I9300 vs XBOX 360 - Page 5

Yup, no need for a $500 card or new $1,500 laptop purchase. No DirectX updates, bug fixes

How hard do you think it's going to be to get 60 FPS on a computer if I set my display to the relatively low resolution of an XBOX?

1080i? INTERLACED? Wasn't that considered high resolution for a computer back in 1994?

780p? Non-interlaced like my laptop screen, but at around 1024x768? Yeah, that's going to be really hard to hit 60 FPS. Good god, I haven't played anything at that resolution in 4 years.

You cannot compare frame rates without comparing resolution.

-Doc

Yeah! And you won't have to worry about doing any of those thousand other annoying things you can do with a computer besides play games.

If you don't need a computer, get a game box! How incredibly simple is that? Are you seriously comparing a console to a gaming laptop based on just playing games?

Sophomoric debate at it's best.

-Doc

I saw an Xbox 360 today playing NFSMW and I was really unimpressed. It looked better on my 9300 with a 6800 before I sold it. I really expected to see that the graphics were better, but they sure didn't seem like it to me. It was on a 42" (or something like that) HDTV too, so it wasn't the TV.

Personally, I can't live without a computer; it's been hard to live with this desktop in my sig for the past month without my 9300. Like Doc said, if you can live without a good computer, then an XBox 360 (or PS3, whatever) is something you should definitely look into. But me, I love to be able to run Photoshop and run videos smoothly, and I prefer PC games, and for the games that are better with a controller; that's why I bought an XBox 360 controller for my computer. The only thing that I really miss about having a good console, is the ability to play multiplayer on one system. If I could plug in two controllers to my computer and play head to head, I'd love it. LAN is really nice, but everybody doesn't have a computer that can run NFSMW at high res.

Damn, the Doc is quite eloquent. I like that. Anyway, yeah, by PURE virtue of the fact that I can play my laptop almost anywhere there is a AC plug point (and even if there isn't, I can play emulator/older games when the 7800 is stepped down), you can't really compare the $1500 laptop to an xbox 360, since almost 1/4 to 1/3 of the price is in the display alone. If you added the cost of the HDTV required to use an xbox360, I think you'd be pretty much even.

Do this:

Take your laptop, plug in the DVI port into a HD ready plasma TV, and tell me if you can tell a difference between Xbox 360 and the PC. You want a better controller for the PC? Take the xbox 360 controller and plug it into your laptop... Voila. Automatic console controller.

Anyway, about the only thing consoles have going for them is group gaming (like sports games), or split-screen co-op (like Halo 2 or PDZ)... PC's still lag behind in the co-op gaming category.

I'd like to see what Oblivion is going to be like between the Xbox 360 and the PC versions. Morrowind for the Xbox was much harder to play than on the PC, given the usefulness of a keyboard in that game...

My my, aren't we getting defensive here The topic is about gaming. For $1,700, you better be able to do more than just game on a PC Its all good tho

This is the big thing that people don't talk about. HDTV is high res for TV, not for computers. Then add to that the larger screen size and you really need to crank up the FSAA to get rid of the jaggies.

These resolutions are why they get high frame rates. A PC should be able to do the same at similar resolutions, and still get good frame rates at even higher resolutions.

-Doc

First, yes, it's all good. ;-)

Second, I'm spot on topic. The statement was made that the console was better because of things that only had to do with games, and then the cost difference between a console and a PC was brought up as if apples were being compared to apples. That kind of "debate" makes my skin crawl.

Third, Have I mentioned that I'm an old grumpy guy, and you'd best stay the hell off of my lawn?

-Doc

I got my 9300 as i wanted to splash out on a new piece of hardware for my 21st. I play a lot of games and I lan a lot, so a lappy was also great to get for gaming with my mates. Plus i can use my laptop to do all my uni work. I can take it on the internet for research or to download stuff that i need. I could do all this on a crappy pc, but then id need to buy a console to satisfy my gaming lusts. then so that im using the potential of the console, id need to get a hd tv, and a good sound set up.

Furthermore, i cant take my xbox or crappy pc away with me very easily. With my lappy, i fold it up, chuck it in a bag, grab the power adapter and mouse if i need it, and im off. I dont need to set it up when i get to my destination, i can use it for presentations. i can take it to others houses and get info off them, then email it to everyone. A 9300 is a lot more usable than an xbox + basic computer. I can also listen to music in whatever format it happens to be in, plus i can watch any movie or tv file if i have the right codec.

