Inq says 512 GTX over Xbox360

[Bill]

"The 7800GTX 512MB will probably never reach its MSRP of mere $649, since there are more than several thousand people around the world willing to shelve 1400 dollars or euros to get the two boards working in SLI. To that number, add around 20.000 people who want to buy a single board and it sure that original plan of 4K boards a week won't be satisfied. People want to buy the board like there's no tomorrow, since it shows more juice than Xbox 360, smoothly running Need for Speed: Most Wanted in 1920x1200 with AntiAliasing and Anisotropic Filtering switched on, while 48-pipeline Xenos barely makes required amount of FPS in 1280x720 with 4xAA. And the required number isn't 60, folks. "

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28075

 

[joebloggs]

A closed box solution will always have the relative power/performance ratio advantage.

Look what was achieved on the XBOX compared to what specs you needed to get similar performance on a PC.

 

[tahrikmili]

I always read theonion.com and theinquirer.com in the morning for a good laugh.

 

[wireframe]

A closed box solution will always have the relative power/performance ratio advantage.

Look what was achieved on the XBOX compared to what specs you needed to get similar performance on a PC.

I agree with what you just said, but this is contradictory to what The Inq just said. They are saying the GTX is more powerful, delivering a better gaming experience for the same game on a PC. However, I don't see how comparing the two helps. A 512MB GTX costs more than an Xbox 360 (much more if you get the Xbox at recommended prices) and has further requirements.

I think Call of Duty 2 showed a reversed pciture, if I am not mistaken, with the Xbox 360 version being smooth and the PC version not playing as nicely no matter what hardware you throw at it.

 

[oeLangOetan]

the GF7800gtx-512 has about 54.4 GB/s memorybandwidth only dedicated to the gpu
the x360 has about 22.4GB/s shared betwean cpu and gpu & 32GB/s to the EDRAM, the main memory pool definately is more important

also, if we believe the Inq the graphics subsystem on the x360 costs about 150 to make, the GF7800gtx-512 sells for about 700...

 

[JHoxley]

Don't even waste your time trying to use 360 launch titles as a benchmark of what it's capable of. It's really pointless.

I've said it a couple of times on these forums, but it's highly likely that the studios behind launch titles didn't have the resources or time to really pull out the stops. Chances are that most of the current titles are just turbo-charged versions of what they would have written on the original XBox. It typically takes a generation-or-so (of titles) before the developers really start pushing a console to it's limits - only then will we start to see what it's really capable of

Jack

 

[Titanio]

Don't even waste your time trying to use 360 launch titles as a benchmark of what it's capable of. It's really pointless.

This is true. But it's arguable that PC games can't really be used as a benchmark of what one particular card is really capable of either. With the NFS example, at least the X360 version had some specific optimisation for X360, whereas the PC version couldn't really optimise for any particular setup (let alone a GTX).

I guess I'm saying..it's pointless from both directions

 

[Qroach]

of course the PC version was optimized for the PC architecture. That would be a silly assumption to make. I doubt the xbox 360 version was much more than a high res PC game ported to run on a console. The Inq is a very stupid website to make a comparrison likethat

 

[Carl B]

I'm with Joebloggs on this one - console launch titles y'know? They don't represent much of anything. With little RAM and ancient technology XBox was able to pull off Doom (granted at a very low resolution compared to the PC), and I doubt that the GTX will be able to present the quality of graphics that Xenos will two years from now.

I mean the discussion is worthwhile in and of itself, but the Inquirer certainly doen't lend it any weight or credence. These are the same people that said at the GTX512's launch price that they would languish on the shelves due to the high prices.

 

[fbomber]

This is true. But it's arguable that PC games can't really be used as a benchmark of what one particular card is really capable of either. With the NFS example, at least the X360 version had some specific optimisation for X360, whereas the PC version couldn't really optimise for any particular setup (let alone a GTX).

I guess I'm saying..it's pointless from both directions

I´m a big fan of new technology in PCs, but I have to disagree with you.
This situation you described will change in the console side (with games being more and more optimized for it). But a GTX 512 (or a X1800XT, for that matter) will never got this level of optimization. And this is the only "benchmark" they can be measured, because the ONLY thing they will be running is PC games.

I think we will only ever see what a high end PC card can really do with demos from the IHVs. In the other side, developers can push the console hardware to its limits through its lifespan.

