Last message on previous page: if nvidia and ati did bring out there best cards which are 3 - 7 gens ahead and stomp the competition, then no one would buy their products since everyone will have one... say amd wins over intel and intel went bye bye.. then everyone would have an amd so then why would someone else buy anymore? especially the general consumer market. they upgrade like every what? 2 - 5 years? how would the company make money for r and d? they need each other to survive.
As I said, the generational advances were rumoured. I can neither confirn nor deny. Just (much to my own disappointment) regurtitate. The whole point was arguing about hardware and performance is pointless because its all about marketing, and the manufacturers will have their way with us unless the fringe groups figure out how to emulate the newest consoles
But, if the generation advance rumors are even partially true, it makes sense, from a marketing perpsective. Use the advance to push the consoles sales and keep selling the PC hardware in sequential order. Why skip selling a single generation, or multiple generations of PC GPUs after youve spent a whole bunch of $ R&D-ing them? You lose all that R&D $ if you do that. Additonally, if you look at the newest games out there right now, theres not a whole lot out there thats bringing the top end ATIs & NVIDIAs to their knees. For the moment. Remember when Doom3 was released? There wasnt a card on the market that met the highest perfromance setting requirements.
Anyhow, Im not much for consoles, but you ought to take a look at the emulator programs to see which of your consoles are covered. You dont have to live without Sonic!! And, You could save yourself some storage space by putting all your console games on your PC. Ive seen succesful emus for pretty much everything but the XBOX and PS2. Me personally, I run MAME. Its an arcade EMU (over 4000 original arcade games on your PC...you gotta love it!!!)
Nvidia and ATI do not have cards sitting around that are 3-7 generations ahead of their current hardware, and if they did they sure as hell wouldn't be in 400$ game consoles.
i forget who posted this quote, but it basically sums up this whole thread.
"To argue with an idiot, you have to step down to their level, and then they'll beat you with experience."
If you have your head between sony and m$'s legs, you might not get that quote.
I'm probably repeating so many others, but i want to chip in. You can't compare the price of a console to a PC. Even if you want to compare the graphics. PC offers to much, and can do so much more, compared to a console that is solely for gaming.
Hey, by the way, what is a console? It's a fcuking computer.
Even if XBOX360(gay name), or sony PS3(gayer name) have nice GPU's(that are comparable to what's out right now, not what's coming to the market) they have crummy CPU's compared to what is available for desktops. Crummy CPU performance=crummy GPU performance. They need each other.
I do agree that whether you want a PC or console depends on what games and functions you like/need.
Console games=idiotic
PC games=brains + skill + pwning graphics
Any FPS that is decent will be on a PC. Any strat game will be on a PC. Any RPG worth playing will be on a PC. Any sports game will be on a PC.
All other games envolve jumping and spraying and slashing like a dumb neanderthal. Those games are meant to entertain 12 year olds or less. And I actually know many youngins that play PC's, cause they know what's up, while you consolers look down like Sony and M$ tell you. Good little boys you are.
Let's not mention that PC games multiplayer options and ease completely wipe the floor with a console. Also, many more players can play in a multiplayer universe on PC, while consoles are restricted to like a max of 24 players.
Consolers just settle for less, and just buy what is marketed at them. Good little boys you are. You even advertise and spam forums for Sony and M$ for free. Wish I could brainwash peeps to do shit for me.
Always, ALWAYS PCs are better than any game system. In terms of specs, PS3 isn't close to a high end PC. There never was, and never will be a game system better than any PC. If you pay like $2000 for a PC, if you put in the right parts, it'll game better than any system, and it can also have an upgrade path, which no game system has.
Example:
Look at GTA: San Andreas. the PS2 version was good, but the PC version was at least twice as better, in terms of graphics. It was because PCs have better hardware, and games for PC take FULL advantage of the PC hardware.
I dare to disagree under specific conditions!
BUNG for BUCK playstation is a better value than PC for games.
First of all Play Station cost is say about $ 250.00 and good PC would cost you at least 6 x that amount.
Play Station is geared toward programs designed for Play Station and the performance altough "weaker" CPU for the money is not worst than on PC.
The money are made by selling software and Play Stations are sold below the fair manufacturing value, sometimes with loss.
I believe that play station might run on under LINUX, or multi operating systems with less overhead than WindoZ PC.
On other hand the top PC with the top equipment could perform multitasking which ofcourse console can not.
By looking at specs of the PSX for the price it is really not weaker.
Using PC only for games is really waste of money, industry marketing hipe and waste of PC power, on other hand if you have a powerfull PC there is no real need to get console!
so there is room for all!
Resolution of playstation is geared toward TVs or projectors so it doesn't need such expensive graphic cards.
Iraquis So Damn Assan was buying Play Stations as that was the cheapest PC when modified powerful enough to use for predatory military applications.
And that operating system is... whatever you want it to be, apparently.
