Have Next Gen Killed The PC?

[matthew]

A PC can still not keep up with the raw power of the CPU's in both 360 & PS3. Even crippled as they are, they can show graphics the PC cannot handle. Perhaps it's just because the PC architecture is inferior to theirs, but...
No. PC Gaming is not dead nor will it be. But I do prefer the games on the consoles as they will run flawlessly and what's more is that you don't have to upgrade all the time.

I have to disagree with you here many games that come out on both PC and console the PC version is better depending on the hardware that you buy.
Consoles always tend to be behind PC technology as they seem to depend on the current PC technology.

In terms of architecture I personally think that everything can be done on a PC the same way it could on a console but its the way the hardware is being used.
For example

PC usually has an OS installed and a fully blown one that does a lot of different tasks that usually is a bottleneck before the game has even started.
However a console usually only has a mini OS enough to power the API hence the power can be taken be taken advantage of Directly.

But all in all PC's still have much more power than even the latest consoles like PS3 and Xbox360.

Oblivion PC vs Xbox comes to mind and depending on the hardware.
I mean I was playing games that had similar graphics to Xbox360 when Need for speed most wanted came out.

Try Need for speed most wanted on a Budget PC say Athlon 64 3800+ with a 7800gt graphics card you'll get to ramp up the graphics to full capacity and you'll get 60fps.

Compare the Xbox360 version and you'll only get around 30fps and while thats decent its a far cry from the 60fps that PC owners get I also found that the graphics aren't quite as good, I noticed anti-aliasing issues with consoles even the latest ones. However with PC's if you have the hardware can look super smooth.

In my own opinion PC's can't really be compared to consoles since consoles are meant to span 5 or so years and while console owners think the graphics are amazing PC owners by the say the third year into the consoles life will be experiencing graphics that console owners consider next gen.
Theres also the price factor of comparing a 3000 pound machine with a general purpose games console

I do like consoles though as a single platform software developers think of new ways to push that particular hardware and as a result graphics look better and better towards the end of the consoles life.
However with PC technology changing all the time the hardware never really gets pushed all that far.

Last note since i read your other post in this thread PC's are HD as standard its
only recently that console gamers are catching up but PC gamers have had the priveledge to be playing games with resolutions far beyond 1080P for ages now

1600x1200 games look amazing.

 

[matthew]

Haven't you checked AGEIA reviews? The thing is very expensive and is not the bid deal, that's why is not selling well. As you and me already said, ATI and nvidia are currently adding pshysics stuff in their GPUS. Also, Valve has stated that will make use of dual core (eventually quad core) for optimizing things like pshysics so that is not a problem.

Also with AMD's upcoming Agena quad core, things are likely to be interesting next year in terms of processing...



Just a mather of time, let's say when the first generation of DX10 games come. Just check out Crysys stuff

AGEIA is really interesting stuff however not worth buying for me coz it'll come at the expense of a pci slot that i want to use for the latest creative sound card .
Also since many games don't use it just yet its not worth buying.

In time however it might become part of motherboards / graphics cards.

I personally think that having a seperate physics chip is a great idea

 

[WhiteX]

Well, I gots Connections, So I Have A lot of Free(illegal) Stuff.
Which i Appreciate.
I have many Friends

Man, I hope you´re kidding.

Ahem, back at the subject....

For the matter of physics, both NVidia and ATI (AMD) are doing it through SLI, which means you will eg tto buy not one of them cards but two.

I know that PC gaming will never really die but with only two genres really kicking in and sky high prices, i can see many loyal costumers going console because of on par visuals and lower prices, it took some time before the every man´s PC surpassed the PS2, Xbox and GC graphics it seems like it will take more time this round, i mean, we may very well have another console gen BEFORE the majority of PC´s have it´s power higher than this gen.

But all in all PC's still have much more power than even the latest consoles like PS3 and Xbox360.

If you can dish out some obscene amount of money.

Try Need for speed most wanted on a Budget PC say Athlon 64 3800+ with a 7800gt graphics card you'll get to ramp up the graphics to full capacity and you'll get 60fps.

That´s not budget, A 3000+ Sempron with a 7300 is budget.

 

[matthew]

Man, I hope you´re kidding.

Ahem, back at the subject....

For the matter of physics, both NVidia and ATI (AMD) are doing it through SLI, which means you will eg tto buy not one of them cards but two.

