PS3 VS HIGH END PC

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Anyway I have to side on the PC power as there was an article in the mag that says quote "Crysis will NOT be developed for next gen consoles as there is insufficient power to do the game justice".

Actually it turns out they may very well bring it to the X360 according to later statements, the coding for X360 and DX10 are very similar, and XNA has a new porting strategy to make it much much easier. IMO, expect Crysis to come on to X360 due to the ease of XNA porting, but lilkely not straight over to the PS3 or Wii as they are OGL and their VPUs have less capabilities. Likely you will see a different Wii and PS3 only port of the game that may have reduced features, kinda like the FartCry version for the original Xbox.

The thing is I plan on getting a PS3 eventually (especially thanks to some of it's PSP tie-in features in firmware3.0 [won't upgrade until I have a PS3, I llike homebrew too much]). I'm definitely interested in a Wii in the new year. I will likley get the X360 once the HD drive is integrated and likely when Halo3 comes out.

It may sound like I'm anti-console, but I'm not, I like and own many of them, but it's the BS PR and hyperbole that bug me. Personally I think the debate too often comes down to preference, not the technical aspects, and in that case, really this debate belongs soewhere else. We had far more rational debates about the tech behind the R500/Xenos in the X360 than this thread, and they were interesting, this just becomes fanboi central where people who never post in the Graphics section et drawn in by the title.

 

[steviep831]

I think down the road Microsoft should develop a PC gaming console that requires no installation of the game. Pop it in and play console style. It would be a PC Console game that is also playable on PC. Kind of like a windows gaming console.

Some PC games could be made better that are not compatible with the console though, however all the console versions would be playable on PC. Cross platform compatibility. Alot of PC gamers would buy one of these consoles just an an accessory to their PC.

Playstation and Nintendo could make their own consoles if they wish but a PC console would rule. The boxing, wrestling, fighting, etc... games would finally be playable on PC.

The reason it's better for a game to be installed than played directly from the CD or DVD, is that a hard drive can access information much faster than any CD or DVD-ROM. Therefore, the game will play smoother, you won't have long loading times and you can enjoy the game much better.

********
After reading a lot of the comments here, I just have to throw in my 2 cents. The "next-gen" consoles can not come close to the performance of the average gamer's PC. If you have a PC with a 6000 series Nvidia card or equivalent, then yes, your computer will not perform as well as the next gen-ers. However, you can remedy that by purchasing a $200 video card. That's it. Consoles will be stuck at last year's graphic performance now for about 5 years. In the meantime, PC gamers will be light years ahead as of this month with the advent of the 8000 series Nvidia cards.

Also, it's already been stated here several times that the CPUs found in the consoles don't even compare to the P4 and AMD 64s, which I think everyone can agree, if you're a PC gamer, you have this at the very least. Most hardcore PC gamers are running dual cores AND extreme graphics cards. I've got a PC currently connected to my 50" DLP that spec for spec will outplay any othe next gen consoles. And that's just my home theather PC, not my gaming rig. Yes, I've put in a lot of money over the years, but it's all been over a matter of 3 years. I wouldn't trade away my upgradability for anything.

 

[TurkzZ]

Another thing is that PS3 games will improve over time, look at the first ps2 game and look at the quality graphics on the recent games.

The same will be with ps3 so the graphic you see now are the start of whats to come.

So for gamin i belive PS3 is better and wins, mainly beceuse for a PC to compeat with PS3 over 5 years it will need many upgrades

 

[atp777]

Another thing is that PS3 games will improve over time, look at the first ps2 game and look at the quality graphics on the recent games.

The same will be with ps3 so the graphic you see now are the start of whats to come.

So for gamin i belive PS3 is better and wins, mainly beceuse for a PC to compeat with PS3 over 5 years it will need many upgrades

The moderate gamers PC with an 8800 has more graphics power than a PS3 does period so even with the better development and programming in years to come, the PC will not need to be upgraded if you own a G80 or R600 with a decent CPU.

 

[lordaardvark2]

yeah, exactly. wtf.

"computers win already at launch, but they'll need to be upgraded alot in 5 yrs. to keep up."

niiiiiiice TurkzZ. i bet you test very well in logic.

but, on the other hand, i have a question. why do console games "suck" to begin with? i mean, they certainly don't suck in all aspects, but when you get to the release of the next-gen, current-gen games look just as good in most cases. and i don't mean just LOOK as good, i mean they play as well and have great (sometimes better) stories. why does it take so long for developers to get their stones rolling? does the same thing happen in consoles and i just missed it? b/c i believe a very early dx9 game, Farcry, still stands up very well. i don't mean this to be anti-console, i mean it to be anti-holding out the good stuff.

