PC vs CONSOLE gaming

Absolutely. I agree with all that. I'm certainly not saying that consoles are "better" or "worse." Just different. Perhaps I shouldn't have used a cross--platform game as an example. You can broaden it to genre. There are only a few genres that are really only good on either a console or PC (ex. fighting games aren't very great on PCs and I have yet to see a decent RTS on a console). Even if you're just a fan of FPS, would it justify spending $1000+ on a PC when you could buy an Xbox for $150, or even a 360 for $400? If you're only looking at them as gaming platforms, that's the choice you're forced to make. The fact that a PC has the added functionality is what makes it worth the price.

That's the point, though. The turret WOULD'T have collapsed in real life.

That was a list of developers that have said they are going to use it, not just who have recieved the API and promo materials.

That's right. My point was that the game was made at such a high quality that no system could handle it at ultra because the hardware wasn't there to support it. The software that makes the physix processor works by determining whether or not you have a physix processor. If you do, it sends the physics calculations there. If you don't, it splits the calculations between the CPU and GPU. If game developers are implementing this already, it's going to start taking a bite out of your fps before too long. Pretty soon we should be seeing games that won't be able to be played at their highest levels because the physix processor isn't here.

Have you ever studied physics? It's much more complex math that a processor normally deals with. It is, in fact, a physics accelerator.

Uh, have you watched the video? The player knocks the entire side off the turret, the reason it doesn't collapse is because it's very obviously divided into certain static objects, and dynamic environment objects (the bricks that collapse)

Why, in a tech demo, would they not have the entire castle collapse, that would have impressed me, if I saw it fall apart, the wood supports splinter realistically under the weight of the mortar, and collapse into a heap, I would have been impressed. Instead, I saw a bunch of cubes fall over....

Currently, the physics videos on google from the HL2 engine are way way more impressive.

Strategic Partners could mean pretty much anything, we'll see how many games come out with it included...

I guess this is where we differ, AMD and Intel both announced Quad Core for 2007 within the last few days. I think that these quad core CPUs will not suffer a frame rate drop due to performing massive amounts of physics calculations, even if they're restricted by not using the most effecient means of doing the calculations. I judge this based on my current impressions of HL2s implementation of physics in a single threaded game. You can't deny it's good... Now give the physics engine in HL2 2 dedicated cores as opposed to sharing one core that also handles AI, Graphics Preamble, and keeps the rest of your OS in line. I think you see where I'm going.

I'm well aware that physics is a pretty complicated topic, I'm also aware that 99% of it won't apply to gaming for quite some time. Newtonian Physics and Fluid Dynamics are all I'm seeing here, and its all we as gamers need. I haven't heard anything about the chip dealing with the physical properties of light, relativity or any of that jazz. So to suggest that study of Physics is required to comment is a little broad, since the chip doesn't deal with all of the various aspects of the discipline.

If these chips do come to light, and are required, it's going to suck for PC gamers, It's just one more stupid add in card that we have to pay $200 bucks for. I hope they bundle them on grahpics or sound boards or something, I wouldn't have such a hard time justifying the purchase if that were the case.

What you appear to be looking for is cool special effects. What they're trying to deliver is a realistic world.

There has actually been talk of that. We'll see what happens. I still think you're being a little short-sighted when talking about dual- and quad-cores. Game developers will use any and all resources they have available (or forsee that they'll have available - that was the point of the Doom 3 illustration).


I think that, in the end, we're going to have to agree to disagree, and sit back and watch what happens

Well no, what I was looking for was something to justify spending $150-$200 bucks on a physics card. What I saw was a pile of bricks stacked up to resemble a wall, fall over without the things they should be supporting being affected.

I watched the more recent video, the one with the plane crashing into the hangar, and that I'll admit, was pretty freaking cool. Still I don't see it being anything out of reach for conventional processors.

I could only hope it's not a seperate board, and that it doesn't demand a premium on the boards with which it's included. I would consider upgrading to it, if that were the case.

I on the other hand, don't think that you quite understand the impact of developing within a truly multithreaded environment. I'm doing a Masters program related to high performance computing, and let me tell you, that when you've seen what's been done so far, its an insult to what even todays dual cores are capable of, much less tomorrows technology.

Multithreading doesn't just make things 'faster', it can be used to make things much more effecient. Say it takes a single core 4 ns to complete a certain physics calculation, with proper coding techniques applied, a dual core COULD, (i stress COULD, because we're no where near that yet) finish the same task in 1.5 ns or even lower. Performance is not on a linear scale.

I agree though, that we must agree to disagree. We are obviously on exact opposite sides of the fence on this argument. And it appears we are both too thickskulled to change our minds, so lets see how the next year unfolds.

erm.. i dont really see how the last few posts really relate to pc vs console gaming.....

