The hype machine gone nuts!

Stupid as I am, I’ve gotten in several arguments with people over X-Box 360 vs. PC.

Though the X-Box games looks really good, I don’t see anything in them that can’t be replicated on a high-end pc such as my own. However arguments keep going back to the “specs” posting by MS, and the specs posted by Sony. Coupled with the very brief in-game footage - I really don’t see anything that says this is going to be a pc killer. Nor that the X-Box 360 will outperform a high-end pc. In fact, for a person looking to go to high-end gaming that doesn’t have a widescreen hi-def tv, the pc is a competetive cost effective option vs. looking at the purcahse of X-Box 360 and HDTV. But that doesn’t stop console-itis from going nuts by saying " BUT!!! LOOK at the specs! Look at that processing power!"

I’ve looked at the specs and what I see is a lot of info that is easily used the wrong way… case in point processing power.

[b]* X-Box 360 - 1 teraflop (claimed)

  • PS3 - 2 teraflops (claimed)[/b]

However, 3 of the fastest supercomputers on Earth are the following:

* IBM Blue Gene/L - 135.3 teraflops
* Columbia at NASA - 51.9 teraflops
* The Massive Earth Simulator in Japan - 35.9 teraflops <-- used in ex.

Now if you’re to believe the hype machine what could we deduce?
17 “Sony PS3’s” run in parallel or 36 “X-Box 360’s” run in parallel would be faster than the Earth Simluator in Japan? I don’t think so! Somehow I doubt that 17 $400 PS’3 are faster than the multi-million dollar Earth Simulator. :roll:

Specs can be very misleading and the hype machine isn’t going to “correct” anyone making bogus cross-platform comparisons that are totally invalid. And so far, I see a LOT of that happening across the board (not necessarily this one, but everywhere else). As always, it comes down to the games, and what developers can do with what’s available. But I’m going to continue my stance that the, " X-Box 360 does not bury high-end pc gaming rigs" like so many are trumpeting. IN fact, I’ll dare-say the X-Box 360 “equals” high-end rigs at best.

My specs?

AMD64 FX-53
2 Gig 3500 low latency RAM
ATI Radeon X800XT (256 Meg)
3- 100 Gig Hard Drives
Audigy 2 ZS

Your thoughts?

  • Do any of you really think the X-Box 360 blows away my system?
  • Equals it?
  • Not as powerful?

30 viewers in 5 minutes and no responses… that surprises me.

You’ve got no responses maybe because you post like a crazy person! Engaging in a debate with someone who demonstrates a misunderstanding of all the basic issues is no fun!

So JP, which is better again? :D

And supercomputing is a bit different I think. Still, in the end it is all about the…

GAMES.

If I get one it will entirely depend on which one has the games I want to play. Call me crazy, but I am not interested in circle-jerking over numbers. I own game consoles, you know, to play games.

Yes, the 360 and PS3 specs are “funny”. They seem to linearly be adding OPs from all the seperate processors, which is a bit funny. The PC equivalent would be adding in the potential op count from your video card as well as your CPU. Since the videocard is very efficient at FLOPS that would make a substantial difference.

On the other hand, both systems still have at least a 3 way parallel core compared to your 1 way core. And the graphics capability of both of their graphics chips seems to outstrip your PC.

So yeah, I think in general they’ll both pack more game playing computational power than your PC.

On the flip side, even including the price of a decent (sony, 16:9, 1080i/720p) HDTV, the console + TV (assuming a console launch at ~$300, which I see no reason not to assume) is insanely cheaper than a top of the line gaming PC. And I think they’re certainly competitive technically.

PC gaming is domed and all. :P

My PC cost me around 1,900 before exotic stuff like watercooling, and I don’t even have a second 6800 Ultra for SLI (yet). I could easilly have gotten an 1080i HDTV larger than my 19 inch CRT, and a PS3, and a 360, for less money. It wouldn’t play World of Warcraft or Guildwars though, so I don’t regret my purchase.

Why does it have to be PC or console, and not both? Plenty of people have more than one console system.

Yeah I have a PC and all the consoles.

I also dont have enough time to play them all but they sure do look nice!

Seriously though if you love games you will more then likely have both a gaming PC and a console.

I lways look at it this way: even if the computer is more powerful the fact that console game makers have a static target alows them to squeek more out of the machine then can be done on a computer, hence console games use much more of their abilities then a PC game will.

Tack on awesome system specs, like those claimed by MS and Sony, and even if a top of the line PC has 1.5x the raw power measured in some arbitrary metric, the console games will still probably look and feel equally as good because of the advantage having a static target nets you.

Really, anymore the only difference is the control scheme. Computers seem to be best at TBS’, RTS’, and content driven RPGs (I mean stuff like Morrowind, which has a huge mod community) where consoles are best at Fighters, Platformers, and 3rd person action-ey games (Mercenaries comes to mind) I’d argue computers are also better at FPS’ but in the wake of Halo that’s obviously just personal opinion rather then a reasonable argument.

What’s funny is the stuff that computers are strong at seems to be the thing developers are driving away from. The computer gamer market needs nice graphics, but the Doom 3 type drive of graphics over gameplay just isn’t in the computer scene like it used to be.

Chris Woods

Are you secretly Chuck Palahniuk? I’ve never heard anyone else formulate a sentence that way.

to prove it either way, just check his post history. if all his posts are pretty much exactly the same but with a few things changed to distract you and make you initially think they are actually quite different, then you may have some conclusive proof.

