PS3 VS HIGH END PC

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
high end / does your pc output 1080p (1920 × 1080) smoothly over HDMI?
Click to expand...

This topic is getting way out of hand. I dont know or care if my computer does 1080i or p nativly personaly i cant stand playing games uncer 1920x1440 right now i settle for 1920x1200 only because my LCD is limited by it. But yes at those three resolutions my computer runs games smoothly and flawlessly.

As far as high def support no i doubt i have that but then again alot of what i have been reading is so far the high def support ps3 has remains to be seen if at this time is even worth all its hype.

You run those resolutions to stay native to your display and not trigger a recode/resize and for sharpness (HD). HDMI connection is DRM forced on us but basically no digital HD content will play from certain studios without it, they downgrade output to dvd quality. Once again i'm addressing a ~$600 PC not a $3,000+ one. Unless you have Blu-ray or HD-DVD you haven't experienced HD content.

My pc with out monitor is more about half or less then a $3000 system if i spent $3000 on a computer it would be at least 2x better then the one i have.

For my LCD yes i am stuck in that resolution for reasons stated but this is the only LCD i have with a bunch of other 21" crt's which i can do over 2000x1500 (dont know the exact resolution numbers) There is nothing truely special about the ps3 when it comes to HD content it just has all the nessisary hardware already prebuilt into it. I could get the same hardware for my pc if i wanted HD course there really isnt any reason for it yet since the content isnt yet really available.

@Opterondo its a single core chip xbox is a 3 core chip pc's are 1 to 4 core chips soon to be 8 core. you can give me links to this thread of stuff i have already read but that doesnt change those facts.
 
[Cores is what it means cores ie. Core2Duo has 2 cores ON-DIE. PS3 has 9 cores ON-DIE (1 PPE , 8 SPEs) techno speak ...element = core

wiki

300px-Cell_Broadband_Engine_Processor.jpg
Click to expand...

Sure I am happy to call SPE's cores, if you are happy to call 4th generation Shader Units cores, OK ?

Since 4th Generation Shader Units on GPUs support branching, etc making them more like a 'processor core' than the Cell SPE, so this is an OK analogy for us to 'work' with, yeah ?


Heck the Sun CoolThreads UltraSPARC T-1 has '8 cores' ON DIE, but each of them sports 4 SMT units, so it'll process 32 threads at once. It also has a huge ****ing cache and multiple I/O (RAM, FSB) interconnects.

http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/index.xml
http://www.sun.com/servers/coolthreads/overview/index.jsp
http://www.opensparc.net/

High core count doesn't always equal high performance, as each core gets more basic (over-specialisation is a weakness in IT) as a result.

.. I agree most modern GPUs (ie. x1900) contain 2 "cores" one for texture processing and one for shader processing and you'll notice they usually run at different clocks and this is why the call them programmable texture processing units just like the PS3's SPEs are fully programmable.

From wiki

"Most video games designed to run on Sony's Playstation 3 are expected to take advantage of its 8-core Cell microprocessor. The highly anticipated first-person shooter Resistance: Fall of Man reportedly dedicates a single SPE core of the Cell to enemy AI. How other upcoming PS3 title utilize the hardwares multi-core design is unknown."
 
just admit it PC's r better and u cant change it. tho the cost of PC is higher than consoles and that is why its worth buying a ps3 or whatever ppl buy.



btw go find some console forum cuz they will agree with u, we will not.
Click to expand...

goto some circle jerk pc forum where they think the apple is a supercomputer, and my 5x PS3s will smoke your $3k rig rotten anyday don't cry it makes a good space heater

why do u have 5 PS3s? and 2nd of all......u cant connect them to multi task on 1 game... soooo yeeeea ? point?

Edit also its known that the Cell has a very low yeild and at any given unit only 4 or 5 cores actualy work (in PS3)
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20060713074825.html
 
As it has been said before

PCs to consoles == apples to oranges

yes a ps3 would beat a $600 pc when it comes to graphics, since the ps3 is optimized to do just that. Meanwhile a PC has to deal with windoze eating its resources.

A $600 pc could rip apart a ps3 in terms of processing power, the cell is no match for an athlon 64 or even a pentium 4 as it has been explained in the article.

Yay! everybody kinda wins!
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reasonable response I am a PC man too they have they're purpose .. Anarchy Online :)

As I said before a Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4Ghz is 15.1 GFLOPS per Sandra and a PS3 Cell Processor is 15 GFLOPS per Wiki and thats not even a fair comparison for the PS3 so "tear apart" is kinda silly -- this IS a next gen console
 
high end / does your pc output 1080p (1920 × 1080) smoothly over HDMI?
Click to expand...

