xbox360 graphics

I' m pretty stumped here. I' ve been a PC gamer forever. The last graphics card I had was an ATI 9700 pro running at a core clock of 360mhz and 128Megs of standard DDR memory at 333 mhz. My computer had a P4 processor running at 3.15 Mhz.
Now here' s the thing. I know the 360 is new technology...console wise, and the game developers have just scratched the surface and are still playing around with it...but... the specs on the 360 are a triple core processor each at 3.2 mhz, and graphics by ATI with a core clock of 500 mhz and 512mb of DDR3. I bought one because I knew it had to give me far superior grahics than my old 9700 pro, and with a console there' s no hassel with compatability...hardware conflicts etc. I have to say the graphics on my 4 year old 9700pro were much prettier than what we' ve seen so far on the 360 and the ole' 9700 pro had smoooooth gameplay. Don' t get me wrong, the 360 has brought consoles a long way...but with those specs it should be drilling a 4 year old graphics card into the ground. I mean there' s actually signs of laginess on the campaign in areas of G.R.A.W. And it' s not like G.R.A.W has any super complex drawing instructions. There aren' t even any stray civilians walking the streets, no random cars driving about. It only has to worry about the environment, you, and your enemies.
Comments??
it' s comment made by my friend so what do have to sat about it guys tell me

hello friends today

GRAW is a first gen game for 360, XNA wasn' t even available for the developers when the game was released infact no game out now was made using the powerful developer tool for 360.

Secondly its just a pc port, its not even designed for the 360 from the ground up.

the 360 has more components in it then a gpu, if you ask me it is bottlenecked by 512mb of total ram. R500 shares the same architecture as the R600 (next gen video card) and already has some DX10 components. The 360 gpu is the most advanced gpu out right now.

GRAW is only one game, take a look at Mass Effect or GOW, I doubt your 9700 would run those at the same resolution as the 360 with 4x antialaising without choking.

Get GRAW for PC. Run it at 1280x720 on high details with 4x antialiasing and anisotropic filtering.

Does your PC get a constant 30FPS? I doubt it.

It also depends on the engine developers use to create the game. If the game engine doesn' t support too many fancy effects then it' s not really going to take advantage of all that extra available power.

The original post is completely incorrect. His assessment of 360 is way off the mark. This guy is just looking for attention which is why he' s PM' d people to ask if they' ll be his friends.

a 9700 pro !!!!!
a 9700 pro !!!!


i have a 9800 pro 128mb, 3ghz, 1go ram, see i havent tried GRAW on my pc yet but i did tried some games there were released on 360 and PC and though i never played with a 360, i know how my these games look on my system:

Condemned: setting all graphic detail to high with a resolution of only 1027*768 and aniasing *2 make my pc CRAWL (average 10 fps), i f i want to play it real smooth (but still in some areas it goes a bit below 18 fps), i should run it at 640*480 aliasing *2. without making shadows detail all high.


Call of Duty 2: 90% of graphics options set to max (I.e reduce shadows and textures from highest to high) and 1024*768 with aliasing *2, make my pc CRY, it lags, i mean 50% of gameplay is below 15fps.

Oblivion: pushing all graphics to maximum with 1024*768 the fps is usualy below 10 fps (outside areas)...

same thing for quake 4, but this one run much better than the others when setting all maxium (except textures) that is an average of 25 fps.

i' m not going to talk about FEAR it' s a disaster...

this is a 9800 pro which is around 10% beter than a 9700 pro.

i guess that means only two things , your friend is a liar or an ignorant.

the first post jsut made me angry and frustrated, its a Monday and that' s ruined my day!

Just deleted a massive post pulling apart his argument, but now I think he probably doesnt own a 360, and us replying is just what he wants.

graw made my mates gasp, especially playing 3 player on one console, on line, and it' s a pc port. a 9700 would struggle to run a single copy and the AI.


Actually now im just laughing.

a 9700 pro !!!!!
a 9700 pro !!!!


i have a 9800 pro 128mb, 3ghz, 1go ram, see i havent tried GRAW on my pc yet but i did tried some games there were released on 360 and PC and though i never played with a 360, i know how my these games look on my system:

Condemned: setting all graphic detail to high with a resolution of only 1027*768 and aniasing *2 make my pc CRAWL (average 10 fps), i f i want to play it real smooth (but still in some areas it goes a bit below 18 fps), i should run it at 640*480 aliasing *2. without making shadows detail all high.


Call of Duty 2: 90% of graphics options set to max (I.e reduce shadows and textures from highest to high) and 1024*768 with aliasing *2, make my pc CRY, it lags, i mean 50% of gameplay is below 15fps.