 

[sirgrotius]

I realize that PCs are obviously upgradable and have greater functionality, but do top-of-the-line PC systems really run games faster? Do they look better than the PS3?

From what I've seen of first-generation PS3 games, they look the same if not better than dual core, sli solutions on the PC.

Maybe it's the high-def displays?

 

[blade85]

Comparing PC games vs PS3 is like comparing hot burnette and hot blonde girl. Both are hot, just different flavor.

hahaha! I love that comment , and I agree.

Pc's are obviously more powerful and at the rate new technology is coming out it will always have an upper had compared to any console.

Not that that PS3 is shit, its not, its great.....but thats about it...its a console. You wont be able to take out its processor in a year and say " i think i'll buy the new 32 core processor for my PS3". Just not gonna happen. The only upgrade path for PS3 will be more "externally" based things + a few internal stuff like hard drives.....or at the end of that a PS4.

 

[TurkzZ]

but price wise PS3 is cheaper as well, i mean getting a PC and keeping it in line for 5-6 years , and gettng it to run gaems at the level a ps3 would is ganna cost ALOT OF CASH.

The ps3 is a one off payment and will last you 6 years at the very least, no hassel, no upgrade , overcloock nonsense, just pure gaming quality.

Now im not some sort of PS3 fan boy, i just feel the two machines are different. I mean PC isint all about gamng while the ps3 is.

So price wise, and also performance wise ill still opt for the PS3.

Also how many of us have the money to keep upgradeing PC's every year, when i Buy a PC it lasts me 3-5 years and if lucky i change the grapichs card and upgrade the ram.

And that Gfx card i buy when i get the pc wont last me 3 years let alone 5 - 6

 

[dmacfour]

my friend got one, and it was pretty cool. I don't the controller is too much of a novelty. If I got one, I could actually see myself using the controller a few years from now. BTW, twilight princess owns; appearantly it's 70 hours long, but interesting the whole time.

 

[lordaardvark2]

XD i kno! i'm so excited! XD

i talked to a friend who has one, and i'm totally buying myself a wii! no amazing graphics, no blu-ray, no renowned online, but its got twilight princess, ssb:brawl, and metroid: corruption. i'm goin for it. when does another shipment come in?

70 hours.... YES! i love long games.



i'm totally goin head first into this next-gen deal, but i have a question... can the wii remote get like uncalibrated or something? are sensor bars expensive? and wtf is the deal with using candles as sensors?

 

[Heyyou27]

I realize that PCs are obviously upgradable and have greater functionality, but do top-of-the-line PC systems really run games faster? Do they look better than the PS3?

From what I've seen of first-generation PS3 games, they look the same if not better than dual core, sli solutions on the PC.

Maybe it's the high-def displays?

When F.E.A.R. is released, if you get the chance to play it on the PS3, it would be a good idea to compare it to the PC version. For reference, it'll be running at 1280x720 so it's already suffering from a resolution disadvantage in comparison to most high resolution displays.
Even on my slightly dated system with 7800GTs, I play F.E.A.R. at 1680x1050 with 4xAA 16xAF. At 1680x1050, the resolution is nearly 2x as high as what the PS3 and Xbox360 output, and an LCD like mine can be purchased for $300.

 

[dietcokedude]

of course PCs are more powerful than a consul. How could the PS3 be more powerful than a PC? wouldn't the PC manufactures figure out a way to jerry-rig the PS3 parts to fit on a PC. There is a reason ATI and Nvidia don't advertise their PS3 or x360 graphics. It's because their PC conterparts are far more powerful. The RISC processor in the PS3 relies on 7 cores and a central PPE that can distribute the load of threads productively but often it can't and cycles are wasted. So the processor is actually pretty ineffective.

 

[Mike995]

I just watched the video in your sig, and.... I think that it convinced me. THE PS3 IS THE MOST POWERFULL THING ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH ALL HAIL THE CELL YES.....






....NOT!!!!!, that was honestly the most bogus video ive ever watched. "A normal pc processor can only handle one task at a time"...... WTF!!!!! ? why is it that our dual cores can handle more then we can possibly throw at them..... seriously Sony BS MORE.

 

[Mike995]

I doubt many things would run oblivion faster then that monster.

 

[blade85]

nice rig 8O

now if someone says a PS3 if faster than that rig, i will beat you with a stick!

 

[atp777]

That is one sweet machine. I really wanna see what Oblivion will look like on PS3. We've seen it on Xbox360 and it doesn't look anything like that.

 

[steviep831]

So for gamin i belive PS3 is better and wins, mainly beceuse for a PC to compeat with PS3 over 5 years it will need many upgrades

I can't agree with you there Turk. What I was saying is that the graphics on the PS3 are ALREADY outdated! There is no competition between the PC and PS3. The PS3 is using graphics are are on par with technology that was available more than a year ago.

