Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What would have better graphics?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 9, 2008 10:40:10 PM

i have a ps3 and just ordered a dell xps 630 with 2 9800gt in SLI, so i was wondering what would have better graphics? the ps3 or the xps.

More about : graphics

August 9, 2008 10:50:11 PM

Do you mean in terms of graphics power/processing capability?

There, I think the PC will win.

If you mean in terms of which games will look better...that depends largely on the game.
Related resources
August 9, 2008 10:59:37 PM

i dont know, the ps3 has the cell at 3.2GHz and 7 SPE's or SPU's, whatever they are. i just think the pc would have a slight edge because my xps has quad-core and 2 graphics cards working as one. so i see it as ps3=7cores+nvidia RSX versus pc=q9300 (quad-core)+2 9800gt's. and ps3 has 256mb xdr ram but pc has 3gb ram. each wins in its own catergory. more responses welcome. i want to see what other people think
August 9, 2008 11:40:20 PM

These apples and oranges comparisons are a good way to spot a troll.
August 9, 2008 11:42:49 PM

+1 for the PC

the RSX is pretty much a 7800 GT or GTX (forgot which)

frozenhead has a point about the games though
August 9, 2008 11:57:01 PM

I would never buy a console, xbox or ps3 none of them..
Playing on a pc, is the best thing.. its my opinion..
August 10, 2008 12:04:51 AM

fire thanks for showing what the rsx is equal to. so 2 9800gt destroys a rsx therefore resulting that my xps 630 has a slight edge in graphics. this has been a loud argument between me and some friends. they say the ps3 rsx out preforms 2 9800gt in SLI.
August 10, 2008 12:24:21 AM

Console games are typically 720p, although some are 1080p - that right there makes them inferior to most resolutions on PC, and the image quality tends to be much better on PC as well.

The fact is though, PCs are more expensive - but you get what you pay for and consoles are nice, but they are made to be cheap, and then they bend you over on game prices.
August 10, 2008 12:45:36 AM

ovaltineplease said:
Console games are typically 720p, although some are 1080p - that right there makes them inferior to most resolutions on PC, and the image quality tends to be much better on PC as well.


I recall a bunch of noise about Halo 3 and COD4 on the x360 as only being a mere 600p? Which is between DVD @ 480p and Half HD @ 720p.
August 10, 2008 12:47:58 AM

A few things to consider about consoles.

1. They have some fun games.
2. They are cheap and have limited capabilities when it comes to things not related to games.
3. They are frozen in time so there is a plus and a negative about that on the plus side games can be super optimized for that hardware on the negative side the hardware will never get any faster.

I bought a Wii because I have a well built PC (I am proud of my little baby lol) The Wii for me offered something I couldn't get on the PC (its that Wiimote its just so fun....) The PS3 and the 360 did not really offer me anything I couldn't get on my PC and Wii combination. I may pick up a 360 eventually for some of the exclusives but that can wait for the day I can pick one up for 99$ (so no huge hurry on my part I got enough to keep me busy)

Just think Diablo 3 is coming....
August 10, 2008 1:13:23 AM

well i just ordered a dell xps 630 desktop yesterday with a core 2 q9300, 3GB ram, dual 9800gt in SLI, 320GB HDD and a 19" digital monitor. i cant wait. this pc is sweet. i should have it on the 20th of this month. its also got a atx casing, and it uses the nVidia nForce 650 SLI motherboard thats compatible with SLI or CrossFire.
August 10, 2008 1:15:22 AM

JonathanDeane said:

Just think Diablo 3 is coming....


Right after the release of Starcraft II, which should come just after Starcraft Ghost.

I hate blizzard.
a b U Graphics card
August 10, 2008 1:18:16 AM

ur pc because with pcs u can set image qualities for example AA,AF,Resolution and Physics look much better on pcs then console. My pc has 2 gtx 260 it blows crysis away which no console games look similar to currently. enjoy ur new rig.
=]
August 10, 2008 1:24:42 AM

thanks invisik, ima love this pc
a b U Graphics card
August 10, 2008 2:28:06 AM

Your computer will absolutely FLATTEN the PS3 in graphics. It isn't even close. The PS3 has 7800GTX class graphics, IIRC.
a b U Graphics card
August 11, 2008 12:03:25 PM

cjl said:
Your computer will absolutely FLATTEN the PS3 in graphics. It isn't even close. The PS3 has 7800GTX class graphics, IIRC.