This topic is getting way out of hand. I dont know or care if my computer does 1080i or p nativly personaly i cant stand playing games uncer 1920x1440 right now i settle for 1920x1200 only because my LCD is limited by it. But yes at those three resolutions my computer runs games smoothly and flawlessly.

As far as high def support no i doubt i have that but then again alot of what i have been reading is so far the high def support ps3 has remains to be seen if at this time is even worth all its hype.

You run those resolutions to stay native to your display and not trigger a recode/resize and for sharpness (HD). HDMI connection is DRM forced on us but basically no digital HD content will play from certain studios without it, they downgrade output to dvd quality. Once again i'm addressing a ~$600 PC not a $3,000+ one. Unless you have Blu-ray or HD-DVD you haven't experienced HD content.

My pc with out monitor is more about half or less then a $3000 system if i spent $3000 on a computer it would be at least 2x better then the one i have.

For my LCD yes i am stuck in that resolution for reasons stated but this is the only LCD i have with a bunch of other 21" crt's which i can do over 2000x1500 (dont know the exact resolution numbers) There is nothing truely special about the ps3 when it comes to HD content it just has all the nessisary hardware already prebuilt into it. I could get the same hardware for my pc if i wanted HD course there really isnt any reason for it yet since the content isnt yet really available.

@Opterondo its a single core chip xbox is a 3 core chip pc's are 1 to 4 core chips soon to be 8 core. you can give me links to this thread of stuff i have already read but that doesnt change those facts.

.. believe what you want but if you think the PS3 is single core your on meth and crack and weed
 
Well once again I never said PCs were weak I said dollar for dollar they are weak and not specifically designed for gaming ..

You system is an overclocked $400 processor + other system costs - whats your point no one ever said the PS3 was an unbeatable supercomputer?
Click to expand...

First and foremost: Modern GPUs have a hell of a lot more than "one" shader unit. Do some damn research console monkey. 😳 8) :wink:

A US$850 PlayStation 3 vs a US$2550 PC (three times the price).

As for the PCs not being designed (or adaptable) for gaming...

The GeForce 8800 GTX has the floating point calcuation power of 40 Core 2 'cores'. That is the equiv~ of 20 x Core 2 Duo's (2.66 GHz ones) worth in floating point, SPE / stream processing wise.

Considering the PC only costs 3 times as much, but has 28 times the floating point processing power :roll: ('Sh', 'C+' SPE / Stream processing inclusive as optimized software on both platforms will offload to each platforms 'SPE' or 'Steam processors').

Here are the final figures:
Watts: The PC provides 5 to 8 times the performance per watt.

Performance: The PC provides 28 times the (floating point) performance per dollar in software when optimized. (54 times using SLI with offloading to stream processors - aka: 4th gen Shader Units - which is easier to do than coding for 7 SPEs on Cell, and gives better performance).
(The Cell needs equal, if not more, development work to scale as well in software for its platforms, and lacks Operating Systems on a whole, it'll run Linux and that is about it).

Space: The PC only uses about 8 times the space of the PlayStation 3, but provides more performance per cubic foot in the majority of software, games included.

Cost: The PC provides 9.333x times the performance per dollar, even though it costs 3 times as much.

Utility: The PC can be used to do more things than the PlayStation 3.

Desktop Resolution: The PC can support 3840 x 2400 resolution on display panels that support it. These cost as much as a good TV for the PlayStation 3 but provide far more 'benefit' per dollar. (Thanks not only to higher resolution, but other factors beyond scope of this thread).

Longtivity of platform utility: The PC can be kept for 5-10 years and still provide good utility compared to a non-upgradable console unit.


PS3 (US$850)
vs
HIGH END PC (US$2550)
PC WINS
DOUBLE FLAWLESS VICTORY
FATALITY
NO BLOCKING REQUIRED
ULTRA PWNAGE


Dude seriously, GOTO CONSOLE_FORUM 8)
 
just admit it PC's r better and u cant change it. tho the cost of PC is higher than consoles and that is why its worth buying a ps3 or whatever ppl buy.



btw go find some console forum cuz they will agree with u, we will not.
Click to expand...

goto some circle jerk pc forum where they think the apple is a supercomputer, and my 5x PS3s will smoke your $3k rig rotten anyday don't cry it makes a good space heater

why do u have 5 PS3s? and 2nd of all......u cant connect them to multi task on 1 game... soooo yeeeea ? point?

Edit also its known that the Cell has a very low yeild and at any given unit only 4 or 5 cores actualy work (in PS3)
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20060713074825.html

No but if moneys no object like most pc gamers act i'll buy 5 and hook them up in a beowulf cluster and fold your PC into oblivion WOOHAAAHAAAAAAA HAA HHAAAAA

No silly some of the first few runs of the Cell processor have one SPE of 8 disabled for redundancy = 7 of 8 functioning
 
high end / does your pc output 1080p (1920 × 1080) smoothly over HDMI?
Click to expand...