For a true gamer who wants to be at the cutting edge of technology and be able to play the latest games with the best graphics, your only choice is a PC. Yes, you may have to upgrade a couple times in the next five years to be cutting edge, but who wants to be stuck with a graphics ceiling of 5 years ago???

I'm sure that PS3 games will look better over time, but they will eventually reach a cap. And so far, from the reviews I've seen, the games available for the PS3 don't look much different than the PS2. Which is what many have attested to here already. The difference in graphics between the PS2 and PS3 as far as the technology contained in the console are not that different.

Also, some people are saying, "The graphics for {insert game name} look the same on the PC as they do on the PS3." I call BS. First of all, if you set the PC settings to the highest playable settings and they look the same as the PS3 graphics, then it is either a programming limitation or the computer monitor they are using is graphically limited.

The only way that consoles can be graphically competitive with a PC is if they integrate a mechanism where the gamer can swap video processors perhaps on a yearly basis. Kind of like you can swap hard drives now.

 

[NightlySputnik]

Nintendo would be my personal choice.

Mostly because the games are what i grew up on of course vastly upgraded. That and the ability to actualy play the original games that got me into gaming is a huge perk for me. Obvioulsy the choice isnt because of graphical power or anything but when it comes to consoles the most important thing is the games since i cant buy and crossplatform them like on a PC 😱

I've prefered PC over console, since I've had my father P3 to compare to PS2, for ease of control in FPS. I'm still a PCGamer (no publicity here ) but I might very well get a Wii with the money I'll get from my parents for Christmes. That of course is if there's leftover after I purchase my new PC. :twisted:

Bad joke aside, Wii a great to play because of it's remote. I've tried it at my friend house and it's a blast to play. Plus, I won't need an HDTV to enjoy. The low price doesn't hurt either.

 

[TheViper]

i'm totally goin head first into this next-gen deal, but i have a question... can the wii remote get like uncalibrated or something? are sensor bars expensive? and wtf is the deal with using candles as sensors?

You can re-sync your wiimote but you can't really uncalibrate it. I don't think the sensor bars are sold separately yet. Candles, TV remotes and others all can act as the sensor bar because they give off IR which the wiimote reads to triangulate its position in 3D space. The Wii sensor bar has multiple IR transmitters to ensure accuracy.


The only people that believe the PS3 to be more powerful than a high end PC are those that do not understand the technology behind either of them and have fallen victim to the marketing ploys from Sony.

 

[MasterLee]

Let's see, gaming at 1280x1024 or above, not 1080, or whatever else there is that doesn't work on PS3....
I can copy CD's, DVD's, and TV shows to the computer then burn to disk.....
My keyboard and mouse aren't limited by button count or someone tripping over wire, wireless gaming just isn't.........
Can recieve E-mail and send....
Not hogging up the TV......
I have 4 hard drives in my computer now, easy to swap out........
PS 3 overheatsand stops, my computer doesn't know what heat is.........
Games on PC get patched, do they ?
Racing on a PS 3 with a wheel clamped to the coffee table is retarded........

 

[krogoth1989]

I played a few games for the ps3 and xbox360, and though the eye candy is pretty sweet, the games run horribly slow, in my opinion, and usually unplayable (by me).

like why spend 700 on a console gaming system when the games dont even run smooth?

and lastly pc has a mouse & keyboard, which in my opinion take gaming to a new level, such as aiming in FPS games or Strategy

 

[jasonr49]

I'm only convinced of 1 thing after reading the first 3 pages of this totally useless conversation.

Winning an argument on the internet is like winning a medal in the special olympics... you might win a medal, but you're still retarded.

That being said, my 2 cents are this. I have been a computer gamer since 1990, when I got my first computer ever. But I just got an Xbox360 and I am TOTALLY happy pleased with it. Quite honestly, if patching, upgrading, OC'ing, modding... etc, is your cup of tea, then go ahead and get a PC. If you want to sit down at home, and just have an easy, garanteed gaming experience, then a console is the way to go. All performance questions out of the way, that's my take.

I'm actually embarassed looking back through the years how stupid I was. Spending 2 - 3K / year on computer parts. What a joke. Did I have fun? Yah. Do I regret it? No. Have I seen the light? Yes. I'm through spending $$ on stuff that depreciates down to worthlessness faster then Andrew Dice Clay's career.

BUT!! It's totally up to the individual. If upgrading is their thing, that's totally fine. To me, I'm through with PC gaming. Companies releasing Beta versions of their games knowing they can just release a patch... how pathetic. Think about it, why the hell don't console games require patches? Oh sure, some spelling mistakes perhaps, or the minor graphical glitch... etc, but game stopping? System crashing bugs in a console release? Never seen it.