I know that PC gaming will never really die but with only two genres really kicking in and sky high prices, i can see many loyal costumers going console because of on par visuals and lower prices, it took some time before the every man´s PC surpassed the PS2, Xbox and GC graphics it seems like it will take more time this round, i mean, we may very well have another console gen BEFORE the majority of PC´s have it´s power higher than this gen.



If you can dish out some obscene amount of money.




That´s not budget, A 3000+ Sempron with a 7300 is budget.

If you shop around and can build your own pc u can get a 3800+ 7800GT graphics for around 500 and thats not more than a PS3 so thats where I came from when I said budget.

Hmm the current gen having it high in the hands of consumers may well be true however the point is that with PC's the hardware is there to buy even if no one buys it.
Consoles have release dates etc.

I mean on my old 3.2ghz pentium 4 with 6800gt I run Need for speed most wanted maxed out graphics settings at 25-30fps second and that definitely beats thes Xbox360 version.

To round my opinion off I think that in the long run high pc gaming will always be about those willing to spend the money and all in all it always has been.

I mean even a brief look at history you'll probably see announcments about Voodoo 2, Nvidia geforce ,ATI X800.
Those are all very expensive around the time they were released but its has always been the same kind of people that bought them will always be the type of people to buy them in the future aswell.
All in all the pc vs console theory is like two seperate markets.
Just as Nintendo this time around didn't aim at the same consumers as Microsoft and Sony did so the PC gamer market aren't the same kind of consumers that want to buy consoles

 

[Doomulation]

I have to disagree with you here many games that come out on both PC and console the PC version is better depending on the hardware that you buy.
Consoles always tend to be behind PC technology as they seem to depend on the current PC technology.

It all depends on how well developers take advantage of the hardware.

In terms of architecture I personally think that everything can be done on a PC the same way it could on a console but its the way the hardware is being used.

Exactly. That means that consoles can be superior or inferior depending on hoe well the hardware is used.

For example

PC usually has an OS installed and a fully blown one that does a lot of different tasks that usually is a bottleneck before the game has even started.
However a console usually only has a mini OS enough to power the API hence the power can be taken be taken advantage of Directly.

Indeed, and it's one of the reason they can get away with so low specs.

But all in all PC's still have much more power than even the latest consoles like PS3 and Xbox360.

Yes, they do, but as we know, the PC architecture is flawed and cannot be utilized 100%.

Oblivion PC vs Xbox comes to mind and depending on the hardware.
I mean I was playing games that had similar graphics to Xbox360 when Need for speed most wanted came out.

Try Need for speed most wanted on a Budget PC say Athlon 64 3800+ with a 7800gt graphics card you'll get to ramp up the graphics to full capacity and you'll get 60fps.

Well, I can't play NWN2 on full settings and 60 fps. Heck, the game even slows down at times you have to disable some settings to get around with decent fps. And again, 7800gt & Athlon 64 3800+ isn't exactly budget. It will cost a little.

Compare the Xbox360 version and you'll only get around 30fps and while thats decent its a far cry from the 60fps that PC owners get I also found that the graphics aren't quite as good, I noticed anti-aliasing issues with consoles even the latest ones. However with PC's if you have the hardware can look super smooth.

The new-gen consoles are hard to develop for.

In my own opinion PC's can't really be compared to consoles since consoles are meant to span 5 or so years and while console owners think the graphics are amazing PC owners by the say the third year into the consoles life will be experiencing graphics that console owners consider next gen.
Theres also the price factor of comparing a 3000 pound machine with a general purpose games console

This is true, but a console is cheaper and you don't have to upgrade. Still, yes, two markets. They'll never kill each other.

Last note since i read your other post in this thread PC's are HD as standard its
only recently that console gamers are catching up but PC gamers have had the priveledge to be playing games with resolutions far beyond 1080P for ages now

1600x1200 games look amazing.

How often do you play at 1920 x 1080? Or how often do you play at 1280 x 720? Not that often, especially not the former, I think...
But the thing is - does the graphics look good on consoles even though the low resolution? Yes! And that makes them cheaper as well.
It's another factor the consoles can get away with such low specs - they don't need to do progressive and they don't need to do HD resolution.

If you shop around and can build your own pc u can get a 3800+ 7800GT graphics for around 500 and thats not more than a PS3 so thats where I came from when I said budget.

I doubt that. A PC consists of many more things.

I mean on my old 3.2ghz pentium 4 with 6800gt I run Need for speed most wanted maxed out graphics settings at 25-30fps second and that definitely beats thes Xbox360 version.

Doesn't mean anything.

