Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

How old of a pc compares to PS3

Tags:
  • PlayStation
  • Games
  • Video Games
Last response: in PC Gaming
August 25, 2012 12:27:49 AM

How old of a 1500$ pc (when built) compares to a PS3 with new games.

More about : compares ps3

August 25, 2012 12:37:45 AM

I'd say 4 years.
m
0
l
August 26, 2012 12:47:42 AM

William_White said:
How old of a 1500$ pc (when built) compares to a PS3 with new games.


Be difficult to play unbuilt right? Got to say I'm enjoying my first build now, quite awesome just dislike notbeing able to trade in but at least they are cheaper in the first place.
m
0
l
Related resources
August 31, 2012 1:18:18 AM

I can really only guess, obviously, but I would estimate that an AMD Athlon 64 x2 with 1GB of RAM and a Radeon 2900 pro running on a 720p display with AA off and low-medium settings is probably pretty close to current-gen consoles.
m
0
l
September 2, 2012 1:21:44 PM

it is a hard thing to judge since the Processor is not used in mainstream PC's, as well since the software is made strictly for the PS3 hence why games still run so well when they look so good.

i believe the GPU was relavent to a 7800 GeForce series GPU with a 7-8core CPU (originally i believe 1 core was for the PS2 in the original PS3).

something equivalent would probably be around the GTX 200 series or HD 2000 series higher end cards with a dual core AMD or intel core2.

hard to say, maybe 4 years. this is if you are comparing performance in a game comparing from console to PC at the same resolution and texture settings
m
0
l
September 2, 2012 3:07:05 PM

Are you asking how old of a PC can run new games as well as a PS3 can or are you asking what PC has similar hardware to a PS3 as they have very different answers.
m
0
l
September 2, 2012 8:23:43 PM

Well, if the question is what minimum PC configuration can run games at console quality, my guess on that would be...probably my original guess.

A dual core Athlon w/ 2900 Pro and 1GB of RAM on a 720p monitor. Probably play games at medium-low settings at 30fps - console level.
m
0
l
September 2, 2012 8:54:30 PM

oh and in addition, games like uncharted or other exclusives like GoW3, etc, im sure if you were to see them coded for PC they would run horrible on comparible hardware like we have been listing because they were specifically designed for the console's hardware which is why it runs so well with nice graphics. This is why its hard to compare the hardware of a PC to any console hardware.

But, on multi-platform games what PCgamer said would seem about right
m
0
l
September 2, 2012 9:37:03 PM

^

They don't really have nice graphics :lol: 
m
0
l
September 3, 2012 12:32:57 PM

i'd say they have pretty impressive graphics if you consider the hardware it is running on.
m
0
l
September 3, 2012 6:35:28 PM

There are far better looking games that can be run on the same hardware on PC. Take Crysis for example.
m
0
l
September 3, 2012 11:43:41 PM

Quote:
The RSX 'Reality Synthesizer' is a proprietary graphics processing unit (GPU) co-developed by Nvidia and Sony for the PlayStation 3 game console.
550 MHz on 90 nm process (shrunk to 65 nm in 2008[4] and to 40 nm in 2010[5])
Based on NV47 Chip previously based on the 7800 but with cut down features like lower memory bandwidth and only as many ROPs as the lower end 7600. (Nvidia GeForce 7800 Architecture)
300+ million transistors
Multi-way programmable parallel floating-point shader pipelines
Independent pixel/vertex shader architecture
24 parallel pixel-shader ALU pipes clocked @ 550 MHz
5 ALU operations per pipeline, per cycle (2 vector4, 2 scalar/dual/co-issue and fog ALU, 1 Texture ALU)[citation needed]
27 floating-point operations per pipeline, per cycle[citation needed]
8 parallel vertex pipelines @550 MHz
2 ALU operations per pipeline, per cycle (1 vector4 and 1 scalar, dual issue)[citation needed]
10 floating-point operations per pipeline, per cycle[citation needed]
Floating Point Operations: 400.4 Gigaflops (24 * 27 Flops * 550 + 8 * 10 Flops * 550)
74.8 billion shader operations per second (24 Pixel Shader Pipelines*5 ALUs*550 MHz) + (8 Vertex Shader Pipelines*2 ALUs*550 MHz)
24 texture filtering units (TF) and 8 vertex texture addressing units (TA)
24 filtered samples per clock
Maximum texel fillrate: 13.2 GigaTexels per second (24 textures * 550 MHz)
32 unfiltered texture samples per clock, ( 8 TA x 4 texture samples )
8 Render Output units / pixel rendering pipelines
Peak pixel fillrate (theoretical): 4.4 Gigapixel per second
Maximum Z sample rate: 8.8 GigaSamples per second (2 Z-samples * 8 ROPs * 550 MHz)
Maximum Dot product operations: 56 billion per second (combined with Cell CPU)
128-bit pixel precision offers rendering of scenes with High dynamic range rendering (HDR)
256 MB GDDR3 RAM at 700 MHz
128-bit memory bus width
22.4 GB/s read and write bandwidth
Cell FlexIO bus interface
20 GB/s read to the Cell and XDR memory
15 GB/s write to the Cell and XDR memory
Support for PSGL (OpenGL ES 1.1 + Nvidia Cg)
Support for S3TC texture compression [6]

from wikipedia.

So a Geforce 7600 is comparable to a PS3 gfx unit. And the Cell CPU is comparable to a Athlon 64 / Core 2 @ 3.2Ghz.
m
0
l
September 3, 2012 11:58:56 PM

I don't think the CPU is comparable at all.
m
0
l
September 4, 2012 12:05:58 AM

Quote:
The Cell Broadband Engine—or Cell as it is more commonly known—is a microprocessor designed to bridge the gap between conventional desktop processors (such as the Athlon 64, and Core 2 families) and more specialized high-performance processors, such as the NVIDIA and ATI graphics-processors (GPUs).

also wikipedia.
m
0
l
September 4, 2012 2:07:37 AM

In fairness, it's not what the hardware is based on or similar to.

It's what it would take to achieve console quality.

Consoles are developed for specifically, and will always net more bang per buck hardware wise - achieving results on console that a PC of similar hardware can only dream about.
m
0
l
September 4, 2012 2:19:33 AM

I think most people will say consoles have better graphics, but what 'better' do they mean?

A console doesn't in my opinion have better gfx, just steadier fps. PC's far exceed consoles in terms of gfx technologies.

And besides, I can do far more things on a PC than a console. :sol: 

m
0
l
September 4, 2012 4:54:09 AM

Steadier fps? :o  Consoles are running games at 30 fps, and drips below that quite noticeably in newer games....
m
0
l
September 4, 2012 7:50:26 AM

Sunius said:
Steadier fps? :o  Consoles are running games at 30 fps, and drips below that quite noticeably in newer games....


Yes, consoles have a more constant fps appearance than PC's.(just check the gaming forum for PC users complaining about frame drops...LOL)
like eg. this:
30
30
29
30
30
29
25
30
etc.

(And Im sure my Xbox360 S has more than 30fps on the vga cable...)
m
0
l
September 4, 2012 12:22:27 PM

Forums will always be filled with problems. Consoles do not smooth have smooth fps at all, it feels like it's lagging all the time...
m
0
l
September 4, 2012 12:27:45 PM

Yea, I can't stand console quality (or lack thereof).

But tit for tat, consoles will always net better results then low-end PC's (despite being far less powerful) for the simple reason that developers can more easily develop games for a console, due to far less variables.
m
0
l