Asus G73jh Laptop

[Cry Havoc]

Has anyone noticed this beast? I'm going to Best Buy today, and if they give me 24 months interest free, this sucker is going home with me.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Asus+-+Laptop+with+Intel%26%23174%3B+Core%26%23153%3B+i7 +Processor+-+Black/9741729.p?id=1218165344675&skuId=9741729

Specs:

Intel Quad Core i7 processor @ 1.6 Ghz
6 GB of DDR3 Ram
500 GB HDD @ 7200 rpm
1 GB ATI 5870 Video Card w/GDDR 5 RAM

$1199

You can't even buy a desktop with those specs at that price. Freaking amazing.

And it looks sweet too:

http://www.snsfox.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Asus-G73JH-X1-Gaming-Laptop.jpg

http://benchmarks-reviews.com/laptops_notebooks/ASUS/G73Jh/Asus_G73Jh_laptop.jpg

What a beast. And it still gets 90 minutes of battery life... not bad considering the quad core processor with a massively powerful video card under the hood.

[TDMVPDPOY]

dont like the exterior design...

[MaNuMaNiAc]

With those specs... fuck exterior design. I leave that for Mac users

[resistanze]

Saw this beast on Notebookreview a few months back. I love ASUS laptops. I paid about $1100 for my U80V, so this is a very good deal.

[ElNono]

And it still gets 90 minutes of battery life... not bad

What? That's a dealbreaker for me. Anything under 3 hours is useless...

[Cry Havoc]

What? That's a dealbreaker for me. Anything under 3 hours is useless...

It's a gaming laptop. GPUs are notoriously hard on batteries. If you can find a true gaming machine that gets more than 2 hours of life, please let me know.

EDIT: If you're just doing word processing or light surfing, you can get ABOUT two hours of battery life with this machine.


dont like the exterior design...

Sorry, does it not match your manpurse? :lol

[ElNono]

It's a gaming laptop. GPUs are notoriously hard on batteries. If you can find a true gaming machine that gets more than 2 hours of life, please let me know.

EDIT: If you're just doing word processing or light surfing, you can get ABOUT two hours of battery life with this machine.

Well, my average flight is about 4 hours, and about once every year or two I make a long flight which is about 10 hours.

I never really understood why would anybody carry a a 17" box that barely makes it to the two hour mark.

The tech can definitely deliver more. Apple claims 8-9 hrs on their latest 17" Core i7 MacBooks (GeForce GT320m GPU). I expect that to be halved if you're really churning pixels, but that's closer to what would fit my needs.

EDIT: Reading more, Apple actually has a nice tech going on there. They basically switch on the fly from the NVidia GPU to the internal Intel HD GPU based on the workload. So if you're reading email, it uses the less power hungry intel GPU, and when the load becomes big, they automatically switch to the NVidia GPU. I wonder if that works as seamlessly under Win7.

[SpurShark]

Make sure to remove or disable all the crapware these things come with, I do several setups on these daily, really nice machines.

[Cry Havoc]

Well, my average flight is about 4 hours, and about once every year or two I make a long flight which is about 10 hours.

Most planes I fly on nowadays have power outlets, even in coach class. Are you flying on airlines that do not? Strange... I thought that was standard now.


I never really understood why would anybody carry a a 17" box that barely makes it to the two hour mark.

For someone who doesn't fly as often, how many times in your daily commute are you going to be away from a power outlet for more than 2 hours at a time?


The tech can definitely deliver more. Apple claims 8-9 hrs on their latest 17" Core i7 MacBooks (GeForce GT320m GPU). I expect that to be halved if you're really churning pixels, but that's closer to what would fit my needs.

It's good for a card that's about 3-4 years old. It won't touch any side of the 5870, which will run Crysis on high settings at the native display resolution. The 3dmark score for the 320m is 7795. The 3dmark for the 5870m is 18163. Almost triple the power. It's like saying a Subaru Impreza is better to enter a race in than a Yugo when you're up against a fleet of Ferraris.


EDIT: Reading more, Apple actually has a nice tech going on there. They basically switch on the fly from the NVidia GPU to the internal Intel HD GPU based on the workload. So if you're reading email, it uses the less power hungry intel GPU, and when the load becomes big, they automatically switch to the NVidia GPU. I wonder if that works as seamlessly under Win7.

That's not exclusive to Apple, although they're trying to market it as such. Asus makes a laptop with a dedicated 1 GB video card that gets 10 hours of battery life.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Asus+-+Laptop+with+Intel%26%23174%3B+Core%26%23153%3B2+D uo+Processor+-+Black/9701931.p?id=1218153002507&skuId=9701931

And that laptop has been out for almost a year now.


