Next Xbox ''Durango'' Already in Early Production?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

markdj

Honorable
Mar 19, 2012
7
0
10,510
0
[citation][nom]kawininjazx[/nom]This is why consoles are more popular: Buy a $400 XBox, plays all the games perfect for seven years or so. Buy $1200 PC, upgrades every 3 years, and there is no guarantee the game will run after you install it. As superior as PC gaming is, you have to have a bigger wallet and more tech knowledge. I work on PCs 45 hours a week and even my co-worker couldn't get L4D2 or Gotham City Imposters to run right on his PC, even after hours of research. The two games run fine on my PC which has a slower video card.[/citation]

if your co-worker actually has any pc experience like you're implying and could not figure out how to get a few pc games to work, then he is a complete idiot and has no place working with computers. As long as you meet minimum req's there is nothing complicated about pc gaming.

It can be more complicated if you start with mods etc. but that is simply an extra feature that you don't have to use, and it's becoming really easy with things like steam workshop for skyrim for example.

If you build your computer it can be cheap but you need tech knowledge. If you buy one it will be more expensive, but to play at console quality you don't need that high end of a pc. Also most people already have a laptop/pc and buy a console separately, so the cost issue is also not as simple as you make it out to be.
 

CaedenV

Distinguished
Jun 14, 2011
532
0
18,960
22
[citation][nom]kawininjazx[/nom]This is why consoles are more popular: Buy a $400 XBox, plays all the games perfect for seven years or so. Buy $1200 PC, upgrades every 3 years, and there is no guarantee the game will run after you install it. As superior as PC gaming is, you have to have a bigger wallet and more tech knowledge. I work on PCs 45 hours a week and even my co-worker couldn't get L4D2 or Gotham City Imposters to run right on his PC, even after hours of research. The two games run fine on my PC which has a slower video card.[/citation]
Unless you buy the Arcade version which will not play all games due to limited DLC space. Or buy a game that is in fact buggy and will have a later patch (which also eats at limited space). Or your console gets the RROD (or YLOD on PS3 side). Or the console otherwise wears out/breaks before the end of those seven years. Or you do not have the latest and greatest accessories which are required for the game to play. And you do not mind playing at 720p with no AA/AF of any kind. And you do not mind playing at 30fps... and when things get exciting then 15-20fps. And you do not mind highly compressed audio tracks, and lower quality textures.

On the other hand if you have a 5 year old C2Duo PC, slap in a $100 GPU, $40 PSU (will low end $100 GT600 series GPUs need a power supply?), and a $20 controller you can play just about any game at higher resolution, higher frame rate, better textures/audio, faster load times, and overall better expierence, for a heck of a lot less money... and no, if you cannot figure out how to insert a disc and install a game you do not deserve to work on PCs...
 

davemaster84

Distinguished
Jun 15, 2011
1
0
18,510
0
Well I'm not into consoles gaming anymore, I had all nintendo's until game cube but I just figured some years ago how powerful and awesome pc gaming is. I'd say do not expent money in consoles but most of my friends own xbox and they're very happy about it. I think console gaming is for people that don't want to spend too much money in gaming (always as they can get special offers or 2nd hand games) but of course it's very limited. PC gaming just goes as far as you want it to go; I had a 9800gtx one year and a half ago (had it for 2 years) and it could run crysis 2 maxxed out on direct x9 above 30fps (it looked better than in xbox 360) so it's just up to the user, and of course you don't need to pay for games (not me, I buy them)
 

alextheblue

Distinguished
Apr 3, 2001
640
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]CaedenV[/nom]Unless you buy the Arcade version which will not play all games due to limited DLC space.[/citation]He specifically said "$400 Xbox". There was never an "arcade" version at that price, the $400 unit even at launch had a small (20GB) HDD which had enough user-accessible space for patches and DLC, if not much else. Not to mention that in recent years they added the feature to format some/all of a USB memory stick (up to ~16GB) to Xbox format.
[citation][nom]Middleman[/nom]Probably just building developer boxes. Nothing to see here.[/citation]I have no idea why you were downrated. When I read the article that's exactly what I was thinking, early dev boxes. Since the new console is still a ways off, the final units will probably be of a similar design, but more powerful.
 

blazorthon

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2010
761
0
18,960
14
If the consoles had at least the graphics power of the 6770 or 6790, then I would consider them. However, a 6670 (or similarly powerful graphics), even with a console that has an OS and games that are usually very highly fine-tuned and optimized for this hardware, is not enough to sway me from a two or three year old PC that has far greater performance. If they really only have something that is similar to the 6670, then they are starting the new consoles off as already inferior to many graphics cards from three to five years ago.

[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]I was a PC gamer for a long time but that ended with the xbox. I can spend $400-$500 and be able to play games for years instead of having to upgrade my graphics card every 6 months to keep up with PC games. $1000 for a graphics card? You need to have your head examined.[/citation]

Funny... Every six months? Why are you upgrading so often? Even if I had an oldish GTX 480, it would still be enough for 1080p gaming today (and for a while yet) despite it being two years old. You could even get away with a 5870 that is about two and a half years old. If you're willing to deal with playing on a DX10.1 card, then the 4870X2 can also do 1080p very well and it's about three and a half years old.

