Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

PS3 or Gaming Rig?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
August 21, 2008 1:46:30 AM

Here are my choices:
Upgrade my PC from
e6420, 1GB RAM, 7600GT
to
e6420, Asus P5Q Pro mobo, HD 4850/9800GTX+, 2GB DDR2800 RAM

or buy a PS3.

What's the best option for me?

I don't mess around with computer parts, ie. overclocking.
I love playing FPS, action, and shooters.

What will last the longest, and what will be more worthwhile in the long run?

More about : ps3 gaming rig

August 21, 2008 4:01:29 AM

The 9800GTX+ is mid-high end now, but in a year or two it's going to be low end; just imagine where it'll be in 2012. However, you cannot predict the future, so you're better off making sure the games that are out and coming out for each platform are really the games you want to play. The PS3 could end up being just like the PS2 and having tons of titles to play in it's future, or it could end up like the Gamecube with a few great titles, but ultimately not the best platform if you can only afford one.
August 21, 2008 1:07:17 PM

The PS3 is having a hard time competing against the Xbox and Wii at the moment, so much so last month the 360 out sold the PS3 in Japan (which is quite an accomplishment considering how tough it is for foreign products to succeed in Japan).

The types of games you like are better suited for the PC because of the control systems (unless you actually like playing FPS’s with a joypad), plus there’s the mod scene, online play, Lan and general PC gaming community which is something the PS3 is only just breaking into.

I don’t mean to sound overlay negative towards the PS3, but there are still a lot of issues with the console two f which are quite important, 1) Price and 2) Quality of games. Also the lack of exclusives (this applies to all consoles as well as PC’s) is a bit concerning. If you did want to get a console I would get the Wii, as most console games are released on the PC anyway and look and play better.

Wouldn't you upgrade parts cost less then a PS3 anyway?
Related resources
August 21, 2008 2:36:51 PM

djszkoda - This decision should really rest on one key aspect, what platform has more of the games you'd like to play? PC or ps3? Some other things to think about are whether or not you're interested in the ps3 as a blu-ray player, and if that's not important to you (or you don't have an HD display) then you should really consider how expensive the ps3 is, still, for a gaming machine and the longevity of PC's. Any PC you buy/build now with those specs should be able to handle any game for the next year or so, although you might not be able to run some titles at their highest settings. PC gear advances at a much faster rate than consoles, which for me is the greatest strength of the consoles ... you won't have to update your hardware every year.

I'm a little confused by your game classification, you like shooters, action, and fps games? When you say shooters do you mean something like Ikaruga? What do you consider to be an action game? Just curious. The only other thing to really think about is whether or not the PC games you want to play will run on your system. That system seems good enough, but I would strongly recommend getting a faster processor, something that is at least 3 ghz for a dual core or 2.5 ghz for a quad core. Have fun!
August 21, 2008 3:00:34 PM

Quote:
The types of games you like are better suited for the PC because of the control systems (unless you actually like playing FPS’s with a joypad)


Given that over half of the online community of fps gamers is subverting anticheats to play these games, I don't really think the control style matters

I'd actually go so far to say that if you want to play FPS online, then do it on console instead - because at least you know its a level playing field.
August 21, 2008 3:08:51 PM

JeanLuc said:
The PS3 is having a hard time competing against the Xbox and Wii at the moment, so much so last month the 360 out sold the PS3 in Japan (which is quite an accomplishment considering how tough it is for foreign products to succeed in Japan).

The types of games you like are better suited for the PC because of the control systems (unless you actually like playing FPS’s with a joypad), plus there’s the mod scene, online play, Lan and general PC gaming community which is something the PS3 is only just breaking into.

I don’t mean to sound overlay negative towards the PS3, but there are still a lot of issues with the console two f which are quite important, 1) Price and 2) Quality of games. Also the lack of exclusives (this applies to all consoles as well as PC’s) is a bit concerning. If you did want to get a console I would get the Wii, as most console games are released on the PC anyway and look and play better.

Wouldn't you upgrade parts cost less then a PS3 anyway?

While it was impressive to see the 360 outsell the PS3 in Japan at all, it was from a weekly sales chart published by Gamasutra, not monthly, so the PS3 is still more likely to outsell the Xbox360 in Japan for the month of August. According to the NPD the PS3 has outsold the 360 every month so far in 2008, and the PS3 has already beat the 360's lifetime sales in Europe despite the fact that the 360 came out December 2, 2005 and the PS3 was launched in Europe March 23, 2007.

