Xbox 360 and PlayStation3 have roughly 1/3 the graphics performanceof high-end PC cards

[NV55]

So how much more powerful are these high-end PCs than the latest
generation of consoles?

"It's absolute nonsense to think that consoles are at the cutting
edge," said Roy Taylor, vice president of content relations at Nvidia,
the world's biggest manufacturer of graphics cards.

"As good as consoles are, they are so far behind the PC gaming
experience that there is no comparison.

"In terms of raw processing power, the high-end PCs are at least three
times more powerful."

Nvidia provides the graphics grunt for the PlayStation 3, while rival
ATI provides the imaging hardware for the Xbox 360.

Mr Taylor points out that the latest graphics cards can draw twice as
many pixels, twice the screen resolution, as a PlayStation 3 or Xbox
360.

The latest games are employing DirectX 10 tools developed by
Microsoft, which are used by developers to get the best out of the
high-end and middle-range graphics cards.

Mr Taylor said the new tools and the new hardware had given developers
a library of effects to play with.

Nvidia's latest high-end graphics cards, the 8800 series, can easily
produce graphical effects that tax the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3,
such as motion blur, depth of field and volumetric smoke.

Mr Taylor said: "Fog, smoke or mist in games until now have been flat
and don't respond to objects. Volumetric effects mean they are dynamic
- a helicopter can now displace cloud or smoke, or a character can
step through the fog realistically."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7096891.stm

when was GeForce 8800 released? late 2006
when was PlayStation3 released? late 2006

so during the same time, PlayStation3 graphics were roughly 1/3 of
highend PC graphics.

1 year has passed.

Nvidia has not yet released anything that's really more powerful
(other than the 8800 Ultra) but they are getting ready to release
the refresh of G80 / 8800 in a few months (Q1 2008). This new GPU
hasn't got an official name yet (it's not G92) so I will call it NV55
or G90 for now. It's also known as GeForce 9800 but that isn't
official either. Regardless of name, the new GPU/card is meant to
have roughly 3 times the performance of G80 / 8800. So that's roughly
(very roughly) 9 times more powerful than the graphics chips in Xbox
360 or PlayStation3.

I am sure similar comparisons can be made with AMD/ATI R600
and the upcoming (Q2 2008) R700.

 

[Jonah Falcon]

So how much more powerful are these high-end PCs than the latest
generation of consoles?

"It's absolute nonsense to think that consoles are at the cutting
edge," said Roy Taylor, vice president of content relations at Nvidia,
the world's biggest manufacturer of graphics cards.

"As good as consoles are, they are so far behind the PC gaming
experience that there is no comparison.

"In terms of raw processing power, the high-end PCs are at least three
times more powerful."

Nvidia provides the graphics grunt for the PlayStation 3, while rival
ATI provides the imaging hardware for the Xbox 360.

Mr Taylor points out that the latest graphics cards can draw twice as
many pixels, twice the screen resolution, as a PlayStation 3 or Xbox
360.

The latest games are employing DirectX 10 tools developed by
Microsoft, which are used by developers to get the best out of the
high-end and middle-range graphics cards.

Mr Taylor said the new tools and the new hardware had given developers
a library of effects to play with.

Nvidia's latest high-end graphics cards, the 8800 series, can easily
produce graphical effects that tax the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3,
such as motion blur, depth of field and volumetric smoke.

Mr Taylor said: "Fog, smoke or mist in games until now have been flat
and don't respond to objects. Volumetric effects mean they are dynamic
- a helicopter can now displace cloud or smoke, or a character can
step through the fog realistically."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7096891.stm

when was GeForce 8800 released? late 2006
when was PlayStation3 released? late 2006

so during the same time, PlayStation3 graphics were roughly 1/3 of
highend PC graphics.

1 year has passed.

Nvidia has not yet released anything that's really more powerful
(other than the 8800 Ultra) but they are getting ready to release
the refresh of G80 / 8800 in a few months (Q1 2008). This new GPU
hasn't got an official name yet (it's not G92) so I will call it NV55
or G90 for now. It's also known as GeForce 9800 but that isn't
official either. Regardless of name, the new GPU/card is meant to
have roughly 3 times the performance of G80 / 8800. So that's roughly
(very roughly) 9 times more powerful than the graphics chips in Xbox
360 or PlayStation3.