I agree with the doc about consoles making most games more basic. The reason is because they are coding for the lowest common denominator. They are coding for the occassional (less skilled) gamer. They are coding for the use of a regular controller. They are coding for short gaming sessions, not long ones. I was a great fan of Ghost Recon on PC when it came out. Its what got me into Lanning in the first place. When they released the shite that was Ghost Recon 2, i was so dissapointed. It was no where near as hard, as fun, or as complex as the first one. It also looks like they are doing the same thing to the next Ravenshield! Some Japanese games and RPGs are definately better on console, but these things released onto PC would definately have the potential to be better. Same with all the other titles on console. If they were decently ported to PC they would rock, and people would buy a cheap game pad to play them if they needed them.

On the other hand, try playing a good rts on your console. Even if you were sitting there with your keyboard and mouse at your console, you would still get owned. A pc can use and change its hot keys. Plus you are already at a desk with the pc. The pc can also use scripts for different commands, plus the resolution will be higher, unit selection easier and the graphics probably better.

Just think of it this way, if a good PC gamer went up against a good console gamer, the console gamer would get owned. Not because of hardware superiority, but simply because the PC gamer would be able to better tweak their game for maximum benefit.

CRT Monitor works fine with an xbox360, a 17inch is dirt cheap.

this whole thread is just about a bunch of people posting their opinions and justifying their purchase.

look, if you dont want the 9300 just sell it!

That's precisely what I will be doing.

I'm not sure how much I can get for this laptop, but with the 2 gigs of ram, 2GHz, and 7800gtx I'm betting I can get like $2,000 or maybe even more for it, especially if it comes with some games, a printer and backpack.

Then when I get the big check for it - I will look at it and ask myself:

Was CS:S or Fear worth $2,000, (give or take a little)?

People can make some serious cash on this laptop if they have the 7800gtx in it.

You sure spent a lot of time and money on something you don't want. :-)

A better approach would be to ask yourself if it's worth $2k to play games before you buy a laptop. "Buy first, think later." is not the most efficient method.

When I bought my XPS, I was looking to replace my desktop computer and I wanted to be able to play games as well. Mission accomplished. I did not buy my my laptop thinking, "All I want to do is play games, and this is clearly the best option."

To be fair, I cannot even begin to tell you all the times I've bought first and thought later. Holy CRAP I've lost a lot of money in my life by selling really cool crap that I bought on a whim and then didn't really have a use for.

So I'm really just trying to make a point, but not make it personal, because I've been guilty of the practice many times. (It also explains some of the girlfriends I've had.)

"Doc, you've bought girlfriends? LOLOL!!11one"

Who hasn't? You either buy them dinner and drinks, flowers and gifts, or you just pay up front in one lump sum.

-Doc

Xbox360 wasn't an option when most of us bought our laptops. This "HD gamming in a 300$ box" has made a few of us second guess wether or not its worth it to have something that is worth so much. its like paying 2000$ for a can that is manual, but the one that is automatic is only 300$. we all bought our manual cars before the automatic one was on the market....lol even though we know the manual car is "better", the price of the new automatic one is very tempting because you get the same thing except you loose controll of shifting.....so alot of us are contemplating if having the ability to shift gears is worth 1700$..... shifting is fun, just like playing with as mouse is fun, but worth it??? weird comparison...

Wow, what size HDTV does it come with for $300? (I don't watch TV, so I don't have anything. Getting an HDTV for $300 is pretty tempting though!)

Again, HDTV is high resolution compared to decades-old standard television technology. It is very low resolution compared to modern computers. Putting it on a larger screen only accentuates and compounds that issue.

This is the fallacy: comparing two platforms that run at grossly different levels of resolution, and better yet, trying to bring FPS into it. And then on top of that, conveniently disregarding the fact that playing games is most people's secondary use for their computer.

If an expensive laptop was the better option over an XBOX, PS2, Atari 2600, whatever, at the time, and all it was purchased for was games, then so be it. Now that you can get what some people consider acceptable gameplay for $300, then switch. Easy peasy.

-Doc

My two cents

To each, their own...

