The graphics of Sony's PS3 and Microsoft's Xbox 360 are set to be superseded by new graphic cards being developed for smartphones and tablets according to graphics company Nvidia.
who cares pc overtook consoles 6 years ago when the GEN STARTED........ multimedia devices should, it really has no impact on gaming
You will get disagrees but everything you said was factual.
In 2006, a tri-core 3.2Ghz processor was unheard of. Plus, the graphics card was better than anything then, too. No, it was the better piece of hardware when released. Yes, time has caught up, but there's no facts to be had in that statement.
yet i have yet to see anything on pc that looks as cgi ish as ps3 exclusives so i guess its not factual
Maybe you see the statement as inflammatory 3GenGames but the little in order execution Tri Core CPU in Xbox 360 was no real match for the AMD Athlon 64 dual cores around when 360 launched.
For a start the out of order execution on the PC chips gave it a massive advantage. The Athlon 64 X2 4800+ just for a quick comparison were over 230 million transistors, Xenon is a 165 million transistor CPU. Quite a small Tri core. The Athlon is really streets ahead.
Secondly, 360's GPU was architecturally quite advanced for its time. It was a great design no question. But it wasn't as fast as the best setups on PC. Generally X1800XT launched prior beat it comfortably in all the early games, Oblivion, Quake 4, COD2 etc etc.
This is besides the fact you could have a pair of X1800's in crossfire. It is a fact even before 360 launched it was outgunned by top level PC hardware.
As for you GamingTruth, your username is surely the most irony i can stand for today.
GamingTruth Your not fooling anyone except yourself(if you are serious, but I think your just trolling) lol
In terms of hardware, everything vulcanproject stated above is correct. Hardware is never the whole picture, however. It took a couple years for PC gaming to exceed console gaming, thanks to the PC lowest common denominator, and the severe inferiority of generic software driver interfaces relative to specific hardware drivers and APIs. On mobile devices, the software issue is compounded by the OS, and often the development language for games (i.e. Java or Objective C) -- mobile GPUs, even if they could match the consoles (which they won't be able to for years), couldn't hope to be so fast as to overcome the software hurdles and actually perform in line with today's consoles -- not for a long time. Maybe never, thanks to battery/heat/electron loss issues at small fab sizes. No one will ever bother to manufacture a phone GPU that needs a giant heatsink, or needs a wallet-sized battery to operate for more than an hour.
"In terms of hardware, everything vulcanproject stated above is correct.
Hardware is never the whole picture, however. It took a couple years for PC gaming to exceed console gaming, thanks to the PC lowest common denominator"
I only partially agree, mainly because for pretty much the entire first year of 360's lifespan, most of the best looking 360 games were multiformat titles. As in also on PC, which with the superior hardware were of course better looking....
I think that Oblivion was probably the best looking 360 game up until Gears of War launched, but the PC version of Oblivion was clearly superior.
Up until Gears of War, PC still led with the best looking version of the best looking game then IMO.
After the first Gears i think a fair few PC games could lay claim to being pretty good looking. For example Lost Planet launching on PC about 6 months after Gears and having DX10, running that in 1080p on the PC platform (no easy feat) at least put it on par with Gears on the 360 platform for me- if not ahead.
But is was really when Crysis arrived a year later it was fairly obvious by then PC had comfortably exceeded either console visually, software wise.
Ugh, I guess people still don't get it, it's the same with these future smartphones and tablets, yes! tech will be there and will surpass other HW, but support and budget of the same size as Consoles will not be there at all, 90% the current gen games are created with console in mind and then ported to PC, so much for "teh powerful graphicz"
"But is was really when Crysis arrived a year later it was fairly obvious by then PC had comfortably exceeded either console visually, software wise." funny that you have to mention Crysis where there were only a handful of people that could run it at its finest setting when it launched in 2007 and stayed that way for several months, thus the "can it run Crysis" joke was made! I won't say THAT as "comfortably" as you said it! and to be fair to the consoles, there was no single game on PC that look as good as Uncharted 2 & 3 in 2006! of course pc game can be displayed natively at 1080p at that time but in term of looks, nothing beats 720p Uncharted in 2006 on pc!
i doubt he's trolling. there are a TON of delusional people that believe that nonsense. i'm all for smart phones getting more powerful, of course; but i'm a bit puzzled about how they'll control the heat at this point in time. my Droid X gets really hot when i just play sudoku on it.
