PC vs. 360 - The Chicken and The Egg

GGL are running a report comparing the PC and the Xbox 360. They say 'Of the 360 launch titles, ‘Call of Duty 2’ and ‘King Kong’ were two of the most visually stunning. They also happen to be available on the PC as well. For this test we played the PC and Xbox 360 versions of the games back to back and noted any differences related to graphics or gameplay. All games were played on the same high-definition LCD monitor to ensure a level playing field. PC games ran at 1280x768, a close approximation to the 1280x720 the 360 provides when running in 720p'.

At this point it’s clear to say that the 360 is capable of delivering graphics at least as impressive as a far more expensive gaming PC. And, while PC hardware will always be progressing, so too will 360 developers be optimizing, and so it can be expected that Microsoft’s new console will keep up at least for the next few years.

News Source: ggl.com

This is pretty nicely said. 100% true.

That's one of the stupidest articles I've ever seen. They compared the "standard" (low-end) PC version of King Kong with the high-end version on the X360. They would've been wise to compare the "high end" version of it (gamer's edition or whatever it's called) on the PC to get a true comparison, and they would've found that they look exactly the same, down to the sub 30FPS framerate, and 5 hours worth of gameplay.

"This is pretty nicely said. 100% true."
^^ *cough* console fanboy

Actually it's bullshit, this reviewer is obviously biased or paid off. Why didn't they use the High res version of the PC game? Why didn't they take actual screenshots of the PC version? Why Didn't they show larger images? Why didn't they run at a larger resolution then 1024x768 on the PC?

Bullshit.

Call of Duty 2 running at maximum settings also looks abit better then the Xbox 360. Most dual platform games will be this way and the PC will look better. The Xbox 360 only has 512mb of ram, and that is a big disadvantage especially for higher resolution textures / normal / bump maps.

I played through CoD 2 on my PC @ 1600x1200, and Maximum settings. Then went to walmart and tried CoD 2, The bump maps were less detailed, textures were a lower resolution and there is no anti-aliasing etc...

But really, for normal everyday working people buying an xbox 360 will be simpler and more cost effective, theres no argument there.

Originally Posted by G226

"This is pretty nicely said. 100% true."
^^ *cough* console fanboy

Actually it's bullshit, this reviewer is obviously biased or paid off. Why didn't they use the High res version of the PC game? Why didn't they take actual screenshots of the PC version? Why Didn't they show larger images? Why didn't they run at a larger resolution then 1024x768 on the PC?

Bullshit.

Call of Duty 2 running at maximum settings also looks abit better then the Xbox 360. Most dual platform games will be this way and the PC will look better. The Xbox 360 only has 512mb of ram, and that is a big disadvantage especially for higher resolution textures / normal / bump maps.

I played through CoD 2 on my PC @ 1600x1200, and Maximum settings. Then went to walmart and tried CoD 2, The bump maps were less detailed, textures were a lower resolution and there is no anti-aliasing etc...

But really, for normal everyday working people buying an xbox 360 will be simpler and more cost effective, theres no argument there.

Man I own all 3 consoles. I enjoy every one of them I have unbiased oppinions. You don't know me worth **** obviousely. And if you can't see that the 360 is a very powerfull machine then your just an idiot. Actually I'm Selling my Xbox right now....

Btw. I aint a 360 fanboy. Read this thread or just don't bother replying.

http://forums.maxconsole.net/showthread.php?t=13277

corrected post......

Originally Posted by kgonepostl

Man I own all 3 consoles. I enjoy every one of them I have unbiased oppinions. But I haven't played a console game in about 4 months. I've only been modding them. In truth I've been playing CS 1.6 and Cs source. I feel it's obviouse you don't know me worth ****. I recently bought a nostromo n52 gamepad and a glow in the dark keyboard so I could stay up later at night and still pwn.

And if anybody can't see that the 360 is a very powerfull machine then your just an idiot. Actually I'm Selling my Xbox right now....

Btw. I aint a 360 fanboy. Or a console fanboy Read this thread or just don't bother replying.

http://forums.maxconsole.net/showthread.php?t=13277

GOD DAMMIT WHY HAS THE EDIT BUTTON BEEN REMOVED!!!!