Consoles and PCs are designed for different crowds. Growing up, my family had an Atari 2600 and a Commodore 64. Even when my brother and I purchased the NES, we still gravitated towards the C64. NES had Super Mario Bros. (which I loved...thank you very much Doc), Metroid, Kid Icarus, Zelda and Mike Tyson's Punchout. BUT...nothing could compare (for me) to Gunship, F-117A Stealth Fighter, Ultima III, etc. Zelda was an RPG and so was Ultima III...but it was the difference between reading a Choose-Your-Own-Adventure Book and reading Tolkien's Lord of the Rings.

Console games have become much more sophisticated. I just finished Resident Evil 4 on the Gamecube...and wow! As good and satisfying as anything I've played on the PC...but there's still a place for PC gaming.

If you enjoy racing games, sports games, survival horror games, gamepad RPG games...then yeah...you probably never should have bought a $1000+ laptop. You should have bought a $100 PS2 off EBay and tried some of the many titles you've never played to tide you through until the XBox 360 and/or PS3 was released.

I work the other way.

I buy a new laptop about every 4 to 5 years, and a console about 3 years after release when the console and its associated library of games are relatively cheap.

I have finished both Far Cry and Half-Life 2 on my 2002 laptop at a higher resolution than either the PS2 or older XBox support. And meanwhile, I travel with my laptop listening to mp3's, reading electronic books, watching DVDs, playing every type of console up to and including the N64 without 'hacking' my laptop, typing this long winded post into an internet forum, and editing video from my DV camcorder and then mastering it along with digital photos to DVD+Rs to send out to my family.

And I still get to play gems like The Longest Journey, Sid Meier's Pirates! (I think there's an XBox version), Civilization IV, Rome: Total War, and Freedom Force vs the 3rd Reich...none of which are really FPSs or RTSs.

And I can pick up 'console' games like X-Men Legends 2 and Ultimate Spiderman or Madden 2004 Sports collection from the bargain bins for $10, and my 4 year old laptop plays them just as well as any of the consoles that were out in 2002.

AND...if I want to, I can connect my laptop to my Yamaha 7.1 (which is a waste...since only a handful of movies barely have discrete six channel sound...and video games have just barely hit five channels with the majority being Dolby Pro Logic II, at best) receiver using a digital optical cable from the laptop's SPDIF port...and then the laptop's VGA port out to my Panasonic projector and play Half-Life 2 at 1280x720 on a 92" screen with somewhat true surround sound.

I also have my PS2 and Gamecube connected permanently to that setup, and the 4 year old PC looks significantly better as long as the game supports the native resolution of the projector (1280x720). The laptop looks better than the consoles even when using 1024x768...just not significantly better.

I will probably buy an XBox 360 or PS3 at some point...but it will be a couple years down the road when the prices are around the $150 mark and I can see which system has more (and better) exclusive titles. Meanwhile, sometime within the next year, I will give my laptop to a family member and buy a new one. Still waiting for the game that demands it though...Battlefield 2 almost got me. FEAR hasn't.

I just bought a PS2 this Christmas (four years after the initial release date?). I got one of those slim ones which makes it pretty portable (but no built-in screen) for $150 but that included 5 games and an extra controller. I bought it so my wife could do Karaoke Revolution, and I could try God of War and Burnout: Revenge. My friends and I have worn Burnout out, but I still cart the laptop everywhere I go.

If you're in school and on a tight budget, I recommend staying away from games entirely. Study hard, get a good job, and then you can buy the laptop, the consoles, the 10.1 surround system, and the 200" 3-D holographic projector (if your significant other allows you). That GPA thing-y is huge for your first job...unless you already know someone. It's unfortunate, but true.

After you get the good job, if you're not interested in rising to the top, but just being comfortable (ie. me), then you'll have plenty of time to play games at the expense of your marriage. It's awesome.

I've said it like 3 times in this thread. CRT monitors work for the xbox360. a 17inch (equal size of out laptops) is DIRT cheap. the display should hardly even add onto the price, i'm sure for an extra 100$ you can have a 17inch CRT and the adapter cable.