Even now, if you buy a GTX 580 (1.5GB) for 1080p, it will still probably last another two years or so before it can't do 1080p in the newest games very well anymore and it's about 1 and a half years old.

Even with all of this in mind, just lower the settings a little and you can still play 1080p on all of them. Sure, it won't be an optimal experience for the times if you have a 4870X2 and you're lowering detail to just high instead of ultra or whatever they have as the maximums, but it would probably still be better than the PS4 and the Xbox 360's successor, so not bad considering that the 4870X2 would then be almost six years old.

That's practically the refresh cycle of a console (or at least what it used to be) and it would STILL have better performance than the consoles that came out several years after the 4870X2. The GTX 295 is also interesting for this, but 896MB of VRAM per GPU isn't what it used to be. Even 1GB is limiting if you don't keep the AA down.

It seems that desktop graphics cards aren't necessarily as short term as some people would have us believe. It's all about how often you are willing to upgrade. Also, ignore soldier37. He/she just likes to flaunt his/her poor decisions in a ridiculously misguided effort for e-peen. Soldier37 supposedly went from two GTX 580 3GBs to the GTX 690 for a 2560x1600 display despite the fact that the 580s were actually the better option. The 690 will run out of VRAM faster than the 580s will run out of performance and the 690 is only useful at that resolution for 120Hz monitors and for 3D because even a single 680 has enough GPU power for 2560x1600 today.

So congratulations soldier37, instead of flaunting your epeen, you showed us that you don't care about having the best hardware for your situation. Granted, you will probably replace the 690 with something better before it's VRAM capacity becomes a problem at that resolution, but it's still a waste of your seemingly not so well-earned money. You could at least upgrade your display so that you will look less ignorant and actually have a graphics option that makes a little sense (assuming you go for a 2560x1600 3D display or a 2560x1600 120Hz display)
 

aggroboy

Distinguished
Sep 17, 2010
33
0
18,580
0
I don't understand PC elitists. Whatever performance advantage PC has over consoles is completely nullified by billions of driver/os/hardware permutations, bugs, rampant piracy and small disproportionately-vocal userbase.
 

Zingam_Duo

Honorable
Mar 22, 2012
114
0
10,630
0
[citation][nom]soldier37[/nom]Money better spent on a GTX 690 upgrade for my 2560 x 1600 display.[/citation]

With that amount of money I could date dozens and dozens of girls, fat guy! :D
 

blazorthon

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2010
761
0
18,960
14
[citation][nom]aggroboy[/nom]I don't understand PC elitists. Whatever performance advantage PC has over consoles is completely nullified by billions of driver/os/hardware permutations, bugs, rampant piracy and small disproportionately-vocal userbase.[/citation]

A Radeon 6770 can deliver picture quality that is FAR ahead of any current console. A truly high end card such as the 680 or the 7970 is almost four times faster than the 6770. Does this put things into perspective? Yes, desktops and even laptops can provide far better visuals than consoles. They can't do it with console quality hardware, but the closest to the console graphics (hardware wise) is probably something like the 6450, so it doesn't matter because the desktop and even the laptop parts are just so far ahead of the consoles that it's ridiculous.

So no, the huge performance advantage is not nullified, not in the least. I'm not supporting elitism, but you're spreading lies and I'll call you out on that.
 

elcentral

Distinguished
Apr 19, 2010
202
0
18,830
0
eh a lot of my friends got up to 5 year old pc and they work fine, its your standards that sets the barr you like to play a game on low settings like all consoles got today fine. 1 more thing pc games tend to be cheaper at least in sweden 10 dollar less at lunch. add it to your cost and soon its not so much cost at all 10 lunch games is already 100dollar. and you dont need to much of a brain to use a pc at least 3 of my friends dont got a clue of how the pc they own work. 1 of em used ice to cool his psu cuss his fann broke dont get me started on him. price and a short life is not realy a point, but it is easier and for most more comfortible to set up a console. and some say less maintenance but i dont belive it for a sec friends xboxes goes one after a nother,
 

aggroboy

Distinguished
Sep 17, 2010
33
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]A Radeon 6770 can deliver picture quality that is FAR ahead of any current console. A truly high end card such as the 680 or the 7970 is almost four times faster than the 6770. Does this put things into perspective? Yes, desktops and even laptops can provide far better visuals than consoles. They can't do it with console quality hardware, but the closest to the console graphics (hardware wise) is probably something like the 6450, so it doesn't matter because the desktop and even the laptop parts are just so far ahead of the consoles that it's ridiculous.So no, the huge performance advantage is not nullified, not in the least. I'm not supporting elitism, but you're spreading lies and I'll call you out on that.[/citation]
You don't get it. Whatever advantage PC hardware has is completely nullified by layers upon layers of compatibilities and wrappers just to make the game run billions of hardware/driver/OS permutations. John Carmack has mentioned several times the hoops he had to jump just for one GPU line. A console has only a single consistent architecture that developers can optimize and squeeze a lot out of mileage.

