Last message on previous page: Why did this thread get past page 1? People please stop reiterating the same points over and over. We all know that a PS3 < a high end PC, some people just dont want to admit it.
Quote :
Did you miss my post afterwards where I said I made a mistake as I missed the rolling eyes due to being over tired yesterday.
I'm just so fed up with the ps3 fanboys. More than half of my friends have ps2's and are already giving me $hit and the ps3 is only releasing here in march!!!
Yes I did miss that post, it's painful to read this whole thread.
It's really just a matter of personal preference, that's why this thread will never be resolved. No one here is right or wrong. Except for the NOOB who started this thread, claiming that PS3 could beat the fastest pc.
I have a somewhat decent pc and a gamecube (a wii sometime, hopefully) so i'm all set.
The wii is a pretty boring looking console I think, but again its just opinion.
@ Heyyou27 The gamecube is a great console if you dont need a dvd player and stuff, and its the only console thats really portable. Honestly, who carries their xbox around with them (almost a guarentee someone is going to say they do)? Unless your a weight lifter of course.
with vista, and the new games for windows campaign from microsoft, the average joe shouldn't have any trouble using their computers for gamin. ol' bill wants the PC to be seen as a competing platform against gaming consoles. he's also releasing a version of Xbox live for "games for windows" titles. many big name companies are allready producing games under this title.
I just found a really interesting performance number.... its really actually sad how Sony and Ibm went on about the amazing GFLOP count of their cell processor.
"For double-precision, as used in personal computers, Cell performance drops by an order of magnitude, but still reaches 14 GFLOPS."
-wikipedia.
I dont know about anyone else but 14 GFLOPS really isnt any thing special.
This isnt a reply at grapes i just couldnt find the person i wanted to reply to from his post.
Split screen IMO is NOT a selling point to me it compleatly ruins multi player.
To whome ever said the core2 made the ps3 cpu obsolete. Its inferior as a cpu to almost and probly every cpu you can buy on any etailers site same with the xbox. The video card in a ps3 is a vary bad example of video power accourding to what i been reading all the ps3 numbers are so inflated no one can figure out how in the world they even came up with them.
Not sure who said you cant play ps3 games on a console but you can play ANY console games on a pc with the correct emulation software.
that cell processor and the xbox processor are not vary good at gaming i really need to find that link someone posted in another thread so some people here can read it. Lucky for us though gaming doesnt rely a whole lot on the cpu and they both have video exceleration.
I agree. All of the ps3 numbers are sadly faked. Sony claimed 256 gflops performance for their cell. IBM got a total of 256 gflops on an 8 core cell processor running @ 4.0 ghz. The cell in the ps3 has one core disabled, plus only runs at 3.2 ghz. And in double precision floating point operations its only 14 gflops which is really nothing special at all. Also there is not a single way they could have possibly acheived 1.8 TFLOPS on their graphic processor (RSX) it only has 12 ROP'S, with a total shader op count of 24, running at 550 mhz, the mem bandwidth is only 22 gb/s. The 7800 GTX 512 mb has more then 50 GB/s of mem bandwidth. Nothing in the ps3 is special at all, as you know. It really is sad to see how uneducated our society is. All i hear in my computer programming class is OMFG THE CELL IS SOOOO POWERFULL SONY PS3 IS AMAZING ITS SO MUCH FASTER THEN ANYTHING ON THE PLANET. I try to ignore their ignorant comments, but it does get hard to sometimes.
Yeah that pretty much sums up Sony's line on consoles. The PS2 was supposed to deliver Toy Story quality graphics in real time (in all fairness some of the best games kinda come close but still overly optimistic if you ask me) The PS3 is a great system, it should be for the price !