Gaming Truth... Your Sony glasses is blocking your vision. PS3 exclusives are impressive, but nothing compared to some pc games.
8800GTX was out by the time Crysis released. 8800GTX was one of the best selling GPUs from Nvidia ever. Infact many people are using it today too. 4 years into its life its still trucking along out performing consoles in about every game.
8800GTX could easily play crysis in high settings in 1080p and extreme settings in 720p. Crysis in those settings still blows anything out the water conosles have to offer today.
Lets just say Crysis was sent back in time :P its mission to point and laugh at whatever tech marketed as next gen had to offer and it will carry on doing that until the end of this gen :P
Whats the point in having all that mobile power under the hood, when iOS & Android devs are incapable of taking advantage of it? When I see a game of the graphical qualities Uncharted 3 or Gears 3 on a mobile platform; then I'll be impressed. And if or when they do ever reach that point, the next wave consoles will be have already been released.
Its true that PC hardware is always more powerfull then console hardware. After all console hardware is pc hardware and they never use the most advanced hardware because that would cost to much However try use a 6 years old top of the line PC and play some modern games. The PC will struggle running the game at all and will look nowhere near as good as the console version. Console hardware can perform atleast twice as good as similar pc hardware so on a graphical level the statement is wrong A pc from 2006 does not perform as well as current gen consoles in games
What part of 8800GTX outperforming consoles do you not understand?
8800GTX was released before the PS3. Till date it plays most games out in 1080p, PS3 or Xbox 360 barely play 5% of their games in 1080p.
So no a PC from 2006 equipped with a 8800GTX will easily outperform any console, its that simple.
Umm...Doesn't PowerVR 6 plan to do that in 2012/2013. Why would we wait for NVIDIA?
If I were a smart gaming company I will invest in games that plays well with out the need for button mashing game play yet benefits from high end graphics on portable devices like RPGs, turn based RTS, puzzle games, etc. But can be mirrored wireless on huge screens anywhere. It is wise for Sony and Nintendo to nurture their games IP department. because they have lots of trojan horses in the mobile games arena. Soon the tablet will be the center of all things digital- consumption or production. I have a feeling the next PlayStation is just like a PS vita.
@ badz149, T900 has mostly covered it but as you replied to me i'll point out that it is fairly obvious Crysis doesn't need to be on its very ultimate settings to outstrip the consoles. Mix of medium/high is enough to blatantly see how much better it looks on PC and how much better it looks than anything console, there are enough comparison videos around after the console port to prove that...
By the time Crysis actually launched in November 2007, 8800GTX (then the ultra) had been out a year and that manages high settings, and 8800GT launched prior to Crysis too.
Countless 8800GT's were sold because of Crysis. Its pretty clear within a couple months a vast amount of people could run Crysis at settings above anything the current consoles have achieved.
Finally Uncharted 2 and 3 didn't launch in 2006. Did they? Uncharted 1 actually launched 3 days AFTER Crysis.....
Uncharted 2 didn't launch until TWO YEARS after Crysis, as good as it looked on PS3, it was still absolutely no match for Crysis on maximum settings which by then even more people could play on PC. I should know, i still own both games.
In other news: "The latest in swipe pad and phone controls superseded by decade old controller design"
@ vulcanproject, Referring to what badz149 said about Uncharted 2 and 3 looking better than anything that was out on PC in 06, my initial reaction was like yours. But then I thought since the tech in the PS3 is from 2006 his argument is I suppose somewhat valid. I think that's the message he was trying to relay. Me personally, I don't have a dog in this fight, I go wherever the games are.
gatormatt80 got my point. to say that Uncharted games look better than Crysis is plain out STUPID but in 2006, there's no game looking as good as Uncharted released 2007, 2009 and 2011 using the outdated 2006 tech!
