Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

PS3 vs. a home-built computer

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Playstation
  • Computer
  • Emulator
Last response: in CPUs
June 23, 2006 12:58:25 PM

Will a home-built computer be able to have the same graphics and capabilities as a PS3? I try using a Nintendo 64 emulator on my 800 Mhz computer, but on some games, it has problems. Will a computer that has about $1100 worth of good hardware be able to play PS3 games on an emulator?

More about : ps3 home built computer

June 23, 2006 1:09:24 PM

First of all, there won't be a PS3 emulator for a long time. As game systems become increasingly more complex, it becomes far more difficult to emulate them with software alone. Even Microsoft's own design team can't completely emulate their old XBox with software on the Xbox-360. Sony's emulation solution is to actually include the hardware from their previous generation machines in their new generation machines. That is to say, in every PS3 there will be (effectively) an entire PS2/PS1 machine inside as well.

Even if there was an emulator, it would take a machine far more powerful than the original machine because of emulation overhead. For example, the N64 ran a RISC processor at less than 100Mhz with 4MB of RAM, and your computer can barely keep up. Considering that the PS3 will have more power (in a few areas) than even the most expensive desktop computer, that is another problem.

In short, no. Just buy the damn game console.
June 23, 2006 1:22:23 PM

Quote:
First of all, there won't be a PS3 emulator for a long time. As game systems become increasingly more complex, it becomes far more difficult to emulate them with software alone. Even Microsoft's own design team can't completely emulate their old XBox with software on the Xbox-360. Sony's emulation solution is to actually include the hardware from their previous generation machines in their new generation machines. That is to say, in every PS3 there will be (effectively) an entire PS2/PS1 machine inside as well.

Even if there was an emulator, it would take a machine far more powerful than the original machine because of emulation overhead. For example, the N64 ran a RISC processor at less than 100Mhz with 4MB of RAM, and your computer can barely keep up. Considering that the PS3 will have more power (in a few areas) than even the most expensive desktop computer, that is another problem.

In short, no. Just buy the damn game console.


Well...I guess you sold me on game systems instead of computers. Wow. I am really shocked by your answer. Does everyone agree with him?
Related resources
June 23, 2006 1:37:03 PM

Yup he is right, would take a PC with Dual Core 20GHz CPU and 2 graphics cards that are 8 times as powerfull as they are today to get a PS3 emulator running smoothly thats if they can get it emulated.

After all a PS3 is basicly a PC anyway and how hard would it be to emulate a PC...
June 23, 2006 1:46:21 PM

Quote:
Yup he is right, would take a PC with Dual Core 20GHz CPU and 2 graphics cards that are 8 times as powerfull as they are today to get a PS3 emulator running smoothly thats if they can get it emulated.

After all a PS3 is basicly a PC anyway and how hard would it be to emulate a PC...


How about this then: Does a good $1200 dollar PC have better graphics than a PS3?
June 23, 2006 1:59:45 PM

^

Thats an entirely different type of question. I think an appropriate question would be, are the gaming capabilities of a $1,200 machine comparable to those of a PS3?

The answer is? We don't know its not out yet. What most people will agree on though is that $1,200 buys a lot more "game" & capability with a Computer then with a PS3.

A $1,200 system would leave room for a good videocard(s) (perhaps even SLI), and some great graphics.
June 23, 2006 2:13:44 PM

Quote:
^

Thats an entirely different type of question. I think an appropriate question would be, are the gaming capabilities of a $1,200 machine comparable to those of a PS3?

The answer is? We don't know its not out yet. What most people will agree on though is that $1,200 buys a lot more "game" & capability with a Computer then with a PS3.

A $1,200 system would leave room for a good videocard(s) (perhaps even SLI), and some great graphics.


Is a $1200 computer better than the XBox 360? Oh, by the way, why is not Halo 2 on the PC yet? I came out a while ago on the XBox? Is is completely different?
June 23, 2006 2:18:07 PM

Quote:
Sony's emulation solution is to actually include the hardware from their previous generation machines in their new generation machines. That is to say, in every PS3 there will be (effectively) an entire PS2/PS1 machine inside as well.


Yes that is true at the moment. But Sony plans to change to software emulation for the PS2 on the PS3. Now whether they will actually get it working remains to be seen.
June 23, 2006 2:34:05 PM

I could tell you what £1200 could get you but as for thease silly little $$'s I have not got a clue :wink:

A say £700 (About $1200) PC would get you enough to play Oblivion at the same level as a 360 if you went all on the graphics and cut short on a few of the other things.

But at the moment the queston should be what would I rather have... well a PC at the moment, as the 360 does not really offer me anything excluseive. If it was not for the price I would not have even got a 360 but at £270 it is alot cheaper than a top end GFX card or 2.
June 23, 2006 3:11:05 PM

Quote:
Will a home-built computer be able to have the same graphics and capabilities as a PS3?


Yes. A $1100 home-built computer can outperform a PS3 on a game that is released for both PC and PS3. Play the PC version on the PC and the PS3 version on the PS3 and the PC should provide better fps, higher resolution, more eye candy, etc.

This assumes the game company provided a game release for PS3 and PC that were of equal software quality. Often a game will be designed in the PS3 development suite and then a quick port to PC at the very end so you have high quality PS3 code and crap PC code. Then the fanboys from each side start flamewars about which platform is better. A game is almost never designed for PC and then ported to the console since the console SDK is more restrictive.


Quote:
I try using a Nintendo 64 emulator on my 800 Mhz computer, but on some games, it has problems. Will a computer that has about $1100 worth of good hardware be able to play PS3 games on an emulator?


Emulator is a whole different story. The emulator code adds a huge overhead to the system that pushes the processing and software requirements through the roof. Often driver issues will complicate things even if you had enough raw CPU power. Console makers don't want you to use emulators so they don't make it easy to get the drivers right. Plus there are so many hardware combinations possible on PCs that it is very difficult to get it all correct for every combination of hardware.

If I was to make a wild speculation, a $1100 PC with today's best hardware would probably be able to emulate the last generation of console (ie. PS2) at the console level of play. This is for two reasons. The emulator software would require today's CPU to overcome the emulator CPU overhead of the last generation console. Emulator and driver software would need this much time the become stable enough for a good playing experience. You would need to build you system with hardware that the emulator maker used in their testing to get the best driver compatibility.

If a game is only avaliable on the console, you are better off playing it on the console than to try emulating. If it's avaliable on PC and console, the PC will probably be better.
June 23, 2006 3:29:50 PM

Quote:
I could tell you what £1200 could get you but as for thease silly little $$'s I have not got a clue :wink:

A say £700 (About $1200) PC would get you enough to play Oblivion at the same level as a 360 if you went all on the graphics and cut short on a few of the other things.

But at the moment the queston should be what would I rather have... well a PC at the moment, as the 360 does not really offer me anything excluseive. If it was not for the price I would not have even got a 360 but at £270 it is alot cheaper than a top end GFX card or 2.


More like a 2500 dollar pc to play oblivion the way the xbox 360 does... I know 8)
a b à CPUs
June 23, 2006 3:30:27 PM

oh your question about halo 2 its comming out for windows Vista. Also the only reason a game come out on a PC later or not at all is because the developer doesn't want to recode/port it. Basicaly as of right now any game that come out for any console that is currently out can be "converted" (whether that means ported or build from the ground up like it should be) to be ran on the PC.

And another thing about halo its basicaly a FPS game, and currently PC's are the kings of FPS. When Halo/CE came out for PC is was consider by most average at best even though it was a hit on for Xbox. The reason most PC player had seen must better for years, I mean only in the xbox or late ps2 console year where they (developers) even able to create decend FPS due to the power of the system however on PCs there have been great true 3rd fps since the quake/unreal years of 1996.
June 23, 2006 3:57:29 PM

Nah you can get a full PC with a X1900 XT-X 512MB with 3500+ and 2GB's of ram with all the other parts for $1205 (not including monitor)

And that will run ANY game better than the 360... As for the PS3 it has or might have a built in physics card which will add about $200 to a PC.
June 23, 2006 4:01:56 PM

i doubt a pc with parts for that price will outpreform a ps, ....are only games important? if ur answer is yes go with the sp lol thats its main purpose isnt it;) only to play games on it (with relatively high quality visulas...so far) :wink:
June 23, 2006 4:03:24 PM

Quote:
Yup he is right, would take a PC with Dual Core 20GHz CPU and 2 graphics cards that are 8 times as powerfull as they are today to get a PS3 emulator running smoothly thats if they can get it emulated.

