Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

GTS250 Vs. Xbox 360 / PS3

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a b U Graphics card
December 20, 2009 2:21:41 AM

Not quite, does this mean you have to choose between all 3?

If so I would take the PS3 hands down, since your PC will need more than the 250 to notice any performance gain...

a c 376 U Graphics card
December 20, 2009 2:30:56 AM

Graphically both the 360 and the PS3 are roughly on par with the 7800GT supposedly. A GTS 250 is much more powerful. The consoles make some of that up because games are highly customized to their specific hardware but not enough. When the consoles first came out they could compare decently to a mid-range gaming PC but at this point in the cycle they don't come close.
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
December 20, 2009 2:48:45 AM

I lol @ Halo3 running at 30fps.



a c 232 U Graphics card
December 20, 2009 2:56:17 AM

godbrother said:
Title says it all.


PS3 over XBox is easy..... but PC gaming is a different experience....and the 250 does it better.
a b U Graphics card
December 20, 2009 3:00:38 AM

JackNaylorPE said:
PS3 over XBox is easy..... but PC gaming is a different experience....and the 250 does it better.


Yeah, except the OP's Member Config indicates his PC has a Pentium 4 3.2Ghz setup. He's running a single core with Hyperthreading. Unless he wants to update his entire system, he's probably better off playing on XBOX 360 or PS3.
a c 376 U Graphics card
December 20, 2009 4:42:35 AM

Yeah, a P4 ain't gunna cut it. Upgrading the computer doesn't have to cost much more than a PS3 though and you get the added bonus of having an upgraded computer for everything besides gaming as well.
December 20, 2009 7:35:46 PM

^ OK, to make things a bit more simple so the title can make sense. No, I'm not that much of an retard to use this with a Pentium 4 PC, and no where did I mention that.

I also know that the 360 uses revised 7900GT's, but as we all know, they come hard coded into their own hardware, which makes the performance better. I was just wondering, comparing the 250 to a PS3, which will win in games that come out for both platforms? - Supposingly useing a Quad Core CPU.

I'm trying to build a PC rig for my brother in law, for which it has to run better then a PS3. There also will no OC-ing involved as we're building it onto a Mini ITX motherboard (as we're trying to build a gaming PC smaller then the current consoles. - but enough of the details)

So, to clear things up, lets take.. GTAIV for example (yes I know, bad port...) Which will run better the GTS250 PC - 360 or PS3.

A Core 2 Quad CPU, GTS250, 4GB DDR2 RAM.

This system needs to last, at the same rate as a console till the new console platform comes out, so is the GTS250 a good option? It was the best card I could find that needed the smallest ammount of wattage to run.
a c 376 U Graphics card
December 20, 2009 9:04:53 PM

godbrother said:
It was the best card I could find that needed the smallest ammount of wattage to run.

You didn't look particularly hard in that case. The HD5770 is better and uses much less power. It also has the advantage of DX11 compatibility. For that matter the HD5850 uses roughly the same power as a GTX 250 but is on another performance level(and price range) entirely.
As for building a pc that's smaller than the consoles I'm not sure that's possible with a full width video card. The most powerful low profile card I've seen is the 9800GT.
December 20, 2009 9:24:31 PM

jyjjy said:
The most powerful low profile card I've seen is the 9800GT.
Nope, we've found a GTS250 SFF. (ps, its not a GTX, its a GTS250.)
December 20, 2009 9:28:49 PM

Quote:
This is how all your posts should be, especially if you are starting a new thread, now there is enough information here to help you :) 


"was just wondering, comparing the 250 to a PS3, which will win in games that come out for both platforms? - Supposingly useing a Quad Core CPU."

It will depend on which quad core in particular in regards to the model and brand. E.g. a Q8200 would perform less than a Q9650 due to it being clocked lower and it having less L2 Cache. Presuming you have a capable quad core the GTS 250 could at the moment run most games today with ease .e.g. high frame rate/high detail with moderate AA+AF. I can not accurately predict how long the GT250 would be suffice for but it should be capable of lasting at least another year considering that there are very few ground breaking upcoming games apart from Alan Wake.

You have to also remember that the expectations for PC and console are different, just because you run a game on a console the conditions in comparison to PC is not the same, on the console you are running at a stupidly lower resolution of 720p (1280x720p) which is sometimes up-converted to 1080i (1440×1080) whereas the average enthusiasts plays at resolution from 16850x1050.

Ask yourself is it fair to compare a PS3 game running @ 1280x720p opposed to the same PC gamming running at 16850x1050 or higher? - obviously if you ran your PC games @ 1280x720 on a midrange card it almost last just as long as a PS3.

