PDA

View Full Version : XBOX360 & PC (DX10) Comparison?



T.Mani
08-26-2008, 09:29 AM
What's pretty obvious is that the PC version in DirectX 10 has the best graphics compared to the XBox360 and PS3 when it comes to FarCry2.

Eventhough I wonder if there are any picture (or even movie) that shows side by side the difference between the Xbox360 and PC version with DirectX 10. Would like to see what you miss as a XBox360 user.

A PS3 and PC DirectX 10 comparison is ok too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Staticks
08-26-2008, 10:25 AM
How exactly are the differences obvious? All the video footage that's available points to the contrary.

BlitzQuick
08-26-2008, 10:27 AM
pc prob has potential to be better..but devs did say its about the same on all 3...these bad quality vids dont help lol but all i seen the pc versions do are crash and bug

MeloniesHomeboy
08-26-2008, 10:34 AM
There is no such comparison because there is probably no such difference between DX10 and DX9 from a pure visual standpoint, I think I heard about them having a performance advantage in DX 10 though. But we all know how that goes. Basically the visual difference between the console version and the PC ver (on highest settings) is not going to be because of DX10, rather than the raw power of GPU's these days.

aa___ron
08-26-2008, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by MeloniesHomeboy:
... the visual difference between the console version and the PC ver (on highest settings) is not going to be because of DX10, rather than the raw power of GPU's these days.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in many PC games I've seen that feature both DX9 and DX10 look noticably different when switched to a different version of DX. Especially sunbeam effects, I have never seen a game with that effect on DX9 (unless it's pre-rendered, but that's not an effect, it's just a box in the shape of the light)

Muffin_man_XD
08-26-2008, 10:46 AM
Well the 360 uses DX 9.5 it's a step up from DX9 and has a lot of the graphical features from DX10 but to a lesser degree.

MeloniesHomeboy
08-26-2008, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by aa___ron:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MeloniesHomeboy:
... the visual difference between the console version and the PC ver (on highest settings) is not going to be because of DX10, rather than the raw power of GPU's these days.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in many PC games I've seen that feature both DX9 and DX10 look noticably different when switched to a different version of DX. Especially sunbeam effects, I have never seen a game with that effect on DX9 (unless it's pre-rendered, but that's not an effect, it's just a box in the shape of the light) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your talking about Crysis, I can show you those sunbeam effects in DX9 on XP that are no different from the DX10 effect. It was simple marketing to push DX10 and Vista with gamers.

SS4Real
08-26-2008, 11:21 AM
The simple short answer is yes, the PC DX10 looks better.

The long answer is more complicated. Comparing different versions of directX across platforms is worthless. When push comes to shove, it all comes down to the actual game itself not necessarily which version of DX, etc.

PC games, because of their immense graphics processing abilities, have MUCH more potential than console games do. When PC games and console games become graphically "comparable" it's usually because the PC game was a console port or the dev. didn't take advantage of DX9/10's potential.

A PC game that successfully uses DX10 (or even 9) will hands down beat any console running the comparable game. Because the console is limited by it's weak graphics processor. The dev's could never put Crysis on console, Far Cry 2 will look better on PC that's for sure, FEAR looked better, even the GTA series games do & will because of proper anti-aliasing.

Far Cry 2 will most likely look much better on PC due to the following:

-greater use of dynamic & ambient light effects (sun beams, etc.)
-much, much, much much much more particles (great for effects from fire, sparks, muzzle flash)
-greater use of dynamic shadows
-proper anti-aliasing (probably 16X)
-and of course a much higher polygon count! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Keep in mind Far Cry 2 is being "ported" down to console.
I'm not trying to bash consoles here, but it's common sense that a PC game has the potential to always look better than any console game. If the devs take the time that is. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Staticks
08-26-2008, 01:03 PM
Furthermore, PS3 doesn't even USE DX9 or DX10. It uses OPENGL.


Originally posted by SS4Real:
Keep in mind Far Cry 2 is being "ported" down to console.
I'm not trying to bash consoles here, but it's common sense that a PC game has the potential to always look better than any console game. If the devs take the time that is. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
I think a lot of PC-centric fans who are somewhat out of the loop when it comes to console game have the tendency to undestimate the relative graphical capability of the consoles. Point being, that we already see certain upcoming console exclusive titles that have the potential to look significantly better (on a purely visual basis) than Far Cry 2... on ANY platform.

In light of that, having the end result of the console version(s) of Far Cry 2 looking quite similar to the PC version (resolution and AA settings aside) is absolutely NOT a far-fetched possibility, considering the level graphical fidelity that said console owners are already used to experiencing. All the recent video evidence that is available for everyone's personal scrutiny points to a very faithful and high-fidelity port on the console renditions. I personally can't tell a single graphical difference, aside from perhaps slightly less detail textures, when comparing all the video footage.

Of course, TALK IS CHEAP. When the game finally releases, I'm fairly confident that, just like all other previous cross-platform games, the visual differences across the PC and console platforms will be slight at best. We'll all see then.

R1ZN0
08-26-2008, 04:47 PM
I think people confuse the situation... the console version may look just as good as the PC version but thats because of the developer not the hardware, in a lab the PC can and will out process the console by far... So a game built to the Highest possible standards of a cutting edge Pc vs the same for the 360 or ps3 would cream the consoles hands down...

Staticks
08-26-2008, 04:56 PM
But that's only in an ideal, hypothetical situation. No game would ever be developed to utilize the absolute most hardcore, highest-end possible hardware configuration at the time of release. Games are designed to target a specific level of hardware, meaning that it should run at a playable framerate at a reasonable resolution on an upper-midrange PC at the time of release. You could conceivably create a game with graphical fidelity so intensive that it would only be playable on a quad-SLI videocard with an 8-core CPU or something insane like that, and it would look amazing, but it wouldn't sell very well.

R1ZN0
08-26-2008, 05:02 PM
Well there's Crysis, which is friggin amazing graphically. And was developed "pre" game running hardware. I know for a fact a lot of the features weren't even tested until ati/nvidia caught up to them in graphic hardware/drivers capable of playing the game.

sales or practicality wasn't my point though.. Pc v Consoles capabilities were ;P

If sales alone is the discussion then Nintendo is the only winner.. and that is pretty undisputed.

I am not going to buy a wii btw.

SS4Real
08-26-2008, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by Rizno:
I think people confuse the situation... the console version may look just as good as the PC version but thats because of the developer not the hardware, in a lab the PC can and will out process the console by far... So a game built to the Highest possible standards of a cutting edge Pc vs the same for the 360 or ps3 would cream the consoles hands down...

That was my point. I'm not out of the loop at all. To say the graphic quality difference between games on multiple platforms is min. is simply not the norm.

Of course there are times when console and PC games are so close no one can tell the difference. But those are generally console ports, not games developed primarily on the PC. If the devs dedicate even a small amount of extra time on a PC version the results are usually clear. Take GTA: San Andreas for example. Even slight graphic upgrades made it look 100X better than the console version. AA makes a huge difference kids. Huge.

If the end result of Far Cry 2 does end up looking comparable to console versions, then the game will look sub-standard by PC standards. And I as well as other PC users will be disappointed. Consoles graphics don't look bad, but the difference (when the devs do it right) is obvious. I doubt this will be the end result for Far Cry 2 because of the initial build being a PC version as well as Crytek doing all the dirty work on the graphics engine.

Most videos released so far are not accurate depictions of what the final product will look like. Especially since 90% are cams. Although most of the vids so far have been from PC versions not console, mostly due to the "wow" factor PC graphics can have on viewers. Most trailers are made on PC versions as well.

Not trying to flame the fire, but it always seem people will do anything to dignify their systems. Whether it be PCs or consoles, if it doesn't play the game at it's max potential you're not getting the best experience. And this is why many PC users justify their purchases (even though they usually only cost a little more). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

SS4Real
08-26-2008, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by staticks:
But that's only in an ideal, hypothetical situation. No game would ever be developed to utilize the absolute most hardcore, highest-end possible hardware configuration at the time of release. Games are designed to target a specific level of hardware, meaning that it should run at a playable framerate at a reasonable resolution on an upper-midrange PC at the time of release. You could conceivably create a game with graphical fidelity so intensive that it would only be playable on a quad-SLI videocard with an 8-core CPU or something insane like that, and it would look amazing, but it wouldn't sell very well.

But a PC game doesn't have to require extreme graphic setups to look better than console. A basic PC with a decent processor (costs less than $100) and a budget card (costs less than $150) will beat a console. Assuming the game takes advantage of the PC's capabilities of course.

There's been 1000 comparisons between PC & console, especially X360 when it came out. The general consensus is that the X360 is comparable to a mid-range gaming PC with roughly a nvidia 7800. FYI the 7800 came out in 2004.

Also, some PC game developers are intentionally pushing the envelope of what they can produce, therefore pushing our hardware demand. If they only designed games to run at a "playable framerate at a reasonable resolution on an upper-midrange PC", then we would still be playing Nintendos. I applaud Crytek for what they did with Crysis. Console graphics wouldn't be where it is today without the PC market.

Plus most PC gamers can't play new games at max settings anyway, they just turn down the settings. So it's not like they lose sales because the graphics are too demanding.

ETHAN.
08-26-2008, 09:04 PM
I am getting Far Cry 2 for the PS3 and the PC so no matter which is better I will be set

SS4Real
08-26-2008, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by ETHAN.:
I am getting Far Cry 2 for the PS3 and the PC so no matter which is better I will be set

Nice! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Staticks
08-27-2008, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by Rizno:
Well there's Crysis, which is friggin amazing graphically. And was developed "pre" game running hardware. I know for a fact a lot of the features weren't even tested until ati/nvidia caught up to them in graphic hardware/drivers capable of playing the game.

sales or practicality wasn't my point though.. Pc v Consoles capabilities were ;P
And that's case in point of how far that particular design philosophy has gotten the PC games industry at this point. You have a grand total of ONE (1) game on the PC that can really actually compete with the cream of the crop in the console arena (and by this I mean current and upcoming PS3 exclusives, the most powerful console, not the XB360). And even that debate is in doubt as some of these games in the foreseeable future have the potential to upend Crysis in terms of graphical and technical splendor.


Originally posted by SS4Real:
That was my point. I'm not out of the loop at all. To say the graphic quality difference between games on multiple platforms is min. is simply not the norm.
Name one recent multiplatform game where there was a major difference in visual presentation between the console and PC versions. Bioshock? Assassin's Creed? Call of Duty 4?

Of course there are times when console and PC games are so close no one can tell the difference. But those are generally console ports, not games developed primarily on the PC. If the devs dedicate even a small amount of extra time on a PC version the results are usually clear. Take GTA: San Andreas for example. Even slight graphic upgrades made it look 100X better than the console version. AA makes a huge difference kids. Huge.
Not really. GTA San Andreas basically looked like the same game on all platforms. Point being, that no person or gamer off the street is going to look at the PC version and then the Xbox 1 version of the game and claim to see an entirely different game. No amount of AA is going to change that fact. You can't polish a turd; you may try running Quake III at 1600x1200 and with 16XAA, but it's not going to look even CLOSE to as beautiful as Splinter Cell Chaos Theory or DOOM III on Xbox 1 running at 480p. The fact of the matter is, AA, screen resolution, and other such visual accouterments are only a small factor in the graphical equation, and arguably a much smaller one in today's generation, where 720p with some AA is more-or-less standard (with the occasional exception) on all console games, and looks quite nice on an HDTV from a moderate viewing distance, already.

If the end result of Far Cry 2 does end up looking comparable to console versions, then the game will look sub-standard by PC standards. And I as well as other PC users will be disappointed. Consoles graphics don't look bad, but the difference (when the devs do it right) is obvious. I doubt this will be the end result for Far Cry 2 because of the initial build being a PC version as well as Crytek doing all the dirty work on the graphics engine.
That's really a rather baseless (as well as typical) slight against consoles, and really shows how some people in the PC fanbase continue to underrate (whether it's based on actual opinions, or wishful thinking) the capabilities of the current console generation. Anyone in their right mind, and who are truly honest and objective about it, would not look at Far Cry 2 and consider it "substandard" by any standard. It's pretty clear that Far Cry 2 will be a graphically beautiful game that will more than hold its own technically against any current game out there on ANY platform. To say otherwise just because of your biased assumption that "consoles are inferior, therefore if Far Cry 2 looks similar on consoles, Far Cry 2 is inferior" is a flawed and specious conclusion to make. You're going to tell me that you can say with a completely straight face that most, if ANY, PC games on the market will look better than Far Cry 2 when it comes out?

Originally posted by SS4Real:
Most videos released so far are not accurate depictions of what the final product will look like. Especially since 90% are cams. Although most of the vids so far have been from PC versions not console, mostly due to the "wow" factor PC graphics can have on viewers. Most trailers are made on PC versions as well.
That's actually wrong, as I am nearly 100% certain that the vast majority of cam footage and trailers that have been released recently (since Ubidays of this year) have been XB360 and console footage. You can clearly tell that they're from consoles because of the analog joystick-based movement and aiming motion.

aa___ron
08-27-2008, 12:56 AM
Originally posted by staticks:
That's actually wrong, as I am nearly 100% certain that the vast majority of cam footage and trailers that have been released recently (since Ubidays of this year) have been XB360 and console footage. You can clearly tell that they're from consoles because of the analog joystick-based movement and aiming motion.

I think he means when it comes down to showing the game to live audiences and the press, because he's right on that one if that's what he meant, but you're right that almost all footages on the official trailers have been the console versions.

Here's another point which might be relevant though... on PCs alot of people are having graphics card that is alot more powerful than the ones in consoles, yet they're only playing it on a much smaller screen compared to when people play them on consoles, surely the resolution is going to play a part here? (I have yet to see someone playing a game on PC on max resolution on a 50" monitor)

SS4Real
08-27-2008, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by aa___ron:
I think he means when it comes down to showing the game to live audiences and the press, because he's right on that one if that's what he meant, but you're right that almost all footages on the official trailers have been the console versions.

Here's another point which might be relevant though... on PCs alot of people are having graphics card that is alot more powerful than the ones in consoles, yet they're only playing it on a much smaller screen compared to when people play them on consoles, surely the resolution is going to play a part here? (I have yet to see someone playing a game on PC on max resolution on a 50" monitor)

I play COD4, Bioshock, STALKER, GRID, Frontlines, UT3, BF2142 all on MAX settings on my 42" samsung @ 1080P and all at 40+ FPS. All with ONE overclocked 8800gts 520. Which is now a very cheap card. I can play Crysis on high settings at 30+ fps on the same setup.

Keep in mind it's not the monitor/TV it's resolution. 1080P is 1920X1080. I normally play my games on my 22" monitor at 1680X1050.

SS4Real
08-27-2008, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by staticks:
And that's case in point of how far that particular design philosophy has gotten the PC games industry at this point. You have a grand total of ONE (1) game on the PC that can really actually compete with the cream of the crop in the console arena (and by this I mean current and upcoming PS3 exclusives, the most powerful console, not the XB360). And even that debate is in doubt as some of these games in the foreseeable future have the potential to upend Crysis in terms of graphical and technical splendor.

You're so out in left field here it's embarrassing. I don't see what is so difficult to understand.

Console games are rarely made with the same graphic quality as a PC version. The ones that look the same are console ports, and this is why PC gamers hate them. Consoles are hardware limited. Period.

Bioshock, Assassin's Creed, Call of Duty 4, all look better on a PC with max settings. A PS3 or xbox aren't even capable of the huge amount of polygons Bioshock requires, or the draw distance of Assassin's Creed, or the super textures of COD4. The version you play on console is NOT the same game as the PC version, sorry.

It isn't what your eyes tell you, or what opinions either of us have - it's in the game. Consoles can't handle what PCs can, that's what it comes down to.



Not really. GTA San Andreas basically looked like the same game on all platforms. Point being, that no person or gamer off the street is going to look at the PC version and then the Xbox 1 version of the game and claim to see an entirely different game. No amount of AA is going to change that fact. You can't polish a turd; you may try running Quake III at 1600x1200 and with 16XAA, but it's not going to look even CLOSE to as beautiful as Splinter Cell Chaos Theory or DOOM III on Xbox 1 running at 480p. The fact of the matter is, AA, screen resolution, and other such visual accouterments are only a small factor in the graphical equation, and arguably a much smaller one in today's generation, where 720p with some AA is more-or-less standard (with the occasional exception) on all console games, and looks quite nice on an HDTV from a moderate viewing distance, already.

Holy crap. I think you & I are done debating. If you can't see the clear difference of AA, resolution, full dynamic shadows, & dynamic lighting, the yes - they will look the same.



That's really a rather baseless (as well as typical) slight against consoles, and really shows how some people in the PC fanbase continue to underrate (whether it's based on actual opinions, or wishful thinking) the capabilities of the current console generation. Anyone in their right mind, and who are truly honest and objective about it, would not look at Far Cry 2 and consider it "substandard" by any standard. It's pretty clear that Far Cry 2 will be a graphically beautiful game that will more than hold its own technically against any current game out there on ANY platform. To say otherwise just because of your biased assumption that "consoles are inferior, therefore if Far Cry 2 looks similar on consoles, Far Cry 2 is inferior" is a flawed and specious conclusion to make. You're going to tell me that you can say with a completely straight face that most, if ANY, PC games on the market will look better than Far Cry 2 when it comes out?

If Far Cry2 doesn't take full advantage of the PCs' unique graphic capabilities as mentioned above, then it will look sub-standard period. Because everyone else is already doing that, and have been since PC's existed.

I have no clue what Far Cry 2 will look like because all we've seen is low res trailers & cams. But it's graphic basis is Crysis, there's no denying that. Crytek did all the hard work and Far Cry 2 will hopefully look similar.

Even if they make it the 100% best graphical game the consoles could ever handle it will still not compare to STALKER:Clear Sky, Project Origin, Crysis Warhead, to name a few on PC. And like I have said multiple times, if Ubi/Crytek make the extra effort to use PCs' graphic capabilities to their max potential in Far Cry 2 then it will not be sub-standard. That's what we are hoping for.

And yes (with a straight face): "STALKER:Clear Sky, Crysis, Crysis Warhead, Project Origin (FEAR looked 10X better on PC), and Bioshock, all will look better than any CONSOLE version of Far Cry 2, and hopefully not PC. Hopefully Far Cry 2 will look as good and run as well as upcoming Crysis Warhead. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

aa___ron
08-28-2008, 01:28 AM
Originally posted by SS4Real:

I play COD4, Bioshock, STALKER, GRID, Frontlines, UT3, BF2142 all on MAX settings on my 42" samsung @ 1080P and all at 40+ FPS. All with ONE overclocked 8800gts 520. Which is now a very cheap card. I can play Crysis on high settings at 30+ fps on the same setup.

That's super great news for me, cause I've got two 8800 GTS http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif However even with two of those Crysis doesn't run perfectly smooth in my computer on a 19" screen with max setting.

T.Mani
08-28-2008, 09:35 AM
OOOoooooook.... I guess there are no comparsion video or picture between Console vs PC DX10, then...

kkthnxbye



I just wanned to know if there were a comparsion anywhere, not start a cross platform war. I red a preview of FarCry 2 in swedish Magazine and he said he were disapointed over the graphics when he first tested the game on a console. But he fast changed his mind when he tested it on a PC because it looked alot more better...

SS4Real
08-28-2008, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by T.Mani:
OOOoooooook.... I guess there are no comparsion video or picture between Console vs PC DX10, then...

kkthnxbye



I just wanned to know if there were a comparsion anywhere, not start a cross platform war. I red a preview of FarCry 2 in swedish Magazine and he said he were disapointed over the graphics when he first tested the game on a console. But he fast changed his mind when he tested it on a PC because it looked alot more better...

I apologize for taking your thread off-topic.

There are comparisons between console and PC w/DX10 but most of those are a "per game comparison".

The short answer, like I said in my first post, is if a game developer designs a game to use all of DX10's features then it will look better than console. If the dev doesn't then they will most likely look the same or at least similar (PC still has true Anti-aliasing).

*EDIT* T.Mani do you have a link to that Swedish review? Thanks.