Make sure to remove or disable all the crapware these things come with, I do several setups on these daily, really nice machines.

I do all my own computer maintenance, and yeah, Best Buy computers are completely loaded with crap. First thing I'll do if/when I buy this is format the hard drive and install a new copy of 7.

[ElNono]

Most planes I fly on nowadays have power outlets, even in coach class. Are you flying on airlines that do not? Strange... I thought that was standard now.

Only the international 10 hour flight has 12V plugs under some seats (http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/American_Airlines/American_Airlines_Boeing_767-300_B.php).

The 4 hour domestic flight (http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Continental_Airlines/Continental_Airlines_Boeing_737-800_D.php) doesn't have shit (fucking Continental don't even have the AC plugs above the seat in some planes!!!).

We've been actually booking on American Airlines lately... But those old MD-80's only have those 12V plugs also.


For someone who doesn't fly as often, how many times in your daily commute are you going to be away from a power outlet for more than 2 hours at a time?

My daily commute is not a problem. For day to day use I don't need to carry around a bulky laptop. I have desktops with 26-inch monitors both at home and work.


It's good for a card that's about 3-4 years old. It won't touch any side of the 5870, which will run Crysis on high settings at the native display resolution. The 3dmark score for the 320m is 7795. The 3dmark for the 5870m is 18163. Almost triple the power. It's like saying a Subaru Impreza is better to enter a race in than a Yugo when you're up against a fleet of Ferraris.

I'm not knocking on the hardware. I'm actually genuinely confused why would you want to carry that around. I mean, the built-in display can't even do 1080P. From an engineering standpoint, it defeats the purpose of being truly portable.

Again, I don't want you to take me the wrong way. I'm the kind of person that really has no strong opinions about whatever other people pick. I actually hate to be asked about what to buy and shit like that.
I just can't wrap around my head around a seemingly portable device that needs to be plugged in 2 hours.
My wife has recently basically replaced her desktop with an iPad. I still need a desktop to do programming. I also carry a MacBook when I make the trips I mentioned earlier, but I have to say I barely touch it anymore with access to the 3G iPad and my iPhone.
I have an Xbox 360 and a Wii, and I really do all the gaming I need there. The 360 is plugged to my monitor and does 1080P and really doesn't miss a beat.



That's not exclusive to Apple, although they're trying to market it as such. Asus makes a laptop with a dedicated 1 GB video card that gets 10 hours of battery life.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Asus+-+Laptop+with+Intel%26%23174%3B+Core%26%23153%3B2+D uo+Processor+-+Black/9701931.p?id=1218153002507&skuId=9701931

And that laptop has been out for almost a year now.


I had no idea. Thanks for the pointer. Like I said, I just read that when I was perusing the MacBooks battery life. I thought it was a pretty intelligent design, considering that most Northbridge chips nowadays have built in video capabilities, regardless of who came up with it.

[Cry Havoc]

Only the international 10 hour flight has 12V plugs under some seats (http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/American_Airlines/American_Airlines_Boeing_767-300_B.php).

The 4 hour domestic flight (http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Continental_Airlines/Continental_Airlines_Boeing_737-800_D.php) doesn't have shit (fucking Continental don't even have the AC plugs above the seat in some planes!!!).

We've been actually booking on American Airlines lately... But those old MD-80's only have those 12V plugs also.

Ah. I think Virgin has plugs on all of their planes.


My daily commute is not a problem. For day to day use I don't need to carry around a bulky laptop. I have desktops with 26-inch monitors both at home and work.

Isn't that why you usually buy a laptop though? I mean, I guess if you're a frequent flier, portability is more important.


I'm not knocking on the hardware. I'm actually genuinely confused why would you want to carry that around. I mean, the built-in display can't even do 1080P. From an engineering standpoint, it defeats the purpose of being truly portable.

I'm 5'9" and pretty well-built. If you think about 9 pounds, it's about the size of two college textbooks. It really isn't much weight. The laptop I have now is 8 pounds, and I've literally carried it around with me all over the place, for 8-10 hours a day.

This is aided by the fact that I have an extremely comfortable, posture-friendly messenger bag. It rests all the weight of the laptop on my lower back. I can tote around 20 pounds easily on a daily basis, with no pain at all.

I also challenge your definition of portable. Portable literally means movable from one place to another. This is achievable if my laptop easily fits into my bag and can be moved with all vital components. I do not have the means to conveniently carry my desktop around with me, because of the number of cords and the separate monitor -- however the laptop presents no such problems. As for 1080p... it's a 17" display. Do you really think it's going to make a difference between 1080p and 1600x900 on that small of a monitor? I have a 42" plasma at home for when I want to watch full HD.


