Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

my stupid friends

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 12, 2006 4:10:05 AM

OK, i have this bet with my stupid friends who think a ps3 or 360 is better than any computer.

I know there has been another thread on this on here but they couldnt understand that...soo explain why a freaking computer is a million times better in stupid terms k?

tell them right here right now that a computer...best rig out there

thanks...

More about : stupid friends

December 12, 2006 4:12:51 AM

o and tell them that my computer is better than a ps3 and 360 plzzz...specs are in my sig
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 12, 2006 4:15:02 AM

*sight* no again

Read that

Quote:
Concluding anything about Cell requires a multifaceted look at the architecture and the platform as a whole.

First from the perspective of the game industry, more specifically Playstation 3:

Cell’s architecture is similar to the next version of Microsoft’s Xbox and upcoming PC microprocessors in that it is heavily multithreaded. The next Xbox will execute between 3 and 6 threads simultaneously, while desktop PC microprocessors will execute between 2 - 4. The problem is that while Xbox 2/360/Next and the PC will be using multiple general purpose cores, Cell relies on more specialized hardware to achieve its peak performance. Cell’s SPEs being Altivec/VMX derived is a benefit, which should mean that the ISA is more familiar to developers working on any POWER based architecture, but the approach to development on Cell vs. development on the PC will literally be on opposite ends of the spectrum, with the new Xbox somewhere in between.

The problem here is that big game development houses often develop and optimize for the least common denominator when it comes to hardware, and offer ports with minor improvements to other platforms. Given Cell’s architecture, it hardly looks like a suitable “base” platform to develop for. We’d venture to say that a game developed for and ported from the PC or Xbox Next would be under-utilizing Cell’s performance potential unless significant code re-write time was spent.

Console-only development houses, especially those with close ties to Sony, may find themselves able to harness the power of Cell much more efficiently than developers who ascribe to the write-once, port-many process of cross-platform development. Given EA’s recent acquisition and licensing-spree, this is a very valid concern.

With Cell, Sony has effectively traded hardware complexity for programmer burden, but if anyone is willing to bear the burden of a complicated architecture, it is a game developer. The problem grows in complexity once you start factoring in porting to multiple platforms in a timely manner while still attempting to achieve maximum performance.

As a potential contender in the PC market, Cell has a very tall ladder to climb before even remotely appearing on the AMD/Intel radars. The biggest strength that the x86 market has is backwards compatibility, which is the main thing that has kept alternative ISAs out of the PC business. Regardless of how much hype is drummed up around Cell, the processor is not immune to the same laws of other contenders in the x86 market - a compatible ISA is a must. And as Intel’s Justin Rattner put it, “if there are good ideas in that architecture, PC architecture is very valuable and it will move to incorporate those ideas.”

Once again, what’s most intriguing is the similarity, at a high level, of Intel’s far future multi-core designs to Cell today. The main difference is that while Intel’s Cell-like designs will be built on 32nm or smaller processes, Cell is being introduced at 90nm - meaning that Intel is envisioning many more complex cores on a single die than Cell. Intel can make that kind of migration to a Cell-like design because their microprocessors already have a very large user base. IBM, Sony and Toshiba can’t however - Cell must achieve a very large user base initially in order to be competitive down the road. Unfortunately, seeing a future for Cell far outside of Playstation 3 and Sony/Toshiba CE devices is difficult at best.

The first thing you have to keep in mind is that Cell’s architecture is nothing revolutionary, it’s been done before. TI’s MVP 320C8X is a multi-processor DSP that sounds a lot like Cell: http://focus.ti.com/docs/military/catalog/general/gener.... So, while Cell is the best mass-market attempt at a design approach that has been tried before, it doesn’t have history on its side for success beyond a limited number of applications.

Regardless of what gaming platform you’re talking about, Cell’s ability to offer an array of cores to handle sophisticated physics and AI processing is the future. AGEIA’s announcement of the PhysX PPU (and the fact that it’s been given the “thumbs up” by Ubisoft and Epic Games) lends further credibility to Cell’s feasibility as a high performance gaming CPU.

