Until next week (Cyber Monday ftw), I've been running a Phenom X2 5400+, an ATI 4850 reference card, and 4 gigs of Corsair XMS DDR2 800 RAM...on an M-ATX board, no less.
Just finished Dragon Age at 1680x1050 (Dell 2005FPW) with all visuals on max, AA at 2x AF at 2x...no framerate issues. Eyeball guesstimate between 40-50 FPS, with a rare dip down into the mid 30's.
Agreed. It looked great on my aging Dell 2005FPW...not to mention the PC version didn't have as many bugs and issues (although it definitely still had its fair share...)
More powerful, absolutely. More reliable, absolutely. However, I have found that I enjoyed more of the exclusives for the 360 this generation than those on the PS3. Interestingly, the opposite was true for me in the previous generation...in my opinion, the PS2 trounced the Xbox as far as exclusives were concerned.
As far as being used for general media, the PS3 wins this generation hands down...on that I will readily agree.
I guess you haven't compared games like Dragon Age, where the PS3 is noticeably superior and is even receiving higher review scores. Judging by the unwarranted hostility in your reaction to an innocent comment, it seems that you're the one suffering from fanboyism.
Oh of course, how could I not have seen it before?. I have at least one console or handheld from each of the major manufacturers to release one in the past thirty years. Atari, Magnavox, Nintendo, Sega, Sony, Microsoft...yup, you are absolutely right, I am a fanboy.
I'm a video game fanboy. I don't care about the brand name on the front of the machine, I care that it plays games.
When the differences are minute to the point where you have to pause a Gametrailers video and lean in close to your monitor, they may as well be the same...you aren't going to see that during actual gameplay, ESPECIALLY not in a frantic shooter like MW2.
That being said, there is one consistant difference between the 360 and the PS3 in terms of image quality: the 360 tends to be a little washed out, and the PS3 tends to be a little dark. Thank goodness for auto-switching color profiles based on the input selected.
I define full resolution as the max resolution of the average big monitor these days...which, unless you have some 27-30 inch monstrosity, cap out at 1920 x 1200. In your example, they have 16XAA enabled, which makes a MASSIVE difference...which is something I have adressed in my other posts made in this thread. That being said, congrats...you're right. I am totally wrong. There actually is a game out there that a then-$200 card couldn't play full bore. Sue me.
By the way, I appreciate you insulting me, considering you don't know me. Nothing makes me feel better about being a part of a community than knowing people like you are a part of it as well.
I don't think the problem is the 360, I think the problem is your fanboyism. Multi-platform games look more or less the same between the 360 and the PS3.
As a poster previously in the thread stated, a big part of it are games that need to work on consoles and PC. As an example, considering the 360 has a video card roughly equivalent to a 6600GT, there is only so far they can push ports. Hell, even now, 3-4 years into the current gen, there are STILL framerate problems with a lot of games...games that can now run at an absurdly high FPS on a decent gaming PC.
augh! yes indeed, I meant $400. You can also get the 4870 for cheap even when it was new, and for super cheap now that it has some age on it...an extremely capable card that will likely last at least another generation or two of video cards.
This is pretty much the case with me. I plan on doing a full system upgrade this Cyber Monday, but I haven't bought any new hardware for my computer other than a new DVD drive in about 2 years...and I STILL haven't needed to turn down visual details in any games that are released.
Look at the 4850. When it was brand new, it cost $199, and it could run ANY game on the market at full resolution and detail with a smooth, sustained framerate. Flash back to the year 2000. Try to find me a $200 card back then that could do the same. Hell, I challange you to do the same thing just 5 years ago, back in 2004.
The days of needing the biggest, fastest, most expensive card are pretty much over. You can run just about any game out there at max settings at 1920 X 1080 silky smooth with a 5870, which goes for less than $300. Hell, even the 4870 is still almost overkill.
Unless you plan on maxing out AA and AF while playing on a 30 inch screen, there is no reason to drop $500-$600 on a video card anymore...