I just can't wrap around my head around a seemingly portable device that needs to be plugged in 2 hours.

I am a power user. I need a computer that can do everything my desktop can even when I'm on the road. Buying an underpowered machine is simply not an option for me. Just like you feel that it's pointless to buy a machine that has limited battery life, I feel it's unacceptable to have a machine that will be bogged down if I choose to place extreme demands on the system. Different strokes, I suppose.


I have an Xbox 360 and a Wii, and I really do all the gaming I need there. The 360 is plugged to my monitor and does 1080P and really doesn't miss a beat.

Again, I consider the PC to be completely superior to consoles for gaming in almost every way. Obviously certain genres are tailored for a console, but for all others, PC offers far superior graphics, higher frame rates, and more control options. To say nothing of the modding community that allows for virtually unlimited development of the most loved titles on the PC.



I had no idea. Thanks for the pointer. Like I said, I just read that when I was perusing the MacBooks battery life. I thought it was a pretty intelligent design, considering that most Northbridge chips nowadays have built in video capabilities, regardless of who came up with it.

It's definitely a good design. However, I think the credit is probably more to NVidia than any other company. They are still one of the leaders in laptop innovation, if not power, as ATI is making rapid gains on their chipsets.

If I could have a computer with 8 hours of battery life and a killer video card for under $1500, I would. That is simply not an option, and I value performance over the ability to be away from a power outlet.

[eyeh8u]

cry havoc just get a mac, i know your are a closet mac fanboy

[ElNono]

Isn't that why you usually buy a laptop though? I mean, I guess if you're a frequent flier, portability is more important.

My daily commute is 10 minutes. I have fiber at work and cable at home. A VPN + VNC connects me if I have to do anything at the office while at home.
I also have a wife, so I really emphasize restricting doing work at the office. :lol


I'm 5'9" and pretty well-built. If you think about 9 pounds, it's about the size of two college textbooks. It really isn't much weight. The laptop I have now is 8 pounds, and I've literally carried it around with me all over the place, for 8-10 hours a day.

This is aided by the fact that I have an extremely comfortable, posture-friendly messenger bag. It rests all the weight of the laptop on my lower back. I can tote around 20 pounds easily on a daily basis, with no pain at all.

Actually, weight wasn't what I had in mind. More like actual size. I have a very nice backpack for the 17" MacBook, but I honestly would avoid taking it with me if I could. But I can totally see where it's entirely a personal thing.


I also challenge your definition of portable. Portable literally means movable from one place to another. This is achievable if my laptop easily fits into my bag and can be moved with all vital components. I do not have the means to conveniently carry my desktop around with me, because of the number of cords and the separate monitor -- however the laptop presents no such problems.

Well, when I think of portable, I think of a device that will allow me to do what I need while I'm limited in some sort of capacity because of the environment around me. For example, on a plane, the lack of power. When I travel to my inlaws, there's no internet connection in sight, so something with a cellular connection is a must. That kind of thing.


As for 1080p... it's a 17" display. Do you really think it's going to make a difference between 1080p and 1600x900 on that small of a monitor? I have a 42" plasma at home for when I want to watch full HD.

What I meant by the 1080P is that the videocard is kind of overkill for a display that won't even do max res. Sure, you can hook up to a 42" plasma, but that kind of defeats the purpose of portability, doesn't it?


I am a power user. I need a computer that can do everything my desktop can even when I'm on the road. Buying an underpowered machine is simply not an option for me. Just like you feel that it's pointless to buy a machine that has limited battery life, I feel it's unacceptable to have a machine that will be bogged down if I choose to place extreme demands on the system. Different strokes, I suppose.

Well, I've always been a power user myself. And believe me, I'm almost 37 and spent more money in computers than I care to admit. :lol
I've also gone from being a workaholic to actually being able to separate work and non-work.
However, with the advent of broadband, I've shifted the way I do stuff on the road. I much rather connect to my office desktop remotely with a thin client than lugging around another machine and trying to find plugs or running out of battery. Plus I can still get some stuff done in the thin client while I'm not connected.


Again, I consider the PC to be completely superior to consoles for gaming in almost every way. Obviously certain genres are tailored for a console, but for all others, PC offers far superior graphics, higher frame rates, and more control options. To say nothing of the modding community that allows for virtually unlimited development of the most loved titles on the PC.