"Sony is looking into having Linux installed from the start on the PS3 hard disk. Referring to Linux as being "legacy," Kutaragi adds that it's just the start, as with Cell, the operating system runs as an application on top of the basic Cell OS. The presence of the Cell OS allows for multiple operating systems to run on the machine simultaneously, including, of course, Linux, but also making room for Windows and Apple's Tiger OS."
Sony says Spring, analysts say Summer (in Japan) at the earliest
We’ve already brought you stories within the past few days that have looked at the PS3’s hopeful 2006 launch date and how the console will cost Sony around $800 to produce. Adding more fuel to the Sony PlayStation 3 fire is this latest article from Reuters.
I have to agree with mechluke, PS3 should deliver relatively the same quality as PC for some time. Probably not for 5 years.
Paying 500$ for PS3 which boast a capable GPU almost as efficient as the very best GPU on the PC market.
But many here seems out of their mind. I think the second you make them think they might have paid too much for the same quality of software experience make them go nuts.
I'm not here to play the arrogant, the PC will always be up to speed in hardware & at least a generation or two in advance than the consoles. Does that mean that the software experience is better. Not at all.
The key with console is efficiency, the code path is optimize for only one machine, that has no OS and drivers overhead. The result is something almost twice faster than the equivalent speced PC.
The result is that you get a PC with better hardware running the same software much less efficiently. Vista should help a little, but it's not panacea.
What is interesting this time around tough, is that going HD mean the consoles will try to play in the same ground than the PC.
Try not to forget that a GPU equivalent to the PS3 is the price of the PS3 system.
Personnaly, I think it comes down to preference and budget. You can do a lot of things with a PC that a console will never do. And the consoles will always let you have peace of mind (no software & hardware maintenance skills required though it can be seen as a hobby).
For the sole purpose of gaming the only major difference will be gameplay (mouse versus controller pad) and costs for some time.
Exactly.
Quite frankly some of the responses from the pro PC 'lobby' are embarissingly juvenile.
Seems some are trying to justify spending massive amounts of cash on hardware that offers tiny performance gains. If thats your thing, fair enough, seems like money down the drain to me.
I have consoles and a top spec PC. What amazes me is that you can have visually stunning games such as GT4 and MGS3 on the 5+ year old PS2hardware, just shows what can be squeezed out of the available hardware given time.
Each generation of console software see's performance/graphical improvements on the same spec hardware.
Of course we never see this on th PC as software developers simply wait for the lastest and greatest hardware to be released.
Everyone accepts the PC will eventually catch up with the PS3, if it has to catch up at all.
The point is top spec PC's make up a tiny number of the total number of PC's out there, and cost 5x as much as a PS3/Xbox360.
Even with less powerful hardware, a console can be capable of producing superior graphics etc.
As for the multi function of a PC, great, but you can do all that on a £300 PC, you can then buy a console for the cost of a top spec graphics card.
I guess many PC owners will also be splashing out on a HD-DVD/Blu-Ray drive soon, no doubt these will cost almost as much as the Blu-Ray enabled PS3!
Ahhh, your post has some good and some bad. Some console games are good, but this thread isn't about the games; it's about a naïve kids dream.
The quality of games on a PC vs. a console is really hard for me to comment on. Some console games are better than some PC games, and vise versa.
As far as hardware, a 400$ game console will play games much better than a 400$ PC, but when the PC is 2,000$ and up it's a different story.
Anyhow, Im not much for consoles, but you ought to take a look at the emulator programs to see which of your consoles are covered. You dont have to live without Sonic!! And, You could save yourself some storage space by putting all your console games on your PC. Ive seen succesful emus for pretty much everything but the XBOX and PS2. Me personally, I run MAME. Its an arcade EMU (over 4000 original arcade games on your PC...you gotta love it!!!)
I know you can use emulators, but there is something therapudic about sitting on a couch with a genesis controller in your hand playing Sonic the Hedgehog on your TV. There is just something missing on the emulator. I guess it just reminds me of a simpler time before I had to learn Option Pricing lol.
Side note:
The consoles have a much better life cycle to me. Honestly I am getting tired of the 3-4 month BS that graphics card companies are pulling. Leaving a console out for 5 years is a bit long, but at least the hardware gets mostly utilized (there is always a bit left over). With GPU's coming out every 4 months programmers can be lazy (not meant literaly) and just utilise some new features that nVidia has created. On a console they can do it, it just takes more understanding which is evident in each generation.
Honestly, if I had the spare cash I would probably buy one. However as is, I must deal with just my comp (i know my life is hard lol). I do really enjoy Halo 2 optimatch. There are specified gametypes and palyer ranks. Wish that kind of diversity would come to the PC. I know it is availible, but BF2 seems prime for something like that. Come on CTF with planes dropping bombs on you? Bad ass.
PS - I want to break open a 360 and custom rig a watercooling loop just bc I can lol.
seriously, this is dumb. do you guys even try to think? YOU CAN'T COMPARE THE PRICE OF A PC TO A CONSOLE. The PC is capable of so many more tasks and programs, browsing, file sharing, blah blah blah. So stop trying to compare the price points.
