I read in the latest review of lost planet from IGN and it mention that even with PC that has 4g of ram and dual core and geforce 8800 768mb it still cant crank up the settings to the max.

However, an xbox 360 will run it just fine. Kinda messed up. Is the computer with that kind of hardware in it still can't compare to the xbox 360?

P.S Its not a comparison thread ie. listing the pros and cons of consoles and pcs. Just wanna know whether the pc that has that setting is still only as capable as an xbox 360 in cranking out the graphics.

lol... what xbox360 can capable of, we can achieve it with even a single 7300gt with a pentium D or athlon X2.

what the problem now is the pc version has lot's of bugs in it esp. dx10. Nothing to do with hardware actually, its just the demo has lots of codes waiting to be optimized.

my 2 rupiah

i think even though xbox360's system spec are inferior to a top end gaming system.

its actually the slim and efficient OS/DX layer in the xbox360 that contributes to its performance and simplistic? development tools to create games for xbox360.

xbox360 has onli single hardware configuration compared to a PC which vary. this makes development/optimization even easier/faster. developer onli need to code a single path.

LOL.. anohter question. can gamers update xbox360's GPU drivers as frequent like catalyst?

not to mentioned the standardized platform of consoles. it is much easier to code when you have to cater to only one type of settings over a variety of them.

BS. In general purpose stuff it might not be as good as our CPUs, but on gaming and gaming alone, Xenon + Xenos (Free AA below 10MB buffer, 3 POWER-derivative cores supporting 6 threads @ 3.2ghz each) are a very formidable couple. 7300GT + Pentium D = hopeless LOL compared to the close collaboration of the 360 CPU/GPU.

Remember that console hardware this time around IS ahead of mainstream hardware (HD2600 just can't compare) and with hardware tricks and slim codework, it almost always busts most near-high end rigs. See DiRT.

Of course, besides the Wii. (Poo poo.)

Single 7300gt? No way. I would say it's around the level of a x1950pro but with more programmability. The 360 GPU is closer to dx10 than dx9.

quite a few things about PCs - bloated OS is a killer enough.
then our output is on CRT/LCD monitors instead of TVs.

try this, play a game on a 17" LCD. then try it on a 29" TV at a lower-resolution. it still looks good. the last game i tried on 29" TV was Prince of Persia : The Two Thrones using X800GT.

one thing i hate about PC & gaming is that games keep utilizing newer hardware all the time. i came to a point i wonder why can't game developers make games utilize hardware more efficiently.

on the consoles, all games work well on a single configuration of hardware. games are developed and optimized for that HW alone.

they have to maximize the current hardware at greatest effort, or else they will make the new spanking 8800GTX underutilized all the time, and that would not make gamers and both ATi and nVidia happy

probably due to the fact that they know that pcs are upgradeable, or users tend to upgrade them more often than not

thus the need to code more efficiently isn't as strong as when they are coding games for consoles

this also explains why down the years after the release of console platforms, a multi platform games always look better on PC than those on consoles. eg. FIFA games

only a handle actually does upgrading if you consider the # of PCs in the market.

it's not an uncommon sight to have parents going "WHAT??!! i just spend $$$$ on that PC last year and now you tell me you want $$$ to upgrade XYZ part?"

IMO the PC is very under-utilized. the PC evolution is really fast while the general usage is pretty much the same.

but it doesnt change the fact that pc users do upgrade their pcs more often than ps3 owners upgrading their Nvidia graphics card down the years

the possibility to upgrade diminishes the need for pc game developers to code for a static and underperforming (down the years) platform... you could argue that the continuous need for an upgrade for pcs suggest that pc games are always up to the newest standard but it could also due to sloppy programming.

once I read an article that revealed that part of the reason pc games are usually shipped with more bugs compared to the console counterparts is due to the possibility to patch the games later on... sloppy programming in action

You never want to invest too much time and effort ( = money) optimizing for something that will be outdated in 6 months. And it's just impossible to optimize for every platform on the PC. It's more economics than sloppiness.

This post has been edited by ikanayam: Jun 30 2007, 10:49 PM

how come like tat one...wit tat kind of pc can flush xbox in the toilet la...

aiyah. typo. only a handle? i meant handful la.

anyway no disagreements with the points above my wildcard and ikanayam.

afaik, only hardcore gamers upgrade their pc at the fastest rate
there's another group of people that own ps3 and xbox360, they don't bother bout latest hardware like dx10 or so as much as pc game enthusiasts do.

at least in LYN, it happens this way

This post has been edited by dattebayo: Jul 1 2007, 09:45 AM

While I do agree with your point, I would also like to point out that it's not like you can't play a PC game when it's not on the maximum settings. The difference between console and PC gaming is the war between ATi and nVidia, which leads to deals between gaming studio with either developers to make a game that is optimised for their best product. Nothing bad really, if the game is really good, you can still play it in 2 years time when the optimum hardware price for that game is low enough for you to buy it.
If I do remember, Image Space Incorporated released F1 Challenge in 2002, and while the default setting was good enough, many modders found out that the graphic engine was not even 25% utilised, leading to hacks that unlock it's full potential. After that, they released rFactor, which uses an upgrade of that engine, and believe me, it will take another 5 years before there will be a hardware that can fully max out that game. But is it playable? yes, it look decent enough and real enough on my rig.
A PC game can never beat a console title on term of looks straigt outside the box, but it has more flexibility so that it's not confined to one type of purpose built machine only.

Console (lowyah spec) vs. Uber gaming rig (loaded spec) ehh?

SPECIALIZATION and OPTIMIZATION is the key to performance at breakneck speed, optimum usage of hardware assets will makes it value for money.

This once crossed my mind with a PC having 3 BIOSes; 2 BIOS for the regular booting with one as backup, and another BIOS which is a standalone, embedded OS strictly for gaming. Just a menu selector or a flip switch to boot the PC in Gaming Mode or Normal Mode.

Of course, there's the hassle to restart the PC everytime to play a game at the best possible level, I believe true gamer wouldn't mind. But to implement that, the mobo, chipset and games must be optimized for all the situation/mode. For me, I don't mind restarting it to boot into another mode for death-defying gaming experience... if only such platform exist lah.

then it will have to be like Windows Vista Gaming Edition like?
Noneed to have different BIOS imho, u can do multiboot loader

Slimmer OSes don't really help much (despite all those Linhuggers out there running WoW at 2 FPS). Giving the HAL (No, not 2001) the middle finger is the key. Without the HAL, expect great lengths with seperate hardware, even mainstream current hardware like the 7600.

On the other hand, w/o the HAL, EVERY graphics config would need to be coded for, same applies to CPU. And nVidia/ATi being focused on HAL platforms, won't likely have some nice tricks/cheats in hardware to exploit.

lol was expecting a simple yes and no answer. Guess the console still kinda win this. Thing is I would never go into console simply because of the type of games in console. I tried buying PS2 near the end of its life cause of the cheap price. Bought tons of games and the only one I like is the MGS series. Even games like resident evil 4 didn't win me over.

Oh well that's that I guess. All a matter of $$ in the end.