The need for more realistic physics environments and AI in games is no illusion; the question is will Intel’s forthcoming dual and multi-core CPUs (with further optimized SIMD units) offer enough parallelism and performance for game developers, or will the PPU bring Cell-like architecture to the desktop PC well ahead of schedule? The answer to that question could very well shape the future of desktop PCs even more so than the advent of the GPU.


Is a good start for PS3
Related resources
December 12, 2006 4:18:56 AM

dude my friends dont know anything about anything..they wouldnt know what cache...cell processor...the whole 9...simple terms so i can freaking win this bet
December 12, 2006 4:29:09 AM

You can upgrade your PC, good luck swapping parts inside a PS3.
December 12, 2006 4:32:19 AM

they think the graphics are better on a ps3 and xbox 360 than a computer....
December 12, 2006 4:40:03 AM

Why do you keep idiots around yourself as friends, then? Have you considered the fact that your closed-mindedness has made you an idiot in their eyes?

It's a stupid argument either way, in my opinion. If you want a console, you get whichever console you think is best or has the games you want. If you want a computer, you either buy one, build one, or pay someone to build it for you. It's that simple.

There is no "best" for everyone. There is a best for you, and a best for another person.

And for the love of God, why do you keep double posting on your own posts? EDIT. I really wish there was a forum block, but I can't help but flame incompetence.
December 12, 2006 4:40:26 AM

Play the same game on your pc & one of their game systems. Why do you think the PC version looks better and has more levels? Not only will your PC beat their systems, but it is a general machine - gaming systems can only do a very narrow range of things (360 can't even recognize a flash drive) so all they get is a very thin operating system. Even with their very low resource using OS's, the gaming systems can't perform like PC's. Sony & MS are willing to lose a bit of $ on each system to make it up in game sales, but they are surely not willing to lose that much to offer you a $3000 system for $600.

Jo
December 12, 2006 4:42:14 AM

Well, you could mention the larger amount of software that you can use on a computer (I dare you to use photoshop or gimp on an xbox).

And don't forget upgradeability, and not buying your hardware from either sony or microsoft.

Graphics are better on the consoles now. In 6 months they will be better on the PC and stay that way for years until they come out with the next next gen.

A PC is just more versatile. If they can't accept that, then they don't care and won't ever know why a PC always trumps a console in terms of everything except for the (momentary) graphics advantage. Good Luck convincing them...
December 12, 2006 4:45:08 AM

are u kidding me... x6800, 8800gtx(sli?...if u need it), and 4gb ddr2-1066...would pwnnnnnnnnn any console..

sorry guys i ment computers are better in games than any console not better in general
December 12, 2006 4:49:14 AM

When those consoles were designed, thier gfx processor was pretty state of the art. Unfortunetely for them, it's been a long time since design. Your gfx card is only a little better than thiers is now. Next year will bring better games and better gfx cards. Then, where will they want to play?
You should understand that consoles are special purpose devices, they do games very well. They are also good value, as the mother company will sell at a loss, hoping to profit from game sales.
If you need max bling, consoles cant compeat. If you just want a good value gaming machine, consoles are a steal.
December 12, 2006 4:57:46 AM

At the moment the PS3 is more powerful for gaming because of its specifically designed nature for that purpose. Unfortunately no software exists that can fully utilize it, and by the time that software is available desktop gaming computers will have 4 cores, and 2-4 graphics cores and will be superior. As well as the ability to perform other tasks and store things on the harddrive.

Next august pure quad cores will be released and they are already testing multi core radeons on one video card. Not to mention computers with 4-8 gb of ram.

I would say at the moment the best quad core overclocked qx6700 with 8800gtx in sli, raid raptor 150s and 2-4 gb of ram would probably score pretty close to a ps3. But it uses alot more power and costs alot more. Every 18 months though everything doubles so it will soon go back into the pcs favour.
December 12, 2006 5:22:10 AM

IMO:

The PC is a better extreme high-end gaming machine than a X360 or a PS3.

The longer a given console is out the more this become apparent.