I am sure similar comparisons can be made with AMD/ATI R600
and the upcoming (Q2 2008) R700.

How much do you pay for a state-of-the-art PC and how much do you pay
for a 360/PS3?

Many graphic cards cost $400. So do Xbox 360 Premiums and 20GB PS3s.

 

[NV55]

How much do you pay for a state-of-the-art PC and how much do you pay
for a 360/PS3?

Many graphic cards cost $400. So do Xbox 360 Premiums and 20GB PS3s.

what you don't seem to understand is, at the start of past console
generations
i.e PS1 in 1995, PS2/Xbox in 2000, 2001, $300 consoles were
actually ahead of state-of-the-art high-end PC graphics cards, at
least for a short time.
not so with this generation, the HD consoles were actually, in most
ways, behind PCs from the start.

 

[Skybuck Flying]

Yes, even with DX9 I was amazed how good to smoke looks in Call of Duty 4.

Crysis also has some smoke stuff/effect going on !

Smoke is probably the latest and greatest/newest addition to recent games.
(Much better implemented than previous games !)

It adds a lot of graphical big bang to the game if you get what I am saying
for example:

Call of Duty 4: General smoke across the ground when people walk there or
stuff explodes, looks very good and believable.

Call of Duty 4: Rocket launcher, smoke trail, nice effect.

Crysis: Explosions, smoke trails, but too much like a painting but still
good (maybe a bit too much smoke ? )

Crysis: Volumetric smoke it seems in alien spaceship ! Very nice !

Especially in Call of Duty 4, the smoke plays a big role in creating a
believeable surrounding.

I totally dig the smoke !

When I saw the nvidia demo for dynamic smoke I didn't get it at first... I
was like what's the big ****ing deal with the smoke ?

So you can make some smoke dance inside a ****ing aquarium big ****ing deal
? What's so great about that ?

But now that I have played Call of Duty 4 and Crysis I dig it/understand and
see how important it is for games/graphical representation !

SMOKE is DOPE ! =D LOL.

Bye,
Skybuck.

 

[Jordan]

"It's absolute nonsense to think that consoles are at the cutting
edge," said Roy Taylor, vice president of content relations at Nvidia,
the world's biggest manufacturer of graphics cards.

Of course an Nvidia exec is going to say that, the PC market is their
bread and butter.

The problem is that PC games are not now, nor have they ever been,
designed for the cutting edge. They're designed for the lowest common
denominator. That's why console games consistently out-perform the PC
world. Developers have a solid graphics platform that they can beat
the heck out of. They don't have to worry about someone only having
128 MB of video ram, etc. They know the platform and develop to it.

Plus when developers do have the balls to up the ante a bit and force
people into new graphics cards you end up with device driver
nightmares, Direct X bullshit, and all the rest.

It's way, way simpler to just buy a new console every couple of years
to stay current.

- Jordan

 

[Jordan]

what you don't seem to understand is, at the start of past console
generations
i.e PS1 in 1995, PS2/Xbox in 2000, 2001, $300 consoles were
actually ahead of state-of-the-art high-end PC graphics cards, at
least for a short time.
not so with this generation, the HD consoles were actually, in most
ways, behind PCs from the start.

Which doesn't really matter because those high end PC cards aren't
going to be fully utilized for several more years yet.

It's simple economics on the part of developers. Yes, they could make
a game for a $400 video card, and the 10,000 or so people who have
that card would be very happy. Or they can make a game for a Radeon
9600 and sell much more. What do you think they're going to do?

- Jordan

 

[Interesting Ian]

Which doesn't really matter because those high end PC cards
aren't
going to be fully utilized for several more years yet.

No. Crysis just came out yesterday and the most powerful cards
cannot run in at very high settings.