Oblivion: pushing all graphics to maximum with 1024*768 the fps is usualy below 10 fps (outside areas)...

same thing for quake 4, but this one run much better than the others when setting all maxium (except textures) that is an average of 25 fps.

i' m not going to talk about FEAR it' s a disaster...

this is a 9800 pro which is around 10% beter than a 9700 pro.

i guess that means only two things , your friend is a liar or an ignorant.

My words exactly, i have a 9800XT in my PC, and playing some games makes me cry. Which is why i got a 360. Luckily i can play Sin, and halflife 2, im looking forward to hl episode 1!

the first post jsut made me angry and frustrated, its a Monday and that' s ruined my day!

Only 5 months until Nintendo launch their console buddy, then 4 player Super Mario Galaxy and Twilight Princess can be all yours!

He come up with crap,first of all my pc is radeon 9800 pro 256 mb p4 3ghz 1 gb ram.

My friend has a AMD 3800 2 gb ram Geeforce 7800 gts 256mb.

None of use could get the same graphic as in 360,what looks better is the " ghost" everything else look worser.

Im gonna buy the best pc on the market this winter however,it wont make me become a PC gamer.

Also i think threadmaker played on a BAd standard tv.

Even if you break 2 legs from a crab it still runs!
What you gotta do is find its weak spot and do massive damage at it.

I don' t think he' s played it on anything. Like i said, he' s just trying to get attention.

Ghost Recon kicks ass even on an SDTV, especially on a HDTV and uber-especially when using my projector. It' s still the best game out for 360 and still my favourite game of the year so far.

GRAW (360) in 720p

I swear,i have the same graphic on a Standard tv. :S

Even if you break 2 legs from a crab it still runs!
What you gotta do is find its weak spot and do massive damage at it.

If graw didn' t impress you...Wait.
There are some games coming to the 360 that will blow your mind on the graphics front.
And seeing as games like oblivion are running at a smooth-pace on the 360, in 2008-2009 you should see truely hollywood style graphics.

The 9700 is a puny runt compared to the pitbull in the 360.

Yes,like 8 pipeline compared to 48.
Or that it support pixel shader 2.0 and no HDR,wihle xbox360+ support pixel shader 3.0 and HDR.

And has 512mb.

You should compare x1800xt 512mb to what 360 has.

Even if you break 2 legs from a crab it still runs!
What you gotta do is find its weak spot and do massive damage at it.

the putbull in the 360

Pitbull.



Perhaps this guy hasn' t heard how 360' s GPU completely blows RSX away...

Maybe he thinks PS3 runs on magic?!

oh, nice eagle eye there maj...
All corrected.

Yes, the rsx is not in the same ballpark as the xenon.

ORIGINAL: Majikdra6on

the putbull in the 360

Pitbull.



Maybe he thinks PS3 runs on magic?!

Well that' s what I thought when I heard some of the speculation before it was confirmed.

Yes,RSX is basically a 7800gts 256mb but a bit stronger.
While xenon is a x1800xt 512mb.

Ofc rsx lend 256mb from cell,but anyone who says RSX is better then Xeno is a idiot.
Not only is Xeno stronger but its basically dev for fit a console,while RSX is basically a strong pc card that sony took in account for price.


Yes RSX is still a extremly strong card im not saying its not.

Why does you think sony never compare RSX to XENO,instead only show cells power?
Cause they know xeno as a GPU is better.


Btw...
From ATI.

Xeno Support DirectX 9.0 Shader Model 3.0 and DirectX 10 Shader Model 4.0

yay!!

Even if you break 2 legs from a crab it still runs!
What you gotta do is find its weak spot and do massive damage at it.

It breaks down like this...

CELL has slight advantages over XENON (Waternoose), but XENON is more efficient and more developer friendly. CELL' s advantages come down to being able to do more calculations simultaneously and that won' t help the visual output as some seem to think.

XENOS wipes the floor with RSX. It' s next gen architecture and is the most advanced GPU on the market and will be until early 2007. It can render as much of the 512Mb RAM as is required and therefore isn' t bottlenecked like RSX. It would have been nicer to have 1Gb RAM, but console developers won' t mind as 512Mb is more than enough for them. It also has and extra 10Mb of (really damn fast) eDRAM which has been added to specifically handle things like anti-aliasing.

360 has around 13x the bandwidth of PS3 and has a faster drive which combined will allow for quicker load times.

The only thing PS3 has that 360 doesn' t is the ability to output 1080p, -- but who is going to benefit?! Sony' s PS2 install base?! The downside to that is the additional strain outputting in that resolution will put on the unit itself.



So PS3 is bigger which means hotter and louder, it' s not quite as able as 360 and it' s pad has no force feedback, ...but you will be able to play Blu-Ray movies?!

