Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

PS3 VS HIGH END PC

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 20, 2006 8:45:49 AM

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?

More about : ps3 high end

February 20, 2006 10:15:23 AM

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.
February 20, 2006 10:26:14 AM

Quote:
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.


its not 7 cores, its a cell proccessor, and CPU power is not all that counts in a video game.
Related resources
February 20, 2006 10:31:38 AM

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.
February 20, 2006 10:32:36 AM

Hi, there was already a xbox360 vs ps3 thread HERE, and here is what have been said :
Quote:
From what I have heard, around the Futuremark forums and other places. PS3's RSX is just a 7800GTX on 90nm. The Xbox 360's ATI GPU is as good/better as a x1900 XTX...so...which beats the 7800gtx.. And the cell is not 8 *true* cores. Its 1 fully functional core with 7 little cores which cant do much.


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
February 20, 2006 10:36:50 AM

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.
February 20, 2006 10:47:12 AM

Calm down Strange, not everyone who sees videogames understands the ungodly versitility and usefulness of playing with a mouse, or 101+ customisable keys. :p 

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.
February 20, 2006 11:25:40 AM

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.
February 20, 2006 11:26:29 AM

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.
February 20, 2006 11:27:52 AM

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! :roll:
February 20, 2006 11:30:18 AM

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.
February 20, 2006 12:05:33 PM

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
a b U Graphics card
February 20, 2006 12:40:01 PM

Quote:
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.


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/hardware/modules.php?nam...

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.
February 20, 2006 12:58:08 PM

Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:


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.

DDR4 will not even be available for the PS3. Hell, the PS3 is only using DDR3 at 700 MHZ (Effective speed).
February 20, 2006 1:36:05 PM

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.
February 20, 2006 1:49:14 PM

I have seen what PS3 can do, it's dazzling. My friend works for EA as a game programmer and he saw PS3 demo and he too thought that PS3 rocks.

As we all know (or should know), the entertainment value of 3D games do not come from the platform that you are using to play the game. IMO, the value comes from the game itself. No matter how good PC gfx and cpu get, we will "never" see games such as Devil May Cry 4 or Final Fantady 13 on PC. Fun and playable games make the system more attractive, not the other way around.

PC games are awsome; very interactive with sophisticated controls. Comparing PC games vs PS3 is like comparing hot burnette and hot blonde girl. Both are hot, just different flavor. :) 

But, if I had to choose between PS3 and PC, I would chose PS3, simply because it is cheaper than an ultra performance gaming PC and it would look pretty awsome on 60" HD widescreen TV.
February 20, 2006 2:15:25 PM

here we go agian another thread about pc versus console long story short console looks more impressive but pc will always be better cause you can upgrade it!
February 20, 2006 2:32:04 PM

Quote:
I have seen what PS3 can do, it's dazzling. My friend works for EA as a game programmer and he saw PS3 demo and he too thought that PS3 rocks.

As we all know (or should know), the entertainment value of 3D games do not come from the platform that you are using to play the game. IMO, the value comes from the game itself. No matter how good PC gfx and cpu get, we will "never" see games such as Devil May Cry 4 or Final Fantady 13 on PC. Fun and playable games make the system more attractive, not the other way around.

PC games are awsome; very interactive with sophisticated controls. Comparing PC games vs PS3 is like comparing hot burnette and hot blonde girl. Both are hot, just different flavor. :) 

But, if I had to choose between PS3 and PC, I would chose PS3, simply because it is cheaper than an ultra performance gaming PC and it would look pretty awsome on 60" HD widescreen TV.


Just as a general reply, a PS3 can't out perform a PC. There is just too much raw power and flexiblity inherent to the platform. I like the post that cut through all the marketing BS, ty for that.

It would make 0 business sense to sell something that can outperform a Pc for $400 (just guessing at ps3 pricetag). A high end pc can go for 2500-3500 (excluding over the top crap like WC/Phasechange and the like), so why would Sony not put the PS3 at say $2000 and make it an exceptionaly profitable item if it can outperform desktops? The reason: it can't.

PC's will always be able to outperform consoles, but they will cost your more. However, built into that is the cost of flexiblity, upgrade paths, updates, and each company's profits. Try to browse the internet, rip some music, play BF2, and then do some CAD on a console. YOu can't, just because a console is so specificly taylored that the hardware makes it impossible.

