Another PC vs console question

Maninblack

Active Member
I can output my PC to my 50" plasma at native res of 1360 x 768.

Playing COD 2 it looks great!.

Will an x box 360 playing at this res look equal, better, or worse?

Current graphics card is Nvidia gs 7800 agp.

Cheers
 

mattg

Well-known Member
I ran cod2 on a sli 7900 setup during the summer and I think it looked just as good.

Call of duty 3 is out now which should look better. (and is not available on the pc).
 

Brutos

Active Member
Yeah get COD 3, it looks alot better anyway so it's going to look .....well...better.
 

JonnyConcrete

Novice Member
The reason I think PCs still wipe the floor with consoles when playing multiplayer is the amount of players you can have in a game.

I've been used too playing online games with at least 40 players, up to 64 with battlefield and hundreds in wwiionline.

I find it hard to play COD with 24 players and GOW with 8.

But consoles are better because you dont have to mess about searching for updates and tweeking the games to work on your system, just switch on and away you go.
 

AudioSlim

Active Member
The 360 will easilly beat your 78xx graphics card in terms of power and quality.
The graphics card inside the 360 is one serious piece of engineering. Theres info about it around ont he net, basically it can reach it's theortical peak which no other card is yet to do (by way of comparision , the much hyped PS3 graphic chips can only hit approx 25% of it's theortical max).

This alone puts the 360's g-card , still now 12 months on nearly at the top of the list of graphics power (it's also nigh on a DX10 card!!)

Slim
 

UrbanT

Distinguished Member
The reason I think PCs still wipe the floor with consoles when playing multiplayer is the amount of players you can have in a game.

I've been used too playing online games with at least 40 players, up to 64 with battlefield and hundreds in wwiionline.

I find it hard to play COD with 24 players and GOW with 8.

But consoles are better because you dont have to mess about searching for updates and tweeking the games to work on your system, just switch on and away you go.
I disagree with this. I've never owned a console for longer than a few months, because I've always got bored, quickly. The PC has also been my preferred gaming platform. The online proposition of Xbox is so sorted. Theres no fiddling, connection is generally easy, speaking to fellow players is easy, and arranging 'mates' matches from your friends list, regardless of the game, couldn't be simpler.

Huge multiplayer matches aren't always the holy grail or gaming. I got fed up trying to find games with enough people in them, its just so hit and miss, and becomes frustrating after a while.

Having been a solid PC gamer for at least the last 7/8 years, I haven't touched it in at least 6 months :)
 

zz101

Banned
The 360 version of COD2 suffers with jaggies due to minimal / no AA it also has lower res textures than the PC version. Apparently the smoke effect is supposed to be better in the 360 version but cant say as I've noticed. Your PC is also capable of playing it at a higher native resolution than the 360 which also means no scaling.

I def wouldnt recommend the 360 version over the PC.

Also if you have two cards you can enable Sli mode in the game which increases texture resolution and AA and looks stunning. I can play at the equivalent of nearly 1080p (300 lines short) on my PC which is superb.

COD3 does have much better gfx than COD2 on the 360 but unfortunately the single player games isnt as good. Havent tried multiplayer yet.
 
A

Apothis

Guest
The 360 will easilly beat your 78xx graphics card in terms of power and quality.
The graphics card inside the 360 is one serious piece of engineering. Theres info about it around ont he net, basically it can reach it's theortical peak which no other card is yet to do (by way of comparision , the much hyped PS3 graphic chips can only hit approx 25% of it's theortical max).

This alone puts the 360's g-card , still now 12 months on nearly at the top of the list of graphics power (it's also nigh on a DX10 card!!)

Slim
Exactly, the GPU in the 360 has many of the features only DX10 cards for the PC will have, the PS3 on the other hand is effectively only a DX9 capable 7900.

Not to say the PS3 doesnt have plenty of potential in other areas, before the sony fanboys jump in, but that cell processor is going to have to handle a lot of the work the 360 can do in hardware.
 

JonnyConcrete

Novice Member
but surely its quality not quantity ?
Counterstrike Source and the Battlefield series are quality. CSS has better game play and GFX than any 360 game, and they have been out for ages.

I've only played Vegas demo but Raven Shield looks just as good and the game play is just as good and you can have 8 players as a pose to only 4 on Vegas and that has been out for years.
 

Maninblack

Active Member
Ive had an offer to bring an xbox round to my gaf, so that will sort the argument................
 

ukkev2000

Novice Member
The 360 version of COD2 suffers with jaggies due to minimal / no AA it also has lower res textures than the PC version. Apparently the smoke effect is supposed to be better in the 360 version but cant say as I've noticed. Your PC is also capable of playing it at a higher native resolution than the 360 which also means no scaling.
COD2 is a year old, simple port, try the current gen and on for a better comparison.

Higher Native Resolution is such a non issue, the OP was talking about their plasma panel, so running at 1600x1200 is irrelevant - it needs to be the panel res.

Soft shadows? HDR? Depth of field? they can all do it and the depth of field effect when zooming in using a rifle in COD3 is excellent.

Gameplay is a different thing and if you like CS, only CS will do, eh? Try freeing your mind and trying other game types, you lot sound like skiers who won't try boarding because it's just not the same :D
 

harrisuk

Novice Member
As for graphics show my anything that looks better than gears of war on the p.c. I have never seen it. The issue with player numbersin games is dedicated servers.

They are comming for sure. There is talk of 64 players in Halo 3. Its down to the money at the end of the day. With P.cs you have the gammers forking out for the servers, which is where the hassle finding games etc comes in...
 

Kutocer

Standard Member
As for graphics show my anything that looks better than gears of war on the p.c. I have never seen it. The issue with player numbersin games is dedicated servers.

