PC graphics vs Console graphics

[HappySqurriel]

FrostyTop said:

The_vagabond7 said:

And just to quote a small bit of Rocketpig's post

Flat out untrue. If you spent $800 on a PC when the PS3 released, you'd still be able to play almost any game released (Mass Effect, CoD4, etc) on high settings and you'd probably be able to squeak out low/mid on Crysis, which still looks better than anything found on either HD console.

I spent about 700 on a PC christmas 2006, and I can play mass effect COD4, and bioshock fine and dandy, and they definitely have the graphical edge over their console counterparts on my PC which isn't very good at all by today's standards.

 

I'd also like to comment on that in a similar line of thought.

When the Playstation 1 and the Sega Saturn, heck even the MegadriveSnes was released...

They WERE a good couple of years ahead of the latest PC hardware.

The PS3Xbox 360 were NEVER ahead of the latest PC hardware, they were based on the current latest PC hardware but using stripped down versions of it.

Xbox 360 = ATI X1800 graphics card with tosh CPU

PS3 = 7800GTX (this had been out well over a year on the PC) + over complex CPU that still couldn't stand up to a Quad Core Q6600 in real terms and still can't.

 

Any RTS will show the CPUs on the consoles aren't up to much and Crysis, although running like a dog even on the latest hardware this is only relative to other PC gamers games who EXPECT 60FPS+.

Compared to how a lot of games run on consoles, Crysis ran like a DREAM even on medium hardware.

 

 

So....In summary, the op doesn't know what he's talking about. I don't like reading people making sweeping statements that haven't been thought through properly.

 

I have to disagree with this ...

PC hardware has always been more advanced than console hardware but up until the release of 3D graphics cards (in 1995) and standardized graphics APIs (1996 and beyond) very few PC games were as well optimized as their console counterparts.