Right now, the best graphics are about the same on the X360, PC, and PS3. This is mostly due to the games and software not taking full advantage of hardware. Particularly on the PC where the hardware ranges from ancient history to bleeding edge tech but the high-end will have that bleeding edge tech.

For the same game? The extreme high-end PC wins.

In a year, who will have the better looking sharper image with smoother frame rates and better controls? The extreme high-end PC.

Will all PC games in a years time take advantage of todays high-end hardware? No.

Will most games for the PS3 or X360 take advantage of their respective hardware? Probably.

But by that time the extreme high-end PC should have new bleeding edge tech that should stomp the X360 and the PS3, again it won't be fully utilized.
December 12, 2006 6:15:32 AM

If you can afford to build a cutting edge uber gaming PC than another $1000 for a 360 and PS3 is nothing. Buy them all and play them all. Enough with this stupid argument. A high end PC will always win, but try and build one for the same price as both consoles. A good PC can be built for $1000 but not gaming powerhouse. The best video cards (xfire or sli) will cost more than all 3 new consoles.
December 12, 2006 6:21:56 AM

Quote:
At the moment the PS3 is more powerful for gaming because of its specifically designed nature for that purpose. Unfortunately no software exists that can fully utilize it, and by the time that software is available desktop gaming computers will have 4 cores, and 2-4 graphics cores and will be superior. As well as the ability to perform other tasks and store things on the harddrive.

Next august pure quad cores will be released and they are already testing multi core radeons on one video card. Not to mention computers with 4-8 gb of ram.

I would say at the moment the best quad core overclocked qx6700 with 8800gtx in sli, raid raptor 150s and 2-4 gb of ram would probably score pretty close to a ps3. But it uses alot more power and costs alot more. Every 18 months though everything doubles so it will soon go back into the pcs favour.



If you really think the PS3 is this powerful than you need to lay off the drugs.
December 12, 2006 6:26:34 AM

Quote:
dude my friends dont know anything about anything..they wouldnt know what cache...cell processor...the whole 9...simple terms so i can freaking win this bet


the answers to your question are technical. we can't say "it's better just because". if they can't understand then they'll never believe you.

my answer would depend on your TV basically.

if you hook your console into a "normal" tv, not hi-def, the maximum resolution you're going to be seeing is 640x480 and there's nothing you can do about it. any coomputer these days will run games in 1600x1200 resolution, higher resolution, higher detail.

other than that, if they can't understand the reasons why then there's no way to win your bet.

Valis

it's like trying to explain why a BMW is better than a mercedes and trying to not use anything like transmissions, gear ratios, torque, or horsepower. good luck with that.
December 12, 2006 6:40:41 AM

I hope you didn't bet a lot of money... You are in a no-win situation. They will always have their opinion, and you will always have yours. Just humour yourself knowing that there are many other things that you can do besides playing games and maybe doing limited web browsing or email...
December 12, 2006 7:20:28 AM

Quote:
Why do you keep idiots around yourself as friends, then?
To make MONEY!!!!!!!!! :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
December 12, 2006 7:33:24 AM

PS3 narrowly beats XBox 360 graphics-wise, and if I remember correctly, the graphics part in the PS3 is already 1 generation old. An 8800GTX utilising DX10 will beat it comfortably. Some PC games are optimized to take advantage of multiple cores, whereas a lot of PS3 games have to be specifically coded for the Cell processor, which is sort of multicore... It's more like the architecture of the 8800 than a CPU, actually... Anyway... As has been said many time before... By the time tight code exists for the Cell, Intel and AMD will be fabbing 4 and maybe even 8 core processors at 32nm. Which basically means that the performace curve of a PS3 will never be higher than the performance curve of a high-end PC.

However, if you want a PC to "beat" a PS3 with, you'll need to spend significantly more...
December 12, 2006 8:15:19 AM

I think you're stupid. Why would you make a bet that you can't prove because they know nothing about PC's? Hopefully you'll lose shed loads of money, but gain valuable intelligence not to barter with people your own IQ.
December 12, 2006 9:40:24 AM

The original Nintendo console was even better,
.... because people couldn't access the Internet (or Forums) using one and ask questions that have already been answered in several other fthreads.