What game out for XBOX360 has superior graphics than a gaming rig for PC that can run 1600x1200 res.?
What PS3 game has superior graphics? None, is it's not fcuking out yet. lol. So funny to see peeps bragging over vapourware. By the time it's out, I'm sure we'll have a new president and China will be dropping nukes on your head so you won't even get to see a single PS3 frame. hahahaha.
Your post serves no real purpose. All I mean to say, if gaming is your primary function, 400$ on a game console would be a more price efficent choice than a PC. Yes a PC can do many more tasks, however this entire thread is about PS3's processing power vs. a PC's.
You're taking me as some sort of console fanboy, yet if you could only scroll down a little farther...
If you read the whole post, you would have got to the bit where I said "PCs are better than consoles" But clearly you didnt.
Nowhere in the post did I compare console cost to PC cost. In fact, nowhere in the post did I even mention unit cost. It was totaly irrelivant to my point. Had you read the whole post, you would know that
Nowhere did I say that a console was NOT a computer. Im sorry, I ASS-U-MEd that was known by all. Clearly, I did not take into account that an individual like you would require that which is blatantly obvious to be pointed out. Had you read the whole post, you would know that.
Once again, my point is, arguing about hardware in this venue is pointless. I dont care if your running a cray. Its about marketing and market shares. MS and Sony want to sell their products. No demand=no market. No market= no sales. Solution, create a market.
Im not going to rewrite the whole dam post. It was too long to start with, and it only covered a fraction of the variables involved.
Im not going to point out every mis-quote or mis interpretation you made
Im not going to explain why the CPU is FAR less crital to any game than the GPU. That was already done, correctly, by another individual in this forum. Had you read ALL the posts in this forum, you would know that
If you want to respond INTELigently (sorry, couldnt resist) to the post then read the WHOLE thing. Not the first few lines.
In short you clearly just read a few sentences then jumped in head first, eyes closed, mouth wide open. And to top it off you had the sac to make a statement like
"To argue with an idiot, you have to step down to their level, and then they'll beat you with experience."
What do you call a person, who tries to retort by arguing points to a completely different set of factors?
I think many of you are missing the point.Have you ever considered that today gaming software for pc is ahead of the hardware?This really means that if we upgrade our systems today we do it only to play in the highest quality the titles that are 6 months or 1 year old.I will tell you an example.There is no pc today that can play FEAR in 1600 x1200 with max quality and antialiasing or black and white 2.It is absolutely ridiculous to pay a fortune to play games in a platform that is not game-oriented like a pc.Has anyone seen screenshots from the upcoming vision GT for ps3?No racing game in pc has these graphics today sorry.I am not an enemy of the pc.I have spent over the years thousands for upgrades but i just think it is not worth it any more.I can do the job with a lot less and keep my pc for internet,office applications etc........
PS No other product on earth is so heavily depreciated over time than a personal computer.A 3000 euros system today will cost under 1000 in 2 years.
Anyhow, Im not much for consoles, but you ought to take a look at the emulator programs to see which of your consoles are covered. You dont have to live without Sonic!! And, You could save yourself some storage space by putting all your console games on your PC. Ive seen succesful emus for pretty much everything but the XBOX and PS2. Me personally, I run MAME. Its an arcade EMU (over 4000 original arcade games on your PC...you gotta love it!!!)
I know you can use emulators, but there is something therapudic about sitting on a couch with a genesis controller in your hand playing Sonic the Hedgehog on your TV. There is just something missing on the emulator. I guess it just reminds me of a simpler time before I had to learn Option Pricing lol.
Side note:
The consoles have a much better life cycle to me. Honestly I am getting tired of the 3-4 month BS that graphics card companies are pulling. Leaving a console out for 5 years is a bit long, but at least the hardware gets mostly utilized (there is always a bit left over). With GPU's coming out every 4 months programmers can be lazy (not meant literaly) and just utilise some new features that nVidia has created. On a console they can do it, it just takes more understanding which is evident in each generation.
Honestly, if I had the spare cash I would probably buy one. However as is, I must deal with just my comp (i know my life is hard lol). I do really enjoy Halo 2 optimatch. There are specified gametypes and palyer ranks. Wish that kind of diversity would come to the PC. I know it is availible, but BF2 seems prime for something like that. Come on CTF with planes dropping bombs on you? Bad ass.
PS - I want to break open a 360 and custom rig a watercooling loop just bc I can lol.
All too true.
Though I dont think Id buy a console even if I had the cash. Im vindictive like that, and feel that MS/Sony have already gouged enough cash out of me for one lifetime.
I feel your pain with the GPU marketing. Its just painful to spend a wad of cash on a top of the line video card only to know its already sliding towards obsolesence the moment you buy it.
And I do understand the "Just because you can" route. I did that with an old Streetfighter 2 arcade cabinet. Just because I could. I gutted it, replaced the hardware with one of my old PCs and Viola! Any arcade game I could figure out the controls for. Very theraputic for me.