I used to be like that. I used to have my gaming rig ready and up to date. So I know exactly what you mean. That said, I grew tired of having to pay basically the cost of a console for a new video card, not to mention that sometimes it also involved buying a new power supply or more RAM, keeping up with drivers, etc.
There's something to be said about the convenience of just popping in a DVD and just playing without having to worry about what the new requirements are. TBH, the XBOX runs at 1080P and doesn't miss a beat. I really couldn't care less if the game runs at 120Hz on a PC instead of the 60Hz the XBox gives me. The polycount is still top notch and I get all the same shader 3 stuff that the PC does. I can also honestly say this is the first console that has aged well for me. I always used to go back to a PC after a while because the console just didn't cut it anymore. But this thing has been the exception to the rule, and I really expect this to become the norm in the long run.


It's definitely a good design. However, I think the credit is probably more to NVidia than any other company. They are still one of the leaders in laptop innovation, if not power, as ATI is making rapid gains on their chipsets.

If I could have a computer with 8 hours of battery life and a killer video card for under $1500, I would. That is simply not an option, and I value performance over the ability to be away from a power outlet.

Sure, I understand. You're a different kind of road warrior than I am.

[Cry Havoc]

My daily commute is 10 minutes. I have fiber at work and cable at home. A VPN + VNC connects me if I have to do anything at the office while at home.
I also have a wife, so I really emphasize restricting doing work at the office. :lol

So... why do you need a laptop at all? Is it mostly for when you fly or take weekend trips?


Actually, weight wasn't what I had in mind. More like actual size. I have a very nice backpack for the 17" MacBook, but I honestly would avoid taking it with me if I could. But I can totally see where it's entirely a personal thing.

Well, the messenger bag I have is pretty huge, you can fit a case of beer/soda in it, and I'm pretty sure I could get THREE of the longer 12 packs in the bag. And of course a 17" laptop is a little unwieldy, but you get used to it. It's not bad at all after about a week of carrying it around.



Well, when I think of portable, I think of a device that will allow me to do what I need while I'm limited in some sort of capacity because of the environment around me. For example, on a plane, the lack of power. When I travel to my inlaws, there's no internet connection in sight, so something with a cellular connection is a must. That kind of thing.


Yeah, I guess if you were working in a truly limited area, size could be important. But even then, this laptop doesn't measure that much larger than a 17" Macbook. As far as the cell connection goes, that's a simple tether to a cell phone, just like any laptop computer with a smartphone can do.


What I meant by the 1080P is that the videocard is kind of overkill for a display that won't even do max res. Sure, you can hook up to a 42" plasma, but that kind of defeats the purpose of portability, doesn't it?

Technically, 1080p isn't "max rez" since there are resolutions far beyond 1080p already in use.

And you could even argue that the lower resolution is an advantage for this laptop, since the higher you go in resolution the more demands it places on the video card. In a game running at 1600x900, where you are running, dodging, and spinning, all with Anti-Aliasing on, my guess is that 1080p will be indistinguishable from the former. Trust me, there are games being released as we speak that can push this card to it's max.



Well, I've always been a power user myself. And believe me, I'm almost 37 and spent more money in computers than I care to admit. :lol
I've also gone from being a workaholic to actually being able to separate work and non-work.
However, with the advent of broadband, I've shifted the way I do stuff on the road. I much rather connect to my office desktop remotely with a thin client than lugging around another machine and trying to find plugs or running out of battery. Plus I can still get some stuff done in the thin client while I'm not connected.

Yeah. I mean, I would work from this machine too, but I could work from any laptop. The main reason I would be purchasing something so powerful is primarily to game. If that wasn't a priority to me, obviously I wouldn't be nearly as interested in this laptop.



I used to be like that. I used to have my gaming rig ready and up to date. So I know exactly what you mean. That said, I grew tired of having to pay basically the cost of a console for a new video card

That has changed a lot. New mid-range videocards start out in the $250 range, not bad considering that consoles are now $300+ when they are released.


There's something to be said about the convenience of just popping in a DVD and just playing without having to worry about what the new requirements are.

The requirements exist because the games run at much higher detail than they do on console. You don't need a top of the line system to run a game acceptably well.


TBH, the XBOX runs at 1080P and doesn't miss a beat. I really couldn't care less if the game runs at 120Hz on a PC instead of the 60Hz the XBox gives me.

Is this tongue in cheek? You're talking refresh rates here, not frames per second. The two are not really related in this instance.


The polycount is still top notch and I get all the same shader 3 stuff that the PC does.

I disagree. Games have been conclusively proven to look much, much better on PCs. Look up any game that's released for all three systems -- the PC version blows the consoles out of the water.


I can also honestly say this is the first console that has aged well for me. I always used to go back to a PC after a while because the console just didn't cut it anymore. But this thing has been the exception to the rule, and I really expect this to become the norm in the long run.

I'm not so sure. GPUs that are continually being developed will always be more advanced than consoles, which come along every 4-6 years. It's just the nature of technology.


Sure, I understand. You're a different kind of road warrior than I am.

:tu

Haven't bought the laptop yet. I think I'm going to wait for next month. Need another paycheck or two under my belt (I just moved to Silver Spring MD) before I plunk down for this rig.

Definitely posting pics after I buy it though. :)

[Sense]

I got the N61JQ couple months ago....

so far this machine delivers with gaming.

[Cry Havoc]

Hmmm, now I'm having second thoughts.

I think I'm going to wait to see how my HTC Evo 4G works as an internet browsing device.

I may just choose to invest more money in my home desktop and forgo gaming on the run for now, since the Evo will be as capable as a netbook in many respects.

Agh, decisions.

[Heath Ledger]

fryes had a laptop from HP with similar specs $999 or $995 with dedicated video card as well.

[Heath Ledger]

here it is not as much Ram.

but look at these specs $1050 and then $50 mail in rebate.

http://www.frys.com/product/6143379#detailed

[Heath Ledger]

I just got this one open box buy for $869. look at what it goes for on Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-VGN-FW550F-16-4-Inch-Windows-Premium/dp/B002PHM0HW

[ElNono]

So... why do you need a laptop at all? Is it mostly for when you fly or take weekend trips?

I'm actually pondering not carrying it anymore at this point since we acquired the iPad 3G. Using VNC on the iPhone was simply not convenient. On the pad though, it's pretty good.


Yeah, I guess if you were working in a truly limited area, size could be important. But even then, this laptop doesn't measure that much larger than a 17" Macbook. As far as the cell connection goes, that's a simple tether to a cell phone, just like any laptop computer with a smartphone can do.

Well, the MacBook is actually bulky, size-wise, IMO. What it does do good is stay on for over 4+ hours on a charge. And tethering to my phone is what I did to get access.


Technically, 1080p isn't "max rez" since there are resolutions far beyond 1080p already in use.

Sure. A monitor that can display that will cost you and arm and a leg though. I don't think there's anything under 3K that will display 2048x1536.
I don't even want to know how much is a 2048x2560 or even 2560x3200 capable device.


And you could even argue that the lower resolution is an advantage for this laptop, since the higher you go in resolution the more demands it places on the video card. In a game running at 1600x900, where you are running, dodging, and spinning, all with Anti-Aliasing on, my guess is that 1080p will be indistinguishable from the former. Trust me, there are games being released as we speak that can push this card to it's max.

Pixel fill rate is always the most demanding factor, no question about it.
But that's exactly what I mean. At the lower-res, you could get away with a less powerful GPU, save battery time, and still have a hell of a gaming experience.


That has changed a lot. New mid-range videocards start out in the $250 range, not bad considering that consoles are now $300+ when they are released.

My XBox 360 cost me $200 bucks like 5 years ago. Best ROI ever. I'll pretend not to remember how much it cost me to buy my last 'gaming' video card, an NVidia GeForce 8800GTS... :lol


The requirements exist because the games run at much higher detail than they do on console. You don't need a top of the line system to run a game acceptably well.

I think I went over the line when it went past 1280x1024, full 60fps including all the shaders and 4xAA. That's actually something the XBox hardware can deliver without breaking a sweat.


Is this tongue in cheek? You're talking refresh rates here, not frames per second. The two are not really related in this instance.

I'm sorry, I'm a guy with electronics background, and I see where you would be confused with monitor refresh rates. I was talking about actual throughput from the video card. BTW, 120 FPS is indeed equal to 120Hz (or about 8.33 msec per frame). In electronics you're taught to use Hz to classify units within 1 second, since a Hz is defined as 1/X...


I disagree. Games have been conclusively proven to look much, much better on PCs. Look up any game that's released for all three systems -- the PC version blows the consoles out of the water.

Well, we will disagree on this one. I am fully aware of the PC version being able to be propped up in say, rendering depth, or more objects, trickier smoke effects or explosions. But it's been a long time since I've seen a PC actually 'blow out of the water' a console version of the same game. Better? Sure. Orders of magnitude better? Not really, no. IMO, the very last tech that really changed the way games look substantially has been HDR/Bloom effects. Something both the PS3 and the Xbox 360 have no problem doing.


I'm not so sure. GPUs that are continually being developed will always be more advanced than consoles, which come along every 4-6 years. It's just the nature of technology.

Actually, consoles cheat a lot when it comes to GPU interconnects. It's the reason a console like the 360 aged so well and can get away with doing what it does with only 512MB of RAM. Obviously, not having to go through a PCIe interconnect had a lot to do with that.

But I do agree that the GPU tech has improved substantially in the past 4-6 years. The difference though, is that I remember when it used to be every 6 months, then every year, then every other year, now we're on the 4-6 year range for substantial improvements, and I think the gap will keep on widening.

[Cry Havoc]

here it is not as much Ram.

but look at these specs $1050 and then $50 mail in rebate.

http://www.frys.com/product/6143379#detailed


I just got this one open box buy for $869. look at what it goes for on Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-VGN-FW550F-16-4-Inch-Windows-Premium/dp/B002PHM0HW

Both of those laptops have relatively weak gaming cards, Heath. Neither could be considered comparable to the 5870.


Pixel fill rate is always the most demanding factor, no question about it. But that's exactly what I mean. At the lower-res, you could get away with a less powerful GPU, save battery time, and still have a hell of a gaming experience.

Actually, some of the more advanced texturing effects can suck your videocard down more quickly than resolution these days. Soft shadows, certain transparencies, and HDR effects on rapidly changing light sources (like explosions) can bring lower end cards to their knees.

Anyway, the reason I like higher end cards is not because of the current crop of games. Obviously you don't need top of the line stuff to play them. It's about future proofing, which is especially important in a laptop where the GPU is not hot-swappable. I like knowing that if I'm spending over $500 on a laptop that it's not going to be constrained in a year or two.


My XBox 360 cost me $200 bucks like 5 years ago. Best ROI ever. I'll pretend not to remember how much it cost me to buy my last 'gaming' video card, an NVidia GeForce 8800GTS... :lol

You can buy a 5770 right now that will play EVERYTHING in the gaming industry on mid to high detail for $170 right now.


I think I went over the line when it went past 1280x1024, full 60fps including all the shaders and 4xAA. That's actually something the XBox hardware can deliver without breaking a sweat.

Perhaps, but you're still not getting the detail that you can with a new videocard.



I'm sorry, I'm a guy with electronics background, and I see where you would be confused with monitor refresh rates. I was talking about actual throughput from the video card. BTW, 120 FPS is indeed equal to 120Hz (or about 8.33 msec per frame). In electronics you're taught to use Hz to classify units within 1 second, since a Hz is defined as 1/X...

Right, but the point I was making is that if you're averaging under 40 frames per second, a 120 Hz display is obviously going to make less of a difference. You have to be able to push the pixels to benefit from increased refresh rates.



Well, we will disagree on this one. I am fully aware of the PC version being able to be propped up in say, rendering depth, or more objects, trickier smoke effects or explosions. But it's been a long time since I've seen a PC actually 'blow out of the water' a console version of the same game. Better? Sure. Orders of magnitude better? Not really, no. IMO, the very last tech that really changed the way games look substantially has been HDR/Bloom effects. Something both the PS3 and the Xbox 360 have no problem doing.

Completely disagree. Direct X 11 videocards are currently being released. The Ps3 and 360 aren't even capable of DX10. You can say they look similar, but look at these photos:

http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/6702/picture6en1.png

A DX9 image.

http://img309.imageshack.us/img309/421/xbu0.png

The same image rendered in DX10. Massive advantages in texturing, transparency, and depth of field.

You can say the 360 and Ps3 have held up well, considering their hardware, but it's really not close between console and PC, at the moment. Crysis was released 3 years ago and still looks better than anything ever seen on a console. Watch it on a computer that can run it on medium-high settings and you get an idea of what amazing looks like.

And this is all about graphics. To say nothing of the advantage in control scheme that PCs offer, or the benefit of a massive modding community that can design virtually unlimited content for a game.


Actually, consoles cheat a lot when it comes to GPU interconnects. It's the reason a console like the 360 aged so well and can get away with doing what it does with only 512MB of RAM. Obviously, not having to go through a PCIe interconnect had a lot to do with that.

Meh. I've seen both the 360 and the Ps3 bog down in certain points and have frame rate issues. And there's nothing you can do about it, because you can't adjust the settings.


But I do agree that the GPU tech has improved substantially in the past 4-6 years. The difference though, is that I remember when it used to be every 6 months, then every year, then every other year, now we're on the 4-6 year range for substantial improvements, and I think the gap will keep on widening.