Your forgetting a few things here:

For one: Both a 9800 and a 7800 draw the same graphics in DX9 mode, its just a matter of how quickly they are drawn.

Secondly: Your PS3 doesn't have a program called Windows that is designed for the sole purpose of slowing down your games.

Finally: A ps3 is specifically designed for games, a PC is not. As a result, the same graphics can be drawn faster on the ps3 because it is better optimised.


When you compare any PC/Console title, the consoles often win in the graphics department simply because of a near steady 60-FPS. The one disadvantage consoles have is resolution (although 1080p is 1980x1600).
a b U Graphics card
August 11, 2008 4:09:29 PM

gamerk316 said:
Your forgetting a few things here:

For one: Both a 9800 and a 7800 draw the same graphics in DX9 mode, its just a matter of how quickly they are drawn.

Secondly: Your PS3 doesn't have a program called Windows that is designed for the sole purpose of slowing down your games.

Finally: A ps3 is specifically designed for games, a PC is not. As a result, the same graphics can be drawn faster on the ps3 because it is better optimised.


When you compare any PC/Console title, the consoles often win in the graphics department simply because of a near steady 60-FPS. The one disadvantage consoles have is resolution (although 1080p is 1980x1600).

Of course they draw the same thing. That is irrelevant. The 9800 will draw it at a higher resolution with more filters while maintaining a playable frame rate, which is what I meant. If you interpret it the way that you did, you could also say that the Intel GMA X4500 is capable of drawing anything DX9 as well (I think it can do DX10 too), bu that doesn't mean that it is fast enough to use that full capability at decent frame rates.

Second, Windows doesn't actually slow down your games that much

Finally, the optimization isn't really the case. While it is true, the difference isn't that huge. The biggest difference is actually the resolution - even 720P HD games are only 1280x720 resolution. Only 1080P games rival PC resolutions, and as a result, most people play PC games at significantly higher resolution than consoles. This allows the consoles to get away with a lower power GPU while still running fairly smoothly.
August 11, 2008 5:19:06 PM

cjl said:

Second, Windows doesn't actually slow down your games that much

Finally, the optimization isn't really the case. While it is true, the difference isn't that huge.


I wholeheartedly disagree.

None of us have ever seen what our hardware can do under an environment that doesn't include Windows. (in terms of real break-neck gaming, of course; not to belittle other OS's!) Therefore, none of us can estimate what kind of performance impact windows produces on our systems. The only way this could be tested is if someone actually used a console OS on our hardware - but even that wouldn't be apples to apples; console OS's are written for one type of hardware only (which is why they are so stable). You cannot say by any means that Windows impacts our systems in a small way, or that our systems would run as fast as a console with a console OS, except in an unoptimized fashion. We simple don't know.
a b U Graphics card
August 11, 2008 5:26:53 PM

Actually, you can estimate it. With a quad core, windows processes can be run on cores that the game cannot use (assuming a game not optimized for multi threading), and you can easily set the windows theme to a basic, 2d theme. Then the only impact will be RAM, and even that can be eliminated on a 64 bit system with >4GB of RAM.
August 11, 2008 5:37:51 PM

Still, it's microsoft. I wouldn't place it as efficient enough to do a real test. It would give an idea, but not exactly.

Then again, I've never used it.

Even then: who knows how different two identical games are from the two separate platforms.
a b U Graphics card
August 11, 2008 9:18:39 PM

That's the biggest question right there, especially given the radically different architecture of something like the Cell vs a Core 2.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
November 15, 2008 1:35:24 PM

your absolutely right

ps3 can only run LINUX UBUNTU compare that with pc's running windows VISTA with all the effects.
November 15, 2008 1:41:30 PM

The graphic power of the PS3 is equivalent to 2 7800 GTXs. The PS3 and 360 plays games mostly @ 720p, and PCs these days can do extreme Resolutions in games.

So PS3 and 360 don't have better graphics.

It aint like the Sega Dreamcast era where the Dreamcast had top graphics when it came out.

When the 360 and PS3 came out, they were already pretty much on par with what was out at the moment.
November 15, 2008 2:30:18 PM

I didn't resurect it, I just added :) 
!