Great. Since most big stuidos are releasing films on both formats, i' ll pay more for the Blu-Ray version so i can play it on my PS3?! Oh wait, i don' t have a HDTV, just a big monitor. My current DVD' s look fine, great infact, ...why do i want to pay more to watch them in HD again?!

some great points there by all.

why i love this place, *sniff*, getting all emotional..

I cant wait for the wii now :)

Anyway we can delete that first post and turn this into a pure hardware thread ?

Given, there' ve been tons of threads before on this, but it' s definitely more relevant than whatever stephan ashaley craps out T_T;;

I' m pretty stumped here. I' ve been a PC gamer forever. The last graphics card I had was an ATI 9700 pro running at a core clock of 360mhz and 128Megs of standard DDR memory at 333 mhz. My computer had a P4 processor running at 3.15 Mhz.
Now here' s the thing. I know the 360 is new technology...console wise, and the game developers have just scratched the surface and are still playing around with it...but... the specs on the 360 are a triple core processor each at 3.2 mhz, and graphics by ATI with a core clock of 500 mhz and 512mb of DDR3. I bought one because I knew it had to give me far superior grahics than my old 9700 pro, and with a console there' s no hassel with compatability...hardware conflicts etc. I have to say the graphics on my 4 year old 9700pro were much prettier than what we' ve seen so far on the 360 and the ole' 9700 pro had smoooooth gameplay. Don' t get me wrong, the 360 has brought consoles a long way...but with those specs it should be drilling a 4 year old graphics card into the ground. I mean there' s actually signs of laginess on the campaign in areas of G.R.A.W. And it' s not like G.R.A.W has any super complex drawing instructions.

Maybe some are alittle confused..

I think if your used to PC stuf on decent hardware and oldish games (such as quake 3, UT2/200X) or even GTA.. you should be playing these games at ultra smoothness and cos the direct-feed of PC graphics cards are much stronger (voltage-wise, 360 has to give something and keep down over heating).. ull notice the visual-direct-output on decent Pc cards are much brighter (and even not so much AA, much sharper)...

On a technical aspect, 360' s card can perfrom a whole lot of FX without struggling..

I think he just means visual output quality than anything else..

Tbh, I was expecting a bit more from the games we' ve had so far too...even GRAW SP. I was quite impressed with Lost Planet' s demo visuals though. A lot of effects, sharp textures and hardly any slowdown.

I' m expecting from Gears of War onwards we' ll be getting some unparallelled visual quality from 360, and somewhat later from PS3 too, with such advanced dedicated hardware.

I don' t think we' ll have to worry about visual quality too much this gen, once it gets going.

I was quite impressed with Lost Planet' s demo visuals though. A lot of effects, sharp textures and hardly any slowdown.

Yeah for real, thats the first 360 game that met all my expectations.. and actually visually impressed me.

Dead rising looks like another cracker too, just hope this is the standard we get all the time.. And for the love of god i want to see ALL 360 games at 60fps.. (anyway lets not get into that subject)

A bit off topic but did you guys know that rockstars table tennis is only £24.99 (or £30 with postage)? thats the cheapest game so far for the 360 isn' t it?.

Thats because itgs basically a XBL game.
Not worth to get if you only gonna play SP-

Even if you break 2 legs from a crab it still runs!
What you gotta do is find its weak spot and do massive damage at it.

Top Spin 2 is the same price. In the US both games are $39.99. Actually Amped 3 is also but after a price drop.

On yet another side note both Oblivion and Top Spin 2 share an almost identical create a player system, altho Oblivions is a bit more open. I was wondering if this system is owned by 2k games or if other companies can use it. It' s one of my favorite custom player systems. Strange subject eh? I didnt wanna waste a whole thread on it.

I don' t know enough about computers to really make an educated post about that, so i' ll focus on the latter.

From my firsthand experience, the 360 isn' t lacking in graphics by any means, and although there are pc' s that could probably turn out better a year or so into its lifespan, they' re good enough. Now, there' s always gonna be framerate and lag issues, on both ends of the argument, but if the games suck for whatever you' re playing on, the visuals aren' t that big a deal. And i know, with many friends being pc purists, that there are way more crappy games for the PC (of the same graphic quality) coming out now than there are for the 360 -as average as the meh 360 games are. and, although modding and customizing are far better on a pc then they are on any console, the console is a more stable platform, and you' ll have far less technical issues, that is, if you don' t own a " just-came-out-a-week-ago" P.C.
which most people i know don' t

You dont need to know much about computers to know that 360 has a better 3d card,while ps3 has a better CPU,ATI claimed it,dev has also said it,while nvidia doesnt
write something back.

While none attacks the claim of that Cell is a much better CPU(or rather stronger).

Even if you break 2 legs from a crab it still runs!
What you gotta do is find its weak spot and do massive damage at it.

" Yes, the rsx is not in the same ballpark as the xenon."

You mean Xenos? Xenon= 360 cpu, Xenos=R500/gpu

" 360 has around 13x the bandwidth of PS3 and has a faster drive which combined will allow for quicker load times." Majik


And Majik, how can you say that the 360 has 13 times the bandwidth as ps3. thats retarded, you can' t just add the bandwidth of the daughter die to the system bandwidth. I don' t even think you looked at the actual connection the gpu has with the daughter die which is 35GB not 256gb, the 256gb is mearly the bandwidth of the logic on the eDRAM.

The fact is that the ps3 has more bandwidth as half of its ram is XDR ram. If the most advanced tech in the 360 is its gpu (which it is) the most advanced tech in the ps3 is the XDR ram. Put it this way, pretty soon DDR2 ram will be replaced by GDDR3 in computers, after that it will likely be replaced by XDR ram.

However CELL will eat this bandwidth up like a fat kid eating rice cake. Also as has already been discussed, bandwidth on the 360 is liberated by two things. One it has one pool of ram for the gpu and cpu to dig from thus none of it has to go to waste. Secondly with the 10mb of supper fast eDRAM the gpu can perform a few things for the gpu at no cost to ram of proccessing power, such as 4x antialaising or HDR.

With Xbox and ps2 it' s clear that Xbox is one generation (not console gen but hardware) ahead of ps2. However this time the console giants are in the same league with 360 and ps3.
I think it will be very interesting to see each console be pushed to its limits and see who made the better hardware decisions. Which will not be done with multiplatform games which will probably look identical but with AAA exclusives.

Actually xbox was the first console with a 3d card in it,using a card which basically was geeforce 3, 64mb.

Correct me if im wrong,but i read it in many places.

Even if you break 2 legs from a crab it still runs!
What you gotta do is find its weak spot and do massive damage at it.

You' re right, i didn' t look and check. My mistake.

" Yes, the rsx is not in the same ballpark as the xenon."

That wasn' t me.

Wasn' t me either ffs.

Even if you break 2 legs from a crab it still runs!
What you gotta do is find its weak spot and do massive damage at it.

I didn' t say that shit, neither!!

I think you just made that up, Game Junkie!! Pretty clever, that one! Keep your eyes on him, fellas!

quoted from whiteguysamurai?

All think all this graphics talk is getting on my nerves, its like nobody cares about story or great characters and so forth. Dont get me me wrong i love to have great graphics and all but i wont play a piece of crap just cause it has pretty graphics. I love the 360 its a great system, I love my computer cause it can pull of some amazing stuff close quality to a 360. But not as near. Grahpics is like a huge thing now and as long as most non hardcore gamers get their graphics, they think its the most innovating thing ever.

Thats all true. I guess we just want to see the 360 fulfill its potential visually too, (since we' re not getting any of that other stuff yet!).

Great visuals aren' t necessarily exclusive to great gameplay though. Playing the Hitman Blood Money pc demo atm, and that' s one game where cutting edge visuals really add to the game imo. (when' s the 360 demo coming out anyway??) Devs just need to know how to use all the hdr, self shadowing, subsurface scattering etc with an added bit of style.

not only that but. sorry for the caps from here on......
I HAVE G.R.A.W ON 360 AND ON MY PC.
my pc :
nvidia 6800 ultra
1 gb ram
3.2 amd
and SUCKS no third person , no shadows , no blinding lighting ,even your
comrades dont follow you ....they get ...far behind you.....[:' (]
plus i paid for this f...... pc 850 euro plus the lcd monitor.
but on my 360 much better i playing it right now
PLUS I DONT THINK THIS IS YOUR FRIENDS COMMENT AT ALL.....ITS YOURS
dont afraid to say your opinion even if its for just show off .............
sorry for the caps guys but ............

Xenos, right my bad.

Yes, the RSX is not ever comparable in most repsects, pure pixel pushing power, memory bandwidth and used/available resources..The " xenos" is just a generation ahead, if not a little more.

" That wasn' t me. " Majik

I never said it was you, I should have gave the name like I did with your quote. It wasn' t even a big deal it was just one letter, I' ve seen many people make the same mistake.


" I think you just made that up, Game Junkie!! Pretty clever, that one! Keep your eyes on him, fellas!" Chee Saw

You' re joking right? If I was so cleaver I wouldn' t waste my gifts on a forum, I' d be conning old people out of their money. Ha ha ha, ah shit maybe you guys should keep an eye on me.

" Actually xbox was the first console with a 3d card in it,using a card which basically was geeforce 3, 64mb." Quez

True except Xbox had 64mb of total Ram. ps2 has 32mb while CG has 48mb I believe.

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.aspx

Wow...Fact dont lie. IGn said that the Xbox 360 is comparably better than PS3. Then like sore losers then go on and say if 360 didnt have this and that, PS3 would be better. (Sony buttkissers)[:' (]