What graphics card is the Xbox360 equivalent to?

[spoonboy]

No it wasn't that's your own question, the actual question is pretty simple (and the reason people mainly use the GF8600 as their choice and not something like the HD2600): "Out of all the GeForce graphics cards what is the Xbox 360 graphics equivalent to"

So the best answer to that is the GF8600 (be it a GS, GT or GTS superclocked or slightly faster than that is debatable) the GF8800s are all far more powerful and would high-side the estimation more than the Gf8600 would possibly low-side it.

The x1900 was a super card, but would that be able to produce 360 graphics for the pc? Just think it falls short in that respect.

That doesn't even answer your own question, because an R8500 or GF6200 could reproduce the same graphics for the PC with the CPU doing all the rendering work. Talking about the chip though you end up at the same place as the other answer.

Has anybody actually come to a decision as to what 8 series card would be required to replicate 360 graphics on the pc? instead of just arguing on the sheer horror of asking such a heinous question? Honestly console bashers, get over yourselves!

Get over your own self, the question was already answered, and better than your comment about the GF7900 versus the 8600, no one cares about console vs PC, so stop being ignorant.

Ape get a new hooby instead of just being a professional arse. Why dont u ask the man himself who started this thread.

 

[spoonboy]

@systemlord, i get 30-40fps under XP with a 2900pro stock speeds @1152x864 with all high except shadows, post processing, volumetric, and effects at medium. no dx10 hack. Its a bit of a modern legend that crysis only plays on the highest specd systems but u just gotta play with the settings. (like u did I mean im not having a dig at u, cheers)

 

[atomicWAR]

xbox 360= actually has 360 outsourced ambidextrous crack craving hamsters with TI-85 graphing calulators and etch-a-sketch's...its like super technical and stuff.

 

[spoonboy]

ambidextrous? wow that is raw power

 

[systemlord]

Hmmm my system is near enough identical to yours except I dont overclock and I can run at upto 1600x1200 with all those settings on high and 4xaa...

You aren't getting an average frame rate of 65 FPS running with any AA setting though. I suggest you get into overclocking because it makes a big difference more so in Crysis than any other game I've played.

 

[systemlord]

@systemlord, i get 30-40fps under XP with a 2900pro stock speeds @1152x864 with all high except shadows, post processing, volumetric, and effects at medium. no dx10 hack. Its a bit of a modern legend that crysis only plays on the highest specd systems but u just gotta play with the settings. (like u did I mean im not having a dig at u, cheers)

I couldn't agree more, changing one setting effects how your next setting will effect overall performance. Taking Post Processing from High to Low gets me 10 fps more with reduced shuttering or blurr. I could most likey push some more setting higher and still keep my fps above 50-60 fps. I haven't played past the first map because I'm waiting for the performance patch in Feb. My OC on my CPU/GPU made such a huge difference in Crysis more than any other game I've played, guess thats because Crysis is so GPU sensitive like F.E.A.R.

 

[bstep1989]

if you want to get similar graphics in what sense?

FPS or visual appearance?

 

[bstep1989]

BidyBag, you asked the question...but what i dont understand is do you want the same visual appeal, or the same smoothness that you would be getting out of your (assumed) 360?

if you want the same FPS it really depends on your game, on average for new graphic intense games i would recommend a 8800gt 256MB.

if you want about the same visual appeal as the 360, i would recomend a Radeon card over an GeForce card any day, more like a 38xx series card, where visuals are emphasized over FPS

 

[homerdog]

if you want about the same visual appeal as the 360, i would recomend a Radeon card over an GeForce card any day, more like a 38xx series card, where visuals are emphasized over FPS

:lol: 38xx cards emphasize IQ just about as much as Phenom processors emphasize performance-per-watt. Come on now, why can't a slower card just be a slower card?

Don't get me wrong, the 38xx series offers some great value, and if I had to buy a GPU today it would be a 512MB HD3850. Still, I don't hesitate to recognize the fact that AMD can't touch the 8800 series right now, at least in single GPU configurations.

 

[bstep1989]

i agree, i have many systems with many different GPUs...when playing games online i tend to use my intel setup with my 8800GT 512MB, i get better framerates and i feel this gives me somewhat of an edge

but when im playing single player mode in most games where as long as i get more than 50FPS i am perfectly fine with, since my brain cant even detect over 70 FPS anyway, i tend to use my 3870 512, in my opinion it looks much nicer than my 800GT

you can hate on based on FPS, i will agree ATi is beat, but the visual appearance ATi has definitely won

it just all depends on what you want more

 

[killer_roach]

I have heard stuff in the past likening the technology in Xenos to an X1900/HD 2900 chimera (with some tech new to it as well), with performance in the range of an X800XT, plus effectively "free" 4xAA with the inclusion of the eDRAM. Simply put, there is no good apples-to-apples comparison between the cards, and it depends somewhat on how much you value AA. If you value it highly, it runs about the same as an X1900; if you don't, the X800 reference is probably more accurate.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Ape get a new hooby instead of just being a professional arse. Why dont u ask the man himself who started this thread.

Why don't you atually read his posts, there's only two and they're very short.
I already posted one for you, here's the other "My friend thinks they are the same as the GeForce 8800. Is the Xbox 360 close to this?" so neither of them say what you're criticizing others for not answering, so seriously get real and stop making up strawmen about people console bashing.