Your argument is ridiculous badz in context. Right at the start of this thread, it was discussed about when PC software caught up with console software. We were talking about software advancement. I mentioned Crysis.
Then you came out, and talked about Uncharted 2 which regardless of what hardware it is running on and how old it is (that was NEVER the point when i first spoke of Crysis), arrived AFTER Crysis on PC, i.e the point being PC software was well ahead visually by then.
All you are doing is massively reinforcing my point by highlighting it also took years for even PS3 software to advance to Uncharted 2's level, and by then, Crysis had easily surpassed it on PC years before anyway!
"there's no game looking as good as Uncharted released 2007, 2009 and 2011 using the outdated 2006 tech"-
Fact is you could run Crysis (a 2007 game) on 2006 hardware no problem (this has already been pointed out in this thread multiple times), you could run Crysis so it looked better than UC2 or 3 on hardware that came out BEFORE PS3 arrived, the 8800GTX!
This basically renders what you said useless TBH. So Uncharted 2, a game out years AFTER Crysis, doesn't look as good (as you admit) as Crysis on PC hardware out BEFORE PS3 hardware.
Get it? Got it? Good.
Technically smartphones haven't superseded console graphics, since they can't yet play at least 600px height resolution games at 30FPS. Tablets? Yeah, I'd say the iPad 3 could outperform a console, if you had about 6-10GB of space per game and the patience to either download or sync it to the device. Yes, gaming PCs were already better than gaming consoles at their release--albeit an equal rig would cost you around $800-1000, PCs were indeed more advanced. Stop disagreeing with the truth, you just make us all look bad.
It is true. They don't run the resolution for the most part just yet. Vita doesn't and that is a very powerful mobile device specified for gaming. Uncharted on it isn't native resolution either. It is something like 720 x 408 which is only about a third of the Uncharted native 1280 x 720p games on PS3.
Smartphones won't be able to beat current console visuals just yet because of the problem of battery performance and heat. Even now you can't create a chipset with the outright grunt of the consoles that won't suck the battery dry in half an hour or so and melt the case!
While the gap has closed right up and mobile chipsets offer really impressive performance for their size and power consumption, it'll probably be about 2 years until we can say there is genuine mobile performance that duffs up these consoles comprehensively, resolution and raw fillrate.
It will take one more generation shrink, down to maybe 22nm and we will see it. But by then, there is little doubt we will have new consoles and the catch up cycle will begin again.
Ipad 3 is not even as powerful as the Vita. There is no way it could outperform the consoles.
^^^ iPad 3 has the same GPU as the PS Vita... It's not similar or like, IT'S THE SAME QUAD CORE GPU... So I dunno where you are going with this argument.
iPad 3's chipset is designed to run at a resolution over twice that of the typical rendering capacity of a modern console game. No, an iPad 3 could not run games like Battlefield 3 and Skyrim at 1500p even with the proper coding, so don't fret. But, if someone had the patience to code and develop an AAA game for the iOS and ran it around 600p natively the truth is that it would indeed outperform current gen consoles. However, the problem with that is the iTunes Store/App Store servers aren't a fast enough delivery service for full featured large AAA games, and even with massive compression popular titles such as L4D2 and Skyrim book in around 6-10GB. Not to forget to mention that it's tech is completely different from the familiarity of the PS3s or 360s, and to even have it compete or have a game's translation to the PS3 or 360's graphical capability would be years away when the speculated PS4 and NextBox will be inhabiting the market.
Oh great. Because my toaster was superseded micro oven.
You cook toast in a microwave?
You guys crack me up this sometimes. This is why I still read the comments on N4G.