They are comming for sure. There is talk of 64 players in Halo 3. Its down to the money at the end of the day. With P.cs you have the gammers forking out for the servers, which is where the hassle finding games etc comes in...


Need i say any more and this will not look this good on 360 (if it ever makes it) as the 360 is not a FULL DX10 GPU ok it has some of hte features but not all and the only card out at the moment is the 8800 (awesome card)

Kut...
 

ukkev2000

Novice Member
yes, you do need to say more actually!

Like what is the res of that shot? The original poster (hate to be pedantic :D) was talking about their plasma.

That's a shot of Crysis? Coming to both platfomrs next year? In which case a pc v console comparison on a plasma panel would be the appropriate time to judge the results.

If you check out the old E3 tech demo trailer for that game, there is nothing, absolutely nothing that the 360 can't do right now, and can be seen working in current 360 titles.
 

UrbanT

Distinguished Member
This whole conversation is pointless. Why?

Because the 360 is a £200 machine, but a PC you can spend as much money as you like on. I like both platforms, so not biased to either (other than I now play far more on the 360 these days). But dual SLi, big memory, latest sound card, fast proicessor = +£1000.

5 x a Ford Focus = Ferrari. But the 360 offers far more performance compared to a PC than a Focus does to a Ferrari.

So heres the challenge. Build a PC for £200 that could run Gears of War, and then I would be impressed.
 

NewBeetle

Distinguished Member
PC gaming IMO is just a neverending money pit. It all just seems so much hard work, to keep upgraded in line with game releases. "If you want to play this you will need at least this GFX card" etc etc etc. 3 months later a new game comes out and your £2000 wonder PC will play it, but you read that it will look its best and play **fps if you get this upgrade for your PC. Install drivers, patches etc.

Just too much messing about for whats so easy with a 360, gaming for me is about FUN, switching something on and within 60 seconds be playing online with a couple of joypad presses. The 360+LIVE= The best gaming platform ever available for the masses and when compare quality and price to going the PC route its a clear winner.
 

Maninblack

Active Member
This whole conversation is pointless. Why?

Because the 360 is a £200 machine, but a PC you can spend as much money as you like on. I like both platforms, so not biased to either (other than I now play far more on the 360 these days). But dual SLi, big memory, latest sound card, fast proicessor = +£1000.

5 x a Ford Focus = Ferrari. But the 360 offers far more performance compared to a PC than a Focus does to a Ferrari.

So heres the challenge. Build a PC for £200 that could run Gears of War, and then I would be impressed.

My reasons for starting the thread were not really, can I upgrade my PC to look better on my plasma screen than a 360, but is it better now?

I like PC gaming on my monitor, but if I am to play on my Plasma and a 360 is comparable then its a no brainer to get a 360 for ease of setup and use.

I guess I do not want to shell out for the 360 if it is worse than my PC on the plasma, that would be a shame.

My pc will get an upgrade sometime later..
 

dan653

Novice Member
completely agree urbanT, but imho a bad metaphor for the comparison a better one would be an off the shelf 'ferrari 360' [the xbox 360] as compared to a more bespoke custom sports car [the pc], while both are termed 'high performance', obviously the [xbox] 360 is a good all rounder where as the pc would excel in some areas and be weaker in others
 

zz101

Banned
So heres the challenge. Build a PC for £200 that could run Gears of War, and then I would be impressed.


But a PC can do a whole lot more than just a console so its not a fair comparison.

Consoles are good for plug and play gaming - but they do lack the depth that PC gaming offers - primarily because of the limited control methods. Also the fact that they cant be upgraded means they hit a point where they start to look crap.

They are also resolution limited - how many PC owners game at 1280x720 (921,600 pixels)these days? Not many I'd guess. My PC runs at 1650 x 1080 (1,764,000 pixels) with FEAR max'd out and no frame rate issues - compare that to the 360 version which has half the resolution and crappy low res textures.

You can bang on about the 360 technical specs all you like but the real proof is in the pudding and there is nothing that cant be done better on a PC at present.

If you can afford it get a decent PC if you cant then a 360 is a good cheaper alternative.
 
S

SquintingBadger

Guest
I don't know what everyone else does, but I play games to have fun - not boast about how many pixels it is pushing.

I gave up PC gaming long ago because it's much, much more fun playing from the comfort of my sofa, with a nice ergonomic pad, and viewing on a huge screen with a decent surround system - rather than hunched over a 19" monitor struggling with some clunky keyboard/mouse combo. And at the distance I sit, there's no way I'd tell the difference between 1080 and 720 lines of resolution.

Neither do I miss the constant battle that is installing and configuring games, downloading graphics drivers and patches, new versions of DirectX, etc...

I'd still use the PC for in-depth strategy games, as this genre is more suitable, but everything else is a no-brainer.

But that's just my opinion. I could just be lazy.
 

ukkev2000

Novice Member
But a PC can do a whole lot more than just a console so its not a fair comparison.
Er, yes it is. This topic is about PC v 360 on plasma panel, or did you not read the OP? Graphically at 720p there is nothing in it apart from the spare change that would pay for a very nice holiday.

PC's reach a point where they are crap and need "upgrading". I don't know about you but when that happens to my PC's, I've respecced the whole kit and effectively bought a new PC. Each time it's been a cutting edge bit of kit that's cost me well over the £1000 mark and it happens a lot more frequently than every 5 years.
 

Similar threads

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: Panasonic HX800 TV + Sony HT-G700 Soundbar reviews, movie and TV show news and reviews

Trending threads

Latest News

Linn upgrades Majik LP12 turntable with new tonearm
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
VPI announces new Prime 21 turntables
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Skyworth launches 8K Q71 TV
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
AVForums Podcast: 23rd September 2020
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
Wharfedale introduces new Diamond 12 Series speakers
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Top Bottom