So perhaps you should just stick to the actual comments/thread instead of making up your own.

 

[homerdog]

:lol: hooby

 

[3Ball]

It isn't even based on 1900 series. Its closer to R600.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenos
Have a look there if you want. Unified shaders.

Um...this is a quote from your the article you posted:

"On chip, the shaders are organized in three SIMD engines with 16 processors per unit, for a total of 48 shaders."

So this in fact is much more like the X1900 series as it has 16 pipes with 48 unified shaders as well.

Best,

3Ball

 

[3Ball]

Ape get a new hooby instead of just being a professional arse. Why dont u ask the man himself who started this thread.

Considering Ape answer his question, as did many others, and the fact that this could have been googled or just searched for on these forums and be answered. I believe that there was nothing wrong with his comments. What is it exactly that has offended you here?

Best,

3Ball

 

[Can Not]

Does anyone wanna laugh at the 3.2GHz speeds of the Cell and the Xenon?

 

[3Ball]

Does anyone wanna laugh at the 3.2GHz speeds of the Cell and the Xenon?

lol, clock for clock on a single core process I would prefer a 3.2ghz p4! lmao

Best,

3Ball

 

[Can Not]

I read somewhere that the Cell acts like a 800MHz PIII.

is that true?

 

[gomerpile]

Reading a line of comparisons, I'd say if your a pc gamer you'll have fun, if your a xbox you'll have fun as well as ps3 except one important thing
Don't forget the beer, that settles it, now get out and fight you gamers.

 

[3Ball]

I read somewhere that the Cell acts like a 800MHz PIII.

is that true?

I dont know about that. From everything that I have seen (granted it has been a while). It a standard single core setting the performance would be comparable clock to clock against something more like a 2.4ghz northwood proc. I have no real data to back this up. Just speculation from specs and other discussions. There is no true way for us to compare them, but I am pretty sure that from a technical specification standpoint that the base Power PC core that these processors run on is based on a 48 stage pipeline. For a comparison if you can recall the p4 ran on a 31+ stage pipeline and the core 2 duos run on a 14...I believe.

Best,

3Ball

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

I read somewhere that the Cell acts like a 800MHz PIII.

is that true?

Well this isn't really the forum for this, but since it's an extension of the thread and hopefully this can answer it for you....

I think that statement was the 'worst case scenario' comment, since CELL relies heavily on parralel processing of the SPEs for it's performance. For gaming parallelism can be very helpful... if coded for, and being that it's on a clsoed system and proprietary hardware the developers can far better exploit that potential than we are seeing in the multi-core PCs which really sometimes seem wasted beyond dual-core.

It's like when you compare an old 4Ghz P4 would destroy a 2.0Ghz CoreQuad in basic dependant oprations, but put them in apps like current games and that switches because the CoreQuad architecture, cache, and multi-core support has greatly improved.

So it depends on how you pick your comparisons, in the worst case scenario probably he Cel is weaker than an 800mhz P3, and even perhaps the native operation support is that limited without the benefits of SSE3, SSE4, 3DNow, etc, but that worst case scenario rarely occurs so instead it performs mcuh better.

 

[3Ball]

Well this isn't really the forum for this, but since it's an extension of the thread and hopefully this can answer it for you....

I think that statement was the 'worst case scenario' comment, since CELL relies heavily on parralel processing of the SPEs for it's performance. For gaming parallelism can be very helpful... if coded for, and being that it's on a clsoed system and proprietary hardware the developers can far better exploit that potential than we are seeing in the multi-core PCs which really sometimes seem wasted beyond dual-core.

It's like when you compare an old 4Ghz P4 would destroy a 2.0Ghz CoreQuad in basic dependant oprations, but put them in apps like current games and that switches because the CoreQuad architecture, cache, and multi-core support has greatly improved.

So it depends on how you pick your comparisons, in the worst case scenario probably he Cel is weaker than an 800mhz P3, and even perhaps the native operation support is that limited without the benefits of SSE3, SSE4, 3DNow, etc, but that worst case scenario rarely occurs so instead it performs mcuh better.

Good info ape, I am curious is to if the 360's more simple design of CPU works in this way as well or of it goes in the same direction. My assumption is that it does if they are hoping for good performance since it is using 6 threads of this power pc core.

Best,

3Ball

 

[happy_fanboy]

Guys, Xbox 360 has a lot less power than a lot of you think.
The games are written to leave out a great deal of detail, and the resolution never goes very high at all. Id rank it closer to a 1600xt or 7600GT at the most.

 

[3Ball]

Guys, Xbox 360 has a lot less power than a lot of you think.
The games are written to leave out a great deal of detail, and the resolution never goes very high at all. Id rank it closer to a 1600xt or 7600GT at the most.

I am not trying to give more credit to the 360 than it is due, but honestly the card in the system is superior to both of those. I am not disagreeing with you about games being dumbed down for the system. This happens to all consoles, but none the less as an owner of a X1600 I can personally promise you that it is no where near the capabilities of the 360. Thats with leaving the technical specifications aside, since you don't seem to believe that they speak for themselves.

Best,

3Ball

 

[happy_fanboy]

Xbox 360 also lags out very often, and generates heat beyond its safe operation range. I understand that the "technical specifications" of the Xbox 360 will tell you its a supercomputer, but you can only go by what you see on the screen.