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.

what has my point got to do with lowering game settings?

that's the thing. as time goes by our settings get lower. our game development depends on hardware development instead of improving the engine based on lower end specs. if they had done so they could probably do better wonders with better hardware.

then again that's just my wish, my point - that doesn't mean i don't know how things work. HW wars, things will always get better. no improvement no $$$ also. and in order to sell, that's where the developers make their game to work with those new hardware blablablabla.

but hey i've been PC gaming for mode than a decade and still intend to do so for long time. I'm more drawn to games on the PC than consoles.

it does help for me... i got 2 Windows XP pro installed in my rig... 1 gaming and the other for work... my work windows has so many software in it tat it lags... 3dMark03 for tat windows is roughly 9400+/-... While my games windows scored 9800-11000...

XBox can max settings...?
i don think XBox got 16X anti-aliasing rite...?
8800GTS enough to do tat...

well... when the 1st box XBox came out it's merely a match for PS2 in overall terms including(especially) price... tat also the graphic quality is barely a match to my ex-Rig... wif, Intel P42.8GHz HT, Gigabyte GA-81PE1000-G, Apacer 512MB DDR400 RAM, the Gigabyte 128MB ATI Radeon 9600XT, Maxtor 80GB/8MB HDD... until 2day...

Then XBox 360 emerged...

Processor:
# 3 symmetrical cores running at 3.2 GHz each
# 2 hardware threads per core; 6 hardware threads total
# 1 VMX-128 vector unit per core; 3 total
# 128 VMX-128 registers per hardware thread
# 1 MB L2 cache

their RAM bandwidth:
* 22.4 GB/s memory interface bus bandwidth
* 256 GB/s memory bandwidth to EDRAM
* 21.6 GB/s front-side bus

Graphic:
* 500 MHz
* 10 MB embedded DRAM
* 48-way parallel floating-point dynamically-scheduled shader pipelines
* Unified shader architecture

RAM:
* 512 MB GDDR3 RAM
* 700 MHz DDR
* Unified memory architecture

HD support:
* All games supported at 16:9, 720p and 1080i, anti-aliasing
* Standard definition and high definition video output supported

source:teamXbox
some kinda Xbox fanatic site... which should be true... careful though... my spartans detected a couple of trojans...

So my explanation is the XBox OS might be optimized for all those specs cuz it's custom made... while our usual OS is not as optimized as XBox... tat's y i sure hope Vista will overcome this problem... and probably our drivers as well...


Bottomline:
XBox pros: hassle free, plug and play...
cons: not upgradable(performance wise), u can only play games and watch movies with it... if parents want to watch some drama then no more gaming...

PC pros: can use homework as excuse to get 1 from parents... can really do ur homework and manage ur phone, mp3 and many other things... can multi task... most parents won touch it so it's all urs... can upgrade if not fast enough... can download lotsa "stuff"... very flexible... requires efforts do build a good 1 which u will be proud of later...

cons: price...

my points of consideration in chosing PC gaming was:

1)I dare not defy my parents' hobby...
2)I love my Rig tat i'm proud to built it...
3)It's fascinating when u compare lotsa hardwares... like i recently noticed Celeron D 347(RM170) smoked AMD X2 3800+(RM200+) in Super_PI...

This post has been edited by t3chn0m4nc3r: Jul 1 2007, 03:51 PM

Specs don't mean that much actually.
Hardware abstraction layer is what's making Windows "unoptimized", same for other OSes. Unless you build on a specific chip(s), not a general platform, there's gonna be that pesky HAL sapping away lots of potential for general compatibility. But it's the ONLY feasible way that games are gonna run while remaining monopoly-free hardware wise.

BTW it's ALWAYS a good idea to use clean installs for games and games only.
TeamXbox is also run by the guys from IGN/Gamespy network so they're good.


[See how good Doom 3, Quake 4 and Prey ran on PCs. OpenGL developers tend to be more tender in optimizing for chips (they can't slack too much too ), coding seperate paths unless the chips are too uber, then id switches to a general renderer]

p/s: The 360 HAS upgrades. The upgrades are the developers (think of it in another way)! They push code harder and harder, making more impossibilities possible. See Project Gotham Racing 3 compared to 4, and Gears of War compared to Perfect Dark Zero. The developers push code harder than upgrades would allow. I don't think anybody thought that God of War 2 graphics could be run on the PS2 in 2001.

This post has been edited by X.E.D: Jul 1 2007, 09:00 PM

No, Vista Ultimate is not fully 100% optimised for gaming. But it includes some game friendly feature that only Vista Certified Games can use, like the upcoming Halo 2 will use the Drop and Play feature, where you put the game in the drive, and instantly play while the game is still installed in the background. Microsoft is hoping that all developers will adopt this approach, and also include Microsoft Live. The thing is, while Microsoft Live is good, you need to pay for the full Gold Membership. On a console that is not a bad thing, but for a PC, you have many alternative, such as Blizzard with it's own Battle.NET. Another thing is that Vista was built in tandem with 360, and in theory if you can run a game on XboX360 you can port it to Vista without much changing. But in reality it's not that simple. Monitors, ecspecially widescreen and HD are making it harder for gaming developers for 360 to port and not lose details on the PC.

lol .. halo2 need to enable UAC for it to play

err... ok... u got a point... paying every month for o9 play on XBox...? PC wif free alternatives...? i wonder which will ppl choose...

@dattebayo: no. You don't need UAC
@t3chn0m4nc3r: It's a yearly subscription of RM300++. You have a free alternative, Microsoft Live Silver. The difference between silver and gold is that:


Sorry for any typos. I type as I read the magazine,