CORRECTED POST #3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Man I own all 3 consoles. I enjoy every one of them I have unbiased oppinions. But I haven't played a console game in about 4 months. I've only been modding them. In truth I've been playing CS 1.6 and Cs source. I feel It's obviouse you don't know me worth ****. I recently bought a nostromo n52 gamepad and a glow in the dark keyboard so I could stay up later at night and still pwn.

And if anybody can't see that the 360 is a very powerfull machine then your just an idiot. Actually I'm Selling my Xbox right now....

Btw. I aint a 360 fanboy. Or a console fanboy Read this thread or just don't bother replying.

http://forums.maxconsole.net/showthread.php?t=13277

The 'problem' with PC games is quite different: PC games are always written for common (mainstream, cheap) hardware. Plus, what most hardcore gamers consider high end is a plain joke (I laughed reading the Alienware Aurora specs for example - but I build highend workstation, I have a different understanding...). Of course, games for the 360 will look better once devs get used to the hardware. Devs never get used to a PC, because there simply is no such thing. Every PC is slightly different.

I've written a small tech demo for my secondary workstation a few weeks ago, and it looked truly stunning. Visually on par with 360 tech demos. On that machine, on a custom, stripped-down Linux system. On other machines, including my primary, way faster workstation, it was slow as hell - on most systems, it wouldn't run at all.

I never said the Xbox 360 wasn't "powerful"

If you agree with that reviews comparison you're the idiot I'm sorry. Their methods are very uneven and biased.

By the time Developers get "used" to the Xbox 360's hardware Quad core 45nm CPU's will be out next year. (Intel Kentsfield) It's already taped out, and is four physical cores. But then again PC / Mac Developers will have to get used to that hardware :P No one's even hardly tapping into 64bit hardware yet, not to mention Dual Core CPU's (Software wise) But once they do it'll be amazing, but hopefully not too expensive. I'm sure once Windows Vista is out, things will speed up.

Also Nvidia's G80 GPU will be out Summer 2006.

I'm interested to see how the PS3 and Revolution turn out before making a decision on whether I want a Xbox 360 / Revolution / or PS3. (I like consoles too :P)

Sorry if I was abit harsh before.

Originally Posted by G226

Call of Duty 2 running at maximum settings also looks abit better then the Xbox 360. Most dual platform games will be this way and the PC will look better. The Xbox 360 only has 512mb of ram, and that is a big disadvantage especially for higher resolution textures / normal / bump maps.

The 512mb of ram should be more than enough for what they are trying to achieve here. All it needs to do is serve as the immediate cache for the textures and bump maps, saying so, bump maps do not require much space at all - they must still be transferred to the VRAM before being rendered.

The scenes shouldnt require any more than 512mb worth of textures,etc..., giving the box plenty of time to flush the cache and replace all current textures and maps with new ones for the next scene.

Really, the only thing that could affect performance at 512mb ram is the rate of transfer from RAM to VRAM. The box doesn't need to downsample textures before placing them to RAM, unlike a computer where the resolution is selectable, so caching is much faster than normal (on a computer).

And what do you mean textures/normal/bump maps? Textures are "normal maps", unless you are reffering to an untextured mesh... The comment about the bump maps being less detailed, they should still look the exact same as bump maps are not changed; on a lower resolution texture this may make it appear as if the bump maps are not as detailed. Only the level of displacement is - although this would ruin the effect of the bump map in the first place.

Hope that clears a few things up.

The Xbox 360's 512MB is shared with the GPU (Unified memory), it isn't like a PC where theres Ram and vram.

The ATI GPU has 10mb of imbedded DRAM.

the fact that your basing your comparison from a home play completely through of cod2 on the pc to a standard trial in the middle of a walmart is kind of idiotic. Considering walmarts dumb ass probably doesnt even have the console set up for hd (i know some people that work in walmart and they dont care about how things are set up just so that it works when its set up). Everyone is always entitled to there opinion thats fare, but dont call one review biased when you yourself are doing a biased comparison

Actually it is setup on a really nice HD-TV.

it doesnt matter the tv its on if they dont flick the hd switch on the cables its not hd and lets face it, walmart isnt technologically aware. but none the less, i was just pointing out that you didnt get the amount of time with the game that you probably should of to get a clearer point of view of how the system is.

It was on, it was a hanging tv in a huge superwalmart. I played it for quite a bit of time.