Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Console vs pc (war!)

Last response: in Video Games
Share

console or pc!!

Total: 63 votes (8 blank votes)

  • console!
  • 8 %
  • pc!!
  • 93 %
December 15, 2010 5:17:53 PM

nowadays casual gamer and crappy graphical console ported over flood everywhere in market make enthusiast market to be over shadow. we need to fight for our glory!

please discuss!

More about : console war

December 15, 2010 6:38:12 PM

pay same price for the whole package of console (including screen) and PC package (also including a monitor) the PC will outperform.

the only downside is the monior will be smaller then TVs, however u are sitting closer and resolutions can be higher to make up for it.

PCs can lag if systems arent up to the requirements, so theres another bad thing, however consoles games must be optimized to their limited standards, although for the PS3, the high resolutions textures are absolutely superb and will kill the PC at this part.
December 15, 2010 6:59:39 PM

MEgamer said:
pay same price for the whole package of console (including screen) and PC package (also including a monitor) the PC will outperform.

the only downside is the monior will be smaller then TVs, however u are sitting closer and resolutions can be higher to make up for it.

PCs can lag if systems arent up to the requirements, so theres another bad thing, however consoles games must be optimized to their limited standards, although for the PS3, the high resolutions textures are absolutely superb and will kill the PC at this part.


pc can't be lag unless the spec is either really "low"(like atom + gma 900....) or simply "outdated"(like 6~7 years old pc). you couldn't find a modern pc that can't run console games these day especially nowadays that console ported are flooding everywhere like cockroach and spec requirement are mostly stay at p4 .20ghz + 512mb~1gb ram and 6600gt gfx as console ported's graphic engine are so outdated even the crappiest desktop with gma 3100(not nettop) can run it with 30+fps. this is where it kills the real high graphical demand game engine development where hd texture/high pixel/polygon count/physx that only take advantage on high end platform. as for ps3 it has nothing different from xbox 360 and both are far outdated hardware even at the time of released. what makes you think they can run modern game? most because either the graphic engine sucks(like bad company and cod) or really low setting that block everything(gta 4 and left 4 dead) and you won't find crysis/metro2033 run on either ps3 or xbox360(i don't think they can run these game even under 360p..not to mention 480p)...
Related resources
December 15, 2010 7:16:39 PM

cheesesubs said:
and you won't find crysis/metro2033 run on either ps3 or xbox360(i don't think they can run these game even under 360p..not to mention 480p)...




Look! Xbox CAN play Metro 2033!

I know what you meant. Xbox/PS3 CANNOT play them at even medium PC settings. The only good thing to come from console dominance is that my 5870 will be be able to max nearly all PC games until 2012, when they finally refresh the consoles.
December 15, 2010 7:24:44 PM

Trialsking said:
http://www.covershut.com/covers/Metro-2033-Front-Cover-46591.jpg

Look! Xbox CAN play Metro 2033!

I know what you meant. Xbox/PS3 CANNOT play them at even medium PC settings. The only good thing to come from console dominance is that my 5870 will be be able to max nearly all PC games until 2012, when they finally refresh the consoles.


my bad, but it really takes them to run these game even under the lowest setting. as you were mention the advantage of console ported. i agree, these low system require game can really last you pc very long. but the console reflash in 2012? i thought it's going to be at 2015~2017 after dx9 and xp fully retire. that means crappy graphic engine will dominate the game industry for a long time...
December 15, 2010 7:34:44 PM

Trialsking said:
http://www.covershut.com/covers/Metro-2033-Front-Cover-46591.jpg
The only good thing to come from console dominance is that my 5870 will be be able to max nearly all PC games until 2012, when they finally refresh the consoles.


That is pretty much the same thought I had with my GTX 260. The old girl is aging, but not in comparison to the hardware the consoles are sporting.
December 15, 2010 8:10:11 PM

MangoJunkie said:
That is pretty much the same thought I had with my GTX 260. The old girl is aging, but not in comparison to the hardware the consoles are sporting.


it kills the technology procession...

gtx 260 only look bad when try to run some pc hardware killer title but on console ported like bad company you can basically max ou and still getting more than 150fps.... not to mention gtx 260, even 8800gt/9600gt and other g92/94 or r770 are still very much alive thanks to over flooding console title.....
December 16, 2010 9:16:56 AM