Looking at this console lifecycle. Sony PS3 was released in 2006, yet only a higher end PC rig at the end of 2008 can run the same titles comparatively today. That's terrible value for money if the PC is only for gaming.
 

blazorthon

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2010
761
0
18,960
14
[citation][nom]aggroboy[/nom]You don't get it. Whatever advantage PC hardware has is completely nullified by layers upon layers of compatibilities and wrappers just to make the game run billions of hardware/driver/OS permutations. John Carmack has mentioned several times the hoops he had to jump just for one GPU line. A console has only a single consistent architecture that developers can optimize and squeeze a lot out of mileage. Looking at this console lifecycle. Sony PS3 was released in 2006, yet only a higher end PC rig at the end of 2008 can run the same titles comparatively today. That's terrible value for money if the PC is only for gaming.[/citation]

Perhaps, but it's not 2008 anymore. Now, a $500 PC can play at graphics quality that far surpasses a consoel. It doesn't matter that four years ago this wasn't true because it is true now and it has been true for at least two years. Besides, you are far overestimating the overhead on computers. There isn't such a huge amount of layers between a game and the hardware that the hardware is even close to being beaten by an almost ten year old console.

The next conseoles are supposed to have graphics based on the 6670. Despite how light the software of the consoles is, it can't make a 6670 compete with a 6950 or 7850. I can go out and buy a PC with a Phenom II x4 955 for about $100, a cooler master hyper 212 plus for $20, a decent case for $50, a 7850 for $250, a good PSU for $50, a good motherboard for $90, and 8GB of DDR3 1600MHz for $40. That's $600. Take away the 7850 and replace it with the 6770 for $110 and it only costs $510. Then there are rebates that would probably save another $20 to $40. Some cases come with mouse, speakers, and keyboard.

Just hook it up to a TV and it's good to go and will outperform any console made yet and be pretty close to the next consoles that haven't even come out yet. Throw in another 6770 for around $70 or so when the new consoles come out and it will be far faster and probably wouldn't be much more expensive, if at all more expensive.

Also, it's the poor coding of the game that made it take higher end PCs of a later time to match the consoles, not the layers of software, drivers, firmware, etc. The poor quality porting of the games was the problem. Blame that on the developers.
 

skiim

Honorable
Apr 27, 2012
1
0
10,510
0
I like PC gaming, and probably have a better PC than anyone who's commented here, but you won't see me beaking consoles because when it comes to having friends over and chilling out with some gaming, consoles dominate PC's. It seems like all the die hard pro pc guys are just pulling stats and numbers out of their asses. Link a comparison to a 3 year old PC compared to a console in terms of performance/graphics. Anyways I prefer PC gaming when playing solo, but I just think TH is getting redic with all the people posting blatant opinion as facts.
 

blazorthon

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2010
761
0
18,960
14
[citation][nom]Skiim[/nom]I like PC gaming, and probably have a better PC than anyone who's commented here, but you won't see me beaking consoles because when it comes to having friends over and chilling out with some gaming, consoles dominate PC's. It seems like all the die hard pro pc guys are just pulling stats and numbers out of their asses. Link a comparison to a 3 year old PC compared to a console in terms of performance/graphics. Anyways I prefer PC gaming when playing solo, but I just think TH is getting redic with all the people posting blatant opinion as facts.[/citation]

A three year old machine could have a Core 2 Duo or Pentium dual-core, a cheap motherboard, 4GB of RAM, A Radeon 4850, a cheap case and PSU, and it's still going to have far superior picture quality than the Xbox 360 and the PS3. We're not pulling statistics out of our asses nor stating just opinions. Consoles would only win for single display multiplayer and even then, that's only because PCs don't do that normally.

However, if I really wanted to, I could setup a PC to do it and then beat the consoles even in this area. The PC can be used to do anything the console can do and the PC can do it all at least as good as the console can, if not better. I wouldn't have such a problem with consoles if they were replaced more often, but that's not in my control, so the consoles kinda suck at this point and if the next generation relies on the Radeon 6670 as a base, then the next generation might suck too. That is, unless it's a Crossfire type of setup with a decent APU. Then it's almost decent. That would explain the rumors of using the 6670, the rumors of dual GPUs, and the rumors of APUs being used.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
R Streaming Video & TVs 0
G Streaming Video & TVs 0
G Streaming Video & TVs 0
G Streaming Video & TVs 1
G Streaming Video & TVs 4
G Streaming Video & TVs 1
G Streaming Video & TVs 4
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 8
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 8
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 23
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 17
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 30
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 121
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 41
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 8
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 10
G Streaming Video & TVs 11
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 11
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 19
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 22

ASK THE COMMUNITY