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-

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).

" 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.

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.

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)[:' (]