PS3, Xbox 360, & PC graphics?

[optinox]

hows it go there,

xbox 360 graphics card is abit better than ps3, is this true or not and if so how?

the graphics cards in ps3 and xbox360 would be compared to what type of PC graphics card, i currently run a nvidia gforce 6800gs in one of my PC's if this helps?

It seems many cards like the 6800gs give clear, crisp graphics, my question is other than the memory and core speeds on the vid card boosting performance to run games that demand more horsepower, well let's say if games didn't depend on alot of performance, is there any difference in graphics with older cards to the one's we have today? In other words, is it the software used to design the games just better, or are the cards really contributing realism of the games?

how much more realism can games get, would it not be best just to use real people behind a green wall (movie special effects), in shooting or first person shooter games, render them, then add them to the game, instead of relating to cartoon/realism graphics, which is how i would describe graphics today, just a thought?

Is there a vid card i can buy for to replace the geforce 6800gs where i would see a huge difference in graphics, i mean something that would take Quake games that look as good as they do with the 6800gs to movie like graphics?

[RamonGTP]

Personally I think the PS3 graphics are better than the 360's. As far as PC's are concerned, anything with a 9600GT will easily have greater graphics capabilities than any of the consoles. The 6800GS, not so much. Consoles have you beat there.

The video card in the PS3 for example is a modified version of the 7900GT (slightly weaker version of it) but it performs far better than that same video card would in a PC simply because the PS3 is a dedicated gaming machine and has far less overhead. Games for consoles are also generally far more optimized due to the limited amount of memory and storage capacity.

As far as graphics, you can only make games look as good as their designed to look. If you can max out the settings in a game, then that's pretty much it. A better card may give you higher frame rates, but it isn't going to make it look better in that scenario. Now if you cannot max out your graphics because of your card, then yes, a more powerful card will make things look better.

[nemowolf]

hows it go there,

xbox 360 graphics card is abit better than ps3, is this true or not and if so how?

No they are not. The Cell processor is vastly more powerful on its own. The games themselves may not look as good but that is upto the developer to bring to life and not the chipset. The hardware in general is older in the 360 as well, remember it had a headstart in the second gen console wars.

the graphics cards in ps3 and xbox360 would be compared to what type of PC graphics card, i currently run a nvidia gforce 6800gs in one of my PC's if this helps?

There is no direct comparison. Nothing commercially available would equate to what is custom designed and built for each of the systems. The consoles also have specific drivers and hardware designed for use specifically for it; the equivolent would be asking Nvidia to make a video card for your computer specifically.

It seems many cards like the 6800gs give clear, crisp graphics, my question is other than the memory and core speeds on the vid card boosting performance to run games that demand more horsepower, well let's say if games didn't depend on alot of performance, is there any difference in graphics with older cards to the one's we have today? In other words, is it the software used to design the games just better, or are the cards really contributing realism of the games?

The shear processing power of modern cards make older cards look like 2d processors. Look at the bandwidth alone and tell me you cant see that newer cards can process more information then an older card.

how much more realism can games get, would it not be best just to use real people behind a green wall (movie special effects), in shooting or first person shooter games, render them, then add them to the game, instead of relating to cartoon/realism graphics, which is how i would describe graphics today, just a thought?

Tell marketing to stop asking people what they like. Cartoons sell ... Just ask the 10million people PAYING for WoW and the millions more who dont.

Is there a vid card i can buy for to replace the geforce 6800gs where i would see a huge difference in graphics, i mean something that would take Quake games that look as good as they do with the 6800gs to movie like graphics?

Nothing is going to make quake look better then it already does. The art isnt up to par, there are certain sacrifices you make when your designing a game. Market saturation is the goal and if you make your game too demanding, then you cant reach your entire market.


Those should answer your questions in a nutshell. Let me know if you need more info.

[optinox]

xxx

[nemowolf]

I have heard that ps3 graphics are better than the xbox360, xbox 360 have more games then the ps3.

Yes you are correct and the reason for this is that the Xbox has about a year of release time longer then that PS3.


The CPU on the PS3 is the Cell processor. This thing is so powerful, they are using them to calculate the effect of black holes on surrounding space. Yea, not exactly your 8086 processing power to get the job done.

[Matthew Kane]

Personally I think the PS3 graphics are better than the 360's. As far as PC's are concerned, anything with a 9600GT will easily have greater graphics capabilities than any of the consoles. The 6800GS, not so much. Consoles have you beat there.

The video card in the PS3 for example is a modified version of the 7900GT (slightly weaker version of it) but it performs far better than that same video card would in a PC simply because the PS3 is a dedicated gaming machine and has far less overhead. Games for consoles are also generally far more optimized due to the limited amount of memory and storage capacity.