I dont want to " LIMIT my gaming and game titles" by buying a CONSOLE, U have all the titles coming out for PC..be it FPS ( which is best played in PC), RPG, RTS, any damn thing,.
Maybe Console is OK for racing type games and thats just because of a JOYSTICK which you can get very cheap for a PC too and have the same fun.
Consoles a big no no for me. Forget about the Graphics, the new GPUs have enough horse power to kick even a PS10.
Still no signs of aging for my classic e8400 with a 5850 :D ...
December 16, 2010 12:51:39 PM

Take into account the price difference between console games and PC games, especially if you buy a lot, then that offsets the price (partly) for a high end pc. Also it seems theres a trend to keep charging for things that are free on PC's ie DLC and that offsets it even more.
This is partly why I dont buy anything for my PS3 anymore, bar films that is.
December 16, 2010 2:27:30 PM

cheesesubs said:
nowadays casual gamer and crappy graphical console ported over flood everywhere in market make enthusiast market to be over shadow. we need to fight for our glory!

please discuss!


I agree. I've been using my PS3 more just because it seems like more and more games are poorly done console ports. It absolutely kills me when I can't configure my entire keyboard or use all my mouse buttons.
December 16, 2010 7:32:58 PM

cheesesubs said:
pc can't be lag unless the spec is either really "low"(like atom + gma 900....) or simply "outdated"(like 6~7 years old pc). you couldn't find a modern pc that can't run console games these day especially nowadays that console ported are flooding everywhere like cockroach and spec requirement are mostly stay at p4 .20ghz + 512mb~1gb ram and 6600gt gfx as console ported's graphic engine are so outdated even the crappiest desktop with gma 3100(not nettop) can run it with 30+fps. this is where it kills the real high graphical demand game engine development where hd texture/high pixel/polygon count/physx that only take advantage on high end platform. as for ps3 it has nothing different from xbox 360 and both are far outdated hardware even at the time of released. what makes you think they can run modern game? most because either the graphic engine sucks(like bad company and cod) or really low setting that block everything(gta 4 and left 4 dead) and you won't find crysis/metro2033 run on either ps3 or xbox360(i don't think they can run these game even under 360p..not to mention 480p)...


im guessing u havent actually seen a the ps3... if u look at the games ON SCREEN, it has far much better textures then any PC outthere no mattter what graphics, because files in the PS3 are far far far much less compressed then in the tDVDs on PC, the uncompressed HD textures on the PS3 is bloody obvoious, and anyone would be able to tell that the PS3 has better textures, i have the xbox and ps3 however im a PC gamer as well, and i know my *** - by what im hearing from u, u just seemed biased, all the latest call of dutys on xbox run over 720, MW2 can do 1080.... so dont bring on that resolution crap.

an old 8800gt withb a decent processor can run most games, so cant he xbox. ( dont need to mention PS3 here, cos thats obvious... oh w8 i just did....)
December 17, 2010 9:18:41 AM

MEgamer said:
im guessing u havent actually seen a the ps3... if u look at the games ON SCREEN, it has far much better textures then any PC outthere no mattter what graphics, because files in the PS3 are far far far much less compressed then in the tDVDs on PC, the uncompressed HD textures on the PS3 is bloody obvoious, and anyone would be able to tell that the PS3 has better textures, i have the xbox and ps3 however im a PC gamer as well, and i know my *** - by what im hearing from u, u just seemed biased, all the latest call of dutys on xbox run over 720, MW2 can do 1080.... so dont bring on that resolution crap.

an old 8800gt withb a decent processor can run most games, so cant he xbox. ( dont need to mention PS3 here, cos thats obvious... oh w8 i just did....)


what is ps3's processor? "cell"! which is same as xobox360's "xenos" that based on cripple powerpc g5 architecture(cost down from g5). having 16kb+16kb l1 cache and 1mb unified l2 cache with no superscaler or OoO(out of order), SSE/MMX these modern processor feature it is handicap. apple is one of few software/hardware company that having rare complier that can make cross-platform software that runs on different computing architecture. so far they made a benchmark in 2005~2006 to decide switch from risc to penyn(x86) the bench are between

ppc g4/g5(mac, single/dual core): 32kb L1d+ 32kb L1I, 8mb l2 cache share
xenos(xbox360, tri-core): 16kb L1D + 16kb L1I, 512KB L2 cache per core
cell(ps3, tri-core): 16kb L1D + 16kb L1I, 3mb L2 cache share
emotion engine(ps2, single core): 8Kb Unified L1 + 1mb L2 cache
pentium 4/D(willamitte~prescott, ): 8~16KB L1D + 12kuops(32KB) trace cache, 256kb~1mb cache per core
conroe(core 2 duo, dual-core): 32kb L1D + 32kb L1I, 4mb L2 cache share
arm11: 16kb L1D + 16kb L1I, 512kb share
athlon64(single/dual core): 64kb L1D + 64kb L1I, 1~2mb per core
SPARC(8 core): 8kb L1D + 8kb L1I, 256KB L2 cache per core. 32mb L3 cache share
dothan(pentium m): 32kb L1D + 32kb L1I, 2mb per core
motolora 68000: 4kb unified L1 cache