:lol:  - Tabris:D arkPeace
December 12, 2006 10:34:39 AM

how would programming the game for cell have a performance increase?!?!...core 2s have a better archetechure and are wayyy more effient. Also processors dont make a huge fps increase/decrease!!!
December 12, 2006 11:40:58 AM

though of course core 2 duo is more expensive than the cell processor and wasnt around when the PS3 was being designed
December 12, 2006 11:45:50 AM

lol stupid
December 12, 2006 12:09:05 PM

Once you get through the classical arguments about the hardware, the games availile and the like try this on a console.
Add a level or custom charater.
Patch a flawed game, it happens even to consoles.
I've got over a thousand "mods" for Quake 3 myself.
That, IMO, is what sets the computer apart from the consoles.
December 12, 2006 12:58:56 PM

I would challenge that consoles have always been better for gaming in the realm of non-geeks. If you've ever had people over and played some games with them, you understand what I'm talking about.

Plus, look at the Wii. Here is a machine that is clearly graphically inferior to many other consoles and most gaming computers. However, causing the player to be interactively a part of the game as a core requirement is something that helps revolutionize (hey, I liked their old name for the console :) ) the industry. If I have people over that are normal people (ie, not posting on computer hardware sites - we're all geeks, admit it), they are much more likely to pick up a wiimote and immediately know how to play tennis and enjoy it, than plop them down in front of a computer and understand the finer points of a computer FPS.
December 12, 2006 1:00:12 PM

Quote:
how would programming the game for cell have a performance increase?!?!...core 2s have a better archetechure and are wayyy more effient. Also processors dont make a huge fps increase/decrease!!!


You can do some amazing stuff with junk hardware if you code your software right.

I am not calling the cell processors junk. The cell is a very innovative processor.


Would you put a 6 year old kid in a formula 1 racing car and expect him win every time? No.

This is analogs to the relationship between software and hardware. The best hardware in the world won't do anyone any good if it is strapped to software that doesn't take advantage of it.

Multi-core technology is a prime example of this, wonderful idea to nearly double the performance of most apps but practically no-one is coding for it. This is all in spite of it rapidly becoming mainstream and having been on the market for a year and a half and people having seen the writing on the wall for at least a year before it's introduction.

If you have sub-par hardware but wonderful software engineering which sports near 100% utilization then you will be literally amazed at what it can do.

Anyone remember the game Max Payne(the first one)? Ran beautifully on (very) sup-par hardware because it's coding was so wonderfully engineered. BTW, the poster child for quad-core gaming, Alan Wake, is being made by the same people that made Max Payne.
December 12, 2006 1:39:06 PM

Quote:


...Graphics are better on the consoles now.


wow I don't think so.

I'd like to see any console that can match my SLI'd 8800 GTX's at 1920x1200 or higher with 32x FSAA etc. Most console games don't even do such high res.

You don't even get tactical games like Oblivion or Rome Total War on consoles. Lets not even get into Flight Sims or other non-gaming stuff like word processors or spreadsheets or printers or scanners or useable web surfing or a million other things.

Also I hate those crappy controllers you get with consoles. They're especiialy crap for FPS games like UT. I'd much rather play anything with a mouse and keyboard and I'm much faster/more accurate with a mouse/keyboard too.
December 12, 2006 1:46:53 PM

Quote:
Once you get through the classical arguments about the hardware, the games availile and the like try this on a console.
Add a level or custom charater.
Patch a flawed game, it happens even to consoles.
I've got over a thousand "mods" for Quake 3 myself.
That, IMO, is what sets the computer apart from the consoles.


It's apples/oranges. If you are a really dedicated gamer, you'll have both. The Wii is a perfect example of how an inexpensive console can give good value (if you can find one and within a month it will be easy to) and make for fun 4-person play. It's fun to have everyone in the room together jumping around like idiots. I spend more of my limited gaming time on a PC because I like the high quality graphics and overall performance advantage.
December 12, 2006 2:52:12 PM

Quote:
how would programming the game for cell have a performance increase?!?!...core 2s have a better archetechure and are wayyy more effient. Also processors dont make a huge fps increase/decrease!!!
BTW, if your friends are more clueless about technology than you, I fear for them. :p 
December 12, 2006 2:55:11 PM

Quote:


...Graphics are better on the consoles now.


wow I don't think so.