Also you have to remember that the level of detail is not the same, PC games even bad console ports have much crisper textures, more CPU players on screen and better AI, to truly compare a PC version of a game to a PS3 version of a game you'd have to turn the detail down to medium settings, and hence the GTS 250 should have about the same longevity as a console.


"A Core 2 Quad CPU, GTS250, 4GB DDR2 RAM"

The specification looks good, but generally speaking a Core 2Quad will cost more than an Athon II or Phenom II build. There is no point investing in a Core 2 Quad for new builds due to socket 775 reaching its shelf life.



"to clear things up, lets take.. GTAIV for example (yes I know, bad port...) Which will run better the GTS250 PC - 360 or PS3"

If you go to "Gametrailers.com" there is videos of people running the PC, 360 and PS3 version of GTA IV side by side and you can tell which one runs better, just ask if you want me to find the video for you.

But to answer that question GTAIV is one of the most intensive games out ATM, not because its graphically fantastic but because the port is bad! Frame rate wise the PC will have a higher frame rate, but it really depends on the level of detail as I said earlier, I would only guess that the PC version of GTA IV on medium would look similar to the 360 and PS3s version, but without knowing which resolution you intend to play at or the level of detail you expect it is impossible to assess your question. Remember the GTS 250 is only a "midrange" card, it is not high end by any stretch so you can not expect to max out the detail of everyday it crosses and medium detail on bad ports and upcoming games should be expected.
Also consider the ATI 5750 as it performs the same as the GTS250, and the ATI 5770 which performs between the 4870 and 4890, both the 5750 and 5770 are much newer and supports DX11 too


OK, to awnser your questions:

- I was hoping to go with the Q6600 G0 or Q8200S (only 65Ws - no OCing.) (we could also consider E8500, but Core 2 Duo is becoming less and less in games.)
- I can't go AMD (wish I could) Becuase there are no good ITX boards that support AMD II + PCI-e
- The build is not a supreme one, and to be honest, its not intended too be. Just somthing that will play better then a console, period. (even if its 1fps faster)
- We can't go 5770 or anywhere near them, becuase they do not come in SFF.
- The only reason why I used GTAIV as an example is becuase it is the most intensive game at the moment, if this rig can play it, it should do fine for future games.

And so forth.
a c 376 U Graphics card
December 20, 2009 10:03:50 PM

godbrother said:
Nope, we've found a GTS250 SFF.

I never heard about a low profile GTS 250 so I looked it up. The clocks on that card have been lowered by a lot, 20% which puts it exactly on par with a 9800GT in terms of performance. The low profile 9800GT has its normal clock speeds so it's likely the better buy at $100;
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
a b U Graphics card
December 20, 2009 10:41:34 PM

The PS3's hardware was based of the 6800 Ultra.
6XXX/1XXX --> 7XXX/2XXX --> 8XXX/3XXX --> 9XXX/3XXX --> GTX/4XXX --> 5XXX
We're 5 generations ahead, well it's actually only 4 gen.
The PS3 ~ 7800GT/7900GT.
XBox 360 ~ 7900GTO/GTX.
December 21, 2009 1:18:30 AM

sabot00 said:
The PS3's hardware was based of the 6800 Ultra.
6XXX/1XXX --> 7XXX/2XXX --> 8XXX/3XXX --> 9XXX/3XXX --> GTX/4XXX --> 5XXX
We're 5 generations ahead, well it's actually only 4 gen.
The PS3 ~ 7800GT/7900GT.
XBox 360 ~ 7900GTO/GTX.


But if I had of gotten a 7900GTX and tried to play GTAIV at the same rates of 360, or even MW on the same rates as a 360... I would fail. Do you see what I'm getting at? I need to know its "real-time" equivalent and beyond.
a b U Graphics card
December 21, 2009 1:55:52 AM

But if I had of gotten a 7900GTX and tried to play GTAIV at the same rates of 360, or even MW on the same rates as a 360... I would fail. Do you see what I'm getting at? I need to know its "real-time" equivalent and beyond. said:
But if I had of gotten a 7900GTX and tried to play GTAIV at the same rates of 360, or even MW on the same rates as a 360... I would fail. Do you see what I'm getting at? I need to know its "real-time" equivalent and beyond.


what complicates your question is the game you intend to find a real-time perf equivalent to.

you see, MW/MW2 on a 360 is comparable with a 9600gt/4670 packed with c2d/am2+ (2.5ghz) cpu @ 720p.

but gta4 on the otherhand would require more..

i played it with a 4850 1gb, a 4870 1gb, and a gtx260-216 896mb.

the smoothest gameplay was with a gtx260-216, although the resolution was 1080p.

but if you're intention is to totally recreate a gta4 console experience on a pc, i suggest you stick with a console instead.
a c 376 U Graphics card
December 21, 2009 2:41:37 AM

Yeah, GTA IV is a really bad choice to be basing things on. The port is unoptimized to the point where it's inexplicable. That said if you are talking about using the actual resolutions that the consoles put out then I think a 9800GT would still give comparable frame rates and detail. Amount of graphical power needed in games is directly related to the resolution you will be using. PC gaming is usually much higher res than what the consoles put out. If you want to game at console resolutions your requirements are going to be much lower than if you want to use 1920x1080 with a PC.
December 21, 2009 4:16:43 AM

what is your budget. If you give us a clear definition on how much you are willing to spend and what you already have then we'll be able to make a system.
December 21, 2009 6:01:32 AM

impaledmango said:
what is your budget. If you give us a clear definition on how much you are willing to spend and what you already have then we'll be able to make a system.


I don't think budget has anything to do with it really. I'm building of an mITX, and we're building it into a custom PC case we are creating. Its basically the same size of a 360 (but square)

All we're looking for are decent specifications that will last for some time. The initial idea is for it to be a PC, and a Xbox 360/PS3 equivalent at the same time. And no, we are not going to build an i5/i7 rig... Even if we did, I don't think its possible, or if a i7 mITX board has been invented.

We are looking for anything equivalent to 360/PS3 and beyond, that will last out till the next gen consoles come out. (I would say around 2 years?) So it will have to be a Quad Core. If you think that Intel is a bad idea, then please by all means point us in the right direction. BUT you will need to find us a mITX board with a PCI-e port that does not need bank breaking. The only decent ones we could find were for LGA775.

It will also need to be 45nm/65w's and process no more then 60-70 degrees of heat. (like the Q8200S.)
a b U Graphics card
December 21, 2009 6:34:40 AM

When it comes to graphics, a decent PC will win, that's a simple fact. However, when I want to play a game on my ps3, I:

1. Turn on the console

2. Put in the disk

3. Enjoy playing Hawx


Always works, rarely any hang-ups.
No tweaking with settings. No upgrading hardware. No troubleshooting.
Just pure bliss straight from my HD-tv into my brain.

I am willing to sacrifice some graphical performance for that ease of use.
Also, the games still look great! .)
December 21, 2009 7:32:18 AM

cobot said:

1. Turn on the console

2. Put in the disk

3. Enjoy playing Hawx


Always works, rarely any hang-ups.
No tweaking with settings. No upgrading hardware. No troubleshooting.
Just pure bliss straight from my HD-tv into my brain.

I am willing to sacrifice some graphical performance for that ease of use.
Also, the games still look great! .)


You're comment was totally irrelevant, but thank you for the reply nether the less. - This will be hooked to a 32" T.V, and is the whole point. This system will not be upgraded, again is the whole point of the build (read the posts please) And I doubt any "tweaking" will be done. Most games today come with auto-optimization. Plus, it doesn't take miracle's to select options and set things to high, or high/er resolutions. You make it sound hard, or something you need to do every time you wanna' play a game.

So anyways, getting back to the OT.
a b U Graphics card
December 21, 2009 8:14:55 AM

godbrother said:
You're comment was totally irrelevant, but thank you for the reply nether the less. - This will be hooked to a 32" T.V, and is the whole point. This system will not be upgraded, again is the whole point of the build (read the posts please) And I doubt any "tweaking" will be done. Most games today come with auto-optimization. Plus, it doesn't take miracle's to select options and set things to high, or high/er resolutions. You make it sound hard, or something you need to do every time you wanna' play a game.

So anyways, getting back to the OT.




Yep, that was what the first sentence was for.

My apologies if I went a bit off-topic. Yes, a GTS250 coupled with a decent cpu will usually provide better graphics than a ps3 or a 360.
What is the resolution of the Tv? If it is 720p, the GTS 250 will be enough. If it is a 1080 tv and that is the res you want, you might want to look at a better card for the newest games.

However, if you sit a few meters from the tv, you will have a very hard time spotting any difference at all between 720p and 1080p in 32". The pixels are already smaller than what the eye can detect.
a c 376 U Graphics card
December 21, 2009 10:55:09 AM

The 7 series never liked modern games? What does that even mean? The x1900 series and the 7800/7900 cards were basically equivalent which is why I said they were roughly on par with a 7800GT. If you want confirmation on that look up old reviews or check out the Tom's heirarchy chart;
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-310-5970,24...
If you think you are correct mention it in the comments.
In any case the minor differences in the relative performances of these 5 year old cards is really unimportant when comparing them with a GTS 250 which was the actual topic of the thread.
a b U Graphics card
December 21, 2009 1:28:36 PM

It doesnt matter if the 360 was made with Nvidia parts or not both the 360 and the PS3 are capped at 30FPS so both systems will look alike regardless of the GPU they use. The OP is better off building if he wants more flexibility and future-upgradability but in order for the games to render the same performance he will need to spend a bit more. You cannot build the equivalent of a 360/PS3 with 300 dollars.
December 21, 2009 2:29:44 PM

Being the OP, I wanted to clear something up. Are you telling me all PS3/360 games are caped at 30FPS?... If so, what the hell is everyone arguing about? The GTS250 will smack both consoles from the right to the left cheak.

:) 
December 21, 2009 3:54:52 PM

Quote:
Of course its capped, how else would you get ancient console hardware to run modern games well at the level of detail consoles provide?


So wait, EVERY game is capped at 30FPS? not a frame more, not a frame less? Just plain 30FPS?
a b U Graphics card
December 21, 2009 4:02:10 PM

godbrother said:
So wait, EVERY game is capped at 30FPS? not a frame more, not a frame less? Just plain 30FPS?



Well, not a frame more, at least. Might have instances where there's lots going on the screen which results in lower fps, but usually the games are tweaked so that the fps stay at a pretty constant 30 fps.

Don't stare yourself blind at the fps, though. The standard FPS for movies, for example, is 24.
December 21, 2009 4:43:58 PM

Quote:
To be fair most TVs can only display a maximum of 24-30 FPS anyways, so it makes sense for the games developers to cap the frame rate anyways irrespective of the consoles capabilities.


So I take it, hooking this build to a 32" HDTV is not such a good idea then?
December 21, 2009 6:49:13 PM

Out of curiosity, why are you trying to build a console sized rig? I can see it being something fun to do, but is there anything more to this adventure?
December 21, 2009 7:32:37 PM

Stanks said:
Out of curiosity, why are you trying to build a console sized rig? I can see it being something fun to do, but is there anything more to this adventure?


Apart from the fact to see if its possible (for now the road looks clear) it will also serve as a media center / PC with a wireless keyboard/mouse. It's basicly the all in one, without the need for a console, dvd player, digibox etc etc. Just one unit. Overal, setups like this have always been tried, just not to a point where its the size of an acutal console. The idea was to have PC gaming quilities, the size of a console. - Useall SFF PC cases are massive cube looking thingys.

It's coming along really well. I wish I was rich...
a b U Graphics card
December 21, 2009 9:15:43 PM

Many XBox 360/PS3 games were designed & optimized for them. The console's haven't changed, it's been 4 years for developers to make games for the EXACT same thing.
If you want a FPS equivalent then PS3 ~ 4670/9600GT, XBox 360 ~ 4770/9800GT.
a b U Graphics card
December 22, 2009 2:09:14 AM

OvrClkr said:
It doesnt matter if the 360 was made with Nvidia parts or not both the 360 and the PS3 are capped at 30FPS so both systems will look alike regardless of the GPU they use.


That's very wrong on many counts; First it matters what they are made with because people saying they are made with something they simply pulled out of their ARSE don't know what they're talking about, and if that's their justification for their advice/statements, then that is equally fece-ou-s. :heink: 
Second, that it's capped at 30 fps doesn't mean they 'will look alike' anymore than the Wii being capped at 30fps means its ATi designed Hollywood GPU can render the same as a th ATi designed Xenos in the X360 nor would the ArtX (later ATi) Flipper chip in the Gamecube be able to do it either if it were capped at30 fps, anymore than an original Radeon, Riva / Geforce or Parhellia would be able to equal and HD5870 if all were capped at 30fps. Some features you will enable or disable based on the abilities of the GPU and CPU of the consoles, which may able to compliment each other better, the goal is 30fps, but that by no means means they are equal. :heink: 

Quote:
The OP is better off building if he wants more flexibility and future-upgradability but in order for the games to render the same performance he will need to spend a bit more. You cannot build the equivalent of a 360/PS3 with 300 dollars.


Depends on what he already has, if he already has an optical drive and a competent HDD and (and especially Case and PSU) he will easily be able to build a competent (but not high end) gaming rig with a Phenom or E6 series with MoBo and 2GB Memory and an HD4770,even without a case and PSU he would be able to do it with and Athlon II X2.

And even if you went down to an HD4670 or GTS series card that would give you more powerful option for gaming than a console, but it still comes down to the same thing it did when they first launched, what games you want to play on what platform.


a b U Graphics card
December 22, 2009 2:26:10 AM

godbrother said:
Apart from the fact to see if its possible (for now the road looks clear) it will also serve as a media center / PC with a wireless keyboard/mouse. It's basicly the all in one, without the need for a console, dvd player, digibox etc etc. Just one unit. Overal, setups like this have always been tried, just not to a point where its the size of an acutal console.


Are you kidding me? They were the size of the console when the consoles were new, modders made them within weeks of the consoles first releases. Many laptops have more power than any of the three consoles, so it's far from hard to do, ever since Shuttle made robust SFF cases which allowed for full sized card you've been able to do it for cheap as well.

Quote:
The idea was to have PC gaming quilities, the size of a console. - Useall SFF PC cases are massive cube looking thingys.


You do realize that a console isn't a small thing either, right?

You're gaining slimness but paying for it in height and options (especially if you're stuck with low-profile or half-height cards).

Quote:
Nothing worst than good visuals and mediocre sound, Dolby Digital FTW.


Dolby Digital IS mediocre sound, at the very least to down-sample to DTS, now you may be stuck with DDL for some things, but it's still not as nice as DTS connect if you have the option. DD is stuck at a preset rate where as DTS can vary from low to high compression and thus give you better sound. But it still depends on the capabilities of the sources (just like some DVD only have DD not DTS so it's a moot point [or even mute]).

sabot00 said:
Many XBox 360/PS3 games were designed & optimized for them. The console's haven't changed, it's been 4 years for developers to make games for the EXACT same thing.
If you want a FPS equivalent then PS3 ~ 4670/9600GT, XBox 360 ~ 4770/9800GT.


Excpt not all games are poor console ports, and neither the PS3, Wii nor the X360 use the same code so they are not the same ether, and coding for the X360 and PC is easier than coding for the X360 and PS3 or PC and PS3 due o the XNA development platform for DX on the X360 and PC. The PS3 and Wii use OenGL, but both use their own version that is not exactly the same as the PC.

The cards you've listed are not equivalents, and lesser cards can easily better the performance of the consoles, but you need to make the feature sets similar (essentially low-end SM3.0 features), and remember that AF is nearly non-existent on the consoles and AA is limited, so you must compare the outputs correctly, especially when the games are rendering below 1080i/p and using onboard hardware to upconvert the image, not actually rendering @ 1920x1080@30fps. Finding the equivalent depends on the game, but it would be closer to an HD3650 and GF9600GSO at best even if we're generous, because really the PS3 is riding a slow GF7900GT with half the ROPs and Memory Bandwidth, and the X360 is riding the custom Xenos that would be somewhere around an X1900Pro performance in general with some nice additional feature options above DX9.0C but few that would outclass any DX10 hardware, and some nice eDRAM for 'free' 2XAA @ 720P and below.

This thread got past since I was away on Holiday, being a console thread it's still got a target on it, and might still die anyways especialy if as SS pointed out the mis-information continues. :fou: 
a b U Graphics card
December 22, 2009 4:40:39 PM

Quote:
The Dolby Digital vs DTS argument has been going on for years in the AV community, its personal opinion. On paper yes DTS is better and yes I actually rather DTS, but if I said "DTS FTW" the non AV people might wonder what the hell I was talking about!


It's not much of a debate for people who know the difference between the two, DTS has more range and can support higher bit rates for more information and lower bit-rates for dead sports,there isn't much of a debate about quality, just about the level of support (since DD is required to be on a disc for it to be certified as a 'DVD'). DolbyTruHD and DTS HD Master are close enough to be equal, but standard DD and DTS are miles apart, and DDL vs DTRS connect has a similar gulf in quality, but the support for DTS connect is less compared to DDL as I mentioned.

And if he's looking from an HTPC perspective, DD/DDL is what most would consider mediocre, with DTS being the beginning of good or maybe the higher end of mediocre, and then move into other better lossless compression formats and then uncompressed multi-channel linear PCM.
December 22, 2009 7:54:24 PM

Erm, wow this topic has flown of subject. :) 
a c 273 U Graphics card
May 18, 2010 9:03:20 PM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
!