Direct x 10 outdated?

[Sqrl]

sieanr said:

ChichiriMuyo said:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130080

This is the video card people talk about that's marginally better than what the PS3 is capable of. It costs $400 in a market more competitive than consoles. It might come down faster (not guarenteed), but even then it costs more than $200 to meet the rest of the requirements to play Crysis on the PC. Pretty expensive game there, even if you bought everything you needed last year except the video card.

And for that, it's not much better than what the Ps3 is doing. Heck, the quotes regarding the game indicate that if the PS3 had a hard drive in it, it might be able to play Crysis. Imagine that. So all they'd have to do is tell it how to use information off of the hard drive and it may be possible.

 

LOL, good job picking one of the most expensive 8800s. You can GTS models for sub 300, then again it seems like you dont know that much about PC gaming. For starters, you do know the RSX is a tweaked 7800, right? Just look at comparos between the 7800 v 8800 if you think the difference is "marginal" for gaming.

Not to mention the RSX has a total of 32 shaders whereas the 128. Yeah, a difference of 96 more shaders units is a pretty marginal difference, especially when those shaders can do more ops per second and effects the PS3 can only dream of. You want to compare even more specs.

And no, the Triple can't do crysis like the PC. How many times do people have to mention memory before you realize how anemic split 512mb is?

The point of this thread is debunking a myth that the Triple will pull of graphics equal to PCs. That would have been true 2 years ago, but no its nothing more than a pipe dream. But hell, if you want to live in a fantasy world where the Cell is capable of magic, than go ahead. Oh, and make sure you ignore Intels 45nm CPU this winter, along with K8l.

QFT, I also noticed he didn't mentioned the big pappa of the 8800 line.  The Ultra and GTX stomp the everliving crap out of ....well everything not 8800. If you look at some of the Tom's Hardware GPU charts you can see pretty clearly that when you want the best quality you buy an 8800.  The ATI cards can do better than the 8800s when you have AA/AF off, but those cards choke when you turn on AA/AF and the 8800 line in general hums along with negligible difference.

 

There is a simple and easy to understand reason why console software will always be behind PC software.  The only time when console hardware can be more capable than PC hardware is in the first year of its life.  So within the first year of its life it needs to produce very high quality games.  But as we all know from the numerous threads on the subject, consoles take time to learn and they never have their best looking games in the early stages of their lifetime.  

I won't go so far as to say that a console will never have a better looking game than is available for the PC, but I will say that even if it does it will be very shortlived due to the nature of PC hardware markets which are always progressing.

Also I would say keep in mind that a lot of people believe we are running into a graphics wall very soon.  And if that is truly the case then the focus is going to move to physics engines and AIs as we try to challenge ourselves to progress the market and keep games from becoming stagnant.