This topic is getting way out of hand. I dont know or care if my computer does 1080i or p nativly personaly i cant stand playing games uncer 1920x1440 right now i settle for 1920x1200 only because my LCD is limited by it. But yes at those three resolutions my computer runs games smoothly and flawlessly.

As far as high def support no i doubt i have that but then again alot of what i have been reading is so far the high def support ps3 has remains to be seen if at this time is even worth all its hype.

You run those resolutions to stay native to your display and not trigger a recode/resize and for sharpness (HD). HDMI connection is DRM forced on us but basically no digital HD content will play from certain studios without it, they downgrade output to dvd quality. Once again i'm addressing a ~$600 PC not a $3,000+ one. Unless you have Blu-ray or HD-DVD you haven't experienced HD content.

My pc with out monitor is more about half or less then a $3000 system if i spent $3000 on a computer it would be at least 2x better then the one i have.

For my LCD yes i am stuck in that resolution for reasons stated but this is the only LCD i have with a bunch of other 21" crt's which i can do over 2000x1500 (dont know the exact resolution numbers) There is nothing truely special about the ps3 when it comes to HD content it just has all the nessisary hardware already prebuilt into it. I could get the same hardware for my pc if i wanted HD course there really isnt any reason for it yet since the content isnt yet really available.

@Opterondo its a single core chip xbox is a 3 core chip pc's are 1 to 4 core chips soon to be 8 core. you can give me links to this thread of stuff i have already read but that doesnt change those facts.

.. believe what you want but if you think the PS3 is single core your on meth and crack and weed

I dont do drugs and your assumption that i do is idiotic. its a single core cpu you believing it isnt doesnt change that.

"The PS3’s cell processor has 1 Power PC core similar to that of the 3 Power PC cores sustaining the 360’s 3 core design (without the vmx-128 enhancements available on each of the 360’s cores) and 7 SPE (synergistic processing element). The 8th is disabled to improve yields. One of the SPE is used to run the PS3’s operating system while the other 6 are available for games. The reason the PS3’s CPU will be significantly more difficult to program for is because the CPU is asymmetric, unlike the 360’s CPU. Because of the PS3 CPU only having 1 PPE compared to the 360’s 3, all game control, scripting, AI and other branch intensive code will need to be crammed into two threads which share a very narrow execution core and no instruction window. The cell’s SPE will be unable to help out here as they are not as robust; hence, not fit for accelerating things such as AI, as it’s fairly branch intensive and the SPE lacks branch prediction capability entirely."
 
Umm is it just me or didn't Intel present an 80 core processor at the IDF this year? So what's so impressive about cell technology? Within a year or two all of the buzz will be gone because high core counts or dsp junks will be the norm.. or at least you'd think so at the rate things are going...
 
FROM IGN

E3 2005: PS3 to Output 1080p
An HD revolution in the making.
by Ivan Sulic

May 16, 2005 - Among one hundred billion other bits of technical information, we recently learned that the PlayStation 3 would be capable of outputting a 1080 progressive scan image.
Click to expand...
Try using a more recent link:
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/707/707540p1.html

Quote:
Gran Turismo HD was the only confirmed 1080p game at the show.

I underline "confirmed" as other games still might make the jump to 1080p...but most are 1080i and 720p.
Click to expand...
dude -May 10, 2006- from your link post something after launch please
:?:
 
In a console most likely nothing but it really hasnt been seen if its going to be something special in a computer.

Consoles are a bad judge of tech as most of it in a console is normaly stripped to hell for pricing reasons.
 
Opterondo - It's MadModMike with a 98% console content flavour goodness
:idea: [APPLAUD] :idea:

"When you try to invest in a fantasy, ultimately your reality is what suffers." - Unknown ; if you are a Microsoft (Pro: Xbox 360) forum plant, designed to infiltrate forums and make everyone hate the Sony PlayStation 3 you've completed your mission - Well done soldier.

Now everyone on TomsHardware hates the PlayStation 3. :wink:

Go over here: http://www.linuxuser.co.uk
Look for Issue #65, it is about installing Linux on a PlayStation 3, I actually have the mag in front of me.

You've come here to talk, lets talk.

Tip of the Day: (1) Click [Ignore] on my posts. (2) Click All on this Thread so it is just one giant scrollable stream of text instead of in pages. (3) Print this thread using soft paper. (4) Enjoy your low cost, artistic, toilet paper. :lol:
 
Well once again I never said PCs were weak I said dollar for dollar they are weak and not specifically designed for gaming ..