Ok man, i think we know your opinion by now, after the 24 posts you've made about it since page 3. Stop trying to defend your precious laptop. PC gaming is great, console gaming is great too, but different. But i really do find "you get what you pay for" doesn't apply to PC gaming. so for 1700$ extra over an xbox360. I can run at slightly higher/ non noticable res. play with a mouse, games have more "complex" controlls like being able to switch form auto to semi auto in COD (lol) oh yah and i can surf the net REALLY fast, and edit 30 pictures all at once.

my 2 cents. u NEED hdtv to bring the crapbox360 to its full potential. otherwise u r better off with last gen. consoles with a crt. ive played at a friends place on both. he is a MS employee and a big fanboy but even he admited there was a difference. current games for the 360 released for cross platform look almost exactly the same as they do on a 360. king kong, american wasteland etc etc. search arnd for reviews. in fact MS admited they screwed up & king dong looks worse on a crt when using a 360 then even a ps2.

i didnt read through all the other posts but when the next gen games came out last year (far cry,hl2, doom3 etc), playing on my ps2 became almost unbearable.
i would say ps3 would be about on par with a beefed up pc right now. 360 just a biiit behind. but next year consoles would start to lag behind.

if u'r strapped for cash get a ps3 and an hdtv if u can squeeze out the tv somehow.
if u like fps'ers no question keep the 9300.

A 9300 is a powerful tool that can do anything an Xbox 360 can do and then some.

An xbox 360 is a games machine that can play movies and audio as well.

Its the extra things the 9300 can do that make it worthwhile. If all you want to do is play console games, then buy a 360. If you want to play games and do more, plus be mobile, buy a 9300.

If you were only wanting to engage in non-mobile gaming, you should have got a kickarse desktop, or a cheaper pc and a 360.

I personally like my 9300 because it does everything i want, all over the house and i can take it other places. A console simply cant beat that.

I don't get that...

With hardware, you're correct. Microsoft takes a loss on the hardware and makes up for it with licensing fees so you get an excellent piece of hardware for under cost.

In PC land, with several different companies making hardware, you pay for each piece of hardware and its markup. But you get to choose the option that works best for you...

But software is a completely different story...

I think the going price for an XBox 360 title is $60. Madden 2006, for the XBox 360, currently retails for $60. Then there's Madden 2006 for the PC which currently retails for $20, and online play is free to boot. What do you get with the 360 version? Souped up graphics (and resolution doesn't seem to matter in this discussion) with no significant change in gameplay.

I have yet to see a FPS on any platform (including XBox 360) that matches the multi-player elements and scope of UT2004 for the PC. Counter-Strike Source has a huge following in this forum, but I don't think it does as much as UT 2004 although the graphics are better (which I can't tell if that's important or not in this discussion...we keep flip-flopping). If you're a WWII FPS fan, then obviously, you'll disagree. UT2004 plays on my current laptop just fine (and you could probably pick a laptop like mine off eBay for $500 if used stuff doesn't bother you). And you can find the game itself for less than $20 with free online play (and lots of people using it) and tons of free (yes, free) user mods, some of which are as good as what the original designers and programmers did.

Based on the price of software and the fact that you can scale down the software on a PC to make the games look like the consoles that were around when the PC was bought and continue using the PC for the typical console lifetime (or longer), I think over the long run, PC's have a pretty good 'bang for the buck' and that's just considering gaming. And that doesn't even enter into the gray area of emulation...mame on the consoles (and PSP) will never catch mame on the PC because the developers don't have the same access to the tools needed.

A year or so ago, I would have also said that the PC had more exclusive and creative titles, but I, too, lament with Doc Caliban the dumbing down of PC games as software developers continue to do multi-platform releases to increase their profits...

IF I had to choose (and thank the gods of capitalism that I don't) only one, I would choose the PC. And if I could only choose two right now, the second would not be an XBox 360. Fortunately, I don't have to choose, and I'm quite comfy with my laptop, PS2 and Gamecube. As soon as they get 'hacked' emulation going on the PSP, I'll probably pick up one of those. Right now, the emulation is pretty crappy.

PS. And by the way...if you want some real bang-for-the-buck...you can pick up Risk for about $20. Target even sells a matching board game set so you can buy Stratego for $20 and then Clue for $20 and then Sorry for $20 and they look really good on your shelf. The multi-player is free, but you can't be annoying like you can be online or people will stop playing with you. The graphics aren't great but the pieces are in real 3-D (non-accelerated, of course, but they look good). A deck of cards costs about $2, and there are a ton of games you can play...there's even one called Solitaire that you can play by yourself if you do find out that you're really annoying.