Xbox 360 gfx VS PC gfx

[Waco]

How about we all stop arguing about the tearing and stuff and buy a 120Hz LCD. That ought to fix all potential problems, am I correct?

Not at all. The monitor has next to nothing to do with tearing.

[Jump4h]

Not at all. The monitor has next to nothing to do with tearing.

 

But if the monitor refreshes at 120hz, you could play at 120 FPS, and then everyone could have Vsync on.

[Compxpert]

Triple buffering only succeeded in Lowery my FPS. Though I notice less tearing.

[Waco]

But if the monitor refreshes at 120hz, you could play at 120 FPS, and then everyone could have Vsync on.

60 FPS isn't a limitation...

[IVIYTH0S]

how does one enable triple buffering, is that something you'd enable in a game or from Catalyst Control Center/Nvidia Control Panel??

[Waco]

Most games with a vsync option will enable it by default if you check the vsync box. If not, you can force it in CCC or in the nVidia control panel.

[Krieg1337]

Look at CoD4 on PS3 and CoD4 on PC, then come back and ask us that same question. (Spoiler, CoD4 looks like crap on PS3, lines are jaggedy all over the place, consoles have no AA or AF)

 

Consoles are only "better" at the high resolution/1080P because it upscales and the games are better optimized. As said before, it would take a long time to optimize a game for every single GPU/Mobo/Memory/CPU/ect. config.

 

Also why would you want to play on a TV with a PC?(You can barely read any of the text ingame because if you sit close the TV looks horrible)

[tkrow21]

Wacokid, no player I have met in CEVO has Vsync on while playing CS:S. Want to know why? Flickshotting is seriously impossible with it.

Edited September 6, 2009 by tkrow21

[IVIYTH0S]

Wacokid, no player I have met in CEVO has Vsync on while playing CS:S. Want to know why? Flickshotting is seriously impossible with it.

but can't like my foot render CS:S at like 1200FPS minimum, that engine is painfully easy to render.

[sn3g]

Am I the only one who is wondering what "flickshotting" is?

 

There are two things you have to think about separately: hardware and software.

 

The way modern game looks depends on two factors:

 

1) Graphics capabilities it was designed for. Does the game support all the hardware features? For the sake of simplicity, let's say our game supports all of them.

2) Software which shows the image on the screen. Software can further be broken down into:

 

a) Firmware. Was GPU optimised to work with a specific setup?

b) Drivers. Are they well written, were they optimised for a specific system?

c) Operating system video subsystem (think DirectX). Is it easy for programmers to use? Is it similar to other subsystems? Was optimised for specific hardware?

d) The game code. Was the game written to work specifically for all the above? How well is it written? How well is it optimised?

 

Generally speaking, PC system has better graphics capabilities. The hardware comes out often and the user can stick the newest graphics card into the PC and enjoy the best possible performance. Console users can't do the same. They are stuck with the same hardware until they buy a new box. But this turns out to be an advantage of console system rather than a disadvantage. Why?

 

1) Programmers cannot create software which is optimised at every stage of graphics processing for PCs simply because of the variety of different setups. By doing so they might give +50 fps for systems with setup A but end up with giving -100 fps for all other systems. Nevertheless various games are being optimised. For example, different games often get sponsored by video card manufacturers to optimise their game for specific video cards. For example, HL2 Source engine used to be optimised for ATI cards so when someone performs a stress test HL2 gets more FPS on ATI card = more $$$ for ATI. Same for other games that are sponsored by NVIDIA.

 

2) On the other hand, console hardware is fixed forever. And therefore game developers can squeeze everything out of it. They don't have to fear that Bob's got a different CPU so if they take a shortcut here to gain 25 FPS a game will crash for him. This gives, in practice, far better video quality on far worse hardware.

 

3) TVs usually run on lower resolutions (even HD ones) than modern monitors. The way image is displayed on a TV is also slightly different. These factors can be exploited to give video quality to "seem" better.

 

Bottom line: as developers learn the new console capabilities and become good at optimising games for it, the graphics quality will be stunningly good despite PCs having better hardware. This happens all the time and it is often the case that graphics get better and better although hardware is the same.