You system is an overclocked $400 processor + other system costs - whats your point no one ever said the PS3 was an unbeatable supercomputer?
Click to expand...

First and foremost: Modern GPUs have a hell of a lot more than "one" shader unit. Do some damn research console monkey. 😳 8) :wink:

A US$850 PlayStation 3 vs a US$2550 PC (three times the price).

As for the PCs not being designed (or adaptable) for gaming...

The GeForce 8800 GTX has the floating point calcuation power of 40 Core 2 'cores'. That is the equiv~ of 20 x Core 2 Duo's (2.66 GHz ones) worth in floating point, SPE / stream processing wise.

Considering the PC only costs 3 times as much, but has 28 times the floating point processing power :roll: ('Sh', 'C+' SPE / Stream processing inclusive as optimized software on both platforms will offload to each platforms 'SPE' or 'Steam processors').

Here are the final figures:
Watts: The PC provides 5 to 8 times the performance per watt.

Performance: The PC provides 28 times the (floating point) performance per dollar in software when optimized.
(The Cell needs equal, if not more, development work to scale as well in software for its platforms, and lacks Operating Systems on a whole, it'll run Linux and that is about it).

Space: The PC only uses about 8 times the space of the PlayStation 3, but provides more performance per cubic foot in the majority of software, games included.

Cost: The PC provides 9.333x times the performance per dollar, even though it costs 3 times as much.

Utility: The PC can be used to do more things than the PlayStation 3.

Desktop Resolution: The PC can support 3840 x 2400 resolution on display panels that support it. These cost as much as a good TV for the PlayStation 3 but provide far more 'benefit' per dollar. (Thanks not only to higher resolution, but other factors beyond scope of this thread).

Longtivity of platform utility: The PC can be kept for 5-10 years and still provide good utility compared to a non-upgradable console unit.


  • PS3 (US$850)
    vs
    HIGH END PC (US$2550)

    PC WINS
    DOUBLE FLAWLESS VICTORY
    FATALITY
    NO BLOCKING REQUIRED
    ULTRA PWNAGE

Dude seriously, GOTO CONSOLE_FORUM 8)

1 shader unit = multple shaders? not complicated

Dude seriously i doubt your numbers, processor power is measured in GFLOPS double-precision ie sandra, not peak FLOPS and floating point means piss in gaming thats why the p4 sucked the amd boned home. and i'd like to see your 2.5k rig with a 3840 x 2400 native display, did you ice someone? Task wise gaming is the task, i can surf the web on my PSP..

8800gtx blows 40x core2duos away sure okay get some sleep

from sony:

<PLAYSTATION®3 Specifications> Product name PLAYSTATION®3
Logo
CPU Cell Processor
PowerPC-base Core @3.2GHz
1 VMX vector unit per core
512KB L2 cache
7 x SPE @3.2GHz
7 x 128b 128 SIMD GPRs
7 x 256KB SRAM for SPE
* 1 of 8 SPEs reserved for redundancy
total floating point performance : 218
GFLOPS
GPU RSX @550MHz
1.8 TFLOPS floating point performance
Full HD (up to 1080p) x 2 channels
Multi-way programmable parallel floating
point shader pipelines

1.8 TFLOPS hmmm looks like alot more than the 520 GFLOPS of the 8800TX WOOOOHAAAAAAHAAAAAAAA HAHA

So the PS3 has a cpu that equals a core2duo e6600 2.4Ghz and a GPU thats 3.5x better than a 8800GTX thats whats I call OWNED!
 
high end / does your pc output 1080p (1920 × 1080) smoothly over HDMI?
Click to expand...

This topic is getting way out of hand. I dont know or care if my computer does 1080i or p nativly personaly i cant stand playing games uncer 1920x1440 right now i settle for 1920x1200 only because my LCD is limited by it. But yes at those three resolutions my computer runs games smoothly and flawlessly.

As far as high def support no i doubt i have that but then again alot of what i have been reading is so far the high def support ps3 has remains to be seen if at this time is even worth all its hype.

You run those resolutions to stay native to your display and not trigger a recode/resize and for sharpness (HD). HDMI connection is DRM forced on us but basically no digital HD content will play from certain studios without it, they downgrade output to dvd quality. Once again i'm addressing a ~$600 PC not a $3,000+ one. Unless you have Blu-ray or HD-DVD you haven't experienced HD content.

My pc with out monitor is more about half or less then a $3000 system if i spent $3000 on a computer it would be at least 2x better then the one i have.