And yet 6 years later uber awesome PC gamers enjoy playing console designed games in higher resolution lol. Its like they are playing some HD collection. They have so much power with their hardware and all they use it for is to play console designed games. No new graphics technology, no huge leaps. Why? Because next gen consoles are not out yet. So enjoy your benchmark machine. Hopefully soon when new consoles arrive you will start exploiting some of your machine's potential when new engine are going to be released. Oh and guess what... these engines are going to be designed mainly for consoles. Which means more bottlenecks for you PC graphics whores out there... but hey.... you got mods!
Actually the modding aspect, is the one thing that pc can state as a real bragging point over consoles, at least to me anyway. I'd rather be able to mod single player console games than just turning the graphics settings on uber high. But the only thing you really hear from alot of pc gamer is them bragging about resolution and graphics. Isn't ray tracing supposed to be the next big thing in graphics, i think even high cards can't do it or couldn't as of a few yrs ago. I think gaming on pc can only go 2 ways either higher end graphics or open world games with destruction like battlefield does only better. With better ai, physic ect. (It's a generalisation), but can't think of how it could be considered untrue. But till you have some sort of virtual reality, pc and consoles will probably playing similar if not the same games, albeit on different lvls.
Yes we play multiplatform games on pc but not just hgh resolution its alot of other options we get to iron out them jaggies and get real lighting and shaders.. Even if thedes dont choose to utilize the pc version thoe not all 3rd party devs do this. But see you forget mr 1 bubble you have exclusives We have exclusives, funny take witcher 2 witcher was pc exclusie you get to have hads on the enhanced edition it gets rave reviews yet they try compareto witchwr 2 on pc. But what gets ke is theres soo many 360 reviews witcher 2 enhanced, that dont see of PC enhanced edition. I could be here stating how much pc has but i think most people know. So no notall high res and being stuck with multiplatform games trying to make it sound like we dont get our games. Foolish statement. I own a ps vita and had a ps3 witch now sold after using it since launch love what it had to offer every platform offers something differnt thats why you have differnt consoles. But dont come here trying to take p**s out pc gamers cos wont work. Oh modders are asset to pc gamers but let me put a thought in your head on that issues, Some modders actually have gone onto help making games for your system. Sorry for shit spelling hard on a touch pad when you type fast.
while I dont disagree, I dont think it really has much to do with mobile devices.
the reason why console games may have hire quality cause there paid for by sony and Microsoft and pc developers dont always have that kind of money like epic or crytek
overall the quality on pc is much higher. Even games like uncharted 2/3 are no match for even middle of the road pc games. But I do agree that uncharted is more visually appealing than games with technically better graphics, it has beautiful art direction and animations. I can also say mario galaxy looks better than 95% of hd console games, but its not because of technical reasons.
Exactly. If people know what Moores law is then they will say, yeah big deal it should be that way otherwise you guys stink at your jobs over at Nvidia. Your new hardware is faster than 6 to 8 year old tech, wow I'm really surprised. When the new consoles come out they will blow the smartphones and tablets out of the water because it will be newer tech, then in time tablets and smartphones will lead again. Didn't everyone already know this?
it really has no impact on gaming" Ewww? tablets have a HUGE impact, dont ignore this.A lot of DEVS already change you plans for market of tablets, david jaffe, myamotto-san already abandoned nintendo for made games too.
Truth is there were many gaming pcs that were better as soon as 360 and ps3 came out but handheld devices are barely catching up to ancient technology. When I hear about a handheld beating a gtx 680in the same year it was released for PC then let me know. :P
I was gonna say onlive, then i realised that wouldnt be true either XD GTX 680 Sooo OP
Onlive would be luckly to beat good old 8800GTX lol. That beast till date roflstomps consoles in just about any game.
Completely throws console optimization theory out the window lol.
It is still just on a little screen with a device you constantly have to hold up till you get RSI. Mobile gaming will never succeed as a real gaming platform. It is just not practicle in the long run. Just like TV never won from the cinema. You can't beat Big screens and comfort.