First person shooters definitely control best on the PC with a mouse and keyboard, but some console shooters have shown it can be done quite well. Lan is a hit and miss for me; on the one hand, lan parties kick ass if you can go to them enough, but it can be a hassle moving all of the equipment. Consoles have been getting better with lan as well; Warhawk on the PS3 offers up to 4 players per console for lan, as does Halo 3 on the Xbox360 and it's a very easy setup.

Owning all 3 consoles, I'd say the Wii is the one I'm least likely to recommend. Sure, Wii Sports is fun, but there aren't that many titles really worth playing, and the system is so dated on a technical level in comparison to the Xbox360 and PS3.

The exclusive argument is a bit silly; not only does it appear that the PS3 has more big name exclusives coming out in 2008 & 2009, but most of the "exclusives" on the 360 end up on the PC anyways, not that it really matters.

Cost is an issue; OP, how much are you going to spend upgrading your PC?
organix said:
PC gear advances at a much faster rate than consoles, which for me is the greatest strength of the consoles ... you won't have to update your hardware every year.
This, and the fact that there haven't really been any good PC exclusives this year are driving me away from the platform. I'd get rid of my 8800GTX and upgrade to the GTX 280 or a 4870X2 if there were new titles worth playing on the PC that weren't coming out on anything else.

ovaltineplease said:
Quote:
The types of games you like are better suited for the PC because of the control systems (unless you actually like playing FPS’s with a joypad)


Given that over half of the online community of fps gamers is subverting anticheats to play these games, I don't really think the control style matters

I'd actually go so far to say that if you want to play FPS online, then do it on console instead - because at least you know its a level playing field.
Cheating does happen in console games occasionally, but it is a lot more difficult to do on a closed platform, as well as developers / Microsoft / Sony seem to monitor it a lot more. On the Xbox360, if you get caught cheating they ban your console's serial number from connecting to Xbox Live.
August 21, 2008 3:28:21 PM

Sure, I mean given that the consoles do have a hard disk it is possible - but you're right, its much less likely as there is just too many hoops to jump through and the penalty means buying a new system completely.

Quote:
This, and the fact that there haven't really been any good PC exclusives this year are driving me away from the platform. I'd get rid of my 8800GTX and upgrade to the GTX 280 or a 4870X2 if there were new titles worth playing on the PC that weren't coming out on anything else.


I think we're nearing an end for PC exclusives, i'd go so far to say this might be the last year that you see a PC exclusive as end users are turning it into an inviable platform to launch on.
August 21, 2008 6:25:00 PM

Thanks for all the information, and let me clear myself up:

I will be spending $1000 CAD on PC parts,
or buying a 80GB PS3 with MGS4.

To elaborate on the types of games I play:
Shooters, by that I mean FPS/3rd Person games such as BioShock, Counter Strike Source, HL2, FarCry, Crysis, etc.
Action games: The Bourne Conspiracy (console exclusive), the upcoming Mirror's Edge, Silent Hill, etc.

I'm leaning towards PS3 now; I don't want to constantly upgrade. I was hoping of buying a nice Quad Core rig and lasting atleast 2-3 years on high settings on 1280x1024.
August 21, 2008 6:38:06 PM

get the ps3 - you'll probably be happier if you only want to spend 1000$
August 21, 2008 6:39:42 PM

For a $1000, I can get a q6600, Asus P5Q Mobo, OCZ Platinum XTC 2GB DDR2800, a videocard of my choice ($200 is the max I'll probably spend), a new case, and a new PSU, OCZ GameXStream 600W.

That comes to about $950 for me, plus $100 in rebates afterwords.
The PS3 will cost me $500 + taxes.

EDIT: I'll be satisfied with a 9800GTX+ or a HD 4850 for now, because I only play games at 1280x1024. I like the mouse/keyboard combo better than a gamepad.
August 21, 2008 9:56:29 PM

Give me a reason to get a PS3, then.
I frankly still can't decide, and I have to make a decision this week.
August 21, 2008 10:01:21 PM

djszkoda said:
I was hoping of buying a nice Quad Core rig and lasting atleast 2-3 years on high settings on 1280x1024.
I don't think even the GTX 280 will be prepared to play all new games on High for the next 2-3 years, so a 9800GTX+ certainly won't be. The 9800GTX+ doesn't support Direct X10.1, and even though the 4850 does, it won't be fast enough to use them when the titles supporting these features come out. Microsoft announced Direct X11 at GamesFest this year in July, so that's another thing to consider.
August 21, 2008 10:10:52 PM

So, if I bought the rig I'm planning on buying, and then wait for DX11 with a 9800GTX+/4850, can I atleast play DX9/DX10 on mostly high, 1240x1024?

