PS3 VS HIGH END PC

[Opterondo]

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.

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.

Mhz is not a measure of performance GFLOPS is. Xenos is off topic though I already knew that next-gen consoles could offload gfx load to the cpu, PS3 & RSX can too. The problem is you can only rationalize things to what you know of in the PC realm and the consoles use proprietary technologies that aren't remotely the same in many cases; this leads to your many ignorant, provably wrong claims. I promote you to super-n00b, gratz

 

[Opterondo]

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

Yea i know a ton of people with DX10 PCs ...

 

[enforcer22]

lol after this post i went back and read those links about fanboy and you hit 3 of them at once with a single post awsome.

however this post doesnt really help your case and none of my quotes had anything to do with console vs pc aside from saying the hardware as i have been saying from the begining is NOT remotly close to as powerfull. Im still waiting for you to prove one "clame" i made (which i quoted from a site so they arent really my clames to begin with) wrong. you keep fullfilling the fanboy defanition well but still have yet to put out a ounc of fact to backup your clames. stating specs from sony hardly is supporting you.

Actualy i think you finaly hit your first fact console tech isnt remotly the same as a PC however it still doesnt prove any of your previous clames.

After reading my quote again i dont see anywhere that it mentioned anything about offloading graphics to the cpu. and btw on this forum there are alot of people with dx10 pc's and alot more everyday.

 

[TabrisDarkPeace]

God FFS,
I didn't include the price of a decent TV for the PS3, so I didn't include the price of an equaly expensive TFT for the PC.

(Sigh)

You know what ? Fuck it.
I've wasted enough time with you already:

Button of the day time:

 

[Opterondo]

lol after this post i went back and read those links about fanboy and you hit 3 of them at once with a single post awsome.

however this post doesnt really help your case and none of my quotes had anything to do with console vs pc aside from saying the hardware as i have been saying from the begining is NOT remotly close to as powerfull. Im still waiting for you to prove one "clame" i made (which i quoted from a site so they arent really my clames to begin with) wrong. you keep fullfilling the fanboy defanition well but still have yet to put out a ounc of fact to backup your clames. stating specs from sony hardly is supporting you.

Actualy i think you finaly hit your first fact console tech isnt remotly the same as a PC however it still doesnt prove any of your previous clames.



After reading my quote again i dont see anywhere that it mentioned anything about offloading graphics to the cpu. and btw on this forum there are alot of people with dx10 pc's and alot more everyday.

Yea unlike you I answer questions what someone asks me .. your just cutting stuff from all over the web and not sourcing it, wow. And are so lame you have no answers so you look up fanboy on wiki ... MEMEXPORT allows the GPU to CPU and CPU to GPU processing of vertex-related work (a gfx component).

 

[Opterondo]

God FFS,
I didn't include the price of a decent TV for the PS3, so I didn't include the price of an equaly expensive TFT for the PC.

(Sigh)

You know what ? **** it.
I've wasted enough time with you already:

Button of the day time:

You are a waste of time just leave out the display if you want i dont care i said $600 pc $600 ps3 display is irrelevant

 

[enforcer22]

It was linked already im just taking snips from it. Im NOT getting it from all over the web im getting it from one artical that was linked like i said.

Problem is your ignoring facts and awsnering with fiction.

I have awnsered everything do you even know how to read?

i looked it up because i was looking for a reason you continue to spread fiction instead of understanding the fact.

Actualy until you can show one bit of fact that can backup any clame you have made yet ill be more interested in your posts.

Rather you post stuff that doesnt matter at all to the discussion in order to avoid trying to prove anything you state unlike everyone else here that has rebutted you.

The only person here who believes you is you since most people have by now taken the time to look some things up.

Anyone who truely believes with out a doubt a console hardware is anywhere near to being on par with a PC is highly deluding them selves.

Funny thing is people who buy consoles could care less what hardware is in it they only care about the games. So your missinformation doesnt even matter to anyone who cares about the systems.

Im going to look up memexport since your credability thus far is null and get back to ya on that.

Edit: ok well i looked it up and wow im not surprised.