The PC gamers are being gipped. That's just my point of view.

I'll say this, go somewhere and see the Xbox360 on a HDTV playing 1080 res... tell me if it doesn't rock. Personally, I have a 32" HDTV. I also have a 19" monitor for my PC (that I'm hoping to sell)... I can appreciate the graphics WAYYYY more on my HDTV then my dinky monitor.

As far as the joystick, play it a bit. I was "lost" on the joystick for a few days getting used to it and stuff, now though I can get around very well. I can see myself getting as good as I was with mouse / keyboard combination.

You'd be hard pressed to say that the gaming experience on these systems aren't fun.

Bottom line? Do whatever you enjoy. I think it's comparing oranges and apples frankly.

 

[flyingmachine]

I own PCs and consoles. Total apples and oranges comparison IMHO. True, in 5 years your today's PC won't run jack squat. My 4 year old P4 2.6 barely runs current games at minimum setting, but my oldie Xbox and PS2 still have plenty of new content avaiable, some quite good. The thing is, console developers will be making new titles for their machines years to come, how many top ter producers will make a game optimized for the 7900s 1900s in 4 years? I will always game on the PC though, the geek in me do look forward to upgrading the box once in a while, and there are plenty of titles not found on console that are must plays (same goes the other way) In the end, all my hardcore sims on my PC, and when Halo 3 comes out, I'll have to shell out for the 360.

 

[lordaardvark2]

not EVERYONE throws thousands of dollars into their comp every day. not everyone upgrades regularly. not everyone buys stuff at ridiculous prices right when they come out.

i didn't pay a cent for my computer: i got it for free. its 4 yrs old, runs hl2-based games great. if i had more games, i'd tell you how they run, but i'm poor as balls, so i don't.

the thing is, computers aren't the massive money pits that some people make them out to be. they do last a long time, and can still be useful for like forever.

true, i hadn't thought about that, how game requirements do kind of increase steeply... but i don't care. i can do low settings. and i am going to get a console also. so i win. for absolutely no reason. the end. or something.

 

[NightlySputnik]

I want ot start by saying that I'm not flaming you, really, just giving my opinion related to yours. Your argument holds it own, but there's a few things your missing.

To me, I'm through with PC gaming. Companies releasing Beta versions of their games knowing they can just release a patch... how pathetic. Think about it, why the hell don't console games require patches? Oh sure, some spelling mistakes perhaps, or the minor graphical glitch... etc, but game stopping? System crashing bugs in a console release? Never seen it.

1st one is that now than console can connect to the internet, even console game get updated. It's already started and it will only gets worst. Probably never as bad as on PC, because they designer don't have to take into account all possible hardware available on PC as oppose to one set of hardware in console. Another difference with PC is that update process is automatic. It'll be the same with PC when Vista comes out. So no differences there, or come back to me in 2 years if I'm wrong... I might be after all. Read on Vista to know more.

Spending 2 - 3K / year on computer parts.

2nd, for 2-3K you'll have a system that will let you play games at better than console graphics quality right now and last you a good 2 years without upgrade. That puts it a double the console price. But you can now convert your movie, surf the web, PLAY GAMES, name it you can do it. With console, well, you can play games and store musics on it. So for PC you pay more and get more. Winner depends on your habits. For me PC wins hand down and easy. For you it might be different and I understand.

I'll say this, go somewhere and see the Xbox360 on a HDTV playing 1080 res... tell me if it doesn't rock. Personally, I have a 32" HDTV. I also have a 19" monitor for my PC (that I'm hoping to sell)... I can appreciate the graphics WAYYYY more on my HDTV then my dinky monitor.

3rd, playing 40-50 inches from my (to get) 22 inches widescreen 1680*1050 LCD screen is just as good as playing console 72-84 inches away from a 32 inches 1368*768 highdef TV set. Both gets you about twice the distance from the screen as the one of these monitor/TV across distances, but resolution is better on PC. I'd say PC wins, otherwise I can connect my video card on that same highdef TV set and get what you already have. That of course is if you prefer bigger over better resolution. Forget about 1080i, as image is interlaced (do a google search for it and you'll see) and quality will never be as good as 1080P that doesn't even exist on the market yet, apart from maybe a few expensive exceptions.

As far as the joystick, play it a bit. I was "lost" on the joystick for a few days getting used to it and stuff, now though I can get around very well. I can see myself getting as good as I was with mouse / keyboard combination.

4th, I'll take you anytime with your gamepad on my PC.

But, to ends this, and like you said, it's like comparing apples to oranges. Even if I prefer oranges, I don't have to blame people who prefer apple. Still, altough I might get a Wii for new way of gaming, and low price, I'm a PC gamer first because of how polyvalent it is.