Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

can we compare PS3 to current PC processors and Graphics card

Last response: in Video Games
Share
September 12, 2008 7:21:51 PM

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
September 12, 2008 8:04:56 PM

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)
September 12, 2008 10:28:04 PM

abudahim said:
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.
Related resources
September 13, 2008 1:17:52 AM

Heyyou27 said:
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.

September 13, 2008 1:57:19 AM

abudahim said:
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.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 7, 2010 7:38:50 AM

i think pc graphics card like ati 5850 and 5970 are way more powerfull than ps3 or xbox 360.
if u want to see buy ati radeon 5850 black edition and u will come to know.
price of the above mention graphics card is around 320$
April 7, 2010 9:38:37 AM

i don't think PC games are poorly optimized, it's just that the dev's go for increased clarity, with features such as AA and super resolution.

'optimizing' a console game consists of using every trick in the book to make the game fuzzy, gritty, dark and dirty to lower visibility in order to render the fewest objects as possible.

the other great trick they use in console FPS games is to have a very low vertical field of view. every game seems like you're playing with cardboard box on your head.

therefore screenshots are comparable across both platforms, but when you play a console game you can feel it totally struggle to play most games. i think most players who have grown up playing superfast pc games really struggle to play intensive competitive games on the consoles - such as RTS and FPS.

console = fighting games
PC = everything else
a b U Graphics card
April 7, 2010 12:18:28 PM

Different arches make it hard to compare; as consoles don't need to deal with more then one Application + a lightweight OS, you can do a lot more with a lot less resources.
a b U Graphics card
April 8, 2010 2:04:04 PM

^^ Not really. From an arch point of view, the 360 is hindered big time by its lack of a guarenteed HD. That is, all game data MUST fit in 512MB of RAM, where the PS3 can (and does) cache/install a lot of data to the hard drive. Nevermind the PS3's Cell CPU is more powerful (when used properly).

PS3 CPU: 3.2 GHz Cell CPU (6 cores avaliable for use) - Capable of up to 204 GFLOPS
360 CPU: 3.2 GHz Triple-Core Xenon - Capable of up to 115.2 GFLOPS

PS3 GPU: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSX_%27Reality_Synthesizer...
360 GPU: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenos_(graphics_chip)

I'd argue the PS3 GPU is faster, but its close either way.

PS3 RAM: 256MB XDR DRAM @ ??? (probably 600Mhz, can anyone confirm?)
360 RAM: 512MB DDR3 @ 700MHz

The PS3 had better performance numbers all around, mainly due to Cell. Again though, how that power is used is more important.
a b U Graphics card
April 9, 2010 3:34:12 PM

tarquinbiscuitbarrel said:
i don't think PC games are poorly optimized, it's just that the dev's go for increased clarity, with features such as AA and super resolution.

'optimizing' a console game consists of using every trick in the book to make the game fuzzy, gritty, dark and dirty to lower visibility in order to render the fewest objects as possible.

the other great trick they use in console FPS games is to have a very low vertical field of view. every game seems like you're playing with cardboard box on your head.

therefore screenshots are comparable across both platforms, but when you play a console game you can feel it totally struggle to play most games. i think most players who have grown up playing superfast pc games really struggle to play intensive competitive games on the consoles - such as RTS and FPS.

console = fighting games
PC = everything else


I agree. Yesterday, at Best Buy, I was picking up a copy of BF:BC2 for the PC and on a 40+" LCD was MLB2K10 for the PS3. Wow. It looked UGLY! Jaggies everywhere. You could see how the picture of the players faces and such were blurry and things were not very sharp to try and hide the jaggies. But, on a huge screen, it was very apparent what was going on.

I look at BF:BC2 on my computer with AA enabled running at the highest settings and it blows away any of the graphics on the PS3 and still runs smooth as silk if not better.

Sorry, PCs look better. Consoles, at least when they were first around, didn't require a lot of high-end processing on the graphics because most TVs that they were hooked up to were at 720dpi so you could get away with fudging the graphics and make them "appear" better than what you would get on a PC on lower-end hardware. However, the consoles have been bypassed by much better computer hardware and GPUs that there is no contest on which looks better: PC.

April 11, 2010 6:00:21 PM

Tangylink said:
Xbox 360 Official Specs: http://support.xbox.com/support/en/us/xbox360/hardware/...

PS3 Official Specs: http://us.playstation.com/ps3/techspecs/120gb.html

As you can see there is a big difference in the 2 systems, and I think that clearly the Xbox 360 is the BEST system. it can almost out preform the ps3 in every way, with a few minor spots



Does it out perform the PS3 in Not catching on fire? I am primarily a PC gamer and a console gamer second.

Most Xbox exclusives come out for windows as well, I wanted a bluray player, and a console for any interesting games that wouldnt be out on PC, and of course the massive failure rates of Xbox playing into my choice in console, even after all this time, everybody I know who owns an xbox has had to have it repaired (some multiple times). Ive had my ps3 for 3 years, and have never experienced a single issue.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
September 21, 2010 9:50:27 PM

gamerk316 said:
^^ Not really. From an arch point of view, the 360 is hindered big time by its lack of a guarenteed HD. That is, all game data MUST fit in 512MB of RAM, where the PS3 can (and does) cache/install a lot of data to the hard drive. Nevermind the PS3's Cell CPU is more powerful (when used properly).

PS3 CPU: 3.2 GHz Cell CPU (6 cores avaliable for use) - Capable of up to 204 GFLOPS
360 CPU: 3.2 GHz Triple-Core Xenon - Capable of up to 115.2 GFLOPS

PS3 GPU: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSX_%27Reality_Synthesizer...
360 GPU: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenos_(graphics_chip)

I'd argue the PS3 GPU is faster, but its close either way.

PS3 RAM: 256MB XDR DRAM @ ??? (probably 600Mhz, can anyone confirm?)
360 RAM: 512MB DDR3 @ 700MHz

The PS3 had better performance numbers all around, mainly due to Cell. Again though, how that power is used is more important.


PS3 RAM is incorrect. PS3 actually has 512mb same as xbox360.
PS3 RAM specs: 256 XDR (Mhz: unknown, different websites have different specs for it and Sony sites didnt have it either).
a c 271 U Graphics card
September 21, 2010 11:49:06 PM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
!