Actually, NVidia and ATI release new iterations of their card models about every 12-18 months right now, with each new card being roughly twice as powerful as the last.

[leemajors]

nVidia's been adding cores and shrinking die sizes on the same processor for the last couple years. the one out soon is actually a new design

[ElNono]

You can buy a 5770 right now that will play EVERYTHING in the gaming industry on mid to high detail for $170 right now.

Times have definitely changed. Then again, I can play EVERYTHING in the gaming industry on mid to high detail with the $200 I spent 5 years ago.


Perhaps, but you're still not getting the detail that you can with a new videocard.

Perhaps. But the detail I get is still insanely good.


Right, but the point I was making is that if you're averaging under 40 frames per second, a 120 Hz display is obviously going to make less of a difference. You have to be able to push the pixels to benefit from increased refresh rates.

Meh. I haven't had a device pushing 40 FPS in a long time. The XBox can have a hiccup here and there, but overall it gives a solid 60fps.


Completely disagree. Direct X 11 videocards are currently being released. The Ps3 and 360 aren't even capable of DX10. You can say they look similar, but look at these photos:

...

The same image rendered in DX10. Massive advantages in texturing, transparency, and depth of field.

DirectX 10 was actually a hardware architectural change. From dedicated vertex and texture units they moved to 'stream processors', which are basically the same thing but they're general purpose now, instead of dedicated. That gives them the ability to reprogram and schedule work depending on the load. IE: If you need more texture work, you can assign 3 stream processors for texturing and one processor for vertex computations.
DirectX 11 builds on that change, allowing to tessellate on the GPU, and adding direct programming of the cores, along with multi-threaded scheduling of work (something DX10 was lacking).

What you're missing is that both the PS3 and the XBox 360 had a similar architecture from their design. The difference is that while their GPU's are not reprogrammable, they included multi-core processors that include some serious SIMD programming (7 cores on the PS3, 3 cores in the XBox 360).
Even multi-core PCs have been tasked with doing tessellation for a long time now. Obviously, more parallelism is better, but this is hardly new tech.

Now, I'm not going to tell you that the XBox 360 will not be showing it's age soon enough. Probably sooner than the PS3. But a 6 year lifetime for a console is unheard of. At least for me it is.

And BTW, here's a comparison of a last generation AAA title running on both the PC with max settings on and the XBox 360. If you can see 'substantial differences', you have a much better eye than I do:

http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/digitalfoundry-modern-warfare-2-pc-xbox-360-comparison


You can say the 360 and Ps3 have held up well, considering their hardware, but it's really not close between console and PC, at the moment. Crysis was released 3 years ago and still looks better than anything ever seen on a console. Watch it on a computer that can run it on medium-high settings and you get an idea of what amazing looks like. And this is all about graphics. To say nothing of the advantage in control scheme that PCs offer, or the benefit of a massive modding community that can design virtually unlimited content for a game.

Crysis is a game I haven't played on either PC or the XBox (no particular reason, probably just being busy at the time). Now you have me intrigued. I'll check it out after Red Dead Redemption. That said, I really don't care about game mods (or online multiplayer for that matter). So, that's really a personal thing.


Meh. I've seen both the 360 and the Ps3 bog down in certain points and have frame rate issues. And there's nothing you can do about it, because you can't adjust the settings.

Care to give me some examples? I mean, I really really have a hard time trying to remember the last game that had some kind of constant bad frame rate due to some action on the screen.


Actually, NVidia and ATI release new iterations of their card models about every 12-18 months right now, with each new card being roughly twice as powerful as the last.

They really have been adding new cores and reducing dies, and prices in the process. I mean, it took them 6 years to double up the core clock speed from an NV40 design to the current designs. It only took them two years to double from the pre-NV40 to NV40. The thing is, software-wise, things just haven't changed much since the introduction of Shader model 3.
The DX11 crop of GPUs can actually start dipping into ray tracing and such, and at that point you'll definitely see a shift in both the hardware and software, and most likely also in gaming consoles.

[Heath Ledger]

Cry Im quite happy with the performance of my new laptop. I can play MW2 on max settings smoothly.

[Cry Havoc]

Times have definitely changed. Then again, I can play EVERYTHING in the gaming industry on mid to high detail with the $200 I spent 5 years ago.

What you call mid to high detail, I call low to mid. *shrug*

The $1000 I spent on my PC also enables me to write papers, do research, surf the net, and a slew of other activities consoles are not capable of, so I am genuinely bemused at the comparing of prices.


Perhaps. But the detail I get is still insanely good.

It does look good. However, after playing on a PC for a while, I notice a lot of unsightly things that consoles have that are just not present in PC versions. V-Sync is not consistent (or not even enabled!), nasty jagged textures, almost no draw distance by comparison, extremely rudimentary smoke and transparency effects, etc.


Meh. I haven't had a device pushing 40 FPS in a long time. The XBox can have a hiccup here and there, but overall it gives a solid 60fps.

If you're only hitting 60 FPS, then 120 hz is overkill. That was my initial point. And I question how you know that you're hitting 60 FPS constantly, since that's typically above what the human eye is able to perceive.


What you're missing is that both the PS3 and the XBox 360 had a similar architecture from their design. The difference is that while their GPU's are not reprogrammable, they included multi-core processors that include some serious SIMD programming (7 cores on the PS3, 3 cores in the XBox 360).
Even multi-core PCs have been tasked with doing tessellation for a long time now. Obviously, more parallelism is better, but this is hardly new tech.

And yet, the Ps3 (I own one) and 360 still do not have the (relative) clock speed to compete with a newer GPU. This isn't just about texturing effects or what the consoles are capable of in terms of shader models. You can only extend a V6 engine so far before it reaches it's the top end of it's power band. They use shortcuts in consoles, and game on computers long enough, and you notice them.


Now, I'm not going to tell you that the XBox 360 will not be showing it's age soon enough. Probably sooner than the PS3. But a 6 year lifetime for a console is unheard of. At least for me it is.

Sorry, I have to strongly disagree here. Elder Scrolls IV was released in 2006 and had already reached the absolutely maximum level of processing that a 360 could handle. The Ps3 version was even worse. They both bogged and chugged at times, and this is a game that's 4 years old now.


And BTW, here's a comparison of a last generation AAA title running on both the PC with max settings on and the XBox 360. If you can see 'substantial differences', you have a much better eye than I do:

I don't refer to MW2 as "last gen", and I definitely don't refer to it as a AAA title. You used perhaps the worst example in gaming today, because as we ALL are so intimately aware of, Activision hates the PC gaming crowd, and therefore did a direct port of the console version to PC, going so far as to refer to the extra "features" on the PC as "mouse and keyboard control". They didn't do a damn thing to utilize the extra horsepower of a PC. I'll make you a bet that if you play Super Mario Bros. on each console, they will all look roughly the same too. The fact that you used MW2 as your example of how "even" the graphics are between systems says a lot about the rose-tinted glasses you're attempting to view the consoles with.

Here, let me quote a review for you for a game that's a year and a half old:

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/926/926649p4.html

Graphics
This category is clearly dominated by the PC. Even a quick glance reveals that the PC version is cleaner, runs at a higher resolution, has more detail, better character models, and better texture clarity. Many of the little details of the ruined DC area were not immediately apparent until viewed them on our AlienWare rig. For example, buzzards circle high above the town of Megaton. They exist on all three versions of the game but they didn't catch our eye on the consoles.

If you want a great example of how the PC outperforms the other two options take a close look at any of the character models in the game. You can see all three versions running side-by-side-by-side in our Video Head-to-Head right here. For now you can see what we're talking about in screenshots.

As for the 360 and PS3, there's been much ado about the inferiority of the PlayStation in the past few weeks. In our estimation the PS3 looks slightly worse than 360 with some aliasing issues and lesser texture quality. Editors who have played the game agree that the graphical differences between 360 and PS3 seem almost insignificant when you see how much better the PC looks.

Really, I don't know why you're even bothering to make the argument. It is a well-known, accepted fact in the gaming industry, particularly the hardcore sector, that PCs completely outstrip the graphical capability of consoles. This is not something that's a "close-call", or tough to discern to the human eye. There is an obvious, vast difference between the two.



Crysis is a game I haven't played on either PC or the XBox (no particular reason, probably just being busy at the time). Now you have me intrigued. I'll check it out after Red Dead Redemption. That said, I really don't care about game mods (or online multiplayer for that matter). So, that's really a personal thing.

Well, good luck playing Crysis on the 360, since neither the Ps3 or the 360 could even run the game acceptably, and therefore it was released exclusively for PC.


Care to give me some examples? I mean, I really really have a hard time trying to remember the last game that had some kind of constant bad frame rate due to some action on the screen.

Uh, well, I was playing College Hoops 2k8 last night and got some ridiculous slow down in transition. I've seen Oblivion, Fallout 3, both Modern Warfares, and even Halo stutter at times. It's not a massive drop usually, but if you're a good FPS player on a tough server, a few frames is usually the difference between life and death.