PC vs Console, Please help me prove my point

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
LordPlanketh

LordPlanketh

Honorable
May 11, 2013
49
0
10,530
I was speaking to a bunch of people on skype who claimed that ps3 and xbox 360 had better graphics than a £600 pc, I explained to them that even a pc from 2010 is better, but they refused to listen, I showed them a few comparison videos, and then compared the Spec, but they are all still adamant that consoles are better than pc! Please give me some good evidence that will finally prove my point here. Thanks.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
T

trane20

Distinguished
Feb 6, 2012
134
0
18,710
the ps 3 has The Reality Synthesizer is a modified GeForce 7800. It has a core clock of 550 mhz, 24 pixel-shader pipes each capable of 27 flops/cycle, and 8 vertex pipes capable of 10 flops/cycle, for a total flops performance of
550mhz x (24x27 + 8x10) = 550 x 728 = about 400 gigaflops. Not as good as the later Nvidias, but still pretty damn good. And in case any xbox fanboy tells you the 360 has a better card, its card has a 500mhz core and 48 pixel/vertex pipelines at 10 flops/cycle for a total performance of

500 x (48 x 10) = 240 gigaflops. Barely half as powerful. Made by ATI.

There is a little gimmick in both cards. The 360's Xenos has 10mb of extra ram dedicated to producing special effects. The ps3 has a 128mb bus width on the memory, and a high-speed connection to the main boards 3.2ghz-fast system xddram, so that the Cell can be used for the graphics too. Those gimmicks mostly cancel each other out. The RSX is better.

Neither is anywhere near Nvidia's 280, but neither is any actual software anywhere near needing a 280 to look its best. Except maybe Crysis, which is about the zillionth repeat of the same pc shooter.

now dude a modified 7800???

better graphics means better gpu and the 7800 is nowhere near a £600 pc even a budget card as the 6670 produces better graphix than the ps3 or the x360
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Eximo

Eximo

Titan
Ambassador
May 27, 2010
25,816
4,164
139,340
Let's see, PS3 and XBox 360 are pushing about 10 years old. 10 years ago you could have built a PC that came close to matching the performance of consoles, it has only gotten worse since.

But the most important thing to understand is that with a single system to design for you can optimize software to run specificially on the hardware. With PCs it is more generalized, and why cross platform games tend to run better or look better on the 'sponsoring' system. As previously mentioned, current consoles target 720p at 30Hz, whereas 1080p or higher at 60hz is the target for most PC gamers. This is why the Xbox 360 and PS3 can still run modern titles.

The new Xbox and PS4 are going to target 1080p at 60hz and some developers are going to stick with 30hz so that they can turn all the graphics settings up. Just in time for 4k televisions to come out, so basically obsolete in a few years. Whereas PCs are are already pushing out 1440p at 120 or 144Hz for extreme systems, or triple display. In a few years this will be commonplace while the next gen consoles are running 1080.

All that said. The rough statistics for the PS4 and XBox One come close to mid range PC equipment available now. With economy of scale, and even a little price subsidizing, console makers can leverage that to make their system fairly cheap in terms of performace/cost. So building an equivalent system for the same price is difficult, but by spending a little more you can easily build a system better then a console on release day, let alone ten years down the road.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
C

choochu

Distinguished
Jun 5, 2011
12
0
18,510


PS4>midrange pc

Digital Foundry: Do you think that the relatively low-power CPUs in the next-gen consoles (compared to PC, at least) will see a more concerted push to getting more out of GPU Compute?

Oles Shishkovstov: No, you just cannot compare consoles to PC directly. Consoles could do at least 2x what a comparable PC can due to the fixed platform and low-level access to hardware.

Back to the question - yes, yes and yes. There are some things which are just more efficient to do on massively parallel machines like GPUs are. I think that at least initially, with launch titles, the GPU-Compute will be underutilised, but during console's lifetime we'll see more and more unbelievable and innovative things purely thanks to GPUs.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Eximo

Eximo

Titan
Ambassador
May 27, 2010
25,816
4,164
139,340
Not that this isn't an extremely old topic, but the points you bring up in that quote are covered in my second paragraph.

Advantages to consoles -> Economy of scale and a unified platform.
Advantages to PCs -> Upgradeable hardware

In the case of PCs I can throw in quad full-scale GPUs if I wanted to. With a console you are stuck with what is basically a single advanced/optimized integrated GPU.

And the note about low-level hardware access to GPUs. That is essentially what the Mantle APIs are for ATI graphics cards, with nVidia to follow on most likely with their own version. And it certainly isn't as nice the console developers claim to make. Despite using similar hardware between the XboxOne and PS4 the essentially use different API sets and only the PS4 can run OpenGL directly so porting between platforms will still be troublesome, though it will be easier.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
G

GregNice32

Honorable
Feb 3, 2014
16
0
10,520
Well lets put it this way my ps3 or xbox 360 couldn't compete with an AMD A6/NVidia 560GTX......and when I got the xbox one.....I would say its on that level.........and I would consider what I have a bare bones gaming rig.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom