Comparison between pc.

[Nashsafc]

Although this hasn't got anything to do between particular graphics cards. i'm comparing mirror's edge for xbox 360 and PC. Are there any benchmarks for mirrors edge with current graphics cards for pc. I'm know it's like Crysis in the way it requires 256mb graphics minimum and that it is a graphics card destroying game, i think.

Seeing how the xbox 360 is very smooth at playing games, wouldn't the pc struggle at very high settings playing mirror's edge, which would basicly look like the xbox 360 graphics. The xbox would play games equivilant to 128mb and 256mb with the same performance; both smooth gameplay? However pc games at 128mb graphics requirements look slightly better than xbox 360 equivilant games when they are turned on maximum settings and anti-aliasing plus anistropic-filtering is put on. Such as Call Of Duty 4 looks better on a pc than it does on xbox 360 slightly. Say running a GTS 250 on a computer with a good cpu and 4gb ram. One would get very smooth gameplay with COD4 at maximum settings with some aa and af. But playing Mirror's edge it would struggle i'm guessing, like Crysis i have to run it on medium without aa or af. I briefly saw mirror's edge on xbox 360 and the graphics look amazing plus very smooth gameplay.

but is Mirror's edge not actually like Crysis in the way that it is a graphics card destroying game? Although the graphics look soo realistic, and i'm sure putting a GTS 250 on very high settings i'd get 12FPS average if lucky.

I'm just completely confused how XBOX 360 can play games equivilant to 256mb graphics very fast, eventhough it is completely utterly designed just for games. A very fast pc should always be better than a games console, pc uses controller as well, so it would be better to compare xbox 360 and pc like that. I'm soo confused as well; how crysis on medium settings that looks like any other average 128mb graphics game, i aught to get 60 fps average. Even a modern day 5870 would struggle playing Mirror's edge on full settings, and not get xbox 360 performance, the xbox 360 is aging, and i don't see how one has to tripple gtx 285/ HD 5850 to get xbox 360 graphics performance which is a tiny piece of machine. PC graphics isn't massively better than xbox 360 for the same game, and so there should be relative comparison.

 

[anonymousdude]

Wow you almost got me confused with that post. The MB of a graphics card is not a comparison of graphics, but rather a comparison between cards. A requirement of 128 mb means that it needs that much memory to run the game at acceptable levels. Also a 1GB card may not be faster or look better than a 512 Mb The reason the xbox 360 seems smoother is that it runs games at lower resolutions and uses lower settings, so a xbox 360 game may only be equivalent to a mix between medium and high compared to a PC which can use high settings and resolutions much higher than the 360. Consoles use a very minimalistic OS to free system resources. Console games also lack AA, which if you used it is a total hit on FPS.

Crysis had a inefficient game engine that was a resource hog to say the least, which was why it was difficult to run. Mirror's edge on the PC has PhysX, which the console versions lack. PhysX makes a fairly large impact on FPS, which is why Nvidia allows you to use a separate card just for PhysX acceleration. PC graphics in general look better because of the higher resolution and more AA that can be applied. The only time you would have to use Tri-SLI or crssfire is when you use multiple monitors, which yes you would get the same performance as a 360, but it would at a much higher resolution.

 

[Nashsafc]

when i run an xbox 360 on a computer monitor, it allows me to manually select the resolution. Hey, i found that putting the xbox on a higher resolution over 1280 x 1024, some artifacts go missing, i noticed this while playing command and conquer 3. But some games on the xbox 360 especially first person shooters look amlost exactly the same as they do on pc. Rainbow Six Vegas 2 for example i couldn't tell any noticable difference at all playing it on pc and xbox. The graphics on xbox 360 look like they are maxed out equvilant on pc, and i can hardly notice aliasing or blurred images in the distance with xbox 360. It's just that some detail is missing, things have been purpously designed differently. Command & Conquer 3; the mammoth tanks on the 360 lack tiny window detail, which is noticable on the pc, where the mammtoh tanks have more design to them. There is more outlining and small details that make it look more realistic. The graphics don't look a step higher on the pc, just that objects look more realistic because of more outlining, such as trees on xbox 360 have lessoutlining making them look more like a blob where as on pc you can see individual leaves on a tree from a far distance.

 

[ewood]

when i run an xbox 360 on a computer monitor, it allows me to manually select the resolution. Hey, i found that putting the xbox on a higher resolution over 1280 x 1024, some artifacts go missing, i noticed this while playing command and conquer 3. But some games on the xbox 360 especially first person shooters look amlost exactly the same as they do on pc. Rainbow Six Vegas 2 for example i couldn't tell any noticable difference at all playing it on pc and xbox. The graphics on xbox 360 look like they are maxed out equvilant on pc, and i can hardly notice aliasing or blurred images in the distance with xbox 360. It's just that some detail is missing, things have been purpously designed differently. Command & Conquer 3; the mammoth tanks on the 360 lack tiny window detail, which is noticable on the pc, where the mammtoh tanks have more design to them. There is more outlining and small details that make it look more realistic. The graphics don't look a step higher on the pc, just that objects look more realistic because of more outlining, such as trees on xbox 360 have lessoutlining making them look more like a blob where as on pc you can see individual leaves on a tree from a far distance.

if you have the right card you can crank up shadows and vegitation like grass and the leaves you described. water and fire also require tons of graphics muscle to render with quality. the 360 doesn't have gpu power to render all this stuff, especially not at 1900x1200 (not that a tv has that high of resolution anyway). if you have a good gpu setup and crank up the settings you will see subtle differences like grass moving in the wind and rain falling at an angle because of wind, shadows and reflections. all these require a lot of power for only a modest (i think its worth it...) increase in the appearance of the game.

 

[shadow187]

The things you don't notice much (the shadows, shaders, etc) are what takes up a huge amount of GPU power. The consoles don't use these.

 

[Nashsafc]

Does the xbox 360 not actualyl show any anti-aliasing? Or Anistropic filtering? I'm sure when i play on the xbox 360 there is some aa and af i can hardly see any jagged edges. Just that screen resolution is slightly smaller. Also objects in the distance are quite clear to this suggests that there is anistropic filtering. or is it true that the xbox 360 doesn't use either of these 2 details?