seriously take this topic somewhere else, it has been discussed so many god damn ties it is not funy, we even had a pc vs ps3 that ran for over a year, fid ouit yourself, google then jump off a cliff.
p.s. i ain't in a nice mood tonight but even so follow my advice to the letter.
------------------------------I'm a git, deal with it.
different architecture, both are, from what I have heard (not being a programmer, this is not first hand) a pain in the a$$ to program for compared to the hardware in the simpler consoles like the xbox 360, but the overall performance of all consoles currently out is definitely lower than high end PC's, and since the 4850's, Definitely lower than mid range (of course, those with integrated graphics are, as always, **** that is inferior to PC's from 5 years ago, let alone consoles from slightly less)
i want to know which VGA card can be compared with that in PS3 . and also the processor.
they are saying that CRYTEC didn't release Crysis on PS3 because it doesn't have enough power to run it.
i want to know how PS3 can be compared with current PC processors and graphics cards .
thank you
The "RSX" GPU in the PS3 is literally a 7900GT at 550MHz with 8 ROPs disabled, and only 256MB of DDR3 1400MHz on a 128-bit memory bus. The Cell Processor is a custom IBM Power PC CPU and it's completely unlike anything we've ever seen, or likely will ever see in a desktop PC. It's not necessarily faster or slower than what you could put in your desktop, just different. It uses the Power PC instruction set, and is an in order processor, and is asymmetrical. The main core known as the PPU in the Cell is basically the same as one of the cores in the Xbox360's Xenos CPU; the Cell in the PS3 also has 7 SPEs (originally 8 but 1 was disabled to improve yields) and 1 of the SPEs is reserved to the PS3's OS, so developers really only have access to 6 of them. If you were doing something that required a lot of branch prediction, any semi-current desktop CPU would beat the Cell. Where the Cell shows its power is with scientific applications due to its massive FP performance, which would outperform even the QX9770 because that's all it was designed to do. If you take a look at the folding@home statistics, there are roughly 6 times as many active donors on Windows than there are PS3 donors, yet the PS3 group has a total performance rating a little over 5x higher than the Windows group.
In a level playing environment both the Xbox360 and PS3 would get pounded by the current highest end hardware on the market, but it isn't a level playing field. In fact, PC games are so poorly optimized in comparison to something you will get on the Xbox360 or PS3, you have to rely on the brute strength of your hardware to compensate for the lazy coding. When we get towards the end of the Xbox360 and PS3 life cycle the gap between the PC and consoles will be huge, but that's what happens when you keep the same hardware for half a decade.
The "RSX" GPU in the PS3 is literally a 7900GT at 550MHz with 8 ROPs disabled, and only 256MB of DDR3 1400MHz on a 128-bit memory bus. The Cell Processor is a custom IBM Power PC CPU and it's completely unlike anything we've ever seen, or likely will ever see in a desktop PC. It's not necessarily faster or slower than what you could put in your desktop, just different. It uses the Power PC instruction set, and is an in order processor, and is asymmetrical. The main core known as the PPU in the Cell is basically the same as one of the cores in the Xbox360's Xenos CPU; the Cell in the PS3 also has 7 SPEs (originally 8 but 1 was disabled to improve yields) and 1 of the SPEs is reserved to the PS3's OS, so developers really only have access to 6 of them. If you were doing something that required a lot of branch prediction, any semi-current desktop CPU would beat the Cell. Where the Cell shows its power is with scientific applications due to its massive FP performance, which would outperform even the QX9770 because that's all it was designed to do. If you take a look at the folding@home statistics, there are roughly 6 times as many active donors on Windows than there are PS3 donors, yet the PS3 group has a total performance rating a little over 5x higher than the Windows group.
In a level playing environment both the Xbox360 and PS3 would get pounded by the current highest end hardware on the market, but it isn't a level playing field. In fact, PC games are so poorly optimized in comparison to something you will get on the Xbox360 or PS3, you have to rely on the brute strength of your hardware to compensate for the lazy coding. When we get towards the end of the Xbox360 and PS3 life cycle the gap between the PC and consoles will be huge, but that's what happens when you keep the same hardware for half a decade.
i agree with you about the poor optimization for pc games, but we must live with it. noway for getting a console. PC roles.
i agree with you about the poor optimization for pc games, but we must live with it. noway for getting a console. PC roles.
I've always been a huge fan of gaming on the PC, but find gaming on the consoles capable of providing a pretty good experience as well. With the recent slump the PC has been experiencing, I've found myself spending more time on the consoles, but in another year or so I'll be back to gaming on the PC again.
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months. If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.