it result cell&xenos were far behind most other processor except arm11 in the benchmark, even a crappy a 1.8ghz p4 willamitte can beat 3ghz cell&xenos in that complier due to lack of instruction set and superscaler. conroe took the crown with 3x faster than powerpc g5 and 2x faster than athlon64 per clock! an 1.8ghz conroe = 2.0ghz dothan = 2.5ghz athlon64 x2 = 2.6ghz emotion engine(theoretical number) 3.6ghz powerpc = 3.8ghz p4 prescott x2 = 5ghz sparc = 8ghz cell = 9ghz xenos = 12ghz arm11 =190ghz motolora 68000. a 1.8ghz care 2 duo can beat cell/xenos in extremly OCed and still loss....that was just a bench 2006!!! not to mention compare to more powerful wolfdale/wolfdale3m/yorkfield and today's nehalem based cpu. a core 2 e8500(3.13ghz) can be up to 5x faster than both xenos(3.4ghz) and cell(3.1ghz) in standard clock.

go search google about core 2 duo vs powerpc you'll find a lot of result.
December 17, 2010 11:07:28 AM

wtf... now u chat BS... PS3 uses the cell which is 8 cores (8th disabled) consisiting of the PPE and a SPE the frequency is set at 3.2ghz. (six cores run for games as the seventh is required for the OS)

the latest cell processors (not featured in playstation models yet) are actually comparitive to the i7. PS3 also do not run background programs except for the OS, so even having the same provcessor for console and PC console could possibly out perform, however consoles do not need to go that far.

my main point in the initial argument was about textures anyway... PS3 wins in this area, it cant be any simpler...
December 17, 2010 12:22:12 PM

MEgamer said:
wtf... now u chat BS... PS3 uses the cell which is 8 cores (8th disabled) consisiting of the PPE and a SPE the frequency is set at 3.2ghz. (six cores run for games as the seventh is required for the OS)

the latest cell processors (not featured in playstation models yet) are actually comparitive to the i7. PS3 also do not run background programs except for the OS, so even having the same provcessor for console and PC console could possibly out perform, however consoles do not need to go that far.

my main point in the initial argument was about textures anyway... PS3 wins in this area, it cant be any simpler...



that bench was done around early 2006 just before core 2 duo released. simply it beat cell by far margin and the first gen was tri-core and latest cell is 8 core(do not count PPE/SPE as a "core" because they don't have cache and dedicate instruction set/MPU/FPU/ALU, more like hyperthreading technology from intel). i dunno the newest cell is but ps3 will never equip a latest cell processor to increase it's production cost. all it can be is die shrink. xenon from xbox is also a tri-core design and cell aint much different fromit.

about texture quality, do you know what gpu a PS3 have? you have no clue what it is...it's g70 geforce 7800gs with 8 rops/24TMU/24 pixel pipeline/8vertex pipeline. it doesn't even have shader processor and the raster pipeline(rop) is way smaller than desktop graphic card. xbox is even worse that came with ati xenosia and spec is only 4 rops/8TMU/32 pixel pipeline/ no vertex pipeline and no hardware T&L support. console are are consoles been the best platform for gaming? no, they are just outdated even at the time they were released.
December 17, 2010 12:47:31 PM

all the stuff in pc and xbox are compressed, the PS3 is not, with up to 50gb in hand, most of all the textures are uncompressed, its not about how detailed the textures are, its about how its processed... size doesnt matter at this point, this is why PS3 has better textures.... do u even own a PS3??? ( im a PC gamer, but i dont go by bias opinions)
December 17, 2010 12:53:53 PM

actually ill take that back partilally, for medal of honour and NFS the PC is a bit better.

no antialiasing for PS3, but they dont need one anyway with their TVs.
December 17, 2010 1:52:10 PM