I say go with a computer as even a cheap 400$ computer can do things the PS3 just cant (im not talking about graphics or sound)
In the end there is no PS3 VS Computer debate. If you have the cash a good PC will play realy good games with a realy good video card (DX10)
If you want to do more then play games then you dont even have a choice... PC or Mac or Linux (all PC's to me)
that cell processor and the xbox processor are not vary good at gaming i really need to find that link someone posted in another thread so some people here can read it. Lucky for us though gaming doesnt rely a whole lot on the cpu and they both have video exceleration.
The information in it is the same really so i guess yes this is the link. It detailes the technial side of the two consoles and hte hardware in it. Vary good reading IMO. ty for posting it.
I hate split screen too. Compared to LAN gaming it's just pathetic. I was a MOHAA PC multiplayer junkie and then tried it split screen with 4 players on a gamecube. That was unbearable IMO.
The most ironic bit of it all is that according to developers, if either manufacturer had decided to use an Athlon 64 or a Pentium D in their next-gen console, they would be significantly ahead of the competition in terms of CPU performance.
Quote :
Regardless of the reasoning, not a single developer we've spoken to thinks that it was the right decision.
Quote :
We already know that's not the case as game developers have already told us that the Xenon CPU isn't even in the same realm of performance as the Pentium 4 or Athlon 64.
Quote :
In the end, despite what these horribly concocted numbers may lead you to believe, they say absolutely nothing about performance. The exact same situation exists with the CPUs of the next-generation consoles; don't fall for it.
Many other goodies, but I'm too lazy to search for them. We discussed this here in depth ages ago.
True that man... one thing I found interesting though is that the "Xenos" GPU in the 360 is an early version of the R600 and it seems to be amazing. I'd say that's about the only thing that can hold it's own against a PC.
The GPU is where it shines. CPU is alot wimpier than what marketing says. We have already heard no Crysis for PS3 or XB360 because they lack sufficeint processing power.
Anyway, I missed a good quote:
Quote :
And that's what we have here today, with the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. Both consoles are marketed to be much more powerful than they actually are, and from talking to numerous game developers it seems that the real world performance of these platforms isn't anywhere near what it was supposed to be.
A PC based gaming can allow the user to trade off quality/FPS and play with all sorts of settings. Traditionally, better capacity to save games, addons, variety of input and cope with updated hardware (still some limits but generally more flexible for CPU/GPU/sound). Flexible screen resolution, newer games can use multi-screens. Deteriates over time with games and non-game software install&uninstall, OS updates, user documents, music etc. Requires user maintenance and can have more security and performance risks. Can be used for more than just games but you pay for all the extras. Games have some HW optimisations and some compatibility overheads.
A console is good value (subsidised HW&SW) when purchased and ages gracefully. It is simpler for users to setup. Games have a target resolution and speed which users don't have to worry about console not being fast enough. Upgrades are limited and subsequent gen consoles have trouble with backwards compatibility(varying success, some none, some quite good but not 100%). The old PS2 and xbox had limited graphics support which meant you were limited to tv graphics ie. typically worse than 640x480 on PC. While the game ran at 50/60 interlaced fps on the 2-3yr old console you could have a PC run it with 1024x768@50fps with the latest hardware (ie. 2-3yrs after console release). Very few updates to software and limited risk of harddisk clutter (older consoles had no hard disk drive and no or small system software updates ie. firmware). Newer consoles are starting to get more like PC's in terms of OS, internet access (and security issues) additional features and use of disk drive. Low risk of security attack if no internet use and/or lockdown system. Higher HW optimisation and no overhead to cope with changes to CPU,RAM,GPU etc. hardware.
It's a pity they don't design the consoles and games for more flexibility of HW upgrades. I wished fr a PS2.5 or Xbox1.5 with 2x to 3x CPU and 4x GPU power to handle newer games and higher def TV resolutions with greater visual quality. The idea is to be 100% backwards compatible (eg. Xbox1.5 use PIII derived core at 1.4GHz or greater with 733MHz fallback) and come out between major console upgrades eg. before PS3, Xbox2. You could take advantage of process shrinks and better GPU's for reasonable cost&price (to make & to sell).