As far as graphics, you can only make games look as good as their designed to look. If you can max out the settings in a game, then that's pretty much it. A better card may give you higher frame rates, but it isn't going to make it look better in that scenario. Now if you cannot max out your graphics because of your card, then yes, a more powerful card will make things look better.

The PS3 RSX gfx card with 256MB GDDR3 is a souped up version of the 7800GTX with a built in enhanced next gen ageia physx function.....the advantage of the current consoles is that you don't need to continue to upgrade your hardware to play the latest games. But on the other hand since that PC's cost more, they have far more expandibility and functions and enjoyment then a console..but your knowledge must be aligned with that. A typical Core 2 Duo E4400 system or quad with 2GB quality ram and a 8800GT or a 9600GT easily over competes a typical PS3 in terms of HD and quality. Consoles are raving on about HD capability, but pc's can do that 5 years ago. Nothing new really, except having one thing in a small box. Such as the bluray and Hd dvd.

Its not really that the PS3's gfx card that gives it extra quality power in that "WoW" feeling when playing games like GTA IV and Fallout 3. The PS3's Cell processor holds 6 cores (I think) and each running at 3.2GHZ and capable of doing 9 hardware threads so you won't get lag while playing a game with the extra cores running able to calculate other texture calculations in the background. On the other hand Sony's rival, Microsofts Xbox360 holds a single triple core Xenon processor that runs at 3.2GHz and is only capable of a less then PS3 hardware threads capability of 6 only.
The pc on the other hand is different and depends on the users capabilities, knowledge and the computers options and expandabilities. And its more optimized of running more things then a typical ps3.

After all, it was the PC's that dev's made the PS3 games on not on thee consoles.

In other words...PC owns any type of consoles any day...after all it the help of computer components that gave the current consoles life!

[RamonGTP]

1st, this thrad is old.

2nd...

While I agree with you that today's PC's are more powerful than consoles, your reasons are severely flawed. At Least when you say "After all, it was the PC's that dev's made the PS3 games on not on thee consoles." because that means nothing at all.

Humans build cars, that doesn't mean that humans can run faster than a car can travel. Just because games are written on a PC for a console does not automatically make the PC better. You can code a game on an original Pentium processor if you want to, the only difference would be the compiling time would take a lot longer, but the end result would be identical. It doesn't take power to code a game, it takes power to run it.

[nemowolf]

1st, this thrad is old.

2nd...

While I agree with you that today's PC's are more powerful than consoles, your reasons are severely flawed. At Least when you say "After all, it was the PC's that dev's made the PS3 games on not on thee consoles." because that means nothing at all.

Humans build cars, that doesn't mean that humans can run faster than a car can travel. Just because games are written on a PC for a console does not automatically make the PC better. You can code a game on an original Pentium processor if you want to, the only difference would be the compiling time would take a lot longer, but the end result would be identical. It doesn't take power to code a game, it takes power to run it.

Completely agree. That logic is so flawed ... we might as well be cheering for vacuum tubes and transistor radios they birthed modern computers and media! Three cheers for revivng a long dead and already explained thread!

[ShyguyXPC]

Hip Hip HOORAY!!! For Vacuum Tubes & Transistor Radio's!!!

[Matthew Kane]

sorry for reviving a old thread but I had to prove my point....its not flawed its the truth and fact!

[RamonGTP]

sorry for reviving a old thread but I had to prove my point....its not flawed its the truth and fact!

Your first post proved nothing, except that you MAY be a bit misinformed. Your second post proved that you really don't know what you're talking about.

[Matthew Kane]

so your saying the ps3 doesn;t hold a cell processor? its doesn't hold a souped up 7800gtx gfx card with 256mb gddr memory and that it doesnt do 9 hardware threads and that the xbox 360 doesn't have 3 xenon cores and doesn;t do 6 hardware threads....about the pc against ps3...I have disassembled a ps3 b4 and I have done head to head comparisons with the pc against the ps3 and not just me, but others have as well and reviews as well!

Prove what I am wrong here then, unless you stupidly know nothing about it!

[RamonGTP]

For your sake, I hope you're only pretending to be as clueless as that last post suggests. It was quite obvious what part of your post i was referring to since I called you out on it. If you can't figure it out, you're not worth the wear and tear on my keyboard. In fact, even if you can figure it out, you're not worth much more, becuase now you've crossed into the relm of annoying new member, which earns you a trip to the ignore list.

[nemowolf]

For your sake, I hope you're only pretending to be as clueless as that last post suggests. It was quite obvious what part of your post i was referring to since I called you out on it. If you can't figure it out, you're not worth the wear and tear on my keyboard. In fact, even if you can figure it out, you're not worth much more, becuase now you've crossed into the relm of annoying new member, which earns you a trip to the ignore list.

... that is all.