Guys i write this article in order to hear everyone's opinion about this.Gaming and pc i think is a very expensive sport.I have spent many money till now for my pc just to play games and i still can't have the results i am looking for.The ps3 will be much more powerful than any pc that exists today and it will cost only the fraction of the cost of a pc.I personally think that PCs will need at least two years of development for their hardware to be comparable of that to ps3.And i personally think that PCs are not for gaming purposes any more we pay too much to get too little.I personally will use my pc only for internet and office and head for ps3.What do you all think about it?

Always, ALWAYS PCs are better than any game system.  In terms of specs, PS3 isn't close to a high end PC.  There never was, and never will be a game system better than any PC.  If you pay like $2000 for a PC, if you put in the right parts, it'll game better than any system, and it can also have an upgrade path, which no game system has.
 
Example:
Look at GTA: San Andreas. the PS2 version was good, but the PC version was at least twice as better, in terms of graphics.  It was because PCs have better hardware, and games for PC take FULL advantage of the PC hardware.

With all due respect prozac but i totally disagree.The PS3 is vastly superior than any pc system today in every aspect.Perhaps you are not familiar with the hardware that ps3 incorporates.Has any pc-system today cpu with 7 cores?NO but ps3 has.The pc will need at least 2 years to compare with ps3 hardware.The pc is not a gaming machine we must all reealize that the pc architecture is not game-oriented like video consoles are.

Why the hell you need 7 cores for? To sit there do nothing? I bet you don't know the rest of the specs for the PS3.  Do you?

 
its not 7 cores, its a cell proccessor, and CPU power is not all that counts in a video game.

Most video game consoles now days aren't purely game-oriented either, so what're you trying to preach?  Nintendo's the only company that still does pure game consoles, why aren't you comparing them to PCs?
 
Prozac has all the truths, and the main factor still stands, PCs are upgradable, in hardware and software.  Companies don't exactly patch console games and fix bugs after they're released.
 
Look at HL2, upgraded and dated for 64 bit processing to optimise and run better.  Consoles can't compare, just revise how they're programed for.

Hi, there was already a xbox360 vs ps3 thread HERE, and here is what have been said :

 
PS3 will be a tough machine, but dont forget GDDR4 is already developed by SAMSUNG, and it should be aboard the 8*** NVIDIA cards which are about to enter market soon I hope.  
 
And say take a look at the intel road map, 4 cores very soon, about the same is AMD, and 4 quad graphics is just around the corner WITH 4 7800
 
And if you dont know about the developing of the computer speeds, it grows at an exponential scale, by the year 2020 ( I personally think earlier) the computer power should oertake brain power. while the console speeds normally tend to harvest the PC results. BUT thats just my opinion

all the specs for the 360(obviously) and the ps3 are set(both their GPU's were designed around the same time and will be fairly comperable like the 7800gtx and the ati 1900), and they are going to be very similar in performance, just like the xbox and ps2. Thats my prediction.

why do these idiots post up, then again im probably just as stupid.  lets get one thing straight a cpu CANNOT PROCESS GRAPHICS or at least not as well as a gpu.  that is why the ps3 as well as the 360 has a dedicated gpu.  now who makes these i wonder? oh wait its ati and nvidia last time i checked.  the same companies that make the pc parts.  what, do you think sony makes the parts for it's ps3's?.  the cpu is basically ibm's brainchild and only the powerpc based part is worth anything and without it, the processor wont run damn all.  
 
  now i cant link you to the article which i read this stuff on but if you google you should find something similar.  oh and btw where is your evidence of this superior tech? i and the rest of us would love to hear it.

Calm down Strange, not everyone who sees videogames understands the ungodly versitility and usefulness of playing with a mouse, or 101+ customisable keys.
 
Think about it though mechluke, Strange just posted what I was about to type.  IF they had some advanced GPU tech they'd damn sure bring it out on the PCs first to show up the rival.  If you hadn't noticed ATI and nvidia are waging WW3.
 
At best the PS3 might come out with something more powerful than the 360 because they don't even have a launch date yet, but it won't be better than the next gen of GPUs either graphics giant has lined up.

sorry about the rant before.  not sure how useful this is now as its pretty old now but its an article about the cell processor in case people need refreshing
   
    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2379&p=1
 
   tbh due to its in-order processing it looks a bitch to code for considering a pc cpu can run any old garbled mess.
 
  just found this one as well
 
     http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453&p=1

Well if this article is right News.com... PS3 delayed then the PS3 gfx might be outdated by the time it gets to market...
Up to now the PS3 is not available... Just vapourware.

Guys please i have not declared the war against PCs but i really do think that next-gen video game consoles are a better choice for gaming.Also i have to say that the original x-box is equipped with a pathetic geforce 2 but the graphics it can produce are still decently good.Tell me if there is any pc with a geforce 2 today and even if there was any the results would be disappointing.Many have written in your replies that the cpu plays no role in gaming performance.Ok if this is true i can equip my ancient 486 dx2-66 with a geforce 7800gtx 512mb and have amazing performance.ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.I still insist that ps3 is many times better than any pc that exists today but i agree that PCs will eventually keep up with PS3 in the future.I would also like to note that it is absolutely ridiculous to spend 3000 euros for a pc just to play games decently for 6 months until NVIDIA releases its next super chip and intel her next pentium processor.

Well  all that arguement above aside..  While no doubt the PS3 will be uite a nice machine, Its limited in quite a huge way.   Can you add a Burner? NO,  Could you connect a Musical instrument and compose you heart away? (not those imatation toy sets either) NO....  I could go on and on  but fact remains:
 
While the PS3 will be a good( ok Awesome console) gaming machine..  
It can never hope to be a computer, with the wide expansionabilty a pc brings to bear.  
 
