Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

PS3 still better than a PC on FULL HD 40inch LCD?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 7, 2009 3:48:00 AM

Since the PS3 uses an Nvidia 7900gt GPU and the Cell Processor, is it still better suited for larger LCD/LED tv's the size of 40inches and above at Full HD resolutions? Some GPU's and Core 17's cannot even handle some of these sizes so Im wondering if the components on a stand alone video game system/BD player like the PS3 is still a better entertainment console since it can easily handle HUGE screens.

More about : ps3 full 40inch lcd

October 7, 2009 4:22:37 AM

All of your huge screens are full HD... 1920x1080. There are plenty of LCD computer monitors on the market at this resolution and higher. How big the television is in inches has no bearing on performance; only resolution does.
It's hard to beat a console for price, but a well-equipped PC will be as fast or faster. Which you purchase depends on what you'll want to use the machine for.
October 7, 2009 7:05:42 AM

tortnotes said:
All of your huge screens are full HD... 1920x1080. There are plenty of LCD computer monitors on the market at this resolution and higher. How big the television is in inches has no bearing on performance; only resolution does.
It's hard to beat a console for price, but a well-equipped PC will be as fast or faster. Which you purchase depends on what you'll want to use the machine for.


True that 1920x1080 is different from the 2560x1600 resolution but the sheer size of the screen would also tax the GPU more so than being on a smaller 26in hd lcd. Just to be able to represent the colors on a vivid scale at 40 to 60 inches would show major differences. I am not 100% sure if this would affect the FPS but I think the graphics card would heat up faster than on a smaller LCD.

I had this experiance on my previous build way back in 2004 Nvidia 6800XT with a 3.4GH P4, 2G Ram, could not even take my 1300x1000 or whatever the older Samsung LCDs could produce. After 20-45minutes my screen would just go black. It was not the PC as it was still on and working so I figured that that OG gpu just bit the dirt. I could still use it with a regular sync master but for some reason it didnt work with the HD TV.

Since then I 'upgraded' to an 8600gt, 8800gt, New PC, 9800gtx+, and Im actually thinking if I should wait for the newer GTX300's or just get a GTX285 OC and then SLI it when I get a new MB with USB 2.0 next year.

Anyway veering back to the topic, TV size does make a difference as you can see in my example.
Related resources
October 7, 2009 7:21:06 AM

Not at all true actually. As far as the graphics card is concerned, all that matters is resolution. Whether it is outputting 1920x1080 to a 22" monitor or a 60" HDTV is irrelevant - the graphics card sees it the same way. Also, note that a PS3 and Xbox 360 are quite weak compared to a modern high end gaming computer. They honestly haven't got a hope of keeping up with something like an i7/5870 setup (and honestly, even an 8800GT and Core 2 Duo should be faster than a PS3 in almost every way).

As for representing the colors on a "vivid scale" at 40-60 inches? As I said, screen size is irrelevant. The GPU outputs each pixel's color. Same number of pixels = same amount of work. A 1920x1200 or higher screen strains a graphics card more than any 1080p HDTV ever made, regardless of size.
October 7, 2009 7:33:53 AM

Screen size hardly, if at all, have an effect on GPU/CPU performance. It's all down to resolution. A 24" monitor at 1920x1080 will show the same amount of pixels of a 46" screen at 1920x1080. The only difference is that the pixels are enlarged on the 46". No extra pixels are added. If anything, the differences in performance will determine more on the monitor/TV than the GPU/CPU.

EDIT: ^^ Beat me to it!
October 7, 2009 12:57:51 PM

A thread arguing that a console is better at gaming than a PC...hahahaha...and because a console can handle larger monitor better than a PC...HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Phew...I needed a good laugh...

To the OP - the advent of gpu's pushing HD resolutions didn't happen until a few years ago with the ATI 2000XT series and the nVidia 8000 series of video cards. Most cards from that generation could really only push 1080i and not 1080p like the current generation of gpu's. And, even then whether or not the gpu could push 1080i was inhibited by the amount of RAM on the gpu.

The ATI 48xx series of cards are great for full HD (1080p) video and gaming; regardless of the size of the monitor. If you don't feel like waiting, snag a 4890, you can pick one up for less than $200!! Great card for a great price!

October 7, 2009 4:54:46 PM

^^ What? Interlace scan mode is unique to broadcast TV; most computer displays went to Progressive Scan back in the 70's. 1080i actually can not be nativly seen on most modern LCD's, hence why most GPU's now include a 1080i mode (which does nothing but de-interlaces the image).
October 7, 2009 5:18:12 PM

Bah... None of the above matters what so ever even the OP post. If you are wanting to say that a console is better suited for "game" play. Then you only need to bring up the fact that on a console multiple people can play on the same hardware/software (enchances the enjoyment of the game). And well if you have more than one person in your home that wants to play the same game, then you better have multiple PC's.

I want to see a high end PC that can function like a freakin console. Not only would it be able to produce a much better graphic quality but you could also have htpc like functionality.

But if this would happen then we could all say goodbye to all consoles, tivo's, stand alone blue ray players, etc, etc....

To the OP however,

Listen to the guys above me with there post. They have hit the nail on the head.
!