After all a PS3 is basicly a PC anyway and how hard would it be to emulate a PC...


How about this then: Does a good $1200 dollar PC have better graphics than a PS3?

Mine does.
June 23, 2006 4:23:57 PM

The thing about a PC is that you can upgrade or buy a better one every month if you wanted. When the PS3 first comes out it will be great of course and better than or the same as a $3k computer. However, six months from the launch date there will be new computer graphics cards that that blow away what was available when the PS3 launched. And there are years in between a major consule release. After a year the computer will be far cooler for gaming than that year old consule.

We have this debate every time a new consule is released. Nothing changes. People are on the consule bandwagon for a while and then when it's obvious PCs are in the lead people are back to lovin them.

Computers do so much more than gaming...that's all that I need to know.
June 23, 2006 4:35:06 PM

At $600, a PC can not compete with the PS3. You should take notice that a PC is capable of other tasks that the PS3 is not, such as CAD, video editing, and much more. Buying a PC for only gaming can be a very silly thing when a much smaller amount of money can be spent to still get a very good gaming experience.
June 23, 2006 5:11:26 PM

Quote:
Yup he is right, would take a PC with Dual Core 20GHz CPU and 2 graphics cards that are 8 times as powerfull as they are today to get a PS3 emulator running smoothly thats if they can get it emulated.

After all a PS3 is basicly a PC anyway and how hard would it be to emulate a PC...


How about this then: Does a good $1200 dollar PC have better graphics than a PS3?
Depends what parts you buy for it. PC are much better for gaming, I don't suggest buying any console. For pure gaming, consoles are better if you're on a $500-$600 budget.

I just had a thought. Console makers are making a mistake by raising console prices to the $500-$600 range. It used to be a console was a no-brainer for pure gaming losers because they were cheap ($300). But now... well... you can get a decent gaming PC for $700.

Are they trying to compete with PCs? If so... they're making a big mistake.
June 23, 2006 5:16:19 PM

The P.O.S.3 has a 7900 GTX onboard and the processor is pretty irrelevant as far as a POS3 emulator goes, not to mention it won't be out forEVER, IF ever. Dude the POS3 is going to be bundled with Vista and Duke Nukem Forever.
June 23, 2006 5:24:56 PM

RSX is not a 7900GTX. The processor is very relevant.
June 23, 2006 6:01:43 PM

stick to PC gaming my friend, ps3 is going to suck. an emulator for a console that powerful will probably not come around for years to come if one is created at all.
June 23, 2006 6:13:16 PM

WHAT how is the PS3 gonna be bundled with vista and duke nukem

The PS3 is going to run an OS like the 360 so that will take up some of it's system resourses
June 23, 2006 6:15:56 PM

Sometimes you just want to veg out on the couch with a wireless controller, hit the "on" button and play a game. No e-mail. No driver issues. No problems.

The question is irrelevant. If you can afford a $1200 computer and are agonizing about which to buy, then you should spend $600 on a PC and the rest on the console of your choice.

I have a PS/2, and I probably won't buy an XBox 360, simply because there's nothing that interesting on it (in my mind) yet. My PC is more than capable of handling any game on the market today. If I buy a PS/3, it'll be because Warhawk gives me a raging... well, you get the idea. I certainly wouldn't think of it as a computer, though it might be able to replace my Media Center PC, allowing me to watch HD movies on my projector without buying an HD or Blu-Ray drive.
June 23, 2006 6:19:40 PM

Quote:
RSX is not a 7900GTX. The processor is very relevant.


Your right. It is actually more along the lines of a 7900GT with 1/2 the memory bandwidth as a 7900GTX and it also has a chipset spliced into it.

