at the highest end. Whats stopping the devs from implementing those options into the game for people with high end systems?
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/28cpu-games_7.html
Thats how I know. CPU's don't make a huge difference in CPU limited games.
As the above link shows, the game isn't multithreaded for the PC. Nor is it CPU limited anyway so its irrelivant. The game is GPU limited and thats what determines the framerate and the graphics.
Yes it may look better at the same res/image quality, but no it doesn't run better, at least not compared tot he highest end PC's. As for looking better, show me comparison screenshots, not xbox fansite opinions.
Master-Mold
Newcomer
I find PC/Console "benchmark" comparisons moronic, but i do need to point out that totalgames.net in no way shape or form seems biased.
Incase any geniuses havent figured it out if you type in http://www.totalgames.net/pm/20 you get to the PS2 section of their site which is....get this...done up with PS2 hoopla just like thier Xbox section. Essentially the site totalgames.net looks that way for every console section you visit and it is not an Xbox fansite.
Incase any geniuses havent figured it out if you type in http://www.totalgames.net/pm/20 you get to the PS2 section of their site which is....get this...done up with PS2 hoopla just like thier Xbox section. Essentially the site totalgames.net looks that way for every console section you visit and it is not an Xbox fansite.
IGN early versions hands on
About load times :
Oh yes! One last thing!
Believe it or not, this game loads at incredibly fast speeds. We watched as this not-final game loaded the first level from the main menu in less than six seconds. Pretty awesome indeed.
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/657/657624p1.html
about PC/XB360 comparisson:
The Xbox 360 version shares several similarities with the PC version.
Both are filled with well-animated soldiers, ornamented with highly detailed environments, and they all moved at crisp framerates.
The 360 game held at a constant 60 fps, and the PC, at least right now, runs at 30 FPS. The Xbox 360 appeared to show a slight advantage over the PC with a little more detail and slightly longer draw-distances, but the differences weren't drastic or that easy to see. Like we did, you'd have to stare at them side-by-side and critically compare.
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/654/654961p1.html
About load times :
Oh yes! One last thing!
Believe it or not, this game loads at incredibly fast speeds. We watched as this not-final game loaded the first level from the main menu in less than six seconds. Pretty awesome indeed.
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/657/657624p1.html
about PC/XB360 comparisson:
The Xbox 360 version shares several similarities with the PC version.
Both are filled with well-animated soldiers, ornamented with highly detailed environments, and they all moved at crisp framerates.
The 360 game held at a constant 60 fps, and the PC, at least right now, runs at 30 FPS. The Xbox 360 appeared to show a slight advantage over the PC with a little more detail and slightly longer draw-distances, but the differences weren't drastic or that easy to see. Like we did, you'd have to stare at them side-by-side and critically compare.
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/654/654961p1.html
Actually,the difference between 1280*720 and 1280*1024 is not only pixel counts.
1280*1024 has more pixels,but in 1280*720 you could see a little bit wider scene it means more polygons and more objects.
So unless the game of PC version has the setting 1280*720,I think the comparison is a little bit unfair.
And how do you know the console's frame per second?
Could you benchmark console?
I wonder how to test it?Eye ball?
I think 60FPS,30FPS claims are just "official statement".
What does 60FPS mean?
Max FPS? Min FPS? Avg FPS?
Maybe it's only 50FPS or 55FPS and so on.
1280*1024 has more pixels,but in 1280*720 you could see a little bit wider scene it means more polygons and more objects.
So unless the game of PC version has the setting 1280*720,I think the comparison is a little bit unfair.
And how do you know the console's frame per second?
Could you benchmark console?
I wonder how to test it?Eye ball?
I think 60FPS,30FPS claims are just "official statement".
What does 60FPS mean?
Max FPS? Min FPS? Avg FPS?
Maybe it's only 50FPS or 55FPS and so on.
mistwalk said:Actually,the difference between 1280*720 and 1280*1024 is not only pixel counts.
1280*1024 has more pixels,but in 1280*720 you could see a little bit wider scene it means more polygons and more objects.
So unless the game of PC version has the setting 1280*720,I think the comparison is a little bit unfair.
And how do you know the console's frame per second?
Could you benchmark console?
I wonder how to test it?Eye ball?
I think 60FPS,30FPS claims are just "official statement".
What does 60FPS mean?
Max FPS? Min FPS? Avg FPS?
Maybe it's only 50FPS or 55FPS and so on.
when someone says a 'constant' or 'locked' 60fps, I think the general consensus is that's the minimum for the console. but they lock it there because that's the highest our TVs can display.
groper said:
Thats an old article and clearly incorrect and thus unreliable due to the 30 fps quote. TBH I can't comprehend the stupidity of an article that tries to claim a fixed FPS figure for a PC game. Especially given that the figure that they claimed is provably wrong. But even worse than that is that fact that the figure was given as a comparison point between the PC and X360 version of the game even though the X360 version of the game wouldn't be available for several weeks in which time more powerful PC hardware would be released.
If they want to compare CoD2 on the X360 to the PC regardless of cost, then they should do so based on the available hardware at the time that the comparison is valid. That will mean the GeForce 7800GTX 512MB in SLI. Who wants to make a bet on which will run the game faster at 720p + 4xFSAA + 8xAF (assuming the X360 even manages that?)
Hardknock said:
So are you saying that any game that claims 30, or 60 fps on any console, will never display any noticable slowdown because that is the absolute minimum framerate that game will ever achieve?.............. Exactly.
- Status