I dunno

Ive played COD2 for both 360 and PC and I have to say I dont see a difference. Same graphics, same or about the same rate of FPS. Im quite dissapointed with the 360 actually. Ive seen better looking PC games. But when I saw a 30 second move for the PS3, I about sh*t yon brick.

look if your computer sucks your gonna buy a consle but if your computer kicks more **** than arnold swartinager than you best buy some damn good games for it if you dident know that your de de de :monkey:

Yeah that's right but the main thing is, there are some games that are not released on the PC and restricted only to consoles and vice-versa. Whether or not that gap can be bridged depends largely upon the power of consoles compared to PCs from the same generation. The problem with this debate is also that we can have several different PC configurations but in order to compare a console to a PC, we need to have a standard configuration, since a console's config is fixed. That itself is difficult to determine, since what's standard in one place, is a rarity in the other. For example, most guys I've seen in this forum own AMD Athlon 64s. So its commonplace. But here, in the UAE, almost everyone owns an Intel P4 HT and most people haven't even heard of the Athlon 64 or the Intel Extreme Edition CPUs or even AMD for that matter, even though AMD costs much lesser here.

bottom line, top of the line PC is and always will be better than console, no question. if you fail to understand that, then your dumb, and will never understand, sorry for your luck. PC's rule, consoles dont even compare.

You ppl are making the pc and the gamming consol sound like fire and water. They are the same thing, now think about really think hard, a consol is a small box with a computer in it that over heats, frezees up do to no patches. Now the pros best technogly for that year but technogly is being improved everyday. you put the game in and play. A simple composite S-video to your tv, rca's to your sound system, and your good to go.

Now with comp

Games usally don't freeze up
They can be updated to make an old game fun again
you can check emails and photos from friends and family hey even techspot
games arent limmited to certen hardware so there
usally don't have to pay for online gamming.


Me Im for the PC athough when the PS3 comes out I'll be in line

It has 3 3.2ghz cores on one die

have ever heard of multi-threading there is really no modding

Thanks for the info.

Hey does anyone know about this supposed console that Apple's gonna be releasing. Check out this link
http://www.gamerevolution.com/oldsite/articles/gpod/gpod2.htm

Dunno if someone has allready said this or not, dont have time to read the entire thread at the moment hehe. But as recent history has shown in the console market, that when they come out with something new and flashy it at first is more advanced then the PC.

However, over the course of time the Consoles hardware dosnt change, while hardware is ever expanding and growing, changing all the time. After a year or so of the console being out, you have the PC once again being the more advanced and veristle machine. Thats at least what my take on the console vs. PC war in the graphics and gaming department

-dIsC0

lol, console gaming is good also, but its a lot more expensive, lol, but the bad thing with consoles is that they cant be upgraded so they have the lead in graphics for not too long, also i read that Nvidia is making the graphics chip for the PS3, if you think xbox 360 graphics are sweet right now, wait a year more to see what sony and nvidia will do, hehe, i bet it will be kick ****, am so buying a ps3 when it comes out, its also supposed to be around 700 to 800 bucks, lol. also consoles dont suck, they have some good advantages over pc, u dont need a new card to play the lastest games, they never loose fps, and also, games in consoles dont always use the best of the consoles capabilities stright away, like lets say when the x box or the gamecube came out, their first graphics where good in the time, like lets say halo 1 and luigis mansion, but then on the later stages of the consoles games such as halo 2 and resident eveil 4 were released, liike 4 years after, who at the time managed to madge graphics of games such as doom 3, half lfe 2, games that came out at the same time, developers dont spoil consoles, they always leave jiuce in them, until the time to use all it can do comes.

The reason you dont need a new card to play new console games is because they dont improve anything, with pc, they are always improving, thusly they are better

COnsoles in my opinion are nothing to great.
They are good for fighting games(like Street Fighter etc), and driving games and.... Thats about it.
If you think CoD2 on 360 looked good? GO check out screen shots & trailers for Crysis. Now THATS good graphics: http://pc.ign.com/objects/694/694190.html
BUt why do graphics really matter so much when playing a game? SHouldn't the game play be more important? I find the majority of PC games are much deeper (With exception of things like FF) and longer and more fun in alot of ways.
Games that are on Consoles & PC are usually completely different to each other. THe PC ones are generally larger (in all ways) and better (performance, load times, graphics).
ANYWAY I have ranted... Check out Crysis, will be one not to miss

i couldnt be boffered to read the entire discussion.

so its like this.

consoles are gay for this reason they cant be made to work with a game that came out that by far surpases its capabilities. pc's can

the graphics are compressed forms of pc gpu's

a console dosent use specilizes recourses for each task pc does Ie memory (for remembering i sound so thick with that comment) cpu for prossesing gpu for grphics.
consoles share the resources.

pc games are cheaper and customisable.
IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM WILL A CONSOLE OPUT DO A ATI RADEON X1800XTX 512MB you can try but you'll fail


AND PURELY AND SIMPLY THE ONLY PEAOPLE WHO BUY CONSOLES ARE HOODED WANNABEE HARDBOYS WHO WANT TO PLAY FOOTIE SIMS WITH THEIR OTHER HOODED WANNABEE HARDBOY FRIENDS