See, it's this new info that I get constantly that really confuses me and my decision, hahah.
August 21, 2008 10:35:46 PM

I have to wonder, why the PS3 and not the 360? If it is because you already have a 360, then I certainly wouldn't bother with the PS3 because their game libraries are not different enough to warrant it.

If it is because of the hardware difficulties with the 360, I really feel that those are overblown now. They were bad the first year or two, but now, not really. Also MS is good about supporting them.

The only reason I would consider a PS3 over a 360 would be for the potential of watching Bluray movies, and that is unimportant unless you have a 1080p capable TV and at least a basic surround sound system, preferably 5.1 or 7.1

All in all, if you don't have a console yet and have a decent entertainment system, then I'd probably go with the console. If you have a 360 and are just considering getting the PS3 too, I would probably upgrade my PC first.
August 21, 2008 11:36:45 PM

PC gaming has this funny reputation of needing constant expensive upgrades to run games. It simply isn't true, unless you have your rig running on huge monitors with super high resolutions.

If you just have a 19" monitor with a native 1280x1040 or whatever the hell it is, you do not need a fancy rig to play most games, you just don't. You just need a decent video card and enough RAM.

I've got what is considered to be an ancient single core 3700+ running at just 2.2Ghz. Hardcore fanboyz laugh me out of the park at that, but with two gigs of Ram and an 8800GT, there isn't a single game I haven't been able to play at decent framerates. Including Crysis. Most games I can even turn the eye candy almost all the way up at this resolution. Crysis had the important stuff on high and other stuff on medium. It looked frikken fantastic and played smooth. Bioshock and COD4 ran like butter. No hiccups. No slowdown. Fast and fun.

My buddy has a PS3 and I play at his place. It's fun, but honestly, my little rig has better graphics. PC game graphics can be tweaked easily to make the most out of any system and as you turn up the candy, you reach a point of diminishing returns. You have to take screenshots and examine them like a frikken detective to see the diff between high and very high settings.

Consoles are great for playing with friends on a big TV, but when I really want to get into a game, I'd still rather play on my PC.
August 22, 2008 2:11:21 AM

I usually go 3 to 5 years before retiring a PC. Generally I'll build a new one every couple of years, but for at least 3 they remain functional gaming systems.

Then again I maintain a gaming LAN at my house and friends play all the time....
August 22, 2008 2:38:08 AM

I still have my Athlon XP box running, its nearly 6 years old

I only replaced it last Christmas.

You can certainly get a lot of mileage out of PCs - I just think that generally the multiplayer component of consoles is more fun/better unless you're playing RTS.
August 22, 2008 2:46:49 AM

I have one Athlon XP box not decommissioned. That one is my domain controller/print server/file server.
August 22, 2008 3:47:02 AM

I do NOT own a 360. Don't have the slightest ambition to do so, either.

On the other hand, I do own a Wii.

A PS3 would be fun - but PC is always where I've played most of my games from a young age.

I'm still on the fence.
I have to make my decision by Saturday.
August 22, 2008 3:47:12 AM

My Athlon has served me well, but the 8800gt is the best card it will ever see. I think I can hold out through the winter with the current rig and then retire her next summer. Maybe give the old girl a gold watch.

But yeah, I usually keep my machines for 3-4 years too and replace the graphics cards every 12-18months or so, when the next generation drops in price to about $200. That keeps me afloat and lets me play stuff that looks great, but I'm not obsessed with frames per second or making sure everything is set to very high. Like I said, I personally don't think it's worth the extra money for small graphical improvements.

That said, when I do get a new machine I'll get a new monitor so I can up the resolution a bit. Which will require a better vid card ... and a better cpu ...

When I finally get my big plasma, i'll probably get a ps3 anyway. Costs about the same as a blu-ray alone, so why not?
August 22, 2008 4:22:15 AM

I'll probably get the PC system than.
August 22, 2008 4:23:31 AM

Exactly, the PS3 is a complete entertainment solution - the BluRay player is another big bonus of the system if you have HDTV or intend to upgrade to HDTV and enjoy high def movies.

Regardless, thats aside the point; but its still worth noting.
August 22, 2008 5:02:46 AM

I do have an HDTV capable of 1080i.

But, if graphics will be lacking on PS3, what's wrong with a good strong PC?
I can still hook it up through HDMI.
August 22, 2008 12:55:41 PM

djszkoda said:
I do have an HDTV capable of 1080i.

But, if graphics will be lacking on PS3, what's wrong with a good strong PC?
I can still hook it up through HDMI.

Graphics aren't "lacking" on the PS3 or the Xbox360. Sure, the graphics will always be "better" on a PC with higher specs, but the difference is generally not very large, especially in this day in age with the Xbox360 or PS3 is the lead development platform anyways, not the PC. I own the Xbox360, PS3, and a PC with an 8800GTX and if your TV is good enough, gaming on a console despite the lower resolution is perfectly fine. Heck, my monitor's native resolution is 1920x1200, but recently most of my gaming has been on my 1080p television with the Xbox360 and PS3. You'll also find titles on the PS3 that you won't on the PC like Metal Gear Solid 4, Siren: Blood Curse, Gran Turismo 5, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Warhawk, Resistance 2, Little Big Planet, Killzone 2, Heavy Rain, God of War III, Resident Evil 5(might release on the PC, but after the poor performance of Devil May Cry 4, probably not) and more.
August 22, 2008 3:04:34 PM

Heyyou27, so you're argument would be to get a PS3?

How long do you reckon it will last?
August 22, 2008 3:44:43 PM

djszkoda,

No offense, but no one here can tell you what to do because none of us knows exactly how you like to play games, what you already have, etc.

Choosing between a new rig and a pS3 is a nice problem to have, you can't go wrong with either.

ps3 is nice. If you already have a good hdtv and don't own a blu-ray, then this makes great sense. heck, if you don't think it's the cat's ass, you can always sell it and upgrade your computer later.

but then again, if you already own a c2d in your current rig, the main thing slowing it down for games is the gpu. For $250 you can get a hot 4870 that would blow smoke around everything else. Seriously, I went from a 7600gt to an 8800gt and it was a shocking improvement and it's being bottlenecked by my ancient cpu. Pick up a 4850 ($180) or a 4870 and that would really change the game for your current machine. You could also overclock your current processor - a lot if you get a new heat sink.

Good luck and don't stress. This is fun stuff!

August 22, 2008 5:13:06 PM

djszkoda said:
Heyyou27, so you're argument would be to get a PS3?

How long do you reckon it will last?
Honestly, I wouldn't recommend a gaming PC as your only platform as the PC gaming market is in quite a bit of a slump. Most titles are being developed for the Xbox360 and PS3 primarily now, and the PC version is sort of afterthought. Pair that with the fact that the PS3 is going to have a very strong lineup of exclusive titles, as well as titles that are multi-platform, but not announced for the PC like Resident Evil 5, or the Force Unleashed. I own the PS3, Xbox360, Wii, and a decent PC with an 8800GTX and feel that the best way to game is having every platform available. For the 360, it was Gears of War and Halo 3, for the PS3, Metal Gear Solid 4, Uncharted, and Blu-ray, and the Wii with Super Mario Galaxy, Legend of Zelda, Mario Kart, and Super Smash Brothers. The PC is getting Stalker: Clear Skies, but it seems like it'll be awhile before we get our hands on Starcraft 2 or Diablo 3.

I'd try and get a PS3 and then work towards upgrading your PC as well, as you'll find yourself with a greater set of gaming choices.

Edit: as Robotman3000 says, if you only need a videocard, that's maybe $200; do that and you can start saving for a PS3. Even if you got the PS3 and found it wasn't for you, there is still plenty of time left in it's life cycle to sell it and get a good bit of cash back.
August 22, 2008 5:19:14 PM

Hmm, I think you're right.

I'll buy the 80GB PS3 bundle that has backwards compatibility, and then save for a new PC when better technology is announced, maybe near Q2/Q3 2009.

I don't honestly think just a video card will do me, if I upgrade, I upgrade it all.
August 22, 2008 5:52:53 PM

Oh the PS3 will be around for at least another 4 to 5 years. Possibly longer. Chances are that there will be fewer and fewer exclusive titles as time goes on though.

No doubt the PS3 would last longer before you need an upgrade.
August 22, 2008 5:54:02 PM


Good choice. I'm sure it will serve you well - and you'll have a blu-ray too!

Just keep in mind that there's never a perfect time to upgrade your pc. New technology is always right around the corner, so don't let that dissuade you too much.
August 22, 2008 6:38:04 PM

Robotman3000, that is completely true, but I must fare with this.

I have a suitable rig for the games and the things I do on my PC.

The only games I play are CSS or Quake 4, whereas on PS3 I have a plethora of great titles. Apart from gaming, all I do is music production. There is no need for a quad core with the strongest video card possible for this.

And, well, the blu-ray is just a treat.
!