In addition to its other capabilities Xenos has a special instruction which is presently unique to this graphics processor and may not necessarily even be available in WGF2.0 and this is the MEMEXPORT function. In simple terms the MEMEXPORT function is a method by which Xenos can push and pull vectorised data directly to and from system RAM. This becomes very useful with vertex shader programs as with the capabilities to scatter and gather to and from system RAM the graphics processor suddenly becomes a very wide processor for general purpose floating point operations. For instance, if a shader operation could be run with the results passed out to memory and then another shader can be performed on the output of the first shader with the first shader's results becoming the input to the subsequent shader.

Is it any wonder why everything you state as fact is questioned?

I'm about to goto bed here so i wont be replying to you here soon. I'm still waiting for any facts from you and suspect ill be waiting a long time. I would strongly caution anyone who reads your posts on this matter to ignore them as thus far its purly fiction. You are the only one so far dispite what you say about proof that has yet to supply any hard proof of any of your clames.

 

[weskurtz81]

Really come on man, the PS3 is not more powerful than an Xbox 360 or a PC for that matter. If you want to build a good GAMING pc, you can for not much more than you would spend on a PS3 with the accoutrements. Lets think about this:
$90-CPU
$60- Motherboard
$75 case w/PSU
$100- 1gb memory
$44- 80gb HD
$280- X1900XT
$40- Optical Drive
$40- Keyboard/Mouse
$30- Decent sound card

=$759

Sure it's not a high end pc, but it should be at least on par with the PS3. If you have read what the game developers have said, the PS3 will not be able to play high paced games @ 1080P. And, the 1900XT should be able to play the same games the PS3 would since the PS3 pretty much has a 7800GTX in it. The meat and potatoes of playing games is with the video card, the PS3 doesn't have a strong video card in comparison to todays standards. Not to mention, you can put OSX on an Intel or AMD machine, and in the future it will only get easier. Just a question, what were you talking about with 1280X720? Cause I don't play any games at the resolution. Not to mention, if you already have a HD TV, just plug the pc in and play at whatever resolution you want. If the PS3 can play madden at the reolution, the 1900XT should be able to.

wes

 

[sir_roadkill]

Alert on all decks!!!

We have a console fanboy, he is dangerous and armed with extreme stupid1ty!

As anyone would know (almost anyone, not mentioning any names) most of the graphics power comes from the graphics card (clue in the name: GRAPHICS card).

Lets take a look at the GPU in the PS3: its a G70, basically a 7800GTX. Ok, that was good about a year ago. Since then we had (in order of increasing performance) 1900 XTX, 7900GTX, 1950XTX (arguably even some versions of 7900GT and 1950PRO are better) and last but not least 8800GTX (and GTS). Oh wait I forgot to mention the SLI and Crossfire configs, sorry.

So all your mentions of PS3 superiority are cr@p, get a life. Oh and by the way there is the issue of controllers. The PS3 controls are derivative and can never equal the versitility and precision of keyboard and mouse. As such the most interesting console that hit the market is the Wii due to its revolutionary control setup. However I wouldn't even get that console but instead wait for the controller to be available on PC.

And yeah like Enforcer said you won't reap any rewards of the DX10 (and there'll be many).

 

[weskurtz81]

Well, not to mention, the whole super computer in a console thing(I know, beating a dead horse)..... but it is NO WHERE NEAR the theoretical numbers that sony says, and especially not for the stripped down Cell that is in the PS3. So, it is has an older GPU, not much video memory, and a cpu that is very difficult to code for. So, why blame the software guys, when the hardware company made a console that is much more difficult than it needs to be to make games for just so they can push there own propietary hardware. They are out to create standards, they always have been.... they could have made a much better console, if they wanted to.... but obviously they have higher priorities.

wes

 

[atp777]

Marketing talk from Microsoft and Sony: The processors inside these machines are extremely powerful and cutting edge you literally have a supercomputer in your home as the Xbox 360 has 1 Teraflop worth of computing power and the PS3 has 2 Teraflops worth of computing power.

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 reason they can sell for so cheap is because they are not as robust or complex as what we have inside our computers. The execution theme in both the 360 and PS3’s CPUs is similar to that of what you would see in the original Intel Pentium Processor. (Not referring to the Pentium 2 3 or 4, but the original) This is because they’ve stripped out hardware designed to optimize the scheduling of instructions at runtime. As a result, neither the 360 nor PS3’s CPU contain an instruction window. Instead, instructions pass through the processor in the order in which they were fetched; hence both are “In-Order Execution” CPUs.

