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

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.

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

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.

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!!

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;;