Consoles will always have thier nitche, there is no doubt of that. I will conceed that they are easier to carry and tote around for the most part. Also, they look really nice on big screen tv's, but that is mainly because most of us dont want to plan our workstation around the ability to connect our 7800 GTX's to a Plasma tv also.

Just as a final note.... try and watercool a console then overclock it? D'oh you cant. Point made, for what they are, consoles are a nice value but they can't replace a PC.
February 20, 2006 2:51:36 PM

But PC's are constantly improving while consoles stand still for about 5 years. The GPU in the ps3 is known to by a cut down GeForce 7800 (that info was leaked by a Nvidia spokesperson). The ps3 can have a great CPU but unless the games are coded to use it it will be no better than any other console. Game programmers are having a hard time makeing games for it as the CPU is to complex. If you ask me the PC industry will beat the ps3 in a few months(Or wheh we can but Quad SLI).
February 20, 2006 3:29:10 PM

PS3 will be nice, but within 6 months a videocard will come out that will make it look like child's play.

Consoles are for gamers who don't want to mess with computers, and that's fine. But as long as they keep pushing PC technology, PCs will be king.
February 20, 2006 3:31:52 PM

I have seen and played Dead or Alive 4 for XBOX 360 on SONY 40" BRIAVA (spell). It was awsome. Those of you who are into Final Fantasy or Capcom games, PS3 will be soooo bloody awsome.

While you PC freaks out there worrying about the performance of your current 3d-gfx card on FEAR or QUAKE4 and trying to figure out "the best" OC config., PS3 or xbox users will be playing one more round of their favorite games!

nuff said!
February 20, 2006 3:38:15 PM

That is half the fun of PC gaming. Spending time making the games even better. You cant do that on a console.
February 20, 2006 4:00:58 PM

Quote:
That is half the fun of PC gaming. Spending time making the games even better. You cant do that on a console.


/Agreed

OC'ers ftw! :) 
February 20, 2006 4:06:51 PM

too bad sony and M$ are bastards and have all the good game companies making all the best titels CONSOLE ONLY . gay douches.

STARCRAFT FTW

WHEN THE HELL IS SC2 going to be announced..
February 20, 2006 4:12:33 PM

Quote:
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.




You're an idiot. Plain and simple. The PC isn't a gaming machine? You've got to be kidding. Also, the PS3 is not superior to any pc system today. I bet you any money that you could build a PC that could blow the shit out of the PS3.
February 20, 2006 4:39:52 PM

Simply put, you get more bang for your buck with a console. $400 as opposed to $4000. You can't even buy 1 bleeding edge technology video card for $400.
February 20, 2006 4:41:01 PM

The PS3 and Xbox360 are capable of great graphics for a 400$ price tag, but they simply can not compare to high end PCs.
February 20, 2006 5:00:03 PM

Sony itself does not plan to make a profit out of selling PS3s, as if they did intend that the price of the PS3 would be too high

Computer manufacturers (and parts manufacturers) do on the other hand want to make a profit of selling their stuff, and so is priced accordingly

yes, part of the fun of PC gaming for us PC gamers is worrying about framerates, boasting about framerates, spending money on our systems for their birthdays, taking loving time maintaining your system washing/oiling fans and heatsinks and stuff like that

err, perhaps some would say i don't have a life,
but who needs a life
February 20, 2006 5:17:30 PM

I don't think you can really compare a PC to a gaming console.
Both of them are aimed at different things - PC's are more all-around working computers (sorry gamers, but most of the world will use a PC for non-gaming). Gaming consoles are solely aimed at gaming.

PC's will always catch up. Gaming consoles will always stay the same. Its like comparing a car that's just idling to a car thats racing along.

I think it all boils down to what games you want to play. A game might just be offered on the PS3, so you'll buy one. It might be offered on the PC, but you might not want the hassle of upgrading or shelling out, so you'll get a PS3. Or you might not want to even think about compatibility and get a PS3.

Does it matter which one is more powerful anymore? You'll probably get a good framerate either way. After 30fps, most human eyes can't tell the difference. After 60fps, I doubt anyone's eyes can really tell (sure there might be some, but there's always exceptions) :) 
February 20, 2006 5:21:30 PM

Its a too-long post. I appologize. I bolded the most applicable parts if you want to skip to those, but you will miss out on some stuff.

LMAO,

Who really cares if you can overclock a console? Can you overclock a Saturn5 rocket? Can you overclock your pen, or your matress? Why would you want to, and who really gives a crap.

I dont think mechluke was asking about versatility--he was asking about a very narrow-very specific topic. Gaming

A console does what it does, play games. Anyone who knows anything about gaming, in this day and age, knows that in the verbal battle of mines bigger than yours, the size of your GPU that counts (sorry, couldnt resist) a little bit more than the size of you CPU

In that respect, both the 360 and PS3 should do/be doing well. When the 360 was introduced, its GPU was (supposedly) 3 generations ahead of what ATI was building for PCs. The NVIDIA chipset for the PS3 has been rumoured (please note that I say rumoured-as in unverifiable heresay-not fact and probably not true) to be as many as 7 generations ahead of anything NVDIA has on the market for PCs. So as games approach photo-realistic graphics as they are now, what you need is GPU power . Better GPUs = better/faster graphics rendering, the most tasking part of any game. Unless your still playing a BB D&D turn based RPG.

Looking at those rumours, and only those rumours, then, consoles would seem to be the better way to go. Really for all the people who keep whining about versatility/upgradability, CPU cores and clock speed, for craps sakes, let it go. Its not applicable to what mechluke was asking. Be honest now, how many of you plan on encoding MPEG4s, ripping CDs, running spread sheets or doing word processing on your XBOX or PS? Are you really going to produce your next PowerPoint market share presentation on your PS3? --- Sorry but I just cant resist the sarcasm.

Sarcasm aside, another (and in my opinion more important) factor in the console vs PC battle is one which I havent seen a single post on. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with how big the consoles or PCs whangs are. It is title availability. I have seen several titles, which I would have liked to purchase for my PC (I dont own a console. Wouldnt waste the money on it) that simply arent ported for the PC, and never will be. So, I'll just have to by a console (NOT!) or do without. Boo-hoo.

Is this important? you bet your a** it is. Why? Because this is where MS and Sony have you by the short and curlys. Yes, a PC is better than a console, but WTF difference does it make if the games you want to play arent available for a PC? And dont think for one second that MS and Sony dont know that. With the release of the 360 and PS3, we will see continuing increase in the trend of non-PC ported game titles. Period. Why? Because Bill Gates doesnt want you to buy a PC equiped with MS software OR a XBOX, he wants you to buy BOTH. Thats not evil, its just smart business.

Furthermore, multiported games like NFS underground2 have had different graphics and performance options based on the platform they were ported for. You can play NFS U2 on several different systems (XBOX, PS*,PC, GC etc) and never experiance the same level of performance or graphical fidelity twice. Take a look at the game cube version of this game, its slow AND it looks like it was painted by a 3 year old, relative to other consoles. With the GC, its a performance issue since GC cant handle really handle NFS U2. But more to the point, its a precursor of things to come. Is this important. You betcha. Why? It aint gonna be nothin' but a thang' for the title manufacturers and console manufacturers to "reward" the console owners with better graphics/performance/options with in a given title. Not based the consoles or PCs capabilities, but as a marketing enticement to buy the damn console. Look, its simple. You gotta have the PC for word processing, email, video/audio encoding/ripping etc. But, if your PC can play games too, then why bother spending money on a console? How does a manufacturer make people want to buy the console if they dont need it? Simple, make them need it by not porting the games for PC, or offering limited performance versions for the PC.

