AMD: PCs “at least ten times” more powerful than consoles

Hmm, well this is interesting.. Hope to see some comments from the people who know about this sort of stuff!
 
sigh, why do people compare something that can't be upgraded component wise VS something that can. i might as well say that my car is faster than your bicycle.
 
I think you guys are missing the point..

I wonder what would happen is they do away with DirectX and people can make games that are unrestricted. How awesome would that be, think about it! Screw the bleddy console war, we all know that consoles are weak compared to PCs, but the real question is, could DX be done away with? Or at least, could something better/scalable be made?
 
to0kenZA said:
I think you guys are missing the point..

I wonder what would happen is they do away with DirectX and people can make games that are unrestricted. How awesome would that be, think about it! Screw the bleddy console war, we all know that consoles are weak compared to PCs, but the real question is, could DX be done away with? Or at least, could something better/scalable be made?
Click to expand...

clearly the article is about comparing pcs with consoles, which is daft imho as consoles can never be upgraded while pcs can.
"It's funny. We often have at least ten times as much horsepower as an Xbox 360 or a PS3 in a high-end graphics card, yet it's very clear that the games don't look ten times as good," Huddy told Bit-Tech.
Click to expand...

i would welcome the end of DX and GL, but of course something decent must take it's place that's not iteration crazy.
 
at least ten times as much horsepower as an Xbox 360 or a PS3 in a high-end graphics card, yet it's very clear that the games don't look ten times as good
Click to expand...
The key is that the consoles can get away with 1/10 the power, because they have sophisticated up-scaling algos. The scene itself is rendered at a ridiculously low resolution (therefore needing little horsepower) and then up-scaled to whatever resolution is needed. This is why console games have a softer look to them than PC games.

The more I think about this, the more I conclude that console have pathetic raw power but use what they have incredibly efficient. e.g. Jagged edges are also reduced as a side-effect by the interpolating nature of the up-scaling. Contrast that with a PC that will use FSAA & render at even higher resolutions.

Lengthy related thread over here: http://mygaming.co.za/forum/showthread.php/11775-Farewell-to-DirectX
 
Are there any console games that actually run at 1080p natively? I think one of the only games to run native 1080p on Xbox 360 is Virtual Tennis 3.....

Until we see consoles running titles like Killzone 3, Gears of War or maybe God of War 3 at 1080p with over 60fps, I don't see any competition. You just don't get the same level of detail and quality on a console than as you would on a high end PC.

Before I get flamed, I own a PC, 360 and PS3! I don't believe in favoritism, I am a gamer, and the platform is just a mean's to an end for my entertainment.
 
comparisons will always be there because there will always be people who need them.
 
My PC is a fair bit stronger than my PS3, but that's hardly cause for me to stop playing on my console. It's about the games, not the graphics. :P
 
Plus it is a LOT easier to develop for one platform like a console than the almost unlimited combination of motherboards, graphics cards and CPU's out there.
 
This argument is some far beyond stupid that I question the brain capacity of the people involved.

Sony PS3 - R2999

Xbox360 - R2579 (prices from Take2)

My PC - well over R14000


So that would be like comparing an Uno to a Ferrari, who do you think would win?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top