Just as Nintendo this time around didn't aim at the same consumers as Microsoft and Sony did so the PC gamer market aren't the same kind of consumers that want to buy consoles

No, that's not true. They did it because it's the tried-and-true way. It's what the industry is used to and therefore they will pursue that path. Nintendo tries to pursue another way, quite simply, because they want to expand the market. They are not afraid they'll lose customers to the PC.

 

[matthew]

It all depends on how well developers take advantage of the hardware.


Exactly. That means that consoles can be superior or inferior depending on hoe well the hardware is used.


Indeed, and it's one of the reason they can get away with so low specs.


Yes, they do, but as we know, the PC architecture is flawed and cannot be utilized 100%.


Well, I can't play NWN2 on full settings and 60 fps. Heck, the game even slows down at times you have to disable some settings to get around with decent fps. And again, 7800gt & Athlon 64 3800+ isn't exactly budget. It will cost a little.


The new-gen consoles are hard to develop for.


This is true, but a console is cheaper and you don't have to upgrade. Still, yes, two markets. They'll never kill each other.


How often do you play at 1920 x 1080? Or how often do you play at 1280 x 720? Not that often, especially not the former, I think...
But the thing is - does the graphics look good on consoles even though the low resolution? Yes! And that makes them cheaper as well.
It's another factor the consoles can get away with such low specs - they don't need to do progressive and they don't need to do HD resolution.


I doubt that. A PC consists of many more things.


Doesn't mean anything.


No, that's not true. They did it because it's the tried-and-true way. It's what the industry is used to and therefore they will pursue that path. Nintendo tries to pursue another way, quite simply, because they want to expand the market. They are not afraid they'll lose customers to the PC.

In your previous post you said that PC's can't compare with consoles but my only point is that of course they can compete and by the words you used I'm sure you was refering to the power

PC's have always been about the high end gaming otherwise I wouldn't buy a PC version because installation is inconvenient compared to the plug and play nature of consoles.

Theres no point of buying a PC version of a game if the console version looks better and has all the usual advantages of plug and play but PC's if you can afford it have that high end nature where games will look and play in their ultimate form.
I'm not really sure of who would buy a PC version of a game unless their were benefits of doing so Ie the common denominator "graphics"

I mean on my old 3.2ghz pentium 4 with 6800gt I run Need for speed most wanted maxed out graphics settings at 25-30fps second and that definitely beats thes Xbox360 version.

I used it as an example to show that I have been playing 360 quality of graphics a long time before the 360 was released so yes it does mean something

Any pc games i have I play at , at the very least 1080x768 which is the equivelent of 1080p although the only point of me saying that was the fact that pc games have been in so called hi definition since whenerver i can remember

 

[Doomulation]

In your previous post you said that PC's can't compare with consoles but my only point is that of course they can compete and by the words you used I'm sure you was refering to the power

PC's have always been about the high end gaming otherwise I wouldn't buy a PC version because installation is inconvenient compared to the plug and play nature of consoles.

Theres no point of buying a PC version of a game if the console version looks better and has all the usual advantages of plug and play but PC's if you can afford it have that high end nature where games will look and play in their ultimate form.
I'm not really sure of who would buy a PC version of a game unless their were benefits of doing so Ie the common denominator "graphics"

The graphics looked on par or better than PCs at the time the prev-gen consoles were new. Just because the PC can handle higher resolution doesn't mean the graphics or gameplay is better.
PCs can indeed rival consoles - and they will, in time.
But again, it also depends on how well the game is developed for the PC / console.

I used it as an example to show that I have been playing 360 quality of graphics a long time before the 360 was released so yes it does mean something

All it shows is that the game runs better on the PC. But it can also mean that the game took good advantage of the PC hardware and that it failed to take advantage of the 360 hardware. And let's face it--the 360 hardware isn't the easiest to develop for.

 

[matthew]

The graphics looked on par or better than PCs at the time the prev-gen consoles were new. Just because the PC can handle higher resolution doesn't mean the graphics or gameplay is better.
PCs can indeed rival consoles - and they will, in time.
But again, it also depends on how well the game is developed for the PC / console.


All it shows is that the game runs better on the PC. But it can also mean that the game took good advantage of the PC hardware and that it failed to take advantage of the 360 hardware. And let's face it--the 360 hardware isn't the easiest to develop for.

Hardware wise PCs more than capable of doing what consoles do even now
but its about cost .

I mean as a comparison take the latest Alienware PC's none of the current gen consoles can match a high end Alienware rig hence my notion of high end gaming being on PC's.

PC's won't be replaced ever because top end graphics are always on high end pc's because there is only so much software based programming can do.
It cannot magically make a Geforce 7800 produce graphics and performance on par with an SLI 7950 based rig

 

[smcd]

That's what I would call nonsense. It's true that a computer draws a lot of power, but... there are processors that can draw as little as 35 watt and still pick a punch. AMD's quad cores will only draw 65 watt. Now that is impressive. PCs (and other general computing hardware) could draw as little or as much as gaming consoles, should they choose to. They just need to get their heads out of the water and invent the technology.

What, exactly, does power consumtion have to do with my saying that PC's are for general purpose computing and not only gaming thus comparisons are slightly skewed to hardware made exclusively for gaming?

 

[Doomulation]

I would simply call the PC an inefficient console. It consumes so much power because everything is customizable. If we made a "real" PC, then it would probably draw very little power and work very well.
The power consumption is only tied to the inefficient architecture of the PC, not general purpose versus game consoles.

 

[matthew]

I would simply call the PC an inefficient console. It consumes so much power because everything is customizable. If we made a "real" PC, then it would probably draw very little power and work very well.
The power consumption is only tied to the inefficient architecture of the PC, not general purpose versus game consoles.

lol not at all a PC is in the name a Personal Computer while a Games console is simply that a games console

 

[Doomulation]

Where did I write "games" console? I wrote "console," not "game console."
Or maybe we should turn it around; every console is a computer. A PC, pretty much since it's yours, hence personal.

 

[matthew]

Where did I write "games" console? I wrote "console," not "game console."
Or maybe we should turn it around; every console is a computer. A PC, pretty much since it's yours, hence personal.

You said that a PC is an inefficient console and I said its not the same a computer is a computer and a console is a console since they are designed to do different things.

 

[Doomulation]

They may be designed to be different things, but nevertheless, they are the same thing. Both are computers, so the comparison is still valid. The only thing that makes (game) consoles different from PCs is that they're made for games in mind, while as the with PC, the games are not first hand.

 

[matthew]

They may be designed to be different things, but nevertheless, they are the same thing. Both are computers, so the comparison is still valid. The only thing that makes (game) consoles different from PCs is that they're made for games in mind, while as the with PC, the games are not first hand.

It does not make them inneficient though software is what makes these things more or less efficient.

For example if a pc had an OS that is like the mini's OS's that consoles use PC would be a console. However since the PC is not used in such a fashion it can't be compared in that way since PC's are designed to do more than just play games.

So my point was only to point out that being innefficient console is an incorrect statement.

With regards to power in the earlier post technlogy is always high powered when it comes out new. However as newer products come out the same technology tends to draw less power when redesigned because the newer technology represents a more efficient way to draw that power.

 

[Doomulation]

It does not make them inneficient though software is what makes these things more or less efficient.

For example if a pc had an OS that is like the mini's OS's that consoles use PC would be a console. However since the PC is not used in such a fashion it can't be compared in that way since PC's are designed to do more than just play games.

So my point was only to point out that being innefficient console is an incorrect statement.

This is not about OS alone. Take, for example, memory. DDR runs @ 400 MHz while a processor runs @ 2 GHz. That means that the processor is 2048 / 400 = 5,12 times faster. What does this mean? It means that for every transfer from memory, the processor needs to wait for 5.12 cycles (thus making it efficiently 6 cycles) before it receives the data it requires. Further there was the slow Front Side Buss which transferred the data to the processor, resulting in more lost cycles (which AMD solved with they Hyper Transport technology).
This is one inefficiency. This makes cache crucial and it is not cheap. Further an inefficiency is that you cannot control the processor's cache. Usually the newest information is added to the cache and the oldest information is thrown out. But what if that old information is suddenly required after it was thrown out? It needs to be transferred from memory. Again.
On some consoles (like the GC), developers have some control of what to let into the cache and what to let out, making it more efficient. And on consoles, due to the lower clock speed, it is also easier to keep the processor and the memory able to run at the same clock speed, thus removing the delays.

This is inefficiency. The whole computer is filled with these bottlenecks.

With regards to power in the earlier post technlogy is always high powered when it comes out new. However as newer products come out the same technology tends to draw less power when redesigned because the newer technology represents a more efficient way to draw that power.

Indeed, but PCs are often more power sucking than consoles (save for PS3 & X360). Perhaps this is another inefficiency, that the PCs suck so much more power than consoles, yet perform worse in things like games?

 

[matthew]

This is not about OS alone. Take, for example, memory. DDR runs @ 400 MHz while a processor runs @ 2 GHz. That means that the processor is 2048 / 400 = 5,12 times faster. What does this mean? It means that for every transfer from memory, the processor needs to wait for 5.12 cycles (thus making it efficiently 6 cycles) before it receives the data it requires. Further there was the slow Front Side Buss which transferred the data to the processor, resulting in more lost cycles (which AMD solved with they Hyper Transport technology).
This is one inefficiency. This makes cache crucial and it is not cheap. Further an inefficiency is that you cannot control the processor's cache. Usually the newest information is added to the cache and the oldest information is thrown out. But what if that old information is suddenly required after it was thrown out? It needs to be transferred from memory. Again.
On some consoles (like the GC), developers have some control of what to let into the cache and what to let out, making it more efficient. And on consoles, due to the lower clock speed, it is also easier to keep the processor and the memory able to run at the same clock speed, thus removing the delays.

This is inefficiency. The whole computer is filled with these bottlenecks.

Indeed, but PCs are often more power sucking than consoles (save for PS3 & X360). Perhaps this is another inefficiency, that the PCs suck so much more power than consoles, yet perform worse in things like games?

No PC's always perform better regardless of architecture there are ways around "innefficencies" but that depends on how it is worked.
Also I can almost guarantee that if a PC had the Mini OS as opposed to a full blown windows / linux / whatever OS.

It would perform better than the equivelent console since most PC's have much higher specifications than their console counterparts.
However I agree with you on what innefficiencies in a PC but those are getting worked out all the time or trying to be worked out hence the next generation Core Duos perform better than anything before it.

However with regards to architecture consoles are unlike PCs in a way that PCs in terms of the standard IBM PC this is a very old design while consoles everytime they are released even if they use older technology than the current latest PC's can output great graphics due to being able to take advantage of the latest most efficient ways of building a console.
PCs are an industry standard that a lot of hardware manufacturers adhere to and even the consoles do since the newer consoles have used actual PC parts in their consoles.

Xbox with their ATI graphics and Sony with their Cell + Nvidia graphics.
All PC components

Going back to the original point of everything the PC can more than compete with consoles but theres always that common denominator of how much are you willing to spend.
I always view PC gaming as the top end of the gaming market since its the Power vs the amount you are willing to spend.
I know for a fact that a high end PC will totally not only match a PS3 but go far beyond it

However that said in terms of a gaming platform there in lies the PCs downfall too since the technology is always updating next to no software will ever use the potential of the hardware.
For example I've seen the PS2 output amazing graphics because the software developers worked with the hardware and worked out ways to best use the hardware. But with a PC the ever changing hardware and also having to provide software to a countless amount of configurations means that its likely that each peice of hardware won't ever reach its potential output.

While not being an ideal platform for gaming due to installation / vs plug and play of consoles it will always have its place amongst gamers craving the best in technology hence why in my opinion the Alienware desktop even exists.

I prefer playing games on console though since it is main stream in terms of the amount of software developers ready to produce games for them and of course the franchises that won't ever likely be ported to the PC.

But I accept the two for what they are a general purpose computer vs a gaming platform neither can overtake the others place

 

[WhiteX]

Could a "gaming OS" be made?

 

[matthew]

Could a "gaming OS" be made?

Theoretically very possible the closest I can think of is the Linux kernel with X.org and no desktop

Both could be slimmed down but the Linux Kernel has all the necessary drivers for various applications like controllers / cdrom etc

Xorg has the graphics acceleration interface.

Knoppixmame comes to mind

 

[Doomulation]

I believe to see the PC versus consoles as X360 versus PS3. The X360 clearly has more efficient hardware design, but its specs are somewhat below the PS3, it can still compete with it very well due to the poor hardware design of the PS3 (though the specs are higher).
The PC will indeed get better than consoles, but its architecture, or hardware, will remain flawed.
Also, though consoles use "PC parts," it's just that all parts are the same: they are computer parts and fit wherever. But the PS3 & X360 is more like a PC architecture rather than a console architecture (that is; both are flawed).

I have always wondered... is it just that Microsoft and Sony are bad at making hardware or is it that Nintendo are geniuses? I mean, Nintendo clearly make suprior hardware and quality (hard to break). By this I mean that the console performs good, draws little power and is not too big and bulky.