 

You can draw a conclusion, that graphics quality evolution on a console is driven by game developer proficiency to use the hardware. On the other hand, PC graphics quality evolution is driven by hardware capability and pipeline development (better drivers, new DirectX, etc). However, you might have noticed that more and more games use graphics engine made by other developers: Valve's Source, Epic's Unreal and Crytek's CryENGINE, etc. Due to this engine developers can focus on implementing optimisationg for various video cards and offering a more universal, efficient framework. This further reduces the complications of working with hundreds of different systems and allows the developers to utilise the hardware better.

Edited September 6, 2009 by sn3g

[Waco]

Wacokid, no player I have met in CEVO has Vsync on while playing CS:S. Want to know why? Flickshotting is seriously impossible with it.

Properly set up the maximum lag introduced is ~16 milliseconds at 60 Hz. The higher the refresh rate, the lower than number goes.

[ocre]

I dont know where this thread went :angry2:

 

Uhm, Waco is 1000% correct, I mean its elementary, How is it even a debate? Every PC gamer should know the benefits to vsync.

Also i would add another reason to turn off vsync is for benchmarking, and for the idiots that really think 150fps>60fps on a 60hz lcd.

There are plenty of ppl who just want to see what their gpu/rig will do and want to see their max fps.

Also I will add there are many game out their that still limit the fps (such as fallout 3, COD4&5) even after you think you disabled vsync. You then must go into the ini or command console to disable it. I dont even know why i am goin there, I mean every PC gamer should know this stuff. I will leave it at that, I mean how can I explain this if you dont already know.

Another thing I will add because of the 120hz monitor thing. If you cap a game at 30fps, even on a 60hz monitor, no tearing. None. Unless your rig cant keep up with 30fps. Why would anyone cap a game at 30? Try it, On most games you wont even notice its at such a low fps, as it will be constant. Its only when you have a high fps to a real low dip that you notice it at all. like 100 to 30, or even 80 to 40. then you notice it. But lets not get into this too much.

PPL see what they want, its a popular conception in science now that wee really only "see" 10% or so of our surroundings, Thats all the information we receive from our eyes. Then our mind fills in the rest, with memory or imagination. Anyway if something negative is in your mind when viewing, then it will be exaggerated.

 

Now for the OP, I am sorry that your system isnt performing to your likings. But turn down the aa on COD and I bet even still you will perform better then your XBOX. I say even still because the XBOX doesnt render in high detailed textures as your pc does, There are many little things taken out of XBOX games to squeeze the most performance out of their system. These little things may not matter to you, but they do effect performance all the same. Most xbox games dont have AA, the view distances is are very comparatively low, the details are always fuzzier. The xbox cannont, It Cannot, render true 1080, its not capable at all. It upscales to this resolution, kinda the same way an upscaling DVD player works, But an upscaled DVD, while it looks pretty good, doesnt compare to a true 1080 blue ray, now does it?

 

I mean I cant think of a single game that is on XBOX, that doesnt look better on PC, in some way shape or form, AA is a big deal when you render small textures then upscale them, the jagged lines are awful. My nephew is constantly blown away by the games on my PC, compairing to his XBOX. GTA4, AC, FO3, Oblivion, Pure, Bioshock, COD4 & 5, Far cry2, heck even ghostbusters. The list goes on and on, He cant believe the improvement.

 

I dont have a very expensive rig at all, but you still can get an xbox cheaper if you start from scratch. If all you want to do is play a game and put it down, the XBOX is a far better choice. My nephew now wants a PC for gaming. But PC gaming isnt like a console, sometimes you are gonna have to tweak a game to get it to perform well. Its not the insert disc and thats it kinda experience. There are many things that can hold your PC back, you OS, background programs, Driver settings, Many number of things. But PC gaming in the end is for a mature group. We usually dont play the game and drop it, Mods come, tweaking unadjustable settings, All kindsa "fun" for the PC versions. But that doesnt make it better for all, most ppl dont have a clue how to do these things.

So, if all you want is simple, then get a console and forget it. But for the once who want more out of their games, PC gaming rules. When available for both there is not a single game that looks better on the XBOX then on my rig, No way it can. My sytem in the sig is pretty darn cheap, for those who dont know the X4 20 is an unlocked pheom 2 720.

 

But heack, I have been only running 3 cores for the last 2 months strait. I game everyday, I just finished Ghostbusters ,which plays like crap on the Xbox, and doesnt look as good at all. It played beautifully all maxed out, I even had to tweak the ini to get the aa to work. But good ole Atari had to cut the multiplier out of the pc version in order to tweak out the performance issues the console were having. So there is a quick example of what pc gaming is about. its not, and shouldnt be, for everyone