To the poster of the thread....
One thing to consider is to anjoy a PS3 you'll probably want to invest in a decent HDTV and remeber that sony in their arrogance is trying to raise the bar even more for game prices. $69.99 US/game which means $100 dollar games for most of the rest of the world once you factor in taxes. A pc requires any old moniter and games are much cheaper and wont be subject to sony's silly DRM. By the time PS3 launches there will be DX 10 card out and sony's machine is DX9 with a lot of physics processessing thrown in so pc's will surpass what PS3 can do very soon.
June 23, 2006 6:25:37 PM

Quote:

I just had a thought. Console makers are making a mistake by raising console prices to the $500-$600 range. It used to be a console was a no-brainer for pure gaming losers because they were cheap ($300). But now... well... you can get a decent gaming PC for $700.

Are they trying to compete with PCs? If so... they're making a big mistake.


Are you most of you guys either on crack or need your eyes adjusted.

Given this scenario: PS3 games are in full 1080P mode, most graphics card can't even handle this 1920x1080 (running at decent frame rate), let alone turn on full FAA, FSA, and all that bullcrap.

Why don't you compare Oblivion on Xbox360 to a PC version and see what it costs to be on par with the console version.. you'll find that it will cost at least 2 times what you pay on a console. Don't forget all the messy install and tweaks you will have to do and constant video driver upgrades. It's a nightmare! On a console, insert game and enjoy.

Hell I can bring over my game to a friend's if he as the same console..can you say the same for a PC?... ermm.."give me 20 mins to install and configure please"...

And the reason why consoles cost more these days is because of the technology inside. Consoles nowadays are more than just a game entertainment system, the PS3 will allow you to surf, play HD movies, etc. It's really more of a media center.

Enough said.
June 23, 2006 6:34:54 PM

Well As Ive Heard It The XBOX360's And PS3's Basically Use Graphics Cards In The 6800/X1800 Range So A 6800Ultra Or A X1800XT Would Hae Roughly The Same Graphic Capabilities And Power
June 23, 2006 6:43:46 PM

Even if you are only gaming the PS3 is not clearly superior to a PC. There are many other aspects you have to analyze besides just ability to pump out crap-your-pants awesome graphics.

Game Selection
First thing I would look at is game selection. You want to play strategy games or MMOs? Then pick the PC as these are two genres the PC has always been leaps and bounds ahead of consoles. If you would want other games, particularly exclusives like MGS4, then maybe the PS3 has a leg up in the games selection category. My conclusion - both systems have their perks for game selection, just comes down to personal preference.

Game Prices
I think another area of consideration should be game price. Console games are ridicuously expensive, you are looking at doubling the price of your console after buying 10 or 11 games (at $50-$60 per game)! PC games are slightly cheaper, usually opening at $40-$50. Additionally there are a ton of free games for PC games like Gunz and MU Continent of Legend, which may not have PS3 quality graphics, but are good free . I know this will also open up a can of worms but with PC's you can take advantage of sites like http://thepiratebay.org/ to bolster your single-player gaming experience (but you'll have to fork over $$$ to play games online or recieve patches). In game pricing I think the PC has a clear advantage over the PS3.

Display
The display aspect of consoles vs PCs is probably the most overlooked area in the comparison of whether to go console or PC. If you want a PS3 or Xbox360 you will also need an HDTV to make the most of your experience. If you already have one this is not much of problem, if you do not, you have just increased your console price by at least another $600. Admittedly you can still play next-gen content on a current gen TV, but "Xbox360 games just look like really good Xbox games" (this statement seems to be an exaggeration, but nevertheless you are not completely utilizing your PS3 unless you have an HDTV). Suddenly the PS3 is not looking so much cheaper than PC (I'd estimate about $1400 for a good system including a 19" widescreen LCD monitor, input devices, and 5.1 surround sound). With the addition of an HDTV I believe the console losses one of its primary strengths - the cheap initial price.

Mods/Fan Generated Content
PCs benefit from fan-generated content that is generally free. Good mods extend the life of games or can basically give you another entirely free game (in the same engine). Additionally you can create mods with a PC (not with any consoles), which may be more fun that actually playing games (at least I think so, but I've been an avid modder for the past 5 years). Very clear advantage for PCs here.

Other Functions
PS3 has Blu-Ray and can play DVDs, PS2, and PS One games. That's a fairly impressive list features. A PC on the other hand can play DVDs, burn DVDs, play PS One games, play arcade games, is a desktop publication center, is a powerful communications tool. I would say here we almost have a tie if you really like Blu-Ray and PS2 games but to take full advantage of Blu-Ray you need a TV capable of displaying 1080p, which carries a premium price tag. Unless you have a $4000 TV I think the PC also wins in this category.

Conclusion
Game Selection - Draw
Game Prices - PC
Initial Price - Draw
Mods/Fan Generated Content - PC
Other Functions - PC
I think we can clearly see that the PC is a better gaming solution, even if its graphics won't quite match that of a PS3.
June 23, 2006 6:53:07 PM

The GPU in the PS3 is based on the G70 core and is supposed to be faster than a pair of 6800 Ultras in SLI mode. That makes it as fast as the 7800GTX but slower than the 7900 series.
June 23, 2006 6:59:37 PM

Well, my friends, guess what? We are all slaves to market dynamics and capitalism. There is no reason at all why there cannot just be one awesome system that is both a great PC and game machine. Just imagine this: If the US was communist and the government owned all businesses, there would only to be one system for games and PC functions (word, internet, etc). We would not have to worry about the question of whether to pick NVidia or ATI or AMD or Intel. I realize the problems inherent in this, please excuse them (like the government would not probably want to make games like Doom 3), but just imagine if there was just one awesome system that could do it all. Well, I would like that. I would not have to be thinking about whether PCs or consoles are better.

By the way, I do not want to hear childlish reponses about how the government would only put out math software and learning software.
June 23, 2006 7:07:29 PM

You're right. There's no reason at all. But the machine you just described is not the PS3, it is a PC. PCs are already great PCs and great gaming machines.
June 23, 2006 7:10:06 PM

Quote:

The display aspect of consoles vs PCs is probably the most overlooked area in the comparison of whether to go console or PC. If you want a PS3 or Xbox360 you will also need an HDTV to make the most of your experience. If you already have one this is not much of problem, if you do not, you have just increased your console price by at least another $600. Admittedly you can still play next-gen content on a current gen TV, but "Xbox360 games just look like really good Xbox games" (this statement seems to be an exaggeration, but nevertheless you are not completely utilizing your PS3 unless you have an HDTV). Suddenly the PS3 is not looking so much cheaper than PC (I'd estimate about $1400 for a good system including a 19" widescreen LCD monitor, input devices, and 5.1 surround sound). With the addition of an HDTV I believe the console losses one of its primary strengths - the cheap initial price.


No, that's not true. A few current LCD monitors these days have component in. As well you can use the VGA output which the Xbox360 has and as well as the PS3 I'm pretty sure. Well at least if you get the HDMI version you can use a HDMI-DVI adapter.

As for game prices yah initially they are expensive but you can rent them if you can't afford to buy and they do come down in prices several months later.
June 23, 2006 7:21:55 PM

this is my solution, get a ps3 for 500 bucks when it comes out, and get a pc for 700-800 bucks, and that pc will run games that are out at pretty much full graphics, i mean u can get 2 gb ram, x1900xt, an amd 3800 venice, and an asus mobo, so yeah, there u get both and u will be glad and so u can brag that u got a NEW pc and a PS3! i mean thats just WICKED!
June 23, 2006 7:24:25 PM

but thats thats just the card, its got i dont know how many cpu's and it has xdr ram, and it doesnt need to run windows in the background, and other programs that run in the background, its just brute power all for one purpose, isnt it b-a-euuutiful!
June 23, 2006 7:44:05 PM

I wonder how different the responses would be if the question were Wii vs home-built computer, its hard to compare the two as not only has it not been release but the controllers will make it hard for games to translate across the platforms as they do today
June 23, 2006 7:54:29 PM

pc's are beter in my oppinion, to be honest i cant even grasp the idea of spending that 600 or so on a thing that is just for games....(althou i was thinking of geting myselfe the psp, for it multifunctional mods possible to do on it ;)  ) but i guess if ur only a kid that hinks about games (or a parent that has sutch a kid) geting a console is hm..."easier" (no problems with a child destroying some important data; ;) , less technical, and hm...one standard ;)  for all software :wink:
June 24, 2006 9:58:47 PM

Quote:
Are you most of you guys either on crack or need your eyes adjusted.