I'd like to see any console that can match my SLI'd 8800 GTX's at 1920x1200 or higher with 32x FSAA etc. Most console games don't even do such high res.

You don't even get tactical games like Oblivion or Rome Total War on consoles. Lets not even get into Flight Sims or other non-gaming stuff like word processors or spreadsheets or printers or scanners or useable web surfing or a million other things.

Also I hate those crappy controllers you get with consoles. They're especiialy crap for FPS games like UT. I'd much rather play anything with a mouse and keyboard and I'm much faster/more accurate with a mouse/keyboard too.
SLI'd G80 cores will absolutely slay any console in terms of raw performance. Isn't the PS3 RSX GPU based on the G70?
December 12, 2006 3:01:41 PM

I prefer my Nintendo 64 over all.
December 12, 2006 3:04:06 PM

Quote:
Once you get through the classical arguments about the hardware, the games availile and the like try this on a console.
Add a level or custom charater.
Patch a flawed game, it happens even to consoles.
I've got over a thousand "mods" for Quake 3 myself.
That, IMO, is what sets the computer apart from the consoles.


It's apples/oranges. If you are a really dedicated gamer, you'll have both. The Wii is a perfect example of how an inexpensive console can give good value (if you can find one and within a month it will be easy to) and make for fun 4-person play. It's fun to have everyone in the room together jumping around like idiots. I spend more of my limited gaming time on a PC because I like the high quality graphics and overall performance advantage.
Thanks for being the voice of reason. There are differences between consoles and PCs that make the whole "PC vs Console" war somewhat subjective. Consoles generally lend themselves to a different style of game play (especially the Wii) than PCs. I use my PC for gaming when I am alone, and I want to play a more challenging game (e.g. CSS). Consoles are great for cracking open some beer with your friends and (like you pointed out) "jumping around like idiots" to have a good time.
December 12, 2006 3:15:58 PM

i think this threds gone on long enough 8O
December 12, 2006 4:35:18 PM

BINGO!


:lol: 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 12, 2006 4:51:01 PM

If your friend don't understand technology, and are dumb enough to think console have better visual, let them be.

You won't be able to change their mind if they don't understand what multi thread and Pixel shading is, so why bother?
December 12, 2006 6:31:52 PM

This is an unwinnable bet. You can't disprove their opinion unless they let you.
December 13, 2006 2:52:41 AM

That's what I thought. If they can't prove you right/wrong (they sound too stupid) call the thing off and let this pointless thread die.

We all know none of the consoles have DX10 capabilities (I've posted this 3 times already in different threads, the 360 has DX10-like but not full DX10) and that crysis wasn't coming to consoles because they are too weak to run it at max like the makers want it to. Apparently they can port it and I've heard rumours about it being ported to the 360 now.

I'm not putting links up coz it's all in the first google page of results if you search properly.
December 13, 2006 1:43:08 PM

Quote:
I prefer my Nintendo 64 over all.


Yay for super smash brothers!
December 13, 2006 5:52:23 PM

You can't buy a computer that currently competes with the ps3 for anywhere close to the same price. Computers are more flexible tools, but for gaming the ps3 wins every time. You guys are comparing computers that cost almost TEN TIMES what a ps3 costs. Hook them both up to an HDTV and current ps3 games look better. Its great that you've all invested money into something you like and something thats useful, but that doesn't mean its the greatest thing in the universe. As a piece of gaming hardware the ps3 is unmatched and will remain so for a while; it will remain cost effective for even longer.

jesse
December 13, 2006 6:03:00 PM

Quote:
how would programming the game for cell have a performance increase?!?!...core 2s have a better archetechure and are wayyy more effient. Also processors dont make a huge fps increase/decrease!!!


They don't have better architecture where games are concerned. The primary processing type performed in games is executing the same instruction on a LOT of data very repetitively... The Vector architecture of the Cell is designed around this principle. It really is super-computer architecture on a single chip. And what are supercomputers designed to do? Execute the same instruction(s) on LOTS of data...

