Will Next Gen Consoles be more powerful then PC on launch

No way José! Console can't match any of our machines on this forum. at least my machine for 20 years to come. In 20 years will have virtual reality in games anyway.

 

OGL's programming methodology is obsolete. It has been for some time. There is no reason to continue to use a global state model.

As for "having all that's in DirectX and more", only in the latest revisions. DX pulled ahead when DX9 came out, and OGL didn't reach DX10 feature parity until OpenGL 3.2, and DX11 parity until 4.1.

 

Simple answer is no way in hell will console match pc performance.

Imo I am done with console unless the next gen. does true 1080p 60fps 4x AA/AF stable. I tired of my eyes bleeding from these fake 720p/1080p and lack of AA and stable frame rates.

But then I tired of these craptastic console ports to pc's that have been hold pc games and there tech back for far to long

 

Nvm.

 

If you look at performance at resolutions most consoles push is not hard with more current hardware to make them look alot better then current systems. Price and performance is why both systems went amd route right now. But that might change as nothing is set in stone on the next systems. If u look at 360 + ps3 sales just making a profit from them. New system is still years away. Hell ps2 is still around now. I love pc games but gaming with friends/family is console wars. I can't convince my parents and relatives to buy gaming pc to play games with me but a cheap 360/ps3 is alot more attractive. Games on xbox360/ps3 have huge fan bases thus the only reason they still make them. Will the next system be powerful yes cause of the demand for high res games is gone sky rocketing with lcd prices dropping like flies. Sony and Microsoft have learned their lessons on how expensive and quality of systems/games. But they will never be core on core faster then current pc's of the time they make them. Pc world advances way faster then consoles. Just my 2 cents.

 

The statement was more generic it was meant to indicate that at every stage of the current gens console cycle the price performance ratio has always been better for the console than a brand new PC built for the same price.

Or to put it another way a brand new PC built for the price for a brand new XBox 360, that's £139.99 by the way, will not deliver an equally enjoyable gaming experience.

The case was true when the XBox was £300+ pounds and has remained as the price has dropped.

I am willing to stick to that argument for the next gen consoles as well but until we know

a). Their price
b). Their power
c). How it will be utilised

It is really impossible to say what the case will be.

You also can't compare a potential one off price / performance value for a second hand PC against a fixed price for a readily available brand new product.

 

I can't think of any console in the last decade that has out performed PC's when it was launched. The Xbox360 had a Xenos GPU which was roughly on par with an X1900 graphics card which was already quite a bit dated in 2005. I was at E3 earlier that year and while at the Xbox 360 booth playing some games I sensed something was wrong so I went looking around behind the scenes, much to Microsoft's protest. My hunch was proven correct when I went behind the display setup they had which was basically like how they show off consoles @ bestbuy... and I realized Microsoft was not being very honest. Everyone thought they were playing real Xbox360's but it turns out the games were being run by G5 PowerMac's. See pic.



So in all honesty, nothing in the 360 was more advanced than what was already available to the PC market.

Umm... no. Sorry. PC games and hardware were both more advanced than the PS3 or 360. The only reason some misinformed people thought the these consoles were more powerful was due to the trickery from Microsoft where games are rendered at 720p and then upscaled to 1080p. This takes FAR LESS processing power than rendering the graphics at 1080p, and the very smooth frame rates from this made people assume the consoles were more powerful.

No, we're not. I know very well that consoles get far more performance when comparing identical hardware in a PC. Windows is a huge piece of software and is a big resource hog. Regardless of that, my find at E3 2005 clearly showed there was faster hardware PC hardware already out. Those Macs were not running a native Xbox 360 operating system. They were actually running the 360's OS in a virtual environment inside Mac OS X.

 

So, on my rig should I get 60FPS+ in next Gen games?

Note: I will be upgrading to Haswell when it gets released.