Why would they want to sell opinions more than information (i.e. news), especially if the latter is what (most of) their listeners want?
1. Selling opinions enables the sale of books, a huge money maker. 2. Considering Fox gives more opinion than any other mainstream news source, and considering Fox has more viewers than the rest of the big names combined...well, I'll let you figure that one out.
To quote South Park:
"This isn't the news. All your doing is dumbing the news down." "No, Jimmy...the school is already dumb, we're just giving them what they want."
And during Bush Jr.'s presidency, they were the only ones who WERE towing Bush's party line.
The only difference is which direction the pendulum is swinging...regardless, if you stand there watching it, you are gonna get smacked in the face by it.
On a more serious note, though, about Fox News. Closing your eyes to one perspective, can only diminish you. Even if the only thing you lose is a window into other's ways of thinking, that's a valuable thing you.
Normally, I would agree with this...however, Fox News (along with the rest of the mainstream media...CNN, MSNBC, etc.) exists SOLELY to sell ads and opinions, not the news. I don't need to listen to someone who is paid to tell me what to think; I'm quite capable of forming my own political opinion, thank you very much.
I completely agree with listening to sources other than those you agree with, but listening to a "news" channel Like Fox News (again, MSNBC/CNN/etc. included) really is a waste of time.
Slashdot Mirror
It was entirely my mistake, it was supposed to be 400. Sorry AC :-(
Until next week (Cyber Monday ftw), I've been running a Phenom X2 5400+, an ATI 4850 reference card, and 4 gigs of Corsair XMS DDR2 800 RAM...on an M-ATX board, no less.
Just finished Dragon Age at 1680x1050 (Dell 2005FPW) with all visuals on max, AA at 2x AF at 2x...no framerate issues. Eyeball guesstimate between 40-50 FPS, with a rare dip down into the mid 30's.
I do remember 3Dfx. My Monster3D card (bought brand new, I might add) was the second 3D accelerator chip I owned.
Prior to that, I was using an S3 ViRGE.
For the same reason why Seiken Densetsu 2 (Secret of Mana) still looks awesome even though it is an SNES game...
Art style, art style, art style.
And yes, Black & White 2 is still unbelievably gorgeous.
Agreed. It looked great on my aging Dell 2005FPW...not to mention the PC version didn't have as many bugs and issues (although it definitely still had its fair share...)
More powerful, absolutely. More reliable, absolutely. However, I have found that I enjoyed more of the exclusives for the 360 this generation than those on the PS3. Interestingly, the opposite was true for me in the previous generation...in my opinion, the PS2 trounced the Xbox as far as exclusives were concerned.
As far as being used for general media, the PS3 wins this generation hands down...on that I will readily agree.
I guess you haven't compared games like Dragon Age, where the PS3 is noticeably superior and is even receiving higher review scores. Judging by the unwarranted hostility in your reaction to an innocent comment, it seems that you're the one suffering from fanboyism.
Oh of course, how could I not have seen it before?. I have at least one console or handheld from each of the major manufacturers to release one in the past thirty years. Atari, Magnavox, Nintendo, Sega, Sony, Microsoft...yup, you are absolutely right, I am a fanboy.
I'm a video game fanboy. I don't care about the brand name on the front of the machine, I care that it plays games.
When the differences are minute to the point where you have to pause a Gametrailers video and lean in close to your monitor, they may as well be the same...you aren't going to see that during actual gameplay, ESPECIALLY not in a frantic shooter like MW2.
That being said, there is one consistant difference between the 360 and the PS3 in terms of image quality: the 360 tends to be a little washed out, and the PS3 tends to be a little dark. Thank goodness for auto-switching color profiles based on the input selected.
I define full resolution as the max resolution of the average big monitor these days...which, unless you have some 27-30 inch monstrosity, cap out at 1920 x 1200. In your example, they have 16XAA enabled, which makes a MASSIVE difference...which is something I have adressed in my other posts made in this thread. That being said, congrats...you're right. I am totally wrong. There actually is a game out there that a then-$200 card couldn't play full bore. Sue me.
By the way, I appreciate you insulting me, considering you don't know me. Nothing makes me feel better about being a part of a community than knowing people like you are a part of it as well.
I don't think the problem is the 360, I think the problem is your fanboyism. Multi-platform games look more or less the same between the 360 and the PS3.
Trust me, I know. I have both systems.
As a poster previously in the thread stated, a big part of it are games that need to work on consoles and PC. As an example, considering the 360 has a video card roughly equivalent to a 6600GT, there is only so far they can push ports. Hell, even now, 3-4 years into the current gen, there are STILL framerate problems with a lot of games...games that can now run at an absurdly high FPS on a decent gaming PC.
augh! yes indeed, I meant $400. You can also get the 4870 for cheap even when it was new, and for super cheap now that it has some age on it...an extremely capable card that will likely last at least another generation or two of video cards.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814129113
$170, awesome stuff
Mostly agreed, however I will take a low-to-mid range CPU if it means I can afford a top of the line GPU...when it comes to gaming, anyway.
The GPU is a much larger bottleneck in terms of gaming, although the line of importance between the GPU and CPU has been blurring a bit lately.
This is pretty much the case with me. I plan on doing a full system upgrade this Cyber Monday, but I haven't bought any new hardware for my computer other than a new DVD drive in about 2 years...and I STILL haven't needed to turn down visual details in any games that are released.
I'm gonna have to disagree with you there.
Look at the 4850. When it was brand new, it cost $199, and it could run ANY game on the market at full resolution and detail with a smooth, sustained framerate. Flash back to the year 2000. Try to find me a $200 card back then that could do the same. Hell, I challange you to do the same thing just 5 years ago, back in 2004.
Good luck.
The days of needing the biggest, fastest, most expensive card are pretty much over. You can run just about any game out there at max settings at 1920 X 1080 silky smooth with a 5870, which goes for less than $300. Hell, even the 4870 is still almost overkill.
Unless you plan on maxing out AA and AF while playing on a 30 inch screen, there is no reason to drop $500-$600 on a video card anymore...
Starbucks specifically? I believe four, although it MIGHT be five.
I live in Maryland, about 30 minutes outside of DC, and there are 4 Wal-Marts within 20 minutes of my house.
Why would they want to sell opinions more than information (i.e. news), especially if the latter is what (most of) their listeners want?
1. Selling opinions enables the sale of books, a huge money maker.
2. Considering Fox gives more opinion than any other mainstream news source, and considering Fox has more viewers than the rest of the big names combined...well, I'll let you figure that one out.
To quote South Park:
"This isn't the news. All your doing is dumbing the news down."
"No, Jimmy...the school is already dumb, we're just giving them what they want."
And during Bush Jr.'s presidency, they were the only ones who WERE towing Bush's party line.
The only difference is which direction the pendulum is swinging...regardless, if you stand there watching it, you are gonna get smacked in the face by it.
On a more serious note, though, about Fox News. Closing your eyes to one perspective, can only diminish you. Even if the only thing you lose is a window into other's ways of thinking, that's a valuable thing you.
Normally, I would agree with this...however, Fox News (along with the rest of the mainstream media...CNN, MSNBC, etc.) exists SOLELY to sell ads and opinions, not the news. I don't need to listen to someone who is paid to tell me what to think; I'm quite capable of forming my own political opinion, thank you very much.
I completely agree with listening to sources other than those you agree with, but listening to a "news" channel Like Fox News (again, MSNBC/CNN/etc. included) really is a waste of time.
Burnenated!
But seriously...have you thought about getting one of those 6, 8, or 10 monitor setups that day traders use?
Geez man...sounds to me like you need some software written specifically for your needs. That's an overflowing plate you go there!
lol, and I thought I was busy being the only mail merge programmer in a call center!
Out of curosity, what kind of job do you have that would necessitate having that many tabs open for that long period of time?
Jesus dude...huff some air duster and chill out :-)