So in the realm of gaming, (which is what consoles are designed to do) the Cell architecture is unparalleled. (pun intended :)  ) In a couple of years when developers really get to grips with its potential, we'll start seeing some truly incredible things... trust me :) 

EDIT: After reading the OP again, I think I should share that I made a bet with my friends that bananas are WAY better than apples. Can someone here prove that I'm right so I can win my bet?
December 13, 2006 10:12:15 PM

Quote:
OK, i have this bet with my stupid friends who think a ps3 or 360 is better than any computer.

I know there has been another thread on this on here but they couldnt understand that...soo explain why a freaking computer is a million times better in stupid terms k?

tell them right here right now that a computer...best rig out there

thanks...


Easy, tell them to overclock on stock cooling :lol: 
OH, and i want to see some of the 3dmarkxx scores :wink:
December 14, 2006 3:38:32 AM

Why won't this thing die already. (yes I know I'm keeping this alive and all but it's pointless)
December 14, 2006 1:42:19 PM

Quote:
You can't buy a computer that currently competes with the ps3 for anywhere close to the same price. Computers are more flexible tools, but for gaming the ps3 wins every time. You guys are comparing computers that cost almost TEN TIMES what a ps3 costs. Hook them both up to an HDTV and current ps3 games look better. Its great that you've all invested money into something you like and something thats useful, but that doesn't mean its the greatest thing in the universe. As a piece of gaming hardware the ps3 is unmatched and will remain so for a while; it will remain cost effective for even longer.

jesse


Remember that the cost of a PS3 (mfg price, that's in large quantity directly to Sony) is ~$850 for the upper end model. Can you build a competing computer for that (considering that you get all your parts at close to cost)? I would say that's at least a $1000 budget in retail dollars, if not a little more.
December 14, 2006 4:36:49 PM

Quote:
PS3 narrowly beats XBox 360 graphics-wise, and if I remember correctly, the graphics part in the PS3 is already 1 generation old. An 8800GTX utilising DX10 will beat it comfortably. Some PC games are optimized to take advantage of multiple cores, whereas a lot of PS3 games have to be specifically coded for the Cell processor, which is sort of multicore... It's more like the architecture of the 8800 than a CPU, actually... Anyway... As has been said many time before... By the time tight code exists for the Cell, Intel and AMD will be fabbing 4 and maybe even 8 core processors at 32nm. Which basically means that the performace curve of a PS3 will never be higher than the performance curve of a high-end PC.

However, if you want a PC to "beat" a PS3 with, you'll need to spend significantly more...


Yes I believe I read somewhere, probably in an article at Dailytech.com, that the GPU used in the PS3 is from the 7900GTX. My PC definately blows a PS3 away... for the low low price of $3500. PS3 will only ever go up to 1080p resolution. I am already playing at 1200p right now.
December 16, 2006 12:03:12 AM

Quote:
Why won't this thing die already. (yes I know I'm keeping this alive and all but it's pointless)


Sorry for getting off topic, But is there any good scuba diving there?

Once again sorry to the OP :wink:
December 16, 2006 12:39:12 AM

you dont need to scuba dive. you will get narced out.

or your buddy the eel will take your finger off. :lol: 
December 16, 2006 12:56:58 AM

Quote:
o and tell them that my computer is better than a ps3 and 360 plzzz...specs are in my sig


WTF, take them to a Porn site and surf it for about 5 minutes. Then kick them out of your house and tell them to go surf it on their PS3 and Xbox.

Nuff, Said. :wink:
December 16, 2006 1:36:48 AM

Never argue with a fool. They will drag you down to their level and beat you by experience.
December 16, 2006 2:00:13 AM

Quote:
you dont need to scuba dive. you will get narced out.

or your buddy the eel will take your finger off. :lol: 


Oh Yeh! Hit right about between 60FT to 98FT.Bring on the Nitrogen Narcosis,...88FT with a bottom time of 45 min's. :wink:

P.S. Davey Jones wants his key back
!