Not really, all 128-bit (PC processors only go up to 64-bit) are superior, technically-speaking, to the PC, but only like for a couple years. You still can't play FPSs on a console though.

Not quite getting my point there. :)

I don't care enough for the console to try and figure out which one of them that will lead.

If I'm stuck between choosing a PC and a console, the PC will win. ;)


But, in all honesty, have to give props to the grafics quality on the 360. :)

But, in all honesty, have to give props to the grafics quality on the 360. :)
If you have a tv that can follow...with my tv, graphics will always suck no matter how good the console is :p (and considering how little I use my TV, it's really not worth any investment.)

I'll stick with the PC too.

I believe the Revo is the weakest of all consoles, with PS3 at top and Xbox 360 at second.
I have a problem with this paragraph but the one you wrote under this one was pretty good *claps*.

Anywayz, it's true that the Revolution will be the least powerful in terms of numbers, but the Revolution isn't about using raw power to run these games. Instead, Nintendo is going for a console that is more efficient than the other consoles out there.

I'll give a simple example of this. The Xbox has a processor which has a much higher clock speed than the GameCube, however the GameCube has a copper processor while the Xbox has an aluminium processor. This means while the numbers differ greatly, the GCN works just as well as the Xbox in terms of CPU speed simply because copper conducts a hellova lot better than aluminium. Of course it doesn't stop there, there is a lot about the GCN that makes it more powerful than it seems.

In truth, the GameCube's hardware is no where near as powerful as what the Xbox has, however what Nintendo have is a machine that runs so efficiently that in the end the result are games that are on par with what the Xbox can produce in terms of graphics, etc. And this is exactly what they're doing with the Revolution. Instead of bringing us raw awesome power they're bringing us maximum efficiency which works just as well as raw power. But of course this doesn't mean you're gonna get PS3 graphics, but what it does mean is that it may very well be on par with the Xbox360.

And in the end what you get is a machine that runs well, is quiet, uses less power than the others and runs cooler. Which means you won't be getting any uber huge brick power adapters and overheating issues a lot have experienced with the Xbox360.


@ D333: You're right, even with all that power if you still have a standard TV you're gonna not gonna see the 360 or the PS3s power in all its glory which seems like a big waste.

In response to people who believe PC's will always be a superior gaming platform:

I don't really see how personal computers will be able to compete with consol gaming in the future. With this upcoming generation of consoles (xbox 360, ps3, and probably the revolution) we are seeing a trend towards incorporation and development of sophisticated hardware, on par with computer technology at the time of release.

What do I mean by this? Here's an example: the hardware that ran the original xbox, when compared to personal computers at the time of its release, was woefully underpowered (in that it was almost a generation or two behind PC technology of the time). The hardware that the 360 was released with is on-par with most mid-range computer systems of today (as a side note, in the 360 there is room for hardware expansion on the main board of the system, much like the N64's graphics accelerator accessory).

The advantage that the consoles have over the PC is that the software developed for them only needs to adhere to one set of hardware requirements. This allows game studios to write extremely efficient code and develop games with graphics, physics, effects, etc that an average PC today would have trouble processing.

Doom 3, when originally released for the PC taxed many systems at the time but did run well at lower resolutions and with lowered detail levels (Doom 3's minimum system memory requirement was 384mb or ram). Doom 3, when released for the xbox, also ran well but featured less detailed textures, environments, etc. that were on-par with the lowered graphics of the PC version.

So what does this mean? It means that writing code for one set of hardware specifications is efficient to the point where a developer can make a game that taxes a mid range computer system or they can make a game that runs well on a system (the xbox only has 64mb or ram!) which is generations behind current technology.

New and upcoming consoles (xbox 360, ps3, and the revolution) are released with hardware that is, in many respects above current personal computer technology (Quake 4 can run almost, if not as well, on 360 as on a high-end PC). As a console spends more and more time on the market software developers are able to find more and more ways to manipulate the hardware. This is why games with graphics on the level of Halo 2 can run on a system like the xbox. It’s all about streamlining the code.

Now that consoles are coming with multiple processors and dedicated memory, they are able to process data more efficiently. This allows for faster simultaneous processing of physics and graphics. PC's are not able to handle the processing power required to process graphics and physics as well as the consoles are (that’s why companies are trying to develop physics cards for the PC)

Consoles and PC's are two completely different technologies. One is made specifically for gaming and the other is a general purpose machine that happens to play games well. It’s like a swiss army knife versus a cleaver. The swiss army knife is nice when there are a variety of jobs to be done, but if I had to chop up a leg of lamb I would want to use the cleaver.

To say that a general purpose machine is going to be better than a machine designed for a specific purpose is ridiculous. Consoles will replace the PC in gaming because they will (either with this coming generation or with the next generation ps4, xbox3, etc) be better able to crunch the numbers that games need. There will always be a gaming market for the PC but it will be smaller than it is now. People would rather pay $500 for a gaming console than $2,000 for a computer that can play the same games. The majority of computers will be for work and consoles will be for play.

I think it is very likely that the trend we saw with past gaming consoles (where the consoles tried to raise to the PC's standards) will be reversed (we will see PC gaming trying to catch up with console games).


As for who will win the consol wars, I think that if you look at worldwide sales numbers the ps3 (assuming its all that sonys says it is) will be first, followed by nintendo and then the xbox. Xbox will probably dominate in the USA though.

PC gaming will never die, there are still a hellova lot of people out there who prefer to take control of their gaming experience by modding, etc. While most normal aren't tech savvy enough to be able to really take advantage of this, there is still a large enough group who can.

For the people who think the Xbox will win:

The sales figures of Xbox 360's in japan range between 62,100 - 41,800 units sold. I believe the total number of units shipped to Japan was roughly 159,000. This means that only about 38% of the units shipped to Japan were actually sold.
Note: many of the units bought in Japan were purchased for the purpose of selling them to americans via ebay (you can buy a premium xbox 360 for roughly $500 on ebay).

Sony currently holds 81% market share in Japan and 68% world wide. Xbox holds 17% worldwide and Nintendo holds the remainder.

I find it disturbing that handhelds (GBA, DS, PSP) aren't counted in that percentage eventhough they ARE videogame machines. And please don't argue with me about this because saying handhelds don't count is as silly as saying a 2 litre bottle of pepsi has nothing to do with a can of pepsi.

If handhelds were counted, do you think that Nintendo would have a larger market share than Microsoft?

Yup it would put Nintendo around equal ground to Sony, but sony would still be on top. The handheld side of things can't be ignored anymore, especially now that Sony are taking on Nintendo in that area.

PC gaming will never die, there are still a hellova lot of people out there who prefer to take control of their gaming experience by modding, etc. While most normal aren't tech savvy enough to be able to really take advantage of this, there is still a large enough group who can.
And those who can't mod, will in most cases download from the ones who can and use it. :)

If it is consule war you cant realy count the PC.The PC will always be better because the PC makes consule games.Plus it never goes out of date and you can custom biuld your PC.

PC gaming will never die, there are still a hellova lot of people out there who prefer to take control of their gaming experience by modding, etc.
Definitely, playing on a console is great fun (and comfortable) but PC offers more flexibility. I always like to tweak games to my taste after beating them and I'm far from being the only one. I'm just thinking about TES and the future release of Oblivion. I'm sure there will be tons of mods and I would regret playing it on console.

I want the evil Microsoft to win.

That's the only console with titles that interest me.

@primalunderdog: If you have to keep upgrading your PC then it does go out of date. Plus the there are only three kinds of games worth playing on PCs these days, FPS, Strategy and Simulations.

Plus there are only three kinds of games worth playing on PCs these days, FPS, Strategy and Simulations.

You forgot RPGs. :(

You can stoop to my level and buy a gamepad then you can play anygame you want.Plus with a computer you can do more than just play games and watch movies.

You forgot RPGs. :(
Whoops, yeah totally slipped my mind. PC RPGs to me a really different from coneole RPGs for some reason.