cyrax
Daemon Poster
- Messages
- 905
- Location
- Auckland, New Zealand
The picture quality on a 360 is v good in my opinion. I'd say it would at least have to a dual-core system with a 7800GT or greater, and 1-2gigs of ram. But then again, I dunno.
beating a ps3/xbox360? possible?
- Thread starter shinracorp99
- Start date
- Status
aliasaid
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 2,400
well its not like microsoft pays retail for having the xbox360 made like we are when we buy computer parts. they pay the mere production cost.. so its pretty cheap for them. and for every xbox360 microsoft sells, they lose $100-$150; or else no one will buy it. they're obviously hoping to make up for that by selling games..
if you're building a comp yoruself it should be pretty easy to beat the xbox360.. i know before it was released, they were showcasing some of the games at some exhibition, and sicne they didn't have the system fully completed, they used a temporary system made up of 2 6800ULTRAS ... so whatever is in there now is probably around the same power capacity. as for ps3... well thats a whole other story. the people at sony are on the ball for their playstations. they say something like ps 6 or 7 will be based on biotechnology! holy crap!!
if you're building a comp yoruself it should be pretty easy to beat the xbox360.. i know before it was released, they were showcasing some of the games at some exhibition, and sicne they didn't have the system fully completed, they used a temporary system made up of 2 6800ULTRAS ... so whatever is in there now is probably around the same power capacity. as for ps3... well thats a whole other story. the people at sony are on the ball for their playstations. they say something like ps 6 or 7 will be based on biotechnology! holy crap!!
Ethereal_Dragon
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 3,755
- Location
- USA
^^^ Lol... by the time PS7 comes out... it will be the size of a grain of rice, and they will implant it in your body, and you can close your eyes and play games with no controller... LOL.
If you hate consoles so much, why do you need a computer that can whoop them? Sure some games are cross-platform, but at the same time, many games AREN'T, and even if they are, they are only good on one system. Many PC games ported to PS2 & X-box that I have seen, were MUCH worse on the consoles....
If you hate consoles so much, why do you need a computer that can whoop them? Sure some games are cross-platform, but at the same time, many games AREN'T, and even if they are, they are only good on one system. Many PC games ported to PS2 & X-box that I have seen, were MUCH worse on the consoles....
NosBoost300
I poop on the rug
- Messages
- 10,220
- Location
- Bellflower, CA
hrmm... to top a xbox 360, i would say a 7800 gt, gig of ram, maybe a dual core processor.. the xbox graphics are nice, but not **** nice... ps3.. you'd need a really hefty top of the line dual core, w/ a 7900gt/x and a physx card.. but the thing is that the physx card isnt compatible with everything like the ps3 physx card is.. so thatsa set bad... if you wanna beat a ps3 without the physx.. try dual 7900gt/x... maybe even quad...
I believe MS lose nearer $174 per premium console.
The Xbox 360 has basically a watered down version of the X1900XT, and that costs about the same as the console. As said, for the price of itm, you can't beat a PC.
PS3 has had a rumour that the processor is not nearly as good as Sony said, but they may have a watered down version of the 'cell' processor, until they can make it how they said properly.
I would say though that it is on par with what I get on my PC with a 7800gt.
(I am an Xbox 360 owner btw.)
The Xbox 360 has basically a watered down version of the X1900XT, and that costs about the same as the console. As said, for the price of itm, you can't beat a PC.
PS3 has had a rumour that the processor is not nearly as good as Sony said, but they may have a watered down version of the 'cell' processor, until they can make it how they said properly.
I would say though that it is on par with what I get on my PC with a 7800gt.
(I am an Xbox 360 owner btw.)
NosBoost300
I poop on the rug
- Messages
- 10,220
- Location
- Bellflower, CA
it wouldnt be too much to outdo an xbox 360... lets see
7900gt 315.00
1 gig of ram (value) 80.00
3800+ dual core 290.00
psu 550watt 90.00
case 100.00 or close to it
mobo 140.. again around that area
optical drive 40
hdd 100
thats only 1055.00, so its alot less than the dell your trying to build tying, if not outdoing the xbox 360
7900gt 315.00
1 gig of ram (value) 80.00
3800+ dual core 290.00
psu 550watt 90.00
case 100.00 or close to it
mobo 140.. again around that area
optical drive 40
hdd 100
thats only 1055.00, so its alot less than the dell your trying to build tying, if not outdoing the xbox 360
TheMajor
PowerQuest / Opera
- Messages
- 10,176
- Location
- Netherlands
If you already own a decent PC, consoles are a waste of money.
mnelson07
In Runtime
- Messages
- 349
- Location
- Denton, TX
Can a 360 use the internet?
Can a 360 email?
Can a 360 do word documents, file storing, view pictures, edit pictures.
The list goes on and on.
When you pay for a computer, you don't pay strictly for gaming. You are able to do SO much more on a computer in SO many respects as compared to the 360 or ps3.
The consoles themselves are a bargain, no doubt. But that is only because they are barebone systems. The motherboard is made ONLY to support what is necessary to make it run the games. You can't install any other software or 3rd party hardware on them. I know, you can modify them... big woop, we can too (and much better I might add).
Back to the 'barbone' idea: When you utilize a motherboard to only run specific processes, it is much easier and cheaper to make the motherboard because you don't have to leave it open to support other things. For example, my motherboard supports a lot more RAM then I use, supports RAID HDDs, supports firewire which I don't use, and the list goes on quite extensively. The console systems are literally dedicated to just gaming and only gaming at the level that is prerequired. You are guranteed good graphics because you pay for the system and then fork out $50 for every new game. That explains why it is cheap. I am almost positive microsoft and sony must get a cut from the games. That is the only way they can ensure income past the price of the original consoles themselves.
I prefer computers. I own a PS2 and never really use it. Online gaming is so much better, and only in the past year or two did xbox come up with the online play and headsets to immitate what pc gamers have done forever. I think the battle between the two have their own ups and downs in many respects. Generally, consoles are more portable and easier to play with friends, you just need controllers and a TV. LAN can be, but you need to bring your whole computer, the screen, and any other periphials you want. Then, you have to connect to the same network and connect to the host computer. My point, obviously, is the ease that consoles put into gaming inside the community and with friends and now have made it possible to game with others around the world.
Oh, one more thing. Consoles allow you to connect to any TV which pretty much everyone owns one. PC's... you have to buy a screen. Yeah... oh, which also explains the graphic quality. The resolutions in consoles are limited as compared to PCs. TV screens run in the resolution of what, 640x480 or less? I want to say it is pretty small if I remember correctly. As we all know, having a small resolution aids the ease of rendering graphics and modules... but we can change ours
That is all I can think of for now, I might think of more and add some later.
Can a 360 email?
Can a 360 do word documents, file storing, view pictures, edit pictures.
The list goes on and on.
When you pay for a computer, you don't pay strictly for gaming. You are able to do SO much more on a computer in SO many respects as compared to the 360 or ps3.
The consoles themselves are a bargain, no doubt. But that is only because they are barebone systems. The motherboard is made ONLY to support what is necessary to make it run the games. You can't install any other software or 3rd party hardware on them. I know, you can modify them... big woop, we can too (and much better I might add).
Back to the 'barbone' idea: When you utilize a motherboard to only run specific processes, it is much easier and cheaper to make the motherboard because you don't have to leave it open to support other things. For example, my motherboard supports a lot more RAM then I use, supports RAID HDDs, supports firewire which I don't use, and the list goes on quite extensively. The console systems are literally dedicated to just gaming and only gaming at the level that is prerequired. You are guranteed good graphics because you pay for the system and then fork out $50 for every new game. That explains why it is cheap. I am almost positive microsoft and sony must get a cut from the games. That is the only way they can ensure income past the price of the original consoles themselves.
I prefer computers. I own a PS2 and never really use it. Online gaming is so much better, and only in the past year or two did xbox come up with the online play and headsets to immitate what pc gamers have done forever. I think the battle between the two have their own ups and downs in many respects. Generally, consoles are more portable and easier to play with friends, you just need controllers and a TV. LAN can be, but you need to bring your whole computer, the screen, and any other periphials you want. Then, you have to connect to the same network and connect to the host computer. My point, obviously, is the ease that consoles put into gaming inside the community and with friends and now have made it possible to game with others around the world.
Oh, one more thing. Consoles allow you to connect to any TV which pretty much everyone owns one. PC's... you have to buy a screen. Yeah... oh, which also explains the graphic quality. The resolutions in consoles are limited as compared to PCs. TV screens run in the resolution of what, 640x480 or less? I want to say it is pretty small if I remember correctly. As we all know, having a small resolution aids the ease of rendering graphics and modules... but we can change ours
That is all I can think of for now, I might think of more and add some later.
shinracorp99
Solid State Member
- Messages
- 8
good replies all thx. was looking for the tech list there that some of you provided. good stuff there. and yeah, i want to build a PC with pretty much those same xbox 360 specs and beyond. It seems very affordable and best of all....UPGRADABLE.
Im thinking amd dual core ht and maybe an sli config. or, if money ges tight, jus the 7800/7900 vcard and a physx accelerator. could do this well under 1500 and the system would pwn.
and tbh, in 3 years xbox360 and ps3 will be running strong, but by then PC performance will be better and cost lower. So making that ps3 beating dual/quad sli config isnt going to be out of reach for many.
Im thinking amd dual core ht and maybe an sli config. or, if money ges tight, jus the 7800/7900 vcard and a physx accelerator. could do this well under 1500 and the system would pwn.
and tbh, in 3 years xbox360 and ps3 will be running strong, but by then PC performance will be better and cost lower. So making that ps3 beating dual/quad sli config isnt going to be out of reach for many.
Juice Daddy
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 1,706
no body every seems to point this out:
all the games are made on a computer!
all the games are made on a computer!
- Status
Similar threads
