Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

Why PS3 can running future games but the hardware feel oudated?

Tags:
  • Console Gaming
  • Hardware
  • Playstation
  • Games
  • Video Games
Last response: in PC Gaming
August 11, 2012 6:30:09 AM

My friend and I was wondering why PS3 can playing latest games like Crysis 2, Battlefield 3, and Skyrim, but some hardware in PS3 are oudated. The RSX are based on GeForce 7800GTX was feel outdated hardware, but they can perform well in latest games.

So what factors make the PS3 can play the latest games well even though the hardware was outdated? :heink: 

More about : ps3 running future games hardware feel oudated

August 11, 2012 7:08:16 AM

Its called optimisation. The developers spend hours making sure that all the features of the PS3s hardware are used to the max. As now the PS3 has passed it's sell by date this 'optimisation' involves taking bits out of the game that the player wouldn't notice, like super high detail models that you get on the PC.

For instance you can't play 64 player maps on BF3 PC, and the Kharkand maps are smaller (I think)

Also if you look carefully the consoles basically play on low settings of the PC versions now if you look at games like BF3.

The reason why you would need far more powerful PC hardware to run a game like COD compared to the consoles is because developers have to make a game that runs on more varying hardware and also because COD is ported from the consoles and that always means poor optimisation for the PC.

The current gen consoles really are out of date now and if you look at games now the graphics have flatlined in the respect that the graphics haven't got substantially better over the past couple of years. Skyrim actually uses the Oblivion game engine, hence why it can run on current gen stuff.

Hope that answers every
m
0
l
August 11, 2012 8:43:13 AM

Long story short: On PC we can play BF3 at 2560x1600, Ultra graphics, 120fps on a 64 player server. While on PS3 you play at like 720p, Lowest graphics humanly possible, 30fps, on 24 (or 32, not sure) player servers.
m
0
l
Related resources
August 11, 2012 10:35:43 AM

Also though very dated now the PS3 hardware is dedicated gaming hardware not general purpose like a PC also it does not need to run windows + all the background apps along with it. Also the games can be coded for the exact hardware it has while PC games have to run on a huge range of hardware made by several manufacturers. + as stated they do not run games as good as on a PC but considering how dated the hardware is it does an amazing job.
m
0
l
August 11, 2012 11:32:44 AM

consoles are the bane of computers. before them game devs always tried to use the hardware to the max, that latest title that gave you a reason to upgrade your card
I've not had that buzz for years now :(  no reason to upgrade a card solo anymore imo. and alot further down the list than today

consoles made game devs lazy and turned them into greedy peons
and in some regard the same has happened to gfx makers.

if the xbox or ps3 was just a gfx card (yh i know basicly it is) , both would be binned and forgotten about and retired into legacy support.

m
0
l
a b î Playstation
August 13, 2012 8:01:21 PM

iamcacao said:
Long story short: On PC we can play BF3 at 2560x1600, Ultra graphics, 120fps on a 64 player server. While on PS3 you play at like 720p, Lowest graphics humanly possible, 30fps, on 24 (or 32, not sure) player servers.


Are you sure about 30FPS. The game play on the PS3 is way too smooth for 30FPS. LA NOIRE is frame locked at 30FPS on the computer and you can definately tell it is. I'm not comparing the two games other than their frame rate. 30FPS is 30FPS regardless if it's on a console or PC. Anyhow, BF3 looks and plays great on my 46" TV with a PS3.
m
0
l
August 14, 2012 12:08:59 PM

Hawkeye22 said:
Are you sure about 30FPS. The game play on the PS3 is way too smooth for 30FPS. LA NOIRE is frame locked at 30FPS on the computer and you can definately tell it is. I'm not comparing the two games other than their frame rate. 30FPS is 30FPS regardless if it's on a console or PC. Anyhow, BF3 looks and plays great on my 46" TV with a PS3.

PS3 gameplay is around 30 fps for most games, but for some exceptions, like COD, it goes higher. The PS3 fps isn't that great, and to me, 30fps is smooth enough, it's just you can't tell it's 30fps, you think it's more, and you get misdirected.
m
0
l
August 14, 2012 12:11:36 PM

You cannot tell 30 fps because of motion blur they make to hide it.
m
0
l
a b î Playstation
August 14, 2012 12:16:23 PM

Wow, that just seems odd. 30FPS looks like ass in any PC game I play. They seem much better at 60+ FPS. Maybe it's because on the PC I use a 1920 x 1200 resolution.
m
0
l
a b î Playstation
August 14, 2012 12:26:33 PM

^ great demonstration. Thanks!
m
0
l
January 10, 2014 3:05:47 AM

ps3 runs games on low thats why ps3 can run nextgen games and ps3 doesnt use anti aliasing
m
0
l
June 22, 2014 2:09:33 PM

I don't know why people say PS3 plays on the lowest settings possible. Look at Skyrim. Compare the PS3 to the PC version, and set the settings on low on the PC. In the PS3, the game looks nice still. However, on PC, if you look at NPC's faces (And your own), you can literally every pixel on their face. PC on low looks horrible compared to PS3. And since PS3 is a computer, it just shows that PS3 doesn't play games on all low settings. Like said above, it's not running Windows and it's optimized for gaming. You're all wrong. PS3 doesn't run games at low settings.
m
0
l
November 19, 2014 11:31:19 AM

@ tommyturner12

Why even bother posting your 'I'm 10 years old and know everything' PS3 fanboy answer. How do you think developers release next-gen games? They must be playing them on some 'Super Console' three or four years in advance. It's frankly rubbish and shows how little appreciation you have for your poor Mum and Dad who have saved all year just for you to berate them for buying a next gen "already out of date" console.

When do you get your next one? (off your Mum).
m
0
l
November 19, 2014 2:38:27 PM

Why even bother replying to a 4 month old post instead of doing something with your life? Sorry man, I guess I didn't satisfy you with my opinion, let me just change what I think because you didn't think it was relevant. I was simply stating my point, what's wrong with that?

Why would you suggest that I'm 10? Honestly, your comment made no sense, you made no effort to back up your statement and instead threw some dumb ass assumption out there without know anything about me. Ignorant? That's what I think. I'm 13, FYI.

Oh, and suggesting that my Mom and Dad saved up a whole year, yeah, A WHOLE YEAR, for a $300 console is the dumbest thing I've heard today. If you are suggesting that I'm poor, or lower class, then learn to be a bit more respectful. Please, it'll save me the time of posting to one of your stupid-ass posts like I'm doing right now. My mother and father are both hard working citizens, and I respect them for that. Just like you should learn to respect others.

Well, good job at establishing yourself as a troll, because you did pretty damn well at it. Truth is, you know nothing about me. So stop making assumptions. I hope you have a good day.
m
0
l