You're on crack AND you need your eyes adjusted.

Quote:
Given this scenario: PS3 games are in full 1080P mode, most graphics card can't even handle this 1920x1080 (running at decent frame rate), let alone turn on full FAA, FSA, and all that bullcrap.


Most graphics cards don't have to. You only need one and if that's your priority, then go for it.

Quote:
Why don't you compare Oblivion on Xbox360 to a PC version and see what it costs to be on par with the console version.. you'll find that it will cost at least 2 times what you pay on a console.


OK, then let's see that console do some programming, file your taxes, archive digital images, burn DVDs, edit video or any of the other things you can do on a computer.

Quote:
Don't forget all the messy install and tweaks you will have to do and constant video driver upgrades. It's a nightmare! On a console, insert game and enjoy.


Maybe now we're getting at the simplicity you desire most. But my installs aren't messy and I don't need to do a bunch of tweaks just to play Oblivion. When I tweak, it's typically just for fun and entertainment.

Quote:
Hell I can bring over my game to a friend's if he as the same console..can you say the same for a PC?... ermm.."give me 20 mins to install and configure please"...


20 minutes? Think not.

Quote:
And the reason why consoles cost more these days is because of the technology inside.


Well, I wouldn't complain about the PS3 price myself. If I wanted a BluRay, I'd think of it as a decent deal. As it is, I'm in no hurry just yet.

Quote:
Consoles nowadays are more than just a game entertainment system, the PS3 will allow you to surf, play HD movies, etc. It's really more of a media center.


Really? A media center PC will records movies at HD resolution. Will your PS3?

Quote:
Enough said.


Or too much, depending on your perspective.
June 30, 2006 9:52:03 AM

Just wanted to make a note on one thing the 1080p...

Last night I was playing Battle Field 2 on a X800XT at 1600X1200 with 2X AA and 16X AF...

Thats about the same number of pixels as 1080p... ow who here has a 1080p TV???? :lol: 
June 30, 2006 9:56:49 AM

1080P has more pixels then 1600 * 1200 not to mention its widescreen which is way better then 4:3.
June 30, 2006 10:25:40 AM

You mean 1080p has 2073600 where as 1600X1200 has 1920000...

So that means 1600X1296 would be the exact same pixel density as 1080p... so basically as I said 1600X1200 is about the same...

Also wide screen is no better, what you gain on one you loose on the other. Some people prefer square views than panoramic views, where the PC is concerned it is better not to have a wide screen monitor (since most PC games don't have a wide screen option and just squash a boxed image in to wide screen view).

Ow and again who has a 1080p TV :lol: 
June 30, 2006 11:12:56 AM

I think computers are better choice. I like laptops but I also have desktop that play games. Laptops are great for you can watch a movie while a passanger in a car. Or even play a game. Other then the mini handheld they have for nentendo or ps2 where you need a miroscope to play.

Here why I hate console. Let look Nentendo super nentendo xbox xbox360 cartrage. can t play on the newer console.

Computers If you had a old game. Disk to cd. You can play old games. And play the new games. So anything from the 1980s Like pacman to Fear. I can play.

consoles. They run mybe 3 to 5 Years with no ugrades.

Computers. Can be updated every year.
June 30, 2006 11:25:46 AM

consoles are for gaming purposes only and are cheaper.
June 30, 2006 11:32:34 AM

Quote:
You mean 1080p has 2073600 where as 1600X1200 has 1920000...


Last time I checked thats more.

