the upcoming console's GPUs are leser than current computer GPU's...just FYI
please consider the following:
a console operates at 640x480 on a normal TV, and at maybe twice that on an HDTV (1920x1080 is rare in a TV and costs a fortune, so I'm not going to touch that)
but consider a console like PS2 and how it runs "the latest games"
it's rendering 640x480
with no Pixel Shaders
with no Vertex Shaders
with low-ish quality
no Anti-Aliasing
no Anisotropic Filtering
hell I could have a GeForce2 MX 200 handle that
in most of the games PS2 plays, it's just not that demanding
consider Xbox
it uses a custom GeForce2/3/4 hybrid chip
that chip has some Pixel Shader and Vertex Shader support, but still no AA/AF
and it's still only doing 640x480 (unless you have an HDTV your console runs 640x480, not 800x600, most TV's that are not HD will not take 800x600, and a console won't force it, they'll do 640x480)
now in terms of the upcoming consoles
PS3 is using nVidia's...ugh I already have forgotten it's name
the theory was that it was the same GPU as G70, but it's not, it's about the same however
when nVidia was demo'ing PS3 with Sony they did not have those GPU's avliable, so they used 6800 Ultra SLI to render stuff, and it was said to be providing "roughly the same performance"
and if we look at Xbox360 it's going to have roughly the same performance as the PS3 in terms of graphics and processing power (don't sit there and get into an Xbox vs Playstation arguement, they are competitive products designed to match each other's specs using different hardware configurations...it's like ATi vs nVidia, neither is better by leaps and bounds, if ATi was still selling the 9800XT as their top product yeah nVidia would be better, but ATi is competitive and releasing new products)
the Xbox360 might even be a tad slower as it's a tad older (by the time PS3 launches Xbox360 will be old-ish, as PS3 doesn't launch until 2006 (around Q3 iirc))
Nintendo however is being pushed into the niche Microsoft wanted them to be in, their own, the toy niche
their new product has less power than PS3 yet Nintendo fanatics will claim it's 5-6 times faster than Xbox360 or PlayStation 3
if you just look at it
you'll realize that cannot be true
it is not physically large enough to support the cooling required for the hardware it would need to be that fast, it's that simple (it could have a Pentium M type chip inside it, but no GPU in the world is that fast and runs cool...their all fireballs cast in silicon)
i'm not trying to incite PlayStation 3 vs Xbox360
as personally neither serves a good purpose
by the time they are respectivly released PC's will be multiple time faster than them
the Playstation 3 will be slow by next spring (Before it's release afaik, because nVidia is putting G80 out then in accord to ATi's R580)
Xbox360 is about as capable as a higher range gaming PC of today
and in 6 months, it'll be ancient
consoles seem fast because software is written for them and their limitations
consider the port of Doom 3 to Xbox
they had to remove so much of that game's graphics just to make it playable
PC's are always going to be more powerful than consoles
consoles are fast for about a week after their release, but due to their inabaility to upgrade and the fact that they come under the top shelf PC in terms of performance at launch...i don't think you could fairly say their going to be kings
I mean maybe back around the time of PlayStation 2 and Dreamcast yes, consoles were faster for gaming, but consider it now
Consoles are releasing at $500
games costing $50+
and they can't touch PC's in terms of IQ or performance
the best console, which at current is Xbox360 (as their almost released and some have been spotted, even though that violates NDA's)
compare that to the most powerful gaming PC in the world, which as of today would be an Athlon64 FX-57 with dual 7800GTX's (or a Pentium D 840 EE or an Athlon64x2 4800+, the FX-57 would give about a 2% lead over the dual cored chips, and multi CPU doesn't benefit you at all (just looks cool/costs a lot and it benefits heavy multi tasking things))
dual 7800GTX's in SLI + an FX-57 would eat an Xbox360 for breakfast
you just have to consider the raw power behind that
but consider the Xbox360
it costs less (1 Xbox360 per 7800GTX + 2 games, or 2 Xbox360's + 2 games per FX-57)
and it's not using an API like DirectX 9.0c
it's using it's own custom software and OS
Playstation 1 is an excellent example of optimization
Playstation did not have that much power, but it had a lot of 3D games released for it (just like Nintendo's N64) and a lot of the 3D stuff done both of those consoles was done via optimizations in code and some very impressive skill on the designers part
it created some of the most realisitc environments avliable at the time
and some of the games even look good by today's standards
consider this was done almost a decade ago
that's the thing about consoles, they have to offer other features now in order to keep up, they have to offer things like DVR features, DVD burning, TV tuner, DVD playback, just to compete
honestly, which would you prefer?
a console with lower level gfx, issues with online play, and fairly non-customizable controls/a lesser variety of options
or a PC with top of the line graphics, seemless online gameplay, a huge variety of games (every game avliable for any console from the current generation is avliable for PC (with the exception of a few Nintendo releases, but honestly who cares?)) and a huge array of options
yes, i'm promoting the PC
the consoles were nice back when Voodoo 2 SLI cost $1500 on it's own + the PC which would be another $2000-$3000 and you could only game at 1024x768 in some games due to the lack of power in Voodoo2's
so at that point your weighing a $5000+ PC against a $400 PlayStation
i'd take PlayStation thankyou very much, it gave simmilar performance in the day
but the thing is, graphics technology has caught up and passed consoles by...by miles
and it's getting cheaper
$550 per card for dual 7800GTX's
or $600-$800 per card + $200-$300 2D card for Voodoo2 SLI
(not that much anymore)
so in short i'm basically saying that consoles are for the person who is a casual gamer, the person who doesn't want to spend a lot, or the person who can't afford to spend a lot
a PC is for the serious gamer
it's faster, plays more games, has better multiplayer (large scale multiplayer, as in 16-32 people connected with no issues)
and don't say a console is faster than a PC
that hasn't been true since Xbox360's launch
the graphics war is too fierce at current for ATi or nVidia to stick with the GPU they released for a console as their PC counterpart, simmilar to what nVidia did with Xbox (it has something simmilar to a GeForce4 Ti 4200)
in terms of PC vs Mac...well let's save that for another day