For my LCD yes i am stuck in that resolution for reasons stated but this is the only LCD i have with a bunch of other 21" crt's which i can do over 2000x1500 (dont know the exact resolution numbers) There is nothing truely special about the ps3 when it comes to HD content it just has all the nessisary hardware already prebuilt into it. I could get the same hardware for my pc if i wanted HD course there really isnt any reason for it yet since the content isnt yet really available.

@Opterondo its a single core chip xbox is a 3 core chip pc's are 1 to 4 core chips soon to be 8 core. you can give me links to this thread of stuff i have already read but that doesnt change those facts.

.. believe what you want but if you think the PS3 is single core your on meth and crack and weed

I dont do drugs and your assumption that i do is idiotic. its a single core cpu you believing it isnt doesnt change that.

"The PS3’s cell processor has 1 Power PC core similar to that of the 3 Power PC cores sustaining the 360’s 3 core design (without the vmx-128 enhancements available on each of the 360’s cores) and 7 SPE (synergistic processing element). The 8th is disabled to improve yields. One of the SPE is used to run the PS3’s operating system while the other 6 are available for games. The reason the PS3’s CPU will be significantly more difficult to program for is because the CPU is asymmetric, unlike the 360’s CPU. Because of the PS3 CPU only having 1 PPE compared to the 360’s 3, all game control, scripting, AI and other branch intensive code will need to be crammed into two threads which share a very narrow execution core and no instruction window. The cell’s SPE will be unable to help out here as they are not as robust; hence, not fit for accelerating things such as AI, as it’s fairly branch intensive and the SPE lacks branch prediction capability entirely."

The PPE's entire purpose is to control the 8 SPEs, the xbox360 has no PPE unit.

from wiki your a noob

The PS3's 3.2 GHz Cell processor, developed jointly by Sony, Toshiba and IBM ("STI"), is an implementation to dynamically assign physical processor cores to do different types of work independently. It has a PowerPC-based "Power Processing Element" (PPE) and six accessible 3.2 GHz Synergistic Processing Elements (SPEs), a seventh runs in a special mode and is dedicated to OS security, and an eighth disabled to improve production yields.
 
I'm more then amased how blindly wrong you are.

P-4 had no where as comparable floating point as the athlon did at the time. And yes some games do take advantage of it like most unreal engine games.

The cpus in any console are not comparable to any desktop cpu.

Ill appoligise now to everyone here that knows what you do not with my extreamly long post.

your statment: GPU thats 3.5x better than a 8800GTX thats whats I call OWNED!

TRUTH: Alright let’s get underway the GPU inside the PS3 is NV47 based which is another name for the 7800GTX. It has 24 pixel shader pipelines and 8 vertex shader pipelines. It’s capable of 136 shader operations per clock and according to Sony it has 256MB of GDDR3 memory at 700MHZ and performs 74.8 billion shader operations per second. Sony also said it’s capable of 1.8 teraflops, which I can tell everyone right now with 100% confidence isn’t true (numbers game) I’m not entirely sure of all the little tricks they used to arrive at such an extreme flops number, but rest assured it isn’t a type of a performance this GPU will ever really achieve. PC videocards such as the X1900XTX have far more raw horsepower than either of the 2 videocards in either console and is pushing a GPU clock speed of up to 650MHZ (some have shipped at 675MHZ) along with 24 more pixel shader pipelines and yet the X1900XTX is just over 500GFLOPS so to even begin entertaining the thought that a less advanced GPU with significantly less raw power could brute force 1.3 teraflops better performance is wishful thinking, but there is no cause to be angry at Sony in this case as they are entitled to market their product regardless of how they choose to do it. As long as they avoid disturbingly untrue statements about the competition its all fair game as far as I’m concerned)

now on to the cpu.

Your statment: So the PS3 has a cpu that equals a core2duo e6600 2.4Ghz

TRUTH: Both the 360 and PS3’s CPUs are heavily stripped down compared to what most of us are probably using on our desktop computers to view this article. Both consoles are labeled as 3.2GHZ, but they don’t offer performance comparable to that of a typical Athlon 64 3200+ or better than even an Athlon XP 2800+ CPU. The CPUs inside the Xbox 360 and PS3 are “In-Order Execution” CPUs with narrow execution cores, whereas what we use on our computers are classified as “Out-of-Order Execution” CPUs with wider execution cores.

The onyl thing being owned here is you since you dont seem to know much about the hardware yet throw out i think the term is fud in place of fact.
 
Umm is it just me or didn't Intel present an 80 core processor at the IDF this year? So what's so impressive about cell technology? Within a year or two all of the buzz will be gone because high core counts or dsp junks will be the norm.. or at least you'd think so at the rate things are going...
Click to expand...

its not about the number of cores but about how they function in a cell configuration a front "core" configures and guides the operation of the slave "cores" similar to the human brains operation
 
Well once again I never said PCs were weak I said dollar for dollar they are weak and not specifically designed for gaming ..

You system is an overclocked $400 processor + other system costs - whats your point no one ever said the PS3 was an unbeatable supercomputer?
Click to expand...

First and foremost: Modern GPUs have a hell of a lot more than "one" shader unit. Do some damn research console monkey. 😳 8) :wink:

A US$850 PlayStation 3 vs a US$2550 PC (three times the price).

As for the PCs not being designed (or adaptable) for gaming...

The GeForce 8800 GTX has the floating point calcuation power of 40 Core 2 'cores'. That is the equiv~ of 20 x Core 2 Duo's (2.66 GHz ones) worth in floating point, SPE / stream processing wise.

Considering the PC only costs 3 times as much, but has 28 times the floating point processing power :roll: ('Sh', 'C+' SPE / Stream processing inclusive as optimized software on both platforms will offload to each platforms 'SPE' or 'Steam processors').

Here are the final figures:
Watts: The PC provides 5 to 8 times the performance per watt.

Performance: The PC provides 28 times the (floating point) performance per dollar in software when optimized.
(The Cell needs equal, if not more, development work to scale as well in software for its platforms, and lacks Operating Systems on a whole, it'll run Linux and that is about it).

Space: The PC only uses about 8 times the space of the PlayStation 3, but provides more performance per cubic foot in the majority of software, games included.

Cost: The PC provides 9.333x times the performance per dollar, even though it costs 3 times as much.

Utility: The PC can be used to do more things than the PlayStation 3.

Desktop Resolution: The PC can support 3840 x 2400 resolution on display panels that support it. These cost as much as a good TV for the PlayStation 3 but provide far more 'benefit' per dollar. (Thanks not only to higher resolution, but other factors beyond scope of this thread).

Longtivity of platform utility: The PC can be kept for 5-10 years and still provide good utility compared to a non-upgradable console unit.


  • PS3 (US$850)
    vs
    HIGH END PC (US$2550)

    PC WINS
    DOUBLE FLAWLESS VICTORY
    FATALITY
    NO BLOCKING REQUIRED
    ULTRA PWNAGE

Dude seriously, GOTO CONSOLE_FORUM 8)

1 shader unit = multple shaders? not complicated

Dude seriously i doubt your numbers, processor power is measured in GFLOPS double-precision ie sandra, not peak FLOPS and floating point means piss in gaming thats why the p4 sucked the amd boned home. and i'd like to see your 2.5k rig with a 3840 x 2400 native display, did you ice someone? Task wise gaming is the task, i can surf the web on my PSP..

8800gtx blows 40x core2duos away sure okay get some sleep

from sony:

<PLAYSTATION®3 Specifications> Product name PLAYSTATION®3
Logo
CPU Cell Processor
PowerPC-base Core @3.2GHz
1 VMX vector unit per core
512KB L2 cache
7 x SPE @3.2GHz
7 x 128b 128 SIMD GPRs
7 x 256KB SRAM for SPE
* 1 of 8 SPEs reserved for redundancy
total floating point performance : 218
GFLOPS
GPU RSX @550MHz
1.8 TFLOPS floating point performance
Full HD (up to 1080p) x 2 channels
Multi-way programmable parallel floating
point shader pipelines

1.8 TFLOPS hmmm looks like alot more than the 520 GFLOPS of the 8800TX WOOOOHAAAAAAHAAAAAAAA HAHA

So the PS3 has a cpu that equals a core2duo e6600 2.4Ghz and a GPU thats 3.5x better than a 8800GTX thats whats I call OWNED!

Haha, you're so right! The PS3 is has so much power that it can't even handle Crysis! Wait...

Ehem, and I quote, "Next-generation consoles like the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3 do not offer the sufficient power" to handle Crysis, Diemer said at the Games Convention at Leipzig, according to German publication Heise.

So wait, our petty little PC's can handle Crysis all fine and well, but your big bad PS3 doesn't offer the sufficient power to get all the eye candy out of Crysis, I see something wrong here.
 
The SPEs in the cell don't really count as real cores. They just... don't. They're kinda like little helpers to the power pc core

the cell only costs $89

the big question: Engineering miracle or marketing tactic?


buz20367.gif


linkage: http://www.isuppli.com/news/default.asp?id=6919
Click to expand...

your statement is flawed, price is irrelevant, this is a wholesale contract pricing between sony and partners not retail over-the-counter .. sony is obligated to take delivery of 100s of thousands of cpus from ibm etc for a discount pricing that is simple wholesale marketing. buy low under contract = more risk
 
FROM IGN

E3 2005: PS3 to Output 1080p
An HD revolution in the making.
by Ivan Sulic

May 16, 2005 - Among one hundred billion other bits of technical information, we recently learned that the PlayStation 3 would be capable of outputting a 1080 progressive scan image.
Click to expand...
Try using a more recent link:
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/707/707540p1.html

Quote:
Gran Turismo HD was the only confirmed 1080p game at the show.

I underline "confirmed" as other games still might make the jump to 1080p...but most are 1080i and 720p.
Click to expand...
dude -May 10, 2006- from your link post something after launch please
:?:

???? :?: :?: :?: system has launched so we can refer to games releaseed -- my post before was refering to hardware capability but if you want to talk games nba '07 is 1080p ...
 
Opterondo - It's MadModMike with a 98% console content flavour goodness
:idea: [APPLAUD] :idea:

"When you try to invest in a fantasy, ultimately your reality is what suffers." - Unknown ; if you are a Microsoft (Pro: Xbox 360) forum plant, designed to infiltrate forums and make everyone hate the Sony PlayStation 3 you've completed your mission - Well done soldier.

Now everyone on TomsHardware hates the PlayStation 3. :wink:

Go over here: http://www.linuxuser.co.uk
Look for Issue #65, it is about installing Linux on a PlayStation 3, I actually have the mag in front of me.

You've come here to talk, lets talk.

Tip of the Day: (1) Click [Ignore] on my posts. (2) Click All on this Thread so it is just one giant scrollable stream of text instead of in pages. (3) Print this thread using soft paper. (4) Enjoy your low cost, artistic, toilet paper. :lol:
Click to expand...

WTF :twisted: you SPAM monkey don't misquote people or i'll report you i'm pro-console esp. PS3 (yes even Wii), Pro-apple (good gfx design), pro-PC (no-duh)
 
I'm more then amased how blindly wrong you are.

P-4 had no where as comparable floating point as the athlon did at the time. And yes some games do take advantage of it like most unreal engine games.

The cpus in any console are not comparable to any desktop cpu.

Ill appoligise now to everyone here that knows what you do not with my extreamly long post.

your statment: GPU thats 3.5x better than a 8800GTX thats whats I call OWNED!

TRUTH: Alright let’s get underway the GPU inside the PS3 is NV47 based which is another name for the 7800GTX. It has 24 pixel shader pipelines and 8 vertex shader pipelines. It’s capable of 136 shader operations per clock and according to Sony it has 256MB of GDDR3 memory at 700MHZ and performs 74.8 billion shader operations per second. Sony also said it’s capable of 1.8 teraflops, which I can tell everyone right now with 100% confidence isn’t true (numbers game) I’m not entirely sure of all the little tricks they used to arrive at such an extreme flops number, but rest assured it isn’t a type of a performance this GPU will ever really achieve. PC videocards such as the X1900XTX have far more raw horsepower than either of the 2 videocards in either console and is pushing a GPU clock speed of up to 650MHZ (some have shipped at 675MHZ) along with 24 more pixel shader pipelines and yet the X1900XTX is just over 500GFLOPS so to even begin entertaining the thought that a less advanced GPU with significantly less raw power could brute force 1.3 teraflops better performance is wishful thinking, but there is no cause to be angry at Sony in this case as they are entitled to market their product regardless of how they choose to do it. As long as they avoid disturbingly untrue statements about the competition its all fair game as far as I’m concerned)

now on to the cpu.

Your statment: So the PS3 has a cpu that equals a core2duo e6600 2.4Ghz

TRUTH: Both the 360 and PS3’s CPUs are heavily stripped down compared to what most of us are probably using on our desktop computers to view this article. Both consoles are labeled as 3.2GHZ, but they don’t offer performance comparable to that of a typical Athlon 64 3200+ or better than even an Athlon XP 2800+ CPU. The CPUs inside the Xbox 360 and PS3 are “In-Order Execution” CPUs with narrow execution cores, whereas what we use on our computers are classified as “Out-of-Order Execution” CPUs with wider execution cores.

The onyl thing being owned here is you since you dont seem to know much about the hardware yet throw out i think the term is fud in place of fact.
Click to expand...

Your a fud factory cause your posting opinion and i'm posting provable fact from sources ie. sandra, wiki, sony, etc. RSX (PS3 GPU) is based on RV47 technology but physical design has no direct similarities. All over the web 8800GTX is listed as 520 GFLOPS and RSX 1.8 TFLOPS ... I trust the engineers more than you sorry

"which in the total gives a ~520 GFlops performance (billions of FP operations per second)." http://digital-daily.com/video/geforce_8800/index03.htm

see no one ever thinks well maybe the ps3 IS ahead of it's time like they claim maybe it'll take 9mths - 12 mths for everone to catch up to the PS3 .. just like the xbox360 - it can't be better than my pc it impossible just impossible
 
Im once again amased at your narrow sighted and how little you actualy know about hte hardware. Problem is all your "facts" are #1 moslty not even close or resemble fact. and #2 theoretical numbers.

Like it or not your wrong you believeing everyone else being wrong does not make you right.

The video card in that system as i stated with a direct quote by someone who actualy went into major detail of the specs is no where near as powerfull as a 8800 your kidding your self if you think its better let alone matchs it. If you trust inflated numbers it will NEVER in its dreams get then fine thats why they do it beacuse people like your self believe anything a company says blindly with out looking for the facts. This is why amd was forced to use a speed rating instead of mhz rating because the uneducated about frequincy thought higher number means better. you defanitly fit in this uneducated about hardware catagory.

I'm more then aware of the speed ratings of the new nvidia and my own video card. They are even over inflated however not nearly as much as the video card in the play station.

The xbox is also not better then a pc however its video card CAN get its max rating because of some extra piece of hardware they added to thier box. here let me get another quote youll ignore because it doesnt conform to your fanboy beliefe system.

Want to know why Xenos doesn’t need as much raw horsepower to outperform say something like the x1900xtx or the 7900GTX? It makes up for not having as much raw horsepower by actually being efficient enough to fully achieve its advertised performance numbers which is an impressive feat. The x1900xtx has a peak pixel fillrate of 10.4Gigasamples a second while the 7900GTX has a peak pixel fillrate of 15.6Gigasamples a second. Neither of them is actually able to achieve and sustain those peak fillrate performance numbers though due to not being efficient enough, but they get away with it in this case since they can also bank on all the raw power. The performance winner between the 7900GTX and the X1900XTX is actually the X1900XTX despite a lower pixel fillrate (especially in higher resolutions) because it has twice as many pixel pipes and is the more efficient of the 2. It’s just a testament as to how important efficiency is. Well how exactly can the mere 360 GPU stand up to both of those with only a 128 bit memory interface and 500MHZ? Well the 360 GPU with 4XFSAA enabled achieves AND sustains its peak fillrate of 16Gigasamples per second which is achieved by the combination of the unified shader architecture and the excessive amount of bandwidth which gives it the type of efficiency that allows it to outperform GPUs with far more raw horsepower. I guess it also helps that it’s the single most advanced GPU currently available anyway for purchase. Things get even better when you factor in the Xenos’ MEMEXPORT ability which allows it to enable “streamout” which opens the door for Xenos to achieve DX10 class functionality. A shame Microsoft chose to disable Xenos’ other 16 pipelines to improve yields and keep costs down. Not many are even aware that the 360’s GPU has the exact same number of pipelines as ATI’s unreleased R600, but to keep costs down and to make the GPU easier to manufacture, Microsoft chose to disable one of the shader arrays containing 16 pipelines. What MEMEXPORT does is it expands the graphics pipeline in more general purpose and programmable manner.

Now since you apperantly think these are my opinions (you are once again as you have been this whole thread vary wrong)
you might want to try reading the link posted earlyer which btw has been showing you how little you actualy know about the subject this whole time yet you still ignore it.

here is a interesting quote i got from wiki that reminded me of you.

The stereotypical image of the fanboy is as an unkempt, socially awkward, young man who may be perceived as a loud mouthed pseudo-intellectual. A popular depiction of this stereotype is the Comic Book Guy on The Simpsons. They generally remain loyal to their particular obsession, disregarding any conflicting opinions or facts, are often forcefully dismissive of opposing brands, characters or points of view - regardless of their merits - and are likely to be involved in Internet flame wars.

Edit http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fanboy i came acrost this as well. Seems to define alot of your posts.

Fact is your wrong fact is the ps3 is not technicaly better then a pc and the fact is the single core cpu in that box is not better then desktop cpus the fact is the video card isnt even comparable to the xbox video card let alone a desktop one.

the undesputable fact is you are 100% wrong you refuse to see it your self as your clouded in the fud you spew but you sir are wrong.

believing something else will not change the facts no matter how much you want to ignore them.
 
crysis

wow and guess what

crysis is dx10 native so they mean't than when they port it to the consoles it will look different .. revelational
 
They ment the consoles could not run the game at its intended visuals because the consoles werent powerfull enough to do so. One main reason is almost total lack of dx10 support. However the xbox can support alot of the dx10 fetures but not all. and the ps3 will fail that 100% so yeah on the ps3 i expect it will look alot worse then on a PC or xbox
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom