Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

PC at Ps3 level

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 17, 2010 11:19:42 AM

im having this discussion with my brother at the moment, could one of you guys tell me if the ps3 was a pc what would the components be? ( cpu, gpu ram etc)
this is asked in a strictly gaming level (graphics and how smooth the game runs)
What would a PC need to be at the same level - consider uncharted 2
Thanks
David

More about : ps3 level

a b U Graphics card
March 17, 2010 11:43:06 AM

A PC around the level of a PS3. Depends. The GPU itself is not that powerful, what makes consoles powerful is the fact that they're hardware is used dedicated gaming only, not running background processes and games as you get in desktop computers. If your looking to get PS3 quality graphics, with ps3 FPS then your looking to spend somewhere in the area of $500 with no operating system.

The PS3 itself uses a GPU that is a modified 7900 GT~ (G72) chip by nvidia. In all honestly I am not 100% what it would perform at compared to desktop graphics some same close to a 8800 GT other says it's no where near a 8800 GT. I myself think it runs between an HD 4670 and Geforce 8800.
March 17, 2010 11:45:32 AM

hmmm......

as for as i know a PS3 uses a graphics card as powerful as a 4650 1GB OC or a 9600Gt
Ram would be 2 GB DDr2 and a quad core 3.2GHzprocessor
Related resources
March 17, 2010 11:51:02 AM

the good news if a program is going to be developed which can act as a O/s whos only purpose is gaming!
then with a 9800Gt
you could get the same performance as GTX260!!!!

this is true

and

pc games are more graphically intense than Xbox or ps3

a ps3 with a 5870 would be a monster Gaming Console
a b U Graphics card
March 17, 2010 11:53:19 AM

king game said:
hmmm......

as for as i know a PS3 uses a graphics card as powerful as a 4650 1GB OC or a 9600Gt
Ram would be 2 GB DDr2 and a quad core 3.2GHzprocessor



Performance on the Ps3 is higher then the HD 4650.
March 17, 2010 12:19:49 PM

my brother has an HP hdx 16t with a GeForce GT 130m 1gig dedicated 4gig GDDR2 and he thinks his graphics and gaming ability are better than my PS3 on a full HD 32" toshiba regza - which would you say performs better gaming wise?
March 17, 2010 12:37:27 PM

XD wow okini I'm sure the PS3's 7 SPE's are just as good as 4 actual cores

The PS3 has 8 cores just like the i7 920 has 8 cores. I love how Sony markets their stuff. Not to mention 1 of the cores isn't even used for gaming

The PS3's Cell wasn't even that advanced when it launched. There's a reason the PS3 itself doesn't cost as much as the i7 980. Its more compared Core 2 Duo's in terms of actual performance. Not to mention any current GPU would destroy any PS3 game. There is a reason why they don't have perfect ports of Crysis on PS3. Mostly because it can't handle it
March 17, 2010 1:06:15 PM

Quote:
bullshit. Dont look at multiplats. Do you really think your bros PC can run MGS 4?.. OR UC2??? Or KZ2??



Yeah except Crysis blows all of them away in terms of technical graphics and the PS3 can't run it. Stop being dense please. Learn something about the parts you're talking about.
March 17, 2010 1:07:21 PM

For the hardware he has he can get crysis to run on high and it looks smooth but no i cant see it running uncharted 2

Meteroid man - please explain uncharted 2

p.s getting killzone 2 tomorrow - hope its good
March 17, 2010 1:10:20 PM

good

ive been playing resistance 2 over the last week - uncharted 2 the week before, would you say killzone 2 is better than resistance 2?
March 17, 2010 1:10:46 PM

im trying to figure out if okini is joking, trolling, or just flat out dumb. :lol: 

regardless, hilarious thread so far.
March 17, 2010 1:11:50 PM

Quote:
yeah cos Sony is losing money on each ps3 they sell. The CPU costs more than the actual PS3s. So sony is producing those CPUs for a higher price than the actual PS3 price. Core i7 costs more cos pc nerds are buying that piece of poo poo no matter how much it costs. Core i7 aint worth the price and im sure it costs like 50 bucks to mate those. Maybe less.


Wow I've never seen you post but everyone talks about how much of a troll you are. I didn't think it was true but apparently it is. Do you even bother to learn about any of the stuff you talk about or do you just ignore facts and go on talking out of your ass?

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20070312121941...

The chip costs $40 a pop to make. Has 1 functional core and 7 others that are SPE fake cores. Much the same way the i7 is 8 core by using HT. Do you even know that the 360's CPU in terms of core vs core is more powerful than the Cell? Seriously do us a favor and stop posting. Yeah the cell is great for a server farm. Its not great at multitasking.
March 17, 2010 1:13:39 PM

UNCHARTED 2 CAN RUN ON THE PC IF THEY WANTED TO PORT IT. God what the hell do you not get about exclusives? Just because Crackdown isn't on PC doesn't mean the PC can't run it. Oh and atleast PC games can actually do goddamn 1080p instead of faking it. Not to mention I have a PS3 and a 360 and a Wii. I just try not to be a moron on the subject.
a b U Graphics card
March 17, 2010 1:15:21 PM

sonic_boom said:
im trying to figure out if okini is joking, trolling, or just flat out dumb. :lol: 

regardless, hilarious thread so far.


People have ten trying to figure out that one since he started posting.
a b U Graphics card
March 17, 2010 1:17:28 PM

strangestranger said:
People have ten trying to figure out that one since he started posting.


It puzzles me why he is not banned. He curses other people, denigrates their experience and nothing. :heink: 
March 17, 2010 1:19:15 PM

What the hell is a GT 130? A 4850 could outdo the PS3. My god you're sad. I would continue arguing with you but I have a brick wall to talk to whose IQ is higher.
March 17, 2010 1:20:35 PM

Quote:
lol you guys dont even have PS3s and you still think you are experienced?



Did you not learn how to read in Middle School yet? I have a PS3. I have a 360. The graphics on either don't compare to current mid tier gaming PC's. Either you're just trying to troll or you really are this dense
March 17, 2010 1:20:51 PM

Quote:
typical pc nerd hermit reply


:lol: 

strangestranger said:
People have ten trying to figure out that one since he started posting.


ah so he does this all the time. seems like he's a ps3 fanboy posting on a pc forum. good times. he's gotta be no older than 15.
March 17, 2010 1:23:19 PM

I wonder what the hell he'll say when Crysis 2 runs better on PC than PS3 just like MW and Dragon Age

"OH THEY DIDN'T PORT IT RIGHT"
a b U Graphics card
March 17, 2010 1:25:18 PM

sonic_boom said:
:lol: 



ah so he does this all the time. seems like he's a ps3 fanboy posting on a pc forum. good times. he's gotta be no older than 15.


He said he is 14 in some thread. I can't believe people like this with any experience whatsoever are still kept here and are give the possibility to influence people's decisions.
March 17, 2010 1:27:44 PM

I'm sorry you paid $2500 for a i7/6GB Ram and a 5770? What the hell did you do get a $2000 SDD?

And yes I could build a $300 PC that could outdo a PS3. A freaking 9600GT with a C2D could outdo a PS3 in terms of graphics.
March 17, 2010 1:50:22 PM

meteroidman - me and my brother have been arguing for weeks about graphics - He has a HD hdx 16t with Geforce GT 130m 1gig dedicated, 4 gig over all DDR2 - would you say that in a gaming sense (graphics and smoothness) this runs better than a PS3?
March 17, 2010 1:54:15 PM

I have no idea what a Geforce GT 130 is. I can't say. What's his processor? Everytime I look up a GT 130, Apple keeps popping up. I'm not even sure what the 130 is equivalent too. All I can say is that for gaming a C2D, 4850 and 4gigs of Ram should easily outdo a PS3 graphically. But then again why do you guys even care. It won't matter unless the games are there to take full advantage of it. No PC game out now really is pushing the boundaries of PC's because they want to be easily able to port them for consoles.
March 17, 2010 2:04:30 PM

Hmm I honestly don't know. His processor is more than good enough to outdo the PS3 but his card doesn't seem up to par.
March 17, 2010 2:06:10 PM

thanks - although your answers do seem to be PC fanboy orientated.
March 17, 2010 2:07:49 PM

Only when I was arguing with the 15 year old. Its not bias when its the true. The PS3 processor wasn't that great when it was brand new. Its been 4 years. Why would it suddenly be better than the current high end AMD/Intel cards? It wouldn't be. Not to mention the Cell was more IBM's baby than it was Sony's. They just borrowed it.
March 17, 2010 2:10:58 PM

Uncharted 2 looks pretty good considering it uses the cell and not much of the GPU. anyway i realize that high end gaming rigs are much better than PS3, my argument has been with my brother and not the whole PC gaming community at large. With the power today's PCs have its a shame the developers don't optimize many games for PC.
a b U Graphics card
March 17, 2010 2:13:29 PM

Quote:
8 core 3.5 GHz CPU FTW!! You PC nerds think your core i7s are good ? LOL ^^ I got both core i7 920 and Ps3. You guys prolly got PCs only so you have nothing to say.


So not only do you have the jerk attitude, but your also ignorant.

Read up on programming. Workstation processors/Desktop processors.
Also the PS3 uses 7 out of the 8 cores, one core is locked out and most of the cores arn't even used at all. The clock speed is also 3.2 ghz on the PS3 not 3.5 ghz.
Third stop making 3 posts to boost your post count, it's annoying and quite frankly you should be banned.
March 17, 2010 2:15:07 PM

They can't. They have to make them portable to consoles. If a game comes out that requires a i7 920 and a 5970, you're alienating a bunch of PC gamers along with making the game impossible to put on PS3/360. Also the majority of the PC gaming community has PC's that can outdo the PS3. Yes Uncharted 2 looked good but that just means the PS3 can do good graphics. It doesn't mean Uncharted 2 isn't possible on PC. The PS3's CPU isn't even that great honestly. The 360's 3 core CPU is more powerful than the PS3 in a core to core basis. IBM tried putting Cell chips in Laptops too. It didn't work because Intel had better chips that performed better
March 17, 2010 2:21:39 PM

of course uncharted 2 is possible on PC but its a pretty damn near miracle that it runs as it does on the 5 year old PS3 with little ram and a "not very great CPU" then?
March 17, 2010 2:25:57 PM

im starting to think that okini55 was going to far in one direction but you're doing exactly the same but in the opposite direction.

thanks for your answers either way.
March 17, 2010 2:27:50 PM

Its really not. Uncharted 2 was also possible on PC's 5 years ago. The reason PC games aren't as graphically demanding now as they used to be is because as I said before, they have to port them to consoles. I for one am actually happy about this because it means not having to upgrade my system every 2 years and a possible 4 year PC non upgrade lifecycle. Uncharted 2 may be one of the most visual stunning games on the PS3 but you have to remember that Mass Effect 2 is one of the best looking games on the 360 and a 9600GT runs it at 60FPS at the highest settings/resolution without skipping a beat. I have a Dell from 3 years ago that ran Mass Effect 2 without any hiccups whatsoever. Its really all about programming games for the console you're making it for. PC doesn't really get many exclusives and the ones it does get, look damn stunning. You also have to realize that for the 5 year old PS3, it basically does nothing but run games. It doesn't multitask or do anything else. It is optimized for nothing but gaming. Get me an OS that will run nothing else except games and well the PC would get a huge jump.
a b U Graphics card
March 17, 2010 2:32:09 PM

all i know is a gt 130 is an oem, i just looked up and found here
http://www.dvhardware.net/article33914.html
is roughly equivalent to a 9600gso which would be in the ballpark range of the ps3 gpu power, it'll just depend on what model cpu
March 17, 2010 2:33:02 PM

intel core 2quad Q9000
March 17, 2010 2:34:05 PM

and its the 130m - its a HP laptop 4gig ram ddr2 1 gig dedicated
a b U Graphics card
March 17, 2010 2:37:29 PM

Well again it would depend, in games that are well threaded, pretty much any quad will be fine, but games more optimized for dual cores, might suffer a performance hit from it's lower clock speeds, but overall, this system would be comparable to a ps3 in my opinion
March 17, 2010 2:40:09 PM

its dual core - wrong processor its not quad - im not sure what it is to be honest but i know its dual not quad
March 17, 2010 2:42:32 PM

Core 2 Duo P7550 2.26GHz;
a b U Graphics card
March 17, 2010 2:47:07 PM

ohh well, i would still say that even a dual core with slightly higher spees would still be comparable to a ps3, most games today on pc are bottlenecked, by the gpu anyways so any decently powerful cpu will be able to keep up with any midrange gpu
March 17, 2010 2:57:44 PM

Well in terms of raw performance i would say the laptop was superior. But if a game is properly programmed to make use of the cell (which very few are) the ps3 probably gives better performance. Uncharted 2 was what every game on the ps3 was supposed to be like (infact in its original conception it would have been even better) but developing for it is very expensive just for the ps3 version, it gets even worse when you have multiplatform releases.

In terms of CPU power the laptop has it. The cell is brilliant, if you appeal to what its good at. If i remember rightly it has one little power pc core and the rest are specialized for floating point calcs. Which is fine for games, but for general computing it crumbles.

The graphics are poor, the reason the nVidia card got put it is just so developers didn't have to pay ridiculous development costs for actually make games on the PS3, using the graphics card meant they could develop it in a similar way to the 360 thus reducing costs. UC2 is a good example about how the graphics should be offloaded onto the cell when possible.

You also have to remember it doesn't render HD. Its renders few games at 1080p (or was it 720p, maybe both... Farly irrelevant anyway). If you were to render games on a PC and scale them up in the same way the PS3 does a 8800gt would provide more grunt, despite the optimisations done for the PS3.

Overall i wouldn't compare to the two.
March 17, 2010 3:09:39 PM

Quote:
1). I like keyboard and mouse and I hate controllers 2). I know that high end PCs are better in terms of gaming performance compared to the ps3 but that does not change the fact that the Ps3 cell engine beats an overclocked core i7 975. 3). PS3 costs 300 bucks and my gaming rig costs 2500 bucks but still the only diff is that I can run 1080P in every game instead of a few and use higher AA instead of just 2xAA or 4xAA. 4). I do love PC but I do not think they are worth the price even though I still buy them. 5). Most of the best looking games out there are Ps3 exclusives. Well ok not most but many. Uncharted 2, Killzone2, Metal Gear Solid 4 God of War 3 etc etc....


Beats it in what? Floating Point Operations? Well no ****ing crap. The Cell was a hybrid CPU/GPU. Try to get it to multitask and watch it choke. A freaking 4850 does better floating point operations than a Cell. And you paid $2500 for what? I saw the specs you posted and how the hell did you pay $2500 for it? Did you just buy an Alienware and overpay by $1500?
March 17, 2010 3:12:36 PM

Its not my fault your country overprices PC's. And you still cant' understand the difference between a Cell and a i7 920

A GTX 260 according to you had 216 cores. Your logic is all over the place that its mindboggling how you use the taste of apples to judge the taste of oranges.
March 17, 2010 3:23:31 PM

An i7 920 rig doesn't cost 2500usd in any country unless you were dumb enough to buy an OEM (or other equally tragic decisions).
March 17, 2010 3:31:32 PM

Its' actually funny how bad you argue. Really when you're 15 you should just get that you're not smart and stop. Nobody said the PS3 games don't look good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVOArOFm3oU Also LOL

And how did Batman AA work out for you? Looking best on PC and all. Just like MW2 and every other game that's also on PC and PS3
March 17, 2010 3:31:57 PM

:lol:  this kid is hilarious
March 17, 2010 3:35:00 PM

What the hell is AAAAE. Do you just make crap up as you go along? Again nobody is even arguing about the quality of games. You have no idea how to even have an argument. No facts. Bounce all over the place. Type in caps to pretend to yell. Really grow the hell up and stop posting
March 17, 2010 3:42:05 PM

lol I just realized I'm arguing with a 15 year old who probably has a bedtime. Have fun playing your games with made up titles. Also MGS4 wasn't even the best game of 2008. GTA4 and Fallout 3 came out the same year

Also for the decade, list of games better than MGS4 since we like to state opinions as facts

Mass Effect 1
Mass Effect 2
GTA4
Gears of War
Resident Evil 4
Knights of the Old Republic
Metroid Prime 1 and 2
Zelda WW and Zelda TP
Okami
Orange Box
Batman AA
Mario Galaxy


I probably could list more but I'm tired and you haven't hit puberty.
March 17, 2010 3:47:49 PM

Firstly your admitting that your pc cost more than it should have done for equivalent parts? If so stop comparing the costs in that way.

Also who said the PS3 looks bad. The majority of games look less than perfect really due to development costs. Citing one of two games will get you no-where. Yes killzone looks good but i would rather play it myself before i make those decisions, it was a well edited video but even then you can see the little tricks used to make it look the way it does. More to the point it doesn't do anything we haven't seen already done better that can run just as well at similar resolutions on aging hardware. In all honesty it reminded me of UT3, which was released back in 2007 and runs well on old hardware. I wont try and compare it to CoD, crysis, BC2 as the style is slightly different which can make a dramatic effect on how it runs and how good it looks.

March 17, 2010 4:13:00 PM

Hey kid its funny because maybe if you went to meta critic and or gamerankings and looked at the all time rankings, MGS4 isn't in the top 50

Good job stating the reviews of 3 people. Nobody cares about you and your childish posts. Its actually getting funny to me now. Gamespot GOTY isn't even the most prestigious award in the industry. Do you know anything or do you talk out of your ass?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_the_Year

http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html

http://www.metacritic.com/games/bests/2008.shtml

Hey guess which game's are above MGS4. Making up fake titles for your games makes you sound like an idiot btw. I like how you also make assumptions about me. Unlike you I don't borrow money from my parents to buy my stuff. And working full time at McDonalds isn't what I consider a bright future but maybe you do so whatever.
!