Marketing talk from Microsoft and Sony: Thanks to these multi-core processors developers will be able to multi-thread their games and get significant performance improvements and achieve Artificial Intelligence in games that people previously thought impossible for a videogame. It’ll be as if you’re playing with another living breathing human being.

TRUTH: “What is the big deal? How exactly does the fact that both processors being “In-Order Execution” CPUs hurt them? Well, see the 3.2GHZ clock speed for both CPUs? The type of nasty game code, full of branches, loops etc… that would’ve been greatly improved speedwise, thanks to out-of-order execution and a wider execution core is not there to help, so that 3.2GHZ actually performs slower than out-of-order execution CPUs available to desktop computer users.

This brings us to the very reason why both the PS3 and Xbox 360 are using multiple processors in an effort to combat the lack of an instruction window and the fact that they have a narrow execution core. It gets even better, because this very same code that they hope to speed up using parallelism on multiple cores isn’t by any means parallel programming friendly.

On the other hand, Graphics-related code is great on both these processors, as graphics code is nice and parallelism friendly. There is a reason people consider graphics accelerators to be the poster child for parallelism. As a matter of fact, it’s the most successful form of parallelism the field of computer science has ever witnessed. GPUs are able to get all transistors firing that actually produce a significant real world benefit to the people using the product.

For the CPU to become more like the GPU is the ultimate goal for many and AMD together with ATI seem to be going for it. The cell processor is actually one such attempt to do so, but it’s not yet at the level everyone had hoped. (Perhaps a bit early as a cell like CPU isn’t on Intel’s to do list until about 2015) Long story short, both Microsoft and Sony have given developers more than enough on the graphics side of things, but at the same time, are asking developers to do more with less on the aspects of the game unrelated to graphics.

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.

 

[gondo]

Most people with a PS3 or console also have a computer to go on the net, word processing, printing, etc... People who like to game on a console also try to play some games on the computer but get frustrated cause they have a comcrap or HP (Horse Piss) system that doesn't work worth crap.

The cost of a cheapo computer that doesn't work and a console usually is close in price to a good custom built gaming PC. If you do it right the PC can last the test of time with the odd upgrade. Sell off the old parts to buy the newer ones cheaper.

Graphics, sound, etc... is always better on a PC. And you can't beat the mouse/keyboard combo for FPS or strategy games or RPGs. Online games rule on the PC. LANs require a PC. Widescreen 20"+ LCDs are given away nowadays to make the PC gaming experience that much better. a $600 set of Creative Cambridge Soundworks Gigawors speakers will blow tha pants of any $1500 home stereo.

The gaming PC also doubles for DVDs, Music, DVD creation, Photo editing, internet, printing, office productivity, homework, etc....

Need I say more.

Only downfall is you cannot rent computer games. But you can download them so it all comes out to the same in the end.

 

[NightlySputnik]

Guys i write this article in order to hear everyone's opinion about this.Gaming and pc i think is a very expensive sport.I have spent many money till now for my pc just to play games and i still can't have the results i am looking for.The ps3 will be much more powerful than any pc that exists today and it will cost only the fraction of the cost of a pc.I personally think that PCs will need at least two years of development for their hardware to be comparable of that to ps3.And i personally think that PCs are not for gaming purposes any more we pay too much to get too little.I personally will use my pc only for internet and office and head for ps3.What do you all think about it?

Sorry to say, but PC, at least high end ones, are already more powerful than the PS3. More expensive yes, but you can do everuthing with it as oppose to play movies and games on the PS3.

First, the power within ;-). NVidia G80 that came out at the same time as the PS3 has double the theorical power of the RSX VPU inside the PS3 for starting. It's also more flexible in what it can do, so better graphic will be possible whenever Dx10 games comes out. Add to the mix the new Kentsfield processor from Intel to fight the Cell. Of course, Cell has more "theorical power".. as long as game designer can use the available power. And it's not the case right now. By the time they'll be able to, in 2 years from now, Intel will have NEHALEM architecture out and AMD will have Fusion. Both will be much more powerful than Cell, without mentionning easier to program for and way more flexible.

Now, if you think that PS3 is a better offer than a PC for gamers on a budget I have some more arguments. First, you need a highdef TV. This cost around 1000$ for a "cheap" 32 inches 720P one. A 22 inches widescreen PC LCD with 1650*1050 resolution (much better than 720P, so more beautiful games) will cost you less than 400$. Considering PC gamers are sitting in front of their desk to play, size difference is of no cencern at all. You can always get a deal for cheaper parts, but the same is true on both side. That argument might mean nothing for those of you with a highdef TV set tough. Now, if you have to have, like me, a PC for web browsing and family video editing, that'll cost you at least 600$. I wouldn't wait for any encoding to be done on that PC, but it's possible. You coulg get a 1200$ PC for the same price and play high def games without problems.

So, I understand some poeple are prefering console. But don't come here telling me that PC gaming is dead. PC has big adantages over console. Price is not one of them. But multitudes of possibility of things to do is. And in the long run, that is more than worth the extra money spend on it for me.

P.S.: Last but not least, PC will always kick console gamer ass as long as they don't have mouse-keyboard input available. Maybe not on a case by case basis, but through 100 games, more than 80 win will always be by the PC gamer. And their is absolutly no discussion there. :mrgreen:

 

[Heyyou27]

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!

That 1.8 Teraflops Sony keeps shitting out is suppose to be the combined floating point performance of the CPU and GPU. Do you really think any real piece of code can be made up of only add instructions? A G71 at 550MHz is in now way shape or form faster than a G80 at 575MHz.

Either way, the PS3 will still be limited to 720P with no anisotropic filtering and limited antialiasing.

 

[TheViper]

The 2.0 TFLOPS number from Sony/nVidia is a theoretical limit that is generated using non-operational figures. I have a few friends that work in chip design and the figures they're using are impossible in real world situations. It has something to do with the way nVidia calculates Flop performance by including aspects that have nothing to do with actual performance of the system.

Very similar to the PS2s 75 million polygon performance. Anyone remember that? Turns out that was raw polygons with no textures, no lighting, just plain wire framed polys. Add in actual real in game situations and the PS2 has never crossed 12 million polygons per second. For the record, MS claimed 300 million and 100 million for the original Xbox too only to have 18 million as the actual in game limit thus far. On the flip side of this was Nintendo who claimed 6-12 million polygons yet a launch title yielded over 15 million per second (Rogue Squadron II)

Is the PS3 powerful? Hell yes and no one is denying that fact BUT don't get fooled by the numbers and many of them are just smoke and mirrors. Inflated numbers are easy to sell and not completely lies so they can get away with it.

If you are unfamiliar with this discrepancy from nVidia on how they inflate FLOPS, do a few Google searches on it.

The fact that Crytek stated the game Crysis would have to be downgraded to run on the PS3 says it all.

 

[NightlySputnik]

The fact that Crytek stated the game Crysis would have to be downgraded to run on the PS3 says it all.

BOOM! Best argument since the beginning of this tread. :twisted:

Edit: Corrected syntax. English is easier than French... but not easy for me

 

[still_life]

PC's play their games on TFT screens. You cannot begin to compare the ultra high resolution and response time of a TFT to a standard TV, which is what most PS3's will be played on. Thats why games consoles look good with less power....because they play at shitty resolutions.

 

[still_life]

Wow...13 pages.

The moral is never piss of computers geeks on a computer geek forum.

 

[still_life]

What spec do you have??^

 

[still_life]

Nice for some. :lol:

 

[atp777]

All over the web 8800GTX is listed as 520 GFLOPS and RSX 1.8 TFLOPS ... I trust the engineers more than you sorry

Hmm.......wonder why neither the 360 or the PS3 ever have any ammounts of AA or AF added in their games? something video cards have been doing for the past 8 years or so :roll:


I would love to see the RSX run Oblivion with 16aa 16af + hdr and have all the other options maxed out as the pc has and get 45-50+fps in heavy foilage areas as I do.

Too bad he "forgot" to mention that this is a theoretical number that is impossible to achieve with the PS3 hardware. 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 the PS3's RSX and the X1900XTX puts out just over 500GFLOPS

 

[NightlySputnik]

PC's play their games on TFT screens. You cannot begin to compare the ultra high resolution and response time of a TFT to a standard TV, which is what most PS3's will be played on. Thats why games consoles look good with less power....because they play at shitty resolutions.

No offence, but you didn't read it all from what I said. I said that to enjoy your PS3, or XBox360, you need a highdefTV set, while any computer screen is highdef in the start. We actually had that more than 10 years ago! :twisted:

Plus, PS3 on regular TV set doesn't look, or not even close to say FEAR at 1280*1024. End of this!

 

[still_life]

Oops sorry. I gotta stop masturbating...

 

[casewhite]

All over the web 8800GTX is listed as 520 GFLOPS and RSX 1.8 TFLOPS ... I trust the engineers more than you sorry

Hmm.......wonder why neither the 360 or the PS3 ever have any ammounts of AA or AF added in their games? something video cards have been doing for the past 8 years or so :roll:


I would love to see the RSX run Oblivion with 16aa 16af + hdr and have all the other options maxed out as the pc has and get 45-50+fps in heavy foilage areas as I do.

Some one hit on the reason why PS3 doesn't have AA or AF. It is designned to run with the NTSC/PAL spec display. If you want to really see some poor quality try running the video card on something like Sony KV36XBR55. The video display for the PS3 is optimised for 720p whih is the best picture you can get in TV right now. 1080i is interlaced and therefore not as clear and 1080p exists on paper specs but you can't find a set that will display 1080p without color distortion.


As to the power comparisions DARPA/DOE did tests and the results are as follows:

"To evaluate Cell's potential, Berkeley Lab computer scientists evaluated the processor's performance in running several scientific-application kernels, and then compared this performance against other processor architectures. The results of the group's evaluation were presented at the ACM International Conference on Computing Frontiers, held May, 2006 in Ischia, Italy, in a paper by Samuel Williams, Leonid Oliker, Parry Husbands, Shoaib Kamil, and Katherine Yelick of the Future Technologies Group in Berkeley Lab's Computational Research Division, and by John Shalf from DOE's National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, NERSC.

"On average, Cell is eight times faster and at least eight times more power-efficient than current Opteron and Itanium processors, despite the fact that Cell's peak double-precision performance is fourteen times slower than its peak single-precision performance. If Cell were to include at least one fully usable pipelined double-precision floating-point unit, as proposed in the Cell+ implementation, these performance advantages would easily double." http://www.supercomputingonline.com/article.php?sid=11894 I suggest that you read the entire article , it will be a REAL educational experience for you.

These people are real computational professionals not like the staff here at Tom's or Anandtech or Hexus to name a few. None of the staff at any of these online news sites are qualified to present papers at IEEE international computing conferences. If you want authoritative research for posting don't go here or Anadtech or any of your usual sources. You should read HPCwire http://www.hpcwire.com/ , or Supercomputingonline http://www.supercomputingonline.com/index.php or linuxhpc.org http://www.linuxhpc.org/ or HPCC http://icl.cs.utk.edu/hpcc/news/index.html to name a few of the VALID sites. You won't wind up with a post full of BS.

 

[NightlySputnik]

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!

You know what, let him dream. This guys is pure fanboy and doesn't even have close to the amount of intelligence it takes to understand the difference between theorical number and real ones.

First, let him try to play Oblivion with his gamepad :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: ... and then compare the screenshot to the ones of PC at highend. Check this page as a reference: http://www.jeuxvideo.com/jeux/0001/00017239.htm

One thing not mentionned yet I think. What are these future games, the one that will take advantage of 2GB memory plus 512+MB video memory, do with the 2*256MB of RAM for system and video? Considering Vista will use at most 1GB of system and 100MB of video memory, that leave 1GB and more than 410MB for gaming. I guess that 1920*1200 with high AA and AF become very possible as oppose to PS3 1080P with no AA nor AF.

Like I said, PS3 is great for what it is, a good budget gaming machine, if 600$ is budget gaming . But PC will always have the advantage of best possible graphics. As a lesson of history, try to remember when XBox came out. We heard the same blathering. Now, less than 3 years later, we all laugh at XBox graphics. Same thing is starting anew, that's all. And same poeple will laugh in the end.. except that it'll have cost us more to enjoy more. Looking at it this way, I'd say there is no real winner, only different philosophy.

It ends like that: I respect gamers on a budget, but wannabe power user on a budget don't even deserve my attention anymore, and I'm talking to poeple like this guy here. I'll talk to them, him, when they'll (he'll) get real. End of discussion.