MEgamer said:
all the stuff in pc and xbox are compressed, the PS3 is not, with up to 50gb in hand, most of all the textures are uncompressed, its not about how detailed the textures are, its about how its processed... size doesnt matter at this point, this is why PS3 has better textures.... do u even own a PS3??? ( im a PC gamer, but i dont go by bias opinions)


how do they have non-compressed texture when the rop were so little even compare to older desktop gpu like 9600/8800gt's 16 rops, plus the ram is only 256mb and video ram is only 8mb xdram and the bus is only 32bit width compare to desktop's 256bit and not to mention graphic card not all having 512mb~1gb ram in general! there's no way ps3 having better graphic than pc.
December 17, 2010 9:04:39 PM

50gb... if the textures are *** in the first place then they will be shown ***, if they are HD then sampled, that can only be sed as better.

and i was only talking about textures of course overall PC wins... which is why is voted PC.
December 18, 2010 2:31:18 AM

Same old battle. The comparison isn't even fair, since you are comparing a PC to a 300$ product with 5 year old hardware.

Given you pretty much need Windows as an OS to do any decent gaming and it cost 100$, how much of a gaming system can you buy for the 200$ left to have identical budgets? Yes at 500-600$ you now have something that is much better, but you also paid twice as much ...

I don't say consoles are better, they are simply a good cost-efficient way to game, but you have to sacrifice some stuff for it to be that way like upgradability and versatility (I won't mention quality simply because at launch time, those console could deliver like mid-range gaming PC).
December 18, 2010 5:23:35 AM

Why does there need to be a debate as to which is better? I like the best of both worlds.
December 18, 2010 8:51:46 AM

tbf, even thought i prefer playing games on PC, it is indeed far much cormfatable to sit down on your settee and play on your console,

plus, the PS3 bluray is actually quite gd quality, HDMI 1.4s coming out on PS3 as well.
December 19, 2010 8:51:27 PM

I have pc and have been working on them for 10+ years. PC has the best gfx, however ps3 is great as well. If you want to relax and play with friends, ps3. If you have money to burn and want to have absolutely the best gfx, then pc.
December 20, 2010 6:56:39 AM

my main reason of buying it though was cos of the blu ray player.
December 24, 2010 2:00:11 AM

Zenthar said:
Same old battle. The comparison isn't even fair, since you are comparing a PC to a 300$ product with 5 year old hardware.

Given you pretty much need Windows as an OS to do any decent gaming and it cost 100$, how much of a gaming system can you buy for the 200$ left to have identical budgets? Yes at 500-600$ you now have something that is much better, but you also paid twice as much ...

I don't say consoles are better, they are simply a good cost-efficient way to game, but you have to sacrifice some stuff for it to be that way like upgradability and versatility (I won't mention quality simply because at launch time, those console could deliver like mid-range gaming PC).



I would not say that consoles are really cost efficient. On face they look cheaper to PC, I agree, but inside they are not.

when a PC is assembled it has all the money invested in the PC in terms of hardware as there is no middle man to earn profit. But you can not assemble a console, right. so a console worth 300 $ has essentially hardware of 150 - 200 $ only.
December 24, 2010 2:14:13 AM

asheesh1_2000 said:
I would not say that consoles are really cost efficient. On face they look cheaper to PC, I agree, but inside they are not.

when a PC is assembled it has all the money invested in the PC in terms of hardware as there is no middle man to earn profit. But you can not assemble a console, right. so a console worth 300 $ has essentially hardware of 150 - 200 $ only.
Officially, I think Sony was loosing money on every PS3 sold up until the beginning of this year and/or the end of last year. Yes, by now there is probably 250-200$ worth of HW in it, but that is 4 years after it's launch and at wholesale price too. Even Dell's cheapest PC does cost as little as a PS3 or an XBox 360.
December 28, 2010 3:22:24 AM

I know I already interjected. But from an honest perspective. I do gotta say, I am finding I like the PS3 with being able to simply pop a game in the drive, let it update, and then I can just play. I like not having to chase driver issues. I am a computer tech by trade, so I am comfortable working on pc's, but with being married, and having only so much time to play games, it's nice to be able to just pick up and play. However, if you have to have the best graphics available, then the pc is for you if you've got the $$. If you don't have a lot of cash, then I think consoles are far enough along to where they can give you the best gaming for your $$, especially if you like to get the new sports games sometimes, which you can't get on pc.
March 2, 2011 6:53:10 PM

My vote is on PC, as all around they out perform and give so much more versatility, quality, and functionality in every last way.

The problem is the amount of effort one has to put into building a rig, whereas mainstream consoles you just buy and plug in, the end.

If corporations started working together on featured pre-builds that were worth a lick, PC would take over the market given enough time. The problem is, sites like newegg are the few that do worthwhile pre-builds, but honestly the builds they sponsor are compiled of excess product, so it's more an overstock bulk sale than a real build.

I'm trying to keep this simple and steer clear of the technical aspect.. If PC's were sold in fully assembled gaming rigs, the bulk of gamers (mainstreamers) would come jumping in, removing the amount of mass produced junk (ports) and increasing game quality overall.

Naturally though, finding companies willing to work together like this is practically impossible..

**Clarification: Keep in mind the phrase "worth a lick".. Alienware makes gaming rigs sure, rigs which cost twice and perform half.. And a lot of places offer DIY builds, which appeals to people like me who don't mind building their PC.. But the mainstream gamer wants simple:
-Buy it
-Take it Home
-Turn it on..

And when it comes to a rig that actually performs and is worth the price in the bundle, you never find that. You find overpriced junk that's been OC'd or a good rig you have to assemble or even design yourself. Seeing as most of the gaming community is casual gamers, this is the reason that PC is so neglected.
March 2, 2011 7:34:17 PM

Well, I tend to enjoy both worlds. My Fiance' loves to game but wants to sit in the living room, so we play coop shooters and such. I tend to lean toward the PC but have it tucked in the entertainment center and play with a wireless controller. PC upgrades and cost are really only an initial investment as once you have a decent base to start from, upgrades are cheap and easy and keep the PC going for years (if you choose the right mobo). I see the benefits of the cheap, plug it in and play consoles and the powerful PC with it's horsepower and the all important abilty to mod your games with user content from the community.
March 3, 2011 2:40:22 PM

basically the graphics suck on the consoles. they really do.
March 3, 2011 5:36:08 PM

MEgamer said:
basically the graphics suck on the consoles. they really do.



But the graphix from the Crysis 2 demo are the best ever seen on PC, and since its a console port that means that consoles have the best graphix ever!

Oops, I forgot that Crysis 2 is not a port because its doesn't have"press start", aim assist, "TV settings", floaty game play, no custom graphix settings, blah blah blah
March 3, 2011 8:36:20 PM

Trialsking said:
But the graphix from the Crysis 2 demo are the best ever seen on PC, and since its a console port that means that consoles have the best graphix ever!

Oops, I forgot that Crysis 2 is not a port because its doesn't have"press start", aim assist, "TV settings", floaty game play, no custom graphix settings, blah blah blah


The best ever seen on PC?? You are seriously misinformed... Crysis was cutting edge when the original was released.. but Crysis 2 is nothing special at all, it is the definition of mainstream.

And if I'm wrong then please explain how I can smoothly play the game maxed out on this generic budget rig:

-Intel Core 2 Duo E5200 2.5GHz
-XFX GeForce GTS 250 1GB Core Edition
-4GB DDR2 RAM 667MHz (only running 332.5 MHz)
-WD Caviar Blue 320GB HDD
-FoxConn E3350 Mobo (Dell, can't be OC'd or anything).

The game is nothing special at all graphics wise.. It's basic mainstream "look good enough not to complain about" with nothing special.

--edit: Regardless here's how the heirarchy works:

PC's have the performance as well as improved rendering. No console to date runs images as high quality as PCs are capable of.

But consoles have the simplicity and are mainstream because people enjoy simple. Between lower prices (one console polays all games, just at reduced quality compared to PC for most) and simple plug and play, most people choose console.
March 3, 2011 8:51:11 PM

^I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic.
March 4, 2011 12:14:46 PM

Yep. after 60 fps, except for benchmarking, it's all waste.
March 4, 2011 12:37:30 PM

Not if you have a 120hz screen.
March 4, 2011 2:38:21 PM

Or a 240HZ screen.
December 29, 2011 6:56:27 AM

consoles make awesome xmas presents, gifts etc,, which dad is going to buy his kid a gaming pc for his 9th birthday? come on.....
you have you mates over during high school, few drinks, weed what ever...what you gonna do, play the big show one at a time and take turns??????

you want to play in your car, plug in your console, your friend is bored at his house so you go over with you ps3 or xbox slim. throw it into a bag and you're out the door!
what you gonna do,
take over your 15kg gaming rig????? so you can play one at a time.. ohh better yet, you just stay home and play online with him.. YA FUN! NOT!

the consoles might not be the best graphics! it's not about that! it's about having fun with it!

I mean come on.. who doesn't own both after all!

consoles are awesome when your friends come over..
then it's not about what console you have, it's about how bigs your tv! hahahaha
!