 

That is not accurate as the X1900XT GPU was released for the PC consumer on 24th of Jan. 2006 with a suggested retail price of $549US. So for the PC consumer, the GPU product itself had a higher cost than the Xbox360 at release date! In fact the 360 GPU was between a 1900xt and the 2900xt as it was able to emulate dx10 in its API and the 2900xt was released 24th of April 2007 ... almost 2 years after the release of xbox360

As well, the 360 boasted a 3.2GHz IBM Triple Core CPU. Around at the release of the 360, AMD released Athlon 64 X2 4800+(2400MHz frequency) which had a whopping retail price of $1001.

With each of the 360 sold Microsoft was in fact loosing money for a good year and half until it broke even on its production cost in relation to consumer price. Majority of the money being made was through game sales as for every 360 game sold they had right to royalties from the game producers.

So it had no problem outperforming the PC for a good year or more...There seems to be a lot of bias and nonsense going about this topic when in reality majority of the comments posted are plain false.

 

This is such a tired argument. The horse died along time ago guys.
Here's what the past 10+ years of PC vs Console arguing has taught us:
--People like to argue about the hardware they purchase.
--Programing for one or two sets of hardware configs instead of dozens will allways result in a more optimised product.
--You can always make a gpu work better when programing specificly for it that's why GPU demo's from 5 years ago look beter than most games made today on the newest gpus.
--People take this argument way too personally.

 

No one could possibly know.

Pure speculation.

 

I don't think the texture streaming in Rage was a failure, in fact, from a distance it looked epic. The failure was not optimizing it enough for PC (wrong config values to begin with, the issues were gone when tweaking it) and low resolution textures on PC.

But there's something to be said about performance. Every OpenGL game coded by Carmack has had great framerates. I remember if you tweaked the living **** out of Doom3 you could run high graphics on a Geforce 3 Ti 500 in an albeit lowish resolution with decent framerates.

The only engine coming close to this imo is the Source engine, which funny enough has roots that go back to the Quake 2 engine.

 

1GB seems to be the reference rather than 512MB but it is GDDR3, not 5. That's not fine at all, that means they'll be using absolutely horrible textures for another 8 years.

I doubt it will be able to do real 1080p if graphics are actually improved, they might continue lying and do internal stretching again though. 2x MSAA is also pretty pointless. Like I said before, I seriously doubt they will use fast RAM. They're stinging out on the amount of RAM when even 8GB of DDR3 costs nothing these days. They'll stinge out on everything they can.

I hope my doubts are wrong of course.

GT5 as in Gran Turismo 5? The PS3's GPU is a modified 7800GTX and it doesn't sustain 60fps at all. That's one of the extremely, and I mean extremely, rare cases where it might actually be 720p rather than a lower res internally stretched. Its "1080p" option is nothing more than lies/twisted words though, by "1080p" they mean something like 960x1080 internally stretched to 1920x1080, which despite having no AA like the 720p option, can still lag badly.

I would be shocked if the next generation ends up being anything but an absolute joke that at least matches this current gen.

 

Not on an ATI card; ATI cards got DESTROYED by Doom 3.

 

u're absolutely right mate, i never had a 60 fps experience on my setup until i played RAGE, open gl has something like a performance gain over direct x based games, remember i played rage on a gt 220 1gb ddr3.

 

idk about OpenGL and DX (never programmed them, well, did some dummy tests with OGL), but my bet is that OpenGL is much more lower level so it can be optimized to do what programmer wants to do much more efficiently.

Problem is that OpenGL is much harder to code, so not many programmers can do that, even if they do, they probably need more time to do so, and may potentially have more bugs.

 

how can it be lower level when u see great graphics as in Rage, with high LODs, textures which seems to me on par with most modern fps games.but i agree with u on the part that it's harder to code, something i heard others say the same thing.

 

Maybe because Rage automatically matches its graphical quality to your rig?

 

If xbox 720 will use
APU - AMD A8-3850 (Quad 2.9GHz)
GPU - Radeon HD 7670 (Rebranded 6670)
is now clever to buy ATI GPU ? I want mainstream PC but wonder what will console port games run on Nvidia GPU's?
I think that future games will be cosole ports, most of them. So, will for example Star wars 1313 run on mainstream gtx 660 (medium settings) ?

I had some bad experiences with console ported games on ATI gpu. Xbox 320 has Nvidia GPU.

 

Rage has static lighting model. That's all.