Ps.: I hope my english is fine for you all to understand.

 

[pjbliverpool]

Lol, some people live in serious deinal. I can't beleive some of you guys actually think that the devs would optimise the PC version of the game specifically for the 7800GTX 512 more than they would optimise the X360 version of the game for the X360.

No.

Of the two, the X360 will be more optimised for the specific hardware its running on.

As for Call of Duty 2, when you can prove what its average framrate is and what resolution and image quality settings its running at on the X360, you can compare it to the PC. But then, even when you do that, the argument above applies - its better optimised on the X360 than the PC.

 

[Inane_Dork]

I'm with Joebloggs on this one - console launch titles y'know?

Console launch titles FROM EA, if I may subtly add something to the conversation.

 

[Guden Oden]

Lol, some people live in serious deinal.

Sorry man, but you're just totally wrong there. Launch titles on consoles are never optimized.

Sure, the programmers spent time optimizing the code, but the end result isn't optimized. That's not so strange though, because launch titles always run on brand new hardware that require brand new programming to perform smoothly, and the techiniques just haven't been discovered yet. In the case of the 360, devs only had a few months with the finalized hardware in their devkits before the game had to be completed, verified and then duplicated for launch.

Your stance is a bit over-simplified. Maybe you ought to like, widen your views or something.

 

[kyleb]

It would help of the Inq would widen their views a bit, I swear they must be actively hunting out the densest people on the net to write for them.

 

[pjbliverpool]

Sorry man, but you're just totally wrong there. Launch titles on consoles are never optimized.

Sure, the programmers spent time optimizing the code, but the end result isn't optimized. That's not so strange though, because launch titles always run on brand new hardware that require brand new programming to perform smoothly, and the techiniques just haven't been discovered yet. In the case of the 360, devs only had a few months with the finalized hardware in their devkits before the game had to be completed, verified and then duplicated for launch.

Your stance is a bit over-simplified. Maybe you ought to like, widen your views or something.

Of course console launch titles arn't as optimised as they can be. That doesn't mean they arn't more optimised that a PC game running ont the highest end PC GPU available!

I mean, are you seriously trying to say that the devs made more specific optimisations for the 7800GTX 512 on the PC (a card that accounts for maybe 0.01% of the target platform) than they did for the Xenos in the X360 (a GPU which accounts for 100% of the target platform)?

 

[c0_re]

WOW a 3000$ PC with 512MB of video ram runs NFS better thna the 400$ XB360 I"m tottally blown AWAY!

 

[pjbliverpool]

WOW a 3000$ PC with 512MB of video ram runs NFS better thna the 400$ XB360 I"m tottally blown AWAY!

So its so obvious to you that you are being sarcastic about the fact that people would comment on it at all. However there are comments in this thread by people who are actually trying to claim that the stupidly high end PC would be weaker than the X360.

Why arn't you commenting on them?

 

[kyleb]

Come back here in three years so we can compare games on that same PC to games on the 360 and you will see who is being stupid here.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Of course console launch titles arn't as optimised as they can be. That doesn't mean they arn't more optimised that a PC game running ont the highest end PC GPU available!

Of course you ignore the fact that X360 will require MUCH MORE optimization than PC game because it's based around new hardware, while PC games run off traditional PC hardware therefore the engines and gamecode are already optimized for that environment(OOO single core cpu's, high memory bandwidth, no EDRAM or tiling etc etc).

By nature PC games are already optimized for their environment. There's no way you can compare it to a hack-job port with only 3 months with the final hardware.

Sure the 360 version recieved more 'time' optimizing for it's specific hardware, but the PC version already existed in a much more optimized form, if that makes sense...

 

[c0_re]

So its so obvious to you that you are being sarcastic about the fact that people would comment on it at all. However there are comments in this thread by people who are actually trying to claim that the stupidly high end PC would be weaker than the X360.

Why arn't you commenting on them?

Because it rediculis to think that the 360 would run it better especially a game like NFS that was deveopled for multi-platforming in mind(PC, XB360,XB PS2 ect)

Neither the PS3 or the 360 will be able to hold a wet fart to a 750$ video card with crazy amoutns of memory bandwidth and unlimeted easily harnessed CPU power.(AKA P4 or Athlon)