The innovations of chips are largely due to the drive of enthusiatists, who continue to purchase the next greatest thing.   Leaps in video card/GPU design are driven by PC systems,  Consoles use whats available.  
 
Ok  Pop question: Remember those $700 dollar game consoles from years ago?  Vetrex I think?  Wanna know why it died a horrible death?
 
Price point.  didnt matter if it was cool...  or that it used a 3d engine....  
  It costs too much.  
 
Console makers arent going to put the latest ATI or Nvidia GPU in ANY console...   it raises the price too much.   Instead, your gonna recieve last years or later version,  drivers stable, a proven platform..   to power those "super-graphics" your console is supposed to bear.    
 
Built by the lowest bidder, Sony is out for Profits.
 
Now a PC, built by yourself, can be outfitted with  thousands of concevable configurations, expandable for your own  desire, and costs exactly as much as your willing to pay.  
 
Sure  you have to bring some brain-power to the table, like basic skills of comp-building ,  but there is sites and books to help you  if you dont have a guru around to teach.
 
then you can see gaming at its best.
 
Good luck, Enjoy your Ps3, and you can use the local library's filtered-to -death comps to reply/post to yours hearts desire!  

PS3 might be faster than most high end computers when it comes out. It should be, otherwise no one is going to buy it. But its not comparable to a computer other than gaming. There's a reason why pc's are expensive, it can do pretty much everything and PS3 can only play games and online thing. But by the end of this year pc would be twice as fast than todays high performance pc. But I'm buying the PS3 when it launches even though I only play couple of games on it.

Pc all the way, ps3 will soon be out dated.
 
Hell I was just reading that the ps3 uses the new 7900 core which may just  be better than the x1900xt which we can already get. It may not even be able to beat the x1900, so its graphics are already beaten even by the pc before its release.
 
Europe isnt even going to get the ps3 untill 2007 thats what at least 2 generations of graphics cards that will be released before europe gets it.
That means by the time we get it it will be 2 or 3 generations graphics wise out of date. NICE.
 
I will agree the ps3 is a nice rig for the price, but its to limited for me.
 
PC all the way

 
You have bitten into the hype of 3 core or 7 cell cpu's and theoretical performance.  A single core A64 > the multicore / cells in the  Xbox 360 and PS3.  
 
read this thread for info snagged off of Anandtech before the article was pulled:
http://forumz.tomshardware.com/har [...] os&start=0
 
Note some quotes that were in that article:  
 
"The most ironic bit of it all is that according to developers, if either manufacturer had decided to use an Athlon 64 or a Pentium D in their next-gen console, they would be significantly ahead of the competition in terms of CPU performance."
 
"We already know that's not the case as game developers have already told us that the Xenon CPU isn't even in the same realm of performance as the Pentium 4 or Athlon 64. "
 
"The Cell processor is no different; given that its PPE is identical to one of the PowerPC cores in Xenon, it must derive its floating point performance superiority from its array of SPEs. So what's the issue with 218 GFLOPs number (2 TFLOPs for the whole system)? Well, from what we've heard, game developers are finding that they can't use the SPEs for a lot of tasks. So in the end, it doesn't matter what peak theoretical performance of Cell's SPE array is, if those SPEs aren't being used all the time."
 
"Right now, from what we’ve heard, the real-world performance of the Xenon CPU is about twice that of the 733MHz processor in the first Xbox. Considering that this CPU is supposed to power the Xbox 360 for the next 4 - 5 years, it’s nothing short of disappointing. To put it in perspective, floating point multiplies are apparently 1/3 as fast on Xenon as on a Pentium 4.  
The reason for the poor performance? The very narrow 2-issue in-order core also happens to be very deeply pipelined, apparently with a branch predictor that’s not the best in the business. In the end, you get what you pay for, and with such a small core, it’s no surprise that performance isn’t anywhere near the Athlon 64 or Pentium 4 class.  
The Cell processor doesn’t get off the hook just because it only uses a single one of these horribly slow cores; the SPE array ends up being fairly useless in the majority of situations, making it little more than a waste of die space. "
 
"Although both manufacturers royally screwed up their CPUs, all developers have agreed that they are quite pleased with the GPU power of the next-generation consoles. "
 
"Just because these CPUs and GPUs are in a console doesn't mean that we should throw away years of knowledge from the PC industry - performance doesn't come out of thin air, and peak performance is almost never achieved. Clever marketing however, will always try to fool the consumer."
 
Edit: forgot this one in the conclusion:
"And that's what we have here today, with the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. Both consoles are marketed to be much more powerful than they actually are, and from talking to numerous game developers it seems that the real world performance of these platforms isn't anywhere near what it was supposed to be. "
 
And it's that marketting and hype that you bit into.  The GPU's in both consoles are nice to see, but the cpu's don't live up to the hype.  Don't expect the PS3 to pawn a high end PC.

We're talking about 7 cores that have so little processing power, one single core on my X2 could probably outperform them. Also, I a single 7800 GTX isn't going to do shit compared to dual X1900 XTXs, or any other SLI rig.  

DDR4 will not even be available for the PS3. Hell, the PS3 is only using DDR3 at 700 MHZ (Effective speed).

i hear that the PS3 was initially designed to run at the HD res of 1080p,
 
but the hardware wasn't powerful enough so they changed it to upscaled 1080i
 
im not sure if this is true though
 
 
and people, even thouigh the XBOX 360 and PS3 are trying to integrate PC features on to their gaming machines, they weren't designed to replace PCs, and they won't any time soon. so you can't really compare the two. its like comparing apples and oranges.
 
im not getting an XBOX 360 because i already have a PC (the good games on the XBOX are already on the PC! like Call of Duty 2 and Oblivion, so whats the point!)
 
i don't plan to get a PS3, unless the games i desperately seek are on it.