Are you secretly Chuck Palahniuk? I’ve never heard anyone else formulate a sentence that way.[/quote]

I am Jack’s delusional state.

Chris Woods

I stopped playing consoles after I’d had my Playstation for about four months. It was the addendum to Moore’s law that put the nails in the coffin: “Console games may look as good as pc games for about three or four months after the release of the new console generation. After that, they won’t even sniff the pc’s tailpipe for years.”
After a couple months, I couldn’t stand to look at the ps anymore.

Actually, though, to be honest, it was the game selection that did them in for me. I’d played FFVII and FFTactics, and there just wasn’t anything else interesting at the time. I fit into what Chris “I know Chuck Palahniuk and you,sir, are no Chuck Palahniuk” Woods was saying above: gameplay is much more important than graphics. As there are more interesting things hitting consoles that for some reason can’t be found on the pc (why X-Com/Jagged Alliance type games are strictly the realm of consoles these days is beyond me), I’m gonna be looking at picking up one in the next generation.

I think the “it don’t look as good as a PC” argument is pretty much dead after the PS2.

Sure there are some games on the PC that look awesome, but I tend to like the stuff that comes out in the 3rd generation of console software better than bleeding edge PC stuff. To me Metal Gear Solid was just amazing when it came out, and I’m blown away by God of War. I’ll caveat that by saying how impressed I am with the look of WOW.

nutsak, thanks for showing you’re more of an attn whore than me.

Andrew… you know I’d never really thought of that, and think you’re right. Graphics will look so nice all both next-gen consoles and pc it should be only up to the designers as to how good the games look.
Also I forgot how much easier it is for developer’s to make a more efficient game designing for a single spec - so that’s a huge bonus for consoles. My issue was soley based on people saying the X-Box 360 blew away any pc rig because of the specs.

I also had no idea widesreen HDTV’s were really that low-cost? Mouselock, you said, [size=2]“On the flip side, even including the price of a decent (sony, 16:9, 1080i/720p) HDTV, the console + TV (assuming a console launch at ~$300, which I see no reason not to assume) is insanely cheaper than a top of the line gaming PC. And I think they’re certainly competitive technically.”[/size]
I thought those were all still well over $1,000 for a decent size set? I also thought the X-Box 360 and PS3 were slated for $399-$500 price range…

I’ve been eyeing a Sony (Sony!) 30" tube HDTV (1080i/720p) that I’ve seen in action and know looks good. It sells regularly at Best Buy for $1k. There are other brands/sizes with similar features for a bit cheaper.

The things are massive, though. 140 pounds or so on that set, so it’s not as light and mobile or whatever as the plasma/TFT. And those are expensive. But if you just want a good quality HD set at a decent (not phenomenal, remember 30" is diagonal across a 16:9 screen) size, it’s not horribly prohibitive any longer.

As for XBox/PS3 being $400+; I’ll believe it when I see it. That’s pure gaming suicide, frankly. No matter how good the things look. And I think both MS and Sony are smart enough to realize that. (Maybe not though, we’ll see… still, another $200 on top of that still isn’t going to get you to high-end PC spec prices.)

Wasn’t the PS2 like $300 when it first came out? I can’t remember the exact prices anymore on these things.

And consoles have always looked (specs wise) inferior to PCs. It’s their dedicated gaming power that gives them an edge (and the standardization mentioned above). My computer has to do ten things at once, even if I don’t see them going on. My consoles are just gaming.

And I have to say that console games look as good as most PC games I have seen, but then I don’t have a snazzy new PC.

Consoles always look as good as or better than pc’s in the first few months after they hit the shelves; they just can’t keep up with the evolutionary curve. Take a look at some screens for Stella Deus and compare 'em to Guild Wars screens. No contest, because PS2 be gettin long in the tooth.

PC’s take small steps at small intervals and you can get a noticeable but not earth-shattering increase every couple months, whereas with consoles you just fall farther and farther behind until the next tectonic-shift-sized leap in console generational upward movement.

But like I said before, I’m starting to lean more towards consoles because gameplay is much more important to me than graphics, and the consoles are getting all the good titles these days.

Yeah, if you’re a real gamer you aren’t going to have much of a choice but to get a console pretty soon. There are very few great games that are PC only, but there are a ton of console-only games. And already most of the PC/console hybrid games are written for the console and ported to the PC.

People who don’t identify as gamers and use their PC primarily for other things might not be able to justify buying something that is “just” for playing games. Those of us who buy a new PC to play games will have to take a hard look at whether or not the next upgrade is actually worth the money. I certainly wouldn’t want to lay out $1000 if all there’s going to be are ports of games that were written for the XBox 360.

I loved god of war but HATED that it was on ps2. Blurry textures = annoying as hell to me, same with the occasionaly hiccup in framerate, total dealbreaker, made it a rental instead of a buy- and I really did want to buy it and play it a few times.

san andreas was good enough to keep me plauying, but the framerate was GARBAGE and the textures all totally sucked (128x128 or what? crap)

other than those issues, yeah, it’s just a control scheme, the other bonus for pc games for me is I can crack them. I sometimes dont play my conosles games when I want because I dont feel like digging through the console game drawer, it makes me feel like I’m shopping for a cd or something and takes me a good 5 minutes to find a game, especially if I dont play it often.

Totally personal issues of course. xbox 360 games today look like HL2 quality pc games. I can already run that quality of game right now- there just arent very many of that calibur on pc, so I HAVE to buy the console. ps3 exclusives and the revolution having ‘nintendo’ written on the side leave me no choice but to buy them as well. It is slowly killing me somehow, I’m sure.