Most people that buy consoles fall into a consumer group, not a prosumer group.
Most people on these forums are prosumers, and some understand hardware quite well.
Heck, 1080p or 1080i (540 a frame).
Using some psuedo-resolutions: 16:9 = 1920 x 1080
16:9.6 = 1800 x 1080
16:10 = 1728 x 1080
Most 'decent' PCs will be able to power 3D engines of games at higher resolutions, on screens with a smaller dot pitch size, and decent FSAA (which both console and PC GPU do).
Then consider it might only be 1080i, in which case it is only pushing 1,036,800 pixels per frame, and at a lower frame rate than twich-guru gamers would play at, typically on a TV screen with a refresh rate of 60 Hz (TFT or not it makes a difference).
Even excluding the real nitty-gritty (covered above I'm sure), these 'simple' differences are what make PCs / Macs 'superior' in my eyes, and in the eyes of many others.
Sure Linux can run on the PlayStation 3, and the CPU architecture is different (lets people 'learn' about it, different experience), but it is a game console at heart, plus DVD playback and web surfing. (PCs were doing all this stuff 6+ years ago, just minus the latest and greatest CPU / GPU).
The Blu-Ray is nice, but Sony have had Blu-Ray burners on the market for several years for PC users too. Just the discs cost around $80, and the Blu-Ray media started off around 20 GB (apx rounded down) in size. (It has grown since).
The Blu-Ray marketted at consumers, and all this rubbish about it being the laser making the units cost so much - is total tripe. (Sony have been making Blu-Ray drives for years for PCs, in a smaller space, with more power restictions, problem free in Japan for years now).
Then add in the 'shortages', I dunno what they are planning here to be honest, low yields on the Cell processor, and Blu-Ray laser issues.... has their quality control department gone to hell ?
(Low yield on a IBM designed processor - Can you say bullshit ? - They typically get better yields, own all the patents, and design the chips so even faulty ones can be used, as there might be 2 extra SPEs and more cache per unit than will be activated for example)
The whole thing has a very sus feel to it (Low production runs).
My personal gut instinct, bear in mind I've been watching the large players at a macro/micro level for over a decade, is that Sony want to mitigate their risk and sell every unit. Instead of mass producing a 'cutting edge' device that consumers might not buy, be able to afford, or can't justify owning. (As older tech is almost as good for most people, and far less expensive, plus not many Blu-Ray titles to watch. Normal people want Blu-Ray movies, not Blu-Ray data discs with a Linux mod on their PSX-3 - Chicken & Egg situation for the movies - and that is what consumers 'desire').
They'll be making a 'Revision 2' PSX-3 around April 2007 for sure, and just trying to 'fish' for developers and ideas via the rich (and very) early adopter crowd.
===============================================
... yet after writing all that, and reading the other posts above (cover the more 'hardware spec side of it to a very nearly electronic level' I'd still consider a PlayStation 3, just to run Linux on it and learn about it. - Only as a prosumer I can't justify the cost. Nor do I plan on doing more console gaming (Armed Assault FPS needs a mouse, and maybe a TrackIR), the only exception being the Tekken series, of which older versions have issues on the PlayStation 3 (PS3 / PSX-3 ?).
.....
It's a pity they don't design the consoles and games for more flexibility of HW upgrades. I wished fr a PS2.5 or Xbox1.5 with 2x to 3x CPU and 4x GPU power to handle newer games and higher def TV resolutions with greater visual quality. The idea is to be 100% backwards compatible (eg. Xbox1.5 use PIII derived core at 1.4GHz or greater with 733MHz fallback) and come out between major console upgrades eg. before PS3, Xbox2. You could take advantage of process shrinks and better GPU's for reasonable cost&price (to make & to sell).
Market / Add this to various Sony PlayStation 3 / Microsoft X-Box forums run by Sony / Microsoft themselves - It'll catch on - I love the idea.