Aren't these consoles 5-6 years old? Another bullshit article about how out of date the graphics cards on the PS3 and 360 are. Thanks again for stating the obvious! In saying that have you ever seen the graphics in games like Uncharted 3 and God of War 3? I rest my case.
I've seen (and played) both... They have great camera angles and give you a real cinematic feel. But it's 720p and jaggies wont even compare to PC (played on the same screen). Gears of War  looks much more cleaner, even if its a port. And games with exclusive PC features (Something like Crysis 1 , nothing too fancy) make the difference between awesome looking and beautiful. (PS3 games are still awesome, just not on par with PC in terms of graphics).
Even though they are 5-6 years old the graphics are as you say, still awesome. Unless your a complete graphics whore most people dont and wont notice the difference. Everytime they compare new cards to PS3's and 360s its like comparing a brand new car to a 5-6 year old car. There is no equivelance there so comparing them is retarded.
Asmith2306 You call people graphics whores because they can tell the difference between 720p or less and 1600p?
wow what story breaking news!!! (sarcasm)
News just in......New things are more powerful than old things....Other news...Next gen consoles set to be more powerful than smartphones and tablets...
and in the end the PS3 is still a super computer.
Last time I checked games consoles sell more than gaming pc's also its easier to game on consoles, Ive got a system that I built its more powerful than the 360 and PS3 but have a guess what I game on? Xbox 360 That will change when Diablo 3 comes out but come on its Diablo! :-D
See that's just you, I have all the consoles and yet I play on my PC the most, personal preference. (whats sales got to do with it?).
all multiplats i play PC, use xbox and ps3 for exclusives. Framerate and AA alone make PC much better to play on.
PC fans keep upgrading their rigs for nothing.. Just spend money in hardwere that will not be utilised by devs until consoles change cycle.. Tell me what games right now are that much better than PS3 gems like UC2 and 3, God of War, KZ 2 and 3.. And so on.. And please don't insult PS3 hardware puting it in the some bag allong with Xbox 360.. That was the biggest lye games media sell to us this generation.. But PS3 is far more powerful that Xbox 360 and anyone can see that..
Your comment is ridiculous all around. First of all there are lots of reasons to game on the PC. But lets just look at the graphics angle for now. Most games are multiplatform games, and those games look AND perform better on the PC. Most of the games I play on the PC I am able to run at 60+ fps, at 1920x1080 resolution or higher, and they look super clean due to having v-sync and super high levels of anti-aliasing. You are probably one of those sony loyalists that act like Blu-ray is a huge jump up from DVD (which mostly comes down to a jump in resolution), while at the same time acting like there isn't much difference between games on the PC and on the consoles. It's inconsistent and hypocritical. Furthermore, games like The Witcher 2, Crysis 2, Metro 2033, Alan Wake, and Battlefield 3 on the PC look far better than any of those PS3 games you listed. Lastly, the 360 and the PS3 are extremely close in overall performance. Anybody with eyes can see that. The best looking games on either console have an extremely similar level of graphical fidelity.
@ starchild Metro? Alan wake? Jesus is so clear that you never played uncharted, KZ or God of War games.. Besides the resolution and higher frame rates that games don't come even close the ones I mentioned.. Any of the games I mentioned have far more polygons, particule effects, deph of field and consistency than Alan wake, metro, witcher and Crysis without dx 11 patch.. Only battlefield 3 looks a notch above PS3 exclusives... Regarding Xbox 360 I don't even going to bother..
Mailman I have played every top tier game for the PS3 and all I can say is stop, seriously, just stop. PC gaming is on a completely different stratosphere graphically, it's not even close or debatable. Well unless of course you are blindr or delusional. Edit: Pound disagree until your finger bleeds. It doesn't make what I said any less factual. My PSN info is under my profile. Check for yourself if I played them all. No console game comes close to PC games on a decent rig. Thinking other wise is nonsensical at best.