Dont believe it? Check out Bill Gate's "grand plans". Gates doesnt want to see a computer in every home. He wants to see 5. One for entertainment, one for household appliance/enviromental control, one for word processing and business-productivity apllications/one for security/....and I forget what the 5th one was for. Why does Bill want this? Microsoft doesnt make computers after all. Ahh, but MS does make software and every computer needs its own OS/software. 5 computers in every home = 5 times the demand for MS's software. This = more mulah for MS and Bill.
Its just smart business. Why try to write, debug, produce, market and ship a new OS or series of software titles every year, if you can produce 1 set of each every 5 years, but have the consumer buy 5 copies. 5 times the profit for 1/5 the capitol investment. Very, very smart. Not to mention the problem of trying to convince everyone to run out to buy a new OS or buisiness suite once every 12 months. Bills already figured out that he's not going to sell us on new software every 12 months. The thing thats really biting at Bill's balls right now, is that he also wants to see us all buy seperate computer for gaming, but that conflicts with his wanting every houshold to have a XBOX. He cant figure out how to sell us on buying 2 separate items that do exactly the same thing. But if theres one person who can solve that problem, its Bill. Hell, he's been convincing half the planet that the widows OSs are the most secure OSs for years.

We do have hope, though sadly, for us, its fading. While the hackers/crakers and porters have been working hard to come up functional XBOX/PS2 emulators for the PC, they havent not achieved the same level of success as the arcade/PS/atari etc etc etc emulators have had.

So, ultimately you're left with thinking about what games you want to play. For the moment, if the titles you want are ported for PC, by all means, skip buying a console and save the cash. You'll need it, because sooner or later, you, me and the rest of us are probably going to have to bite the console bullet. Unless the emu-wizards can get their programs up and running for "XBOX1040", or "PS4&1/2" it looks like we're all going to wind up buying consoles if we want to play anything more than quake6/doom5/CnC Frocked 2nd Lieutenants Burnt-Umber Alert. Not because the future PCs wont be able to handle those notional future game titles, but because the industry wants to separate the consumer from more of their hard earned dollars/pounds/euros/yen etc etc etc. Again, not evil plot or a conspiracy, just smart business.

Oh, just for shits-n-grins, lets go back to the "mines bigger than yours" for a second. With the current graphics battle between ATI and NVIDIA raging out of control, I doubt that the rumoured "advanced" graphics capabilities the 360 or PS3 have over the PC will stay advanced for too long. That is unless MS and Sony forced ATI and NVIDIA to sign some kind of "technology advancement restraining" clause. I doubt it, but ya never know.
February 20, 2006 5:29:05 PM

lol I cant believe some people still dont understand that PC will always be better than consoles.

They prob bought a really expensive Alienware with a P4 and 7800 GTX @ stock and think that its the best PCs can do.

Try my pending setup -- Im gonna get 2 7900 GTXs in SLI when they're out in March. Is it an expense? Not really there's still a market out there for my old parts since they're so high end and I upgrade very often.
February 20, 2006 5:51:24 PM

gaming systems will always be on par with computers when they are first released. the reason pc's are better is because the technology is constantly improving every three to six months. not everyone can constantly keep up with those upgrades but the computer you buy now will be as good as the ps3xbox 2 and the computer you buy in six months will be better.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
February 20, 2006 6:02:43 PM

"The ps3 will be much more powerful than any pc that exists today"


hahahahahahahah....*gasp for air*....hahahahahahahahahahah...

How naive can you get....
February 20, 2006 7:05:49 PM

have you guys"people saying the ps3 are going to have better graphics"ever heard of directx 10 if the news is true is suppose to blow away any next gen console, so put that in your pipe and smoke it.
February 20, 2006 7:06:35 PM

I have to agree with mechluke, PS3 should deliver relatively the same quality as PC for some time. Probably not for 5 years.

Paying 500$ for PS3 which boast a capable GPU almost as efficient as the very best GPU on the PC market.

But many here seems out of their mind. I think the second you make them think they might have paid too much for the same quality of software experience make them go nuts.

I'm not here to play the arrogant, the PC will always be up to speed in hardware & at least a generation or two in advance than the consoles. Does that mean that the software experience is better. Not at all.

The key with console is efficiency, the code path is optimize for only one machine, that has no OS and drivers overhead. The result is something almost twice faster than the equivalent speced PC.

The result is that you get a PC with better hardware running the same software much less efficiently. Vista should help a little, but it's not panacea.

What is interesting this time around tough, is that going HD mean the consoles will try to play in the same ground than the PC.

Try not to forget that a GPU equivalent to the PS3 is the price of the PS3 system.

Personnaly, I think it comes down to preference and budget. You can do a lot of things with a PC that a console will never do. And the consoles will always let you have peace of mind (no software & hardware maintenance skills required though it can be seen as a hobby).

For the sole purpose of gaming the only major difference will be gameplay (mouse versus controller pad) and costs for some time.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
February 20, 2006 7:19:54 PM

Bullshit. Just absolute utter crap.

Just go and buy your stupid overpriced console and shut it up FFS!
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
February 20, 2006 7:20:09 PM

Bullshit. Just absolute utter crap.

Just go and buy your stupid overpriced console and shut it up FFS!
February 20, 2006 7:26:50 PM

My question is, that if nVidia and ATI are capable of producing GPU's for consoles that are 7 and 3 generations ahead, respectively, why wouldn't they bring them to the PC market to trump the other company? We all know its ATIv Nvidia in WW4 (WW3 is AMD v Intel lol).

I'm not bashing consoles, i have about 8 (i keep all my old ones, who can live without the original sonic?). They are just desinged around a diffrent premice. I hate that there are console only games (Halo 2 in particular), but its marketing at its best. But because I have to have a PC to get through life (school work necessitates one), I figure why not trick a PC out instead of having 2 machines to do the same thing?

I've seen and played with the 360 but for some reason it can't compare to sitting down in a chair 2ft away froma 1600x1200 lcd with 4xAA and 16xAF in a comfratable ass chair sniping people in BF2. Then once I'm bored with that, its back to OC'ing. A computer, TO ME, is just much more entertaining than a $400 box that is strictly for gaming.

To each his own, but I won't give up my PC :) 
February 20, 2006 7:32:35 PM

Well as a matter of fact I'll probably go for a PC cause I like to tinker and a PS3 isn't great platform to work on. But, let's stay objective fluff ! PC is better premium hardware with a more bloated software compared to consoles.

This fact is well known, though it can be argued how much it affect performance. But a simple test would be to try to play Half-Life 2 or Doom 3 on a PC with a celeron 733Mhz and a geforce 3 64 of grapchic RAM to see if it is better than the Xbox. My bet is it will be awful and the Xbox version run just fine.
February 20, 2006 7:39:53 PM

Quote:


I'm not bashing consoles, i have about 8 (i keep all my old ones, who can live without the original sonic?). They are just desinged around a diffrent premice. I hate that there are console only games (Halo 2 in particular), but its marketing at its best. But because I have to have a PC to get through life (school work necessitates one), I figure why not trick a PC out instead of having 2 machines to do the same thing?



To each his own, but I won't give up my PC :) 


the answer: no one can live without the original Sonic, SuperFly! :) 

yes. lots of people have modern computers for their daily computing needs, why not use it to play games as well (got dangit even teh high school computers with their powerful P4 2.4s with a graphical and memory upgrade may be able to play Call of Duty 2).

other than that, the only reason i would get the console is if it has a game i really want to play that is not available on PC, not because it may be more powerful than my current PC
February 20, 2006 7:46:03 PM

If only I could afford a gaming HTPC.
February 20, 2006 7:49:17 PM

if nvidia and ati did bring out there best cards which are 3 - 7 gens ahead and stomp the competition, then no one would buy their products since everyone will have one... say amd wins over intel and intel went bye bye.. then everyone would have an amd so then why would someone else buy anymore? especially the general consumer market. they upgrade like every what? 2 - 5 years? how would the company make money for r and d? they need each other to survive.
February 20, 2006 8:00:42 PM

As I said, the generational advances were rumoured. I can neither confirn nor deny. Just (much to my own disappointment) regurtitate. The whole point was arguing about hardware and performance is pointless because its all about marketing, and the manufacturers will have their way with us unless the fringe groups figure out how to emulate the newest consoles

But, if the generation advance rumors are even partially true, it makes sense, from a marketing perpsective. Use the advance to push the consoles sales and keep selling the PC hardware in sequential order. Why skip selling a single generation, or multiple generations of PC GPUs after youve spent a whole bunch of $ R&D-ing them? You lose all that R&D $ if you do that. Additonally, if you look at the newest games out there right now, theres not a whole lot out there thats bringing the top end ATIs & NVIDIAs to their knees. For the moment. Remember when Doom3 was released? There wasnt a card on the market that met the highest perfromance setting requirements.

Anyhow, Im not much for consoles, but you ought to take a look at the emulator programs to see which of your consoles are covered. You dont have to live without Sonic!! And, You could save yourself some storage space by putting all your console games on your PC. Ive seen succesful emus for pretty much everything but the XBOX and PS2. Me personally, I run MAME. Its an arcade EMU (over 4000 original arcade games on your PC...you gotta love it!!!)
February 20, 2006 8:06:08 PM

Thanks.
More real numbers please.....
February 20, 2006 8:32:27 PM

Nvidia and ATI do not have cards sitting around that are 3-7 generations ahead of their current hardware, and if they did they sure as hell wouldn't be in 400$ game consoles.
February 20, 2006 8:58:59 PM

i forget who posted this quote, but it basically sums up this whole thread.

"To argue with an idiot, you have to step down to their level, and then they'll beat you with experience."

If you have your head between sony and m$'s legs, you might not get that quote.

I'm probably repeating so many others, but i want to chip in. You can't compare the price of a console to a PC. Even if you want to compare the graphics. PC offers to much, and can do so much more, compared to a console that is solely for gaming.

Hey, by the way, what is a console? It's a fcuking computer.

Even if XBOX360(gay name), or sony PS3(gayer name) have nice GPU's(that are comparable to what's out right now, not what's coming to the market) they have crummy CPU's compared to what is available for desktops. Crummy CPU performance=crummy GPU performance. They need each other.

I do agree that whether you want a PC or console depends on what games and functions you like/need.

Console games=idiotic

PC games=brains + skill + pwning graphics

Any FPS that is decent will be on a PC. Any strat game will be on a PC. Any RPG worth playing will be on a PC. Any sports game will be on a PC.

All other games envolve jumping and spraying and slashing like a dumb neanderthal. Those games are meant to entertain 12 year olds or less. And I actually know many youngins that play PC's, cause they know what's up, while you consolers look down like Sony and M$ tell you. Good little boys you are.

Let's not mention that PC games multiplayer options and ease completely wipe the floor with a console. Also, many more players can play in a multiplayer universe on PC, while consoles are restricted to like a max of 24 players.

Consolers just settle for less, and just buy what is marketed at them. Good little boys you are. You even advertise and spam forums for Sony and M$ for free. Wish I could brainwash peeps to do shit for me.
February 20, 2006 9:06:03 PM

Quote:
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.


I dare to disagree under specific conditions!
BUNG for BUCK playstation is a better value than PC for games.

First of all Play Station cost is say about $ 250.00 and good PC would cost you at least 6 x that amount.

Play Station is geared toward programs designed for Play Station and the performance altough "weaker" CPU for the money is not worst than on PC.

The money are made by selling software and Play Stations are sold below the fair manufacturing value, sometimes with loss.

I believe that play station might run on under LINUX, or multi operating systems with less overhead than WindoZ PC.

Play Station PSX

On other hand the top PC with the top equipment could perform multitasking which ofcourse console can not.

By looking at specs of the PSX for the price it is really not weaker.

Using PC only for games is really waste of money, industry marketing hipe and waste of PC power, on other hand if you have a powerfull PC there is no real need to get console!

so there is room for all!

Resolution of playstation is geared toward TVs or projectors so it doesn't need such expensive graphic cards.



Iraquis So Damn Assan was buying Play Stations as that was the cheapest PC when modified powerful enough to use for predatory military applications.

And that operating system is... whatever you want it to be, apparently.

"Sony is looking into having Linux installed from the start on the PS3 hard disk. Referring to Linux as being "legacy," Kutaragi adds that it's just the start, as with Cell, the operating system runs as an application on top of the basic Cell OS. The presence of the Cell OS allows for multiple operating systems to run on the machine simultaneously, including, of course, Linux, but also making room for Windows and Apple's Tiger OS."

PSX 3


Sony says Spring, analysts say Summer (in Japan) at the earliest

We’ve already brought you stories within the past few days that have looked at the PS3’s hopeful 2006 launch date and how the console will cost Sony around $800 to produce. Adding more fuel to the Sony PlayStation 3 fire is this latest article from Reuters.

sony PS 3
February 20, 2006 9:07:00 PM

Quote:
I have to agree with mechluke, PS3 should deliver relatively the same quality as PC for some time. Probably not for 5 years.

Paying 500$ for PS3 which boast a capable GPU almost as efficient as the very best GPU on the PC market.

But many here seems out of their mind. I think the second you make them think they might have paid too much for the same quality of software experience make them go nuts.

I'm not here to play the arrogant, the PC will always be up to speed in hardware & at least a generation or two in advance than the consoles. Does that mean that the software experience is better. Not at all.

The key with console is efficiency, the code path is optimize for only one machine, that has no OS and drivers overhead. The result is something almost twice faster than the equivalent speced PC.

The result is that you get a PC with better hardware running the same software much less efficiently. Vista should help a little, but it's not panacea.

What is interesting this time around tough, is that going HD mean the consoles will try to play in the same ground than the PC.

Try not to forget that a GPU equivalent to the PS3 is the price of the PS3 system.

Personnaly, I think it comes down to preference and budget. You can do a lot of things with a PC that a console will never do. And the consoles will always let you have peace of mind (no software & hardware maintenance skills required though it can be seen as a hobby).

For the sole purpose of gaming the only major difference will be gameplay (mouse versus controller pad) and costs for some time.



Exactly.

Quite frankly some of the responses from the pro PC 'lobby' are embarissingly juvenile.

Seems some are trying to justify spending massive amounts of cash on hardware that offers tiny performance gains. If thats your thing, fair enough, seems like money down the drain to me.

I have consoles and a top spec PC. What amazes me is that you can have visually stunning games such as GT4 and MGS3 on the 5+ year old PS2hardware, just shows what can be squeezed out of the available hardware given time.

Each generation of console software see's performance/graphical improvements on the same spec hardware.

Of course we never see this on th PC as software developers simply wait for the lastest and greatest hardware to be released.

Everyone accepts the PC will eventually catch up with the PS3, if it has to catch up at all.

The point is top spec PC's make up a tiny number of the total number of PC's out there, and cost 5x as much as a PS3/Xbox360.

Even with less powerful hardware, a console can be capable of producing superior graphics etc.

As for the multi function of a PC, great, but you can do all that on a £300 PC, you can then buy a console for the cost of a top spec graphics card.

I guess many PC owners will also be splashing out on a HD-DVD/Blu-Ray drive soon, no doubt these will cost almost as much as the Blu-Ray enabled PS3!
February 20, 2006 9:07:11 PM

Ahhh, your post has some good and some bad. Some console games are good, but this thread isn't about the games; it's about a naïve kids dream.
The quality of games on a PC vs. a console is really hard for me to comment on. Some console games are better than some PC games, and vise versa.
As far as hardware, a 400$ game console will play games much better than a 400$ PC, but when the PC is 2,000$ and up it's a different story.
February 20, 2006 9:20:32 PM

Quote:
Anyhow, Im not much for consoles, but you ought to take a look at the emulator programs to see which of your consoles are covered. You dont have to live without Sonic!! And, You could save yourself some storage space by putting all your console games on your PC. Ive seen succesful emus for pretty much everything but the XBOX and PS2. Me personally, I run MAME. Its an arcade EMU (over 4000 original arcade games on your PC...you gotta love it!!!)


I know you can use emulators, but there is something therapudic about sitting on a couch with a genesis controller in your hand playing Sonic the Hedgehog on your TV. There is just something missing on the emulator. I guess it just reminds me of a simpler time before I had to learn Option Pricing lol.

Side note:
The consoles have a much better life cycle to me. Honestly I am getting tired of the 3-4 month BS that graphics card companies are pulling. Leaving a console out for 5 years is a bit long, but at least the hardware gets mostly utilized (there is always a bit left over). With GPU's coming out every 4 months programmers can be lazy (not meant literaly) and just utilise some new features that nVidia has created. On a console they can do it, it just takes more understanding which is evident in each generation.

Honestly, if I had the spare cash I would probably buy one. However as is, I must deal with just my comp (i know my life is hard lol). I do really enjoy Halo 2 optimatch. There are specified gametypes and palyer ranks. Wish that kind of diversity would come to the PC. I know it is availible, but BF2 seems prime for something like that. Come on CTF with planes dropping bombs on you? Bad ass.

PS - I want to break open a 360 and custom rig a watercooling loop just bc I can lol. :) 
    • 1 / 13
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!