Quote:
So that means 1600X1296 would be the exact same pixel density as 1080p... so basically as I said 1600X1200 is about the same...


About but less.

Quote:
Also wide screen is no better, what you gain on one you loose on the other. Some people prefer square views than panoramic views, where the PC is concerned it is better not to have a wide screen monitor (since most PC games don't have a wide screen option and just squash a boxed image in to wide screen view).


More recent games support it, Fear has widescreen support and with the new consoles being widescreen more PC games will support it. Anyways widescreen is so much better looking. After playing fear on a 24inch widescreen dell and then going back to my 21inch 4:3 monitor I cried.

Quote:
Ow and again who has a 1080p TV


People with more money then you.

Noob.
June 30, 2006 12:40:50 PM

the PS3 uses a lot of alien technology.the Cell processer is a good example.
why do think emulator teams havent been able to build a working emulator for the ps2 because the technology used in that console was something new to everybody.building an emulator for the ps3 is foolish.the RSX is a gpu base on the G70 architecture.then why do the ps3 games look so great? its because of the Cell proccessor.
June 30, 2006 12:50:08 PM

Quote:
why do think emulator teams havent been able to build a working emulator for the ps2 because the technology used in that console was something new to everybody


Mainly because of the eDRAM.

Quote:
the RSX is a gpu base on the G70 architecture.then why do the ps3 games look so great? its because of the Cell proccessor.


I didn't realise that cell could do all the work of a GPU. :roll:
June 30, 2006 1:36:32 PM

Just replying to the thread not you Action Man.


PS3 lets think about it. $600 for a console, $60 - $80 for a game (I can't remember where I read this price). Honestly, I smell a flop anybody ever hear of 3DO or Neo Geo? They were big hits right...?

http://cache.gizmodo.com/images/2006/05/absolute.gif
June 30, 2006 1:55:47 PM

If PS3 is $500 and it's better than a $600 computer? I would go for PS3.
As for computer which require $$$ for every hardware upgrade, by the time I'm done the way I want it to work I would have spent hundreds or thousands dollars more from my $600 initial cost. By then there would be another $500 new game console that is better than an upgraded computer.

That’s just my opinion.
I'm sure some would prefer PC instead, since it can do more than just game.

If your Looking for all purpose system then A PC would be better
Each have Pros and Cons.

PC – You can download free games and trials. office works, emails, photo editing etc.
Console – Can be rented. and strictly for game. I'll better wait for PS3 release so I can get more input.
June 30, 2006 2:16:08 PM

Quote:
Will a home-built computer be able to have the same graphics and capabilities as a PS3? I try using a Nintendo 64 emulator on my 800 Mhz computer, but on some games, it has problems. Will a computer that has about $1100 worth of good hardware be able to play PS3 games on an emulator?

i dont think so.
there are some ps2 emulators which cant run decently on that type of computer
June 30, 2006 2:21:48 PM

Quote:
If PS3 is $500 and it's better than a $600 computer? I would go for PS3.
As for computer which require $$$ for every hardware upgrade, by the time I'm done the way I want it to work I would have spent hundreds or thousands dollars more from my $600 initial cost. By then there would be another $500 new game console that is better than an upgraded computer.

That’s just my opinion.
I'm sure some would prefer PC instead, since it can do more than just game.

If your Looking for all purpose system then A PC would be better
Each have Pros and Cons.

PC – You can download free games and trials. office works, emails, photo editing etc.
Console – Can be rented. and strictly for game. I'll better wait for PS3 release so I can get more input.

i think it all depends on what games you play. If you play a game that is PC only, then why spending on a console? The same with consoles. If the game is released for both (as most titles today are), i'd get a console.
You can upgrade a computer, but on a console you'll always be sure that the game will run at least decently. With a computer you wont.
June 30, 2006 2:34:32 PM

Quote:
........but just imagine if there was just one awesome system that could do it all. Well, I would like that. I would not have to be thinking about whether PCs or consoles are better.
Quote:


Yeah, but if computers "do it all" then eventually we'll be discussing which one does it all better. And we'd still be in the same spot we are now, debating strengths of different systems.
    • 1 / 7
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest