PC VS console graphics (medium settings)

I asked this a while back in the can you run it and got one answer.

I hear the PC is better graphically but what settings are you talking about? Is it at medium when they are equal?

The games I am talking. The games I am talkig about are Left 4 dead, COD 4&5, Deadspace, Farcry etc. Even a game like crysis. Does crysis at medium settings look >>> Console?

I hear I can play most these games at medium-high

 

Crysis at Medium:

 

The settings all depend on the game. Dead Space on max looks pretty similar to dead space on the console whereas farcry 2 will look much better on the PC than on the console at medium-high.

Usually if a game is made for the console, the PC won't be able to take it too far up and beyond (of course there are exceptions), but games made for the high end PC will demolish consoles and ports to consoles will be much lower graphically.

The 9600m GT should be at the level of consoles if not a bit better (IMHO, judging by games like Bioshock, Dead Space at 1280x800)

 

I would like to know more about this too.

Main question I have is will my Sager on order in my sig be able to match console graphics if not exceed?

 

Very easily, yes.

 

DeadSpace looks absolutely gorgeous at 1440x900 everything maxxed out on a 9600m GT DDR3. And so does Left 4 Dead and CoD4 & 5.

For Far Cry 2 I had to lower it to 1280x800 and tone down some of the AA and shadows. But still looks incredible.

Way better than consoles.

 

@The Commodore, Your sager will kill any console and eat it for breakfast, except maybe GTA IV because I've been hearing problems about it working properly.

@cumbaya19, most console to pc ports that I've played look better on PC mostly because of DOX's custom drivers. Just compare customized DOX drivers vs stock drivers vs console; PC with custom drivers usually comes out top.

 

That's good to hear. Oh I'm not getting GTA IV for the PC, I already have it on both the PS3 and X360, so I definitely do not need it for PC.

 

Both PS3 and Xbox360 run most games in 1280x720, some of them in a reduced version such as what GTA 4 ran in which is actually 1152x648, but upscaled to 1280x720.

To actually compare PC with consoles, you'd have to be running in the same resolution as those games do.

Having the ability to run in resolutions greater than 720P is what's so much better about PC versions. BUT, this can also make the textures show thier true form, since everything will look sharp and crisp, you'll see how badly low res most of the textures are, like GTA4's for instance.

 

Nothing will ever compare on consoles after you have experienced Maxed Crysis at 30in WQVGA. Bloody awesome.

 

Crysis isn't available on console yet so you cannot compare.

Crysis is due to be released on ps3 next year AFAIK though.

 

How about Fallout 3. I really want to get this game but only if I can get the same graphics AND framerates as I would on a console.

 

Isn't it all about the game? Aren't gaming about the game play?

When you start swinging your mouse or your analog around, do you really care? Why most people nowadays care graphic more than game play?

IMO graphic is a bonus, a factor yet not a deciding one. My intention is not to argue or prove anything, but actually to take this opportunity to think about it.

Back to topic, PC can easily outperform a console IMO, but its really what the game is made for.

 

The Commodore, you will be able to max the crap out of Fallout 3 and it will look tons better than console.

AND PLEASE buy your games dont download them. If you pirate them then the PC gaming industry will go to hell.

It gets me so irritated to hear people pirating games and calling themselves gamers...its sickening.

 

well a 360 and a monitor is about £340 for the same performance your looking at paying 3 to 4 times more depending on wether you get a desktop or laptop so not a cost effective solution

 

Oh I know. The PC gaming industry is already in the crapper ever since consoles hit it big.(ex. there is no BF3 yet they made a new BF for consoles that fails compared to BF2)

@nic. I'm getting the game since I like what the developer does with their past games. But I would like to get it on the laptop so I can play it on vacation since when I am home I usually play multiplayer with my friends. I totally believe in game play over graphics(I still play Starcraft) but I would like to know if I can have the graphic power of a console in my lap.

@shot But can you bring a Xbox 360 anywhere like on a plane or school? Your point could stand a chance against a desktop but a desktop can easily out preform a console, I'm just wondering about a laptop. I have all three major console and I enjoy them but I love portability. Plus from my experience, PC games have better gameplay quality.(ex. BF2 is lightyears better than BF:Modern Combat)

 

I assume you will be playing it on your NP5793 and i think you will be fine. I mean, when it comes to a multi-million game porting to other platform, they don't give a damm.

From my past experience, and the recently one, they don't show significant improvement in term of graphic.

 

First.
PS3 gpu does look at great at 480,720, 1080.
Since deveplors only have to work on those 3 res's.
Also they only have to work on one GPU.
With complete knowing of what it can do and not do.
So mostly like run everything to max see frames and start to cut things.
Like View distance. Shaders overlap. Half Rendering.

To the most it look good since they are going to have at 1080p with X2 AA and X8 AF.
And the little cuts wouldn't even be notice.

Also it performs so well since it has direct access to cpu and share memory.
There is no waiting apon resoures.

If the gpu were in fact taken out of ps3 some how fab into a pc.
It wouldn't do so hot. Since now there is tons to fact in.

But really guys.

There is no need to compare pc to consoles.
PC have there place and so do consoles.
Pc will never replace the consoles since consoles are for the above cheaper than building a strong computer for$$$.
Consoles (I believe) will never really have an OS. In that factor it will be limited.
Since a pc can do so much and there is so many different people with different needs. That why you need a pc for differnce.

My two cents.


Side note and opinion.
Graphic on pc will always look better since they are usually on a smaller scale.
15-30" console start 30 - 120"

Also you can inlist more AA and AF, viewing distance, also give pc higher resloution bit maps like Oblivion.

 

I also want to add that you have to compare a well ported game. Look at supreme commander on 360, it's a nightmare; 360 has three super processors but it still looks like crap.

 

No console game ever uses different screen resolutions. The developer picks what resolution the game will run best at, and locks it at that, when your TV displays 720P, 1080P or 480P, the game is either upscaled, or downscaled from it's origional rendered resolution to fit your screen. 99% of games on consoles that your screen will show 1080P on, are actually being rendered at 720P. Basically the developers only have to work with ONE resolution. Anti alising on the xbox360 goes up to 4x, most games do not use it.

I never got this one. Why do people always say that? For starters, what's stopping a console player from hooking the console up to a small monitor? I know the xbox360 has a VGA adaptor available that they sell.

What's also stopping PC users from using 30-120" HDTV's as monitors? They're just as quick, clear, and responsive as smaller desktop monitors most of the time.

 

xbox 360 uses an modified 7800 nvidida card, your 9800gt is ~ 2.5-3x more powerful than that card...end of story.

 

Pfft, of course you can!

http://benheck.com/12-02-2008/new-xbox-360-portable

Uhh, the Xenos GPU was developed by ATi.