| captain carot said: Well, not the entire gen. But it was surpassed very fast, GTX 8800... With the finalized DevKits arriving very short before release the launch games had some issues, especially resolution and AA. But the first year saw some great looking an good running games for that time. Yes, you coould have a SLI system or a 7950 GX². And the X1900 XTX performed great. But we#re talking about the 400-550 €/$ range back then. On the other hand, two years after release games where optimized good enough you needed a way more powerful rig for the same performance. I remember Assassins Creed running more or less on PS360 level with an overclocked E4400 and Radeon HD3850 basically overclocked to 3870. If i remember right it didn't even benefit much from CPU overclocking. |
Even when the PC had less "power" than the consoles, cross plats still looked better.
And you needed to upgrade more often because games on the PC kept looking better and better and better. Once we reached Battlefield 3, there was a generational difference, the PC always had better looking games... That was true 20 years ago... And that is true today.
I remember playing around with the shaders in Oblivion... We were getting PC's with a Radeon 9700 Pro running that game better than the Xbox 360 could, which had a faster GPU and CPU and the same amount of Ram.
Besides... Most Core 2 Quad systems could handle the entire generation of games with the occassional GPU upgrade anyway, can even handle allot of the next gen games out now even with a bit of overclocking, plus a several decade large game library that is already established.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