 

[Jonah Falcon]

No. Crysis just came out yesterday and the most powerful cards
cannot run in at very high settings.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Most people don't have Vista. heh

 

[Tom]

No. Crysis just came out yesterday and the most powerful cards cannot run
in at very high settings.

I bet this---

Quad Core Extreme QX6850 chipset (a extreme duo-core would even make due
easily)
Nvidia 8800 Ultra 756mg video card
2GB PC8500 DDR2/1066 memory
LCD Display 1680x1050

Would run it no problem, but your talking some bucks for this setup.

 

[The alMIGHTY N]

So how much more powerful are these high-end PCs than the latest
generation of consoles?

And how much more expensive are they? A high-end PC can cost you
thousands of dollars. And if you want to stay on the "cutting edge"
you have to keep spending money. That's not realistic for 99% of the
people out there.

"It's absolute nonsense to think that consoles are at the cutting
edge," said Roy Taylor, vice president of content relations at Nvidia,
the world's biggest manufacturer of graphics cards.

Actually, consoles are at the cutting edge. The PC industry is a whole
different beast. Nobody could possibly argue that the Playstation 3
and the Xbox 360 aren't cutting edge... for the console industry.

"As good as consoles are, they are so far behind the PC gaming
experience that there is no comparison.

How many everyday Joes are into PC gaming... or can even afford it?

 

[The alMIGHTY N]

what you don't seem to understand is, at the start of past console
generations
i.e PS1 in 1995, PS2/Xbox in 2000, 2001, $300 consoles were
actually ahead of state-of-the-art high-end PC graphics cards, at
least for a short time.
not so with this generation, the HD consoles were actually, in most
ways, behind PCs from the start.

When the Playstation 2 debuted in Japan in late 2000, there were
already high-end graphics cards more capable... not many, but they
existed. I don't know about the Playstation generation, but the
Playstation 2 started off behind the curve and never recovered. Even
when the GameCube and Xbox, both of which were significantly more
powerful than the Playstation 2, debuted, they were not as good as
high-end PCs.

 

[slayerman89]

No. Crysis just came out yesterday and the most powerful cards
cannot run in at very high settings.

Only because it's been optimized so poorly and been washed over as
'quality'. I could make a game using Bitblit(2D sprite/mask based
imaging) that would crash the greatest computer in the world and my
game would look like crap. I would go so far as to say that COD4 looks
twice as good as Crysis and runs twice as fast. Crysis is a fun game,
but they hyped up the graphics so much it seems like the only way they
could back it up is to cripple the game so it lags out on good
machines.

But that would be giving them credit and saying they crippled it on
purpose.

 

[nv55]

When the Playstation 2 debuted in Japan in late 2000, there were
already high-end graphics cards more capable... not many, but they
existed. I don't know about the Playstation generation, but the
Playstation 2 started off behind the curve and never recovered. Even
when the GameCube and Xbox, both of which were significantly more
powerful than the Playstation 2, debuted, they were not as good as
high-end PCs.

Actually, the PlayStation2 debuted in Japan in EARLY 2000, March 2000
to be exact. the most powerful PC card out at the time was the
GeForce256 DDR and the PS2 was MUCH more powerful as far as pixel
fillrate, polygon rendering, and bandwidth performance. even when the
GeForce 2 GTS and Ultra came out a few months later, the PS2 was still
ahead. the PS2 was also ahead of the original Radeon. it wasn't
until early 2001 when the GeForce3 came out that PCs started to pull
ahead of the PS2. now it is true that when Gamecube and Xbox came
out in late 2001, that PCs were equal or slightly ahead of those
consoles in performance. but not by nearly as much as PCs were ahead
of Xbox 360 and PS3 when they launched.

 

[nobody]

How many everyday Joes are into PC gaming... or can even afford it?

I'm thinking of buying a new video card, but as good as the cards
are, the support isn't really there. Bad drivers, Freezing out
win2k, forcing use of vista when vista isn't ready, games that run
at 15 fps, fast but ugly monitors.

I'm thinking of picking up a PS3 or Xbox for the short term and
check back when Vista and quad core technologies eventually mature.