@Mailman If it's SOOOO far more advanced than the 360, then why can't it run all of its so called amazing glorious graphics feats in 1080p... Face it, 360 and PS3 are closely matched, both suffer paper, scissors, rock syndrome. Can't do 1080p, decent AA, 60fps or decent FOV, without cutting the rest out or resorting to crappy smoke and mirrors techniques.
I about lost it when I read what he said. The ps3 and 360 are capable of doing so close to the same in capable devs hands. One machine is better at some things the other at others but anyone in the industry knows there very close. Now the pc with technology jump of a good 7 years kills todays consoles. I can't believe I'm defending the obvious. I guess there's always a few deluional ones.
Sure you spend more upfront, but with a decent rig it can last you a year or two, and with the deals on stream you could make up that money easily. I've been tempted to get a pc as well.
A year or two? If you spend a decent amount and don't build a budget rig, it will last longer than that. I have a couple of friends that haven't upgraded their rig in over 4 years, and they're still running games on medium+ settings, which still look better than consoles.
Those PS3 exclusives looks graphically "pretty", but it still doesn't compare to Crysis 1(PC) on a technical level, and there have been several PC games that surpassed Crysis in the graphics department years ago.
Just Metro 2033 alone looks better than any console game out. Uses all real time effects and the polygon counts for all objects in the game outstrip any PS3 game. Lets not even mention the textures in Metro 2033 compared to the many low resolution textures in ALL console games including ALL PS3 games. I have YET to see ANY PS3 game have the quality of textures or detail as Metro 2033 THROUGHOUT the ENTIRE GAME and not just for a few images and objects and CHARACTERS. I am looking at you Uncharted, Gears of War and God of War. Obviously you never played it. If you played Metro 2033 you would not be trolling and realize no game on the PS3 matches it in the graphic department on a technical level or otherwise. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT ART STYLE. You mention KZ2/3...games that do not even use HDR but LDR and NAO32 or real time lighting and have tiny maps and pixalized low resolution effects and textures. You mention God of War 3 and that game has fixed camera angles and characters OTHER than the main bosses and Krotos are low resolution with many of the backdrops. You mention Uncharted 3, yet that entire series is fully linear with limited real time lighting and effects with miniscule environments that whn running HDR is done in low FP. PS3 hardware is NOT that much more powerful than the Xbox360 hardware. Stop drinking Sony kool-Aid. If it were then games on the PS3 would more closely resemble the quality of PC games in graphics, physics, interaction with environments and real time effects...and they don't...despite your delusional thinking. "Any of the games I mentioned have far more polygons, particule effects, deph of field and consistency than Alan wake, metro, witcher and Crysis without dx 11 patch." You trying to pull a Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck with that lie? Most particle effects in all console games and that includes your stroke machine the PS3 use LOW resolution particle effects. Case in point? Look at close up shots of the particle effects in KZ3 and Uncharted 3 to see they are low resolution. Now look at those same type of particle effects in Metro 2033, Battle Field 3, Crysis, Withcer 2 and it is no contest. Depth of field? LMFAO. Console can BARELY do this effect without smoke and mirrors. They use motion blur beyond and other particle effects to mimic the real use of ADOF. Consoles can barely do REAL TIME ADOF because its a resource killer. Please stop posting. You are making an ass of yourself.
pc gaming sucks
End of story.
As the saying goes, different strokes for different folks. I tried PC gaming and found it lacking, so it makes me laugh to see all the PC trolls on N4G listing specs and claiming it's the holy grail of gaming. Beyond a certain point, I don't care about the resolution or what kind of lighting effect is being used. I find console gaming to be much more enjoyable, but that's me. I'd rather see advances in AI and storytelling than graphics next gen.
No comment SHM -___-
oh brand new $300+ technology is more powerful than a 6-7 year old technology.
I just alt tabbed out of BF3 to comment that I alt tabbed out of BF3. I rest my case