PS3 VS HIGH END PC

Page 3 - 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.
seriously, this is dumb. do you guys even try to think? YOU CAN'T COMPARE THE PRICE OF A PC TO A CONSOLE. The PC is capable of so many more tasks and programs, browsing, file sharing, blah blah blah. So stop trying to compare the price points.

What game out for XBOX360 has superior graphics than a gaming rig for PC that can run 1600x1200 res.?

What PS3 game has superior graphics? None, is it's not fcuking out yet. lol. So funny to see peeps bragging over vapourware. By the time it's out, I'm sure we'll have a new president and China will be dropping nukes on your head so you won't even get to see a single PS3 frame. hahahaha.
 
Your post serves no real purpose. All I mean to say, if gaming is your primary function, 400$ on a game console would be a more price efficent choice than a PC. Yes a PC can do many more tasks, however this entire thread is about PS3's processing power vs. a PC's.

You're taking me as some sort of console fanboy, yet if you could only scroll down a little farther...
 
If you read the whole post, you would have got to the bit where I said "PCs are better than consoles" But clearly you didnt.

Nowhere in the post did I compare console cost to PC cost. In fact, nowhere in the post did I even mention unit cost. It was totaly irrelivant to my point. Had you read the whole post, you would know that

Nowhere did I say that a console was NOT a computer. Im sorry, I ASS-U-MEd that was known by all. Clearly, I did not take into account that an individual like you would require that which is blatantly obvious to be pointed out. Had you read the whole post, you would know that.

Once again, my point is, arguing about hardware in this venue is pointless. I dont care if your running a cray. Its about marketing and market shares. MS and Sony want to sell their products. No demand=no market. No market= no sales. Solution, create a market.

Im not going to rewrite the whole dam post. It was too long to start with, and it only covered a fraction of the variables involved.

Im not going to point out every mis-quote or mis interpretation you made

Im not going to explain why the CPU is FAR less crital to any game than the GPU. That was already done, correctly, by another individual in this forum. Had you read ALL the posts in this forum, you would know that

If you want to respond INTELigently (sorry, couldnt resist) to the post then read the WHOLE thing. Not the first few lines.

In short you clearly just read a few sentences then jumped in head first, eyes closed, mouth wide open. And to top it off you had the sac to make a statement like
"To argue with an idiot, you have to step down to their level, and then they'll beat you with experience."

What do you call a person, who tries to retort by arguing points to a completely different set of factors?
 
I think many of you are missing the point.Have you ever considered that today gaming software for pc is ahead of the hardware?This really means that if we upgrade our systems today we do it only to play in the highest quality the titles that are 6 months or 1 year old.I will tell you an example.There is no pc today that can play FEAR in 1600 x1200 with max quality and antialiasing or black and white 2.It is absolutely ridiculous to pay a fortune to play games in a platform that is not game-oriented like a pc.Has anyone seen screenshots from the upcoming vision GT for ps3?No racing game in pc has these graphics today sorry.I am not an enemy of the pc.I have spent over the years thousands for upgrades but i just think it is not worth it any more.I can do the job with a lot less and keep my pc for internet,office applications etc........


PS No other product on earth is so heavily depreciated over time than a personal computer.A 3000 euros system today will cost under 1000 in 2 years.
 
Anyhow, Im not much for consoles, but you ought to take a look at the emulator programs to see which of your consoles are covered. You dont have to live without Sonic!! And, You could save yourself some storage space by putting all your console games on your PC. Ive seen succesful emus for pretty much everything but the XBOX and PS2. Me personally, I run MAME. Its an arcade EMU (over 4000 original arcade games on your PC...you gotta love it!!!)
Click to expand...

I know you can use emulators, but there is something therapudic about sitting on a couch with a genesis controller in your hand playing Sonic the Hedgehog on your TV. There is just something missing on the emulator. I guess it just reminds me of a simpler time before I had to learn Option Pricing lol.

Side note:
The consoles have a much better life cycle to me. Honestly I am getting tired of the 3-4 month BS that graphics card companies are pulling. Leaving a console out for 5 years is a bit long, but at least the hardware gets mostly utilized (there is always a bit left over). With GPU's coming out every 4 months programmers can be lazy (not meant literaly) and just utilise some new features that nVidia has created. On a console they can do it, it just takes more understanding which is evident in each generation.

Honestly, if I had the spare cash I would probably buy one. However as is, I must deal with just my comp (i know my life is hard lol). I do really enjoy Halo 2 optimatch. There are specified gametypes and palyer ranks. Wish that kind of diversity would come to the PC. I know it is availible, but BF2 seems prime for something like that. Come on CTF with planes dropping bombs on you? Bad ass.

PS - I want to break open a 360 and custom rig a watercooling loop just bc I can lol. :)

All too true.
Though I dont think Id buy a console even if I had the cash. Im vindictive like that, and feel that MS/Sony have already gouged enough cash out of me for one lifetime.

I feel your pain with the GPU marketing. Its just painful to spend a wad of cash on a top of the line video card only to know its already sliding towards obsolesence the moment you buy it.

And I do understand the "Just because you can" route. I did that with an old Streetfighter 2 arcade cabinet. Just because I could. I gutted it, replaced the hardware with one of my old PCs and Viola! Any arcade game I could figure out the controls for. Very theraputic for me.
 
What game out for XBOX360 has superior graphics than a gaming rig for PC that can run 1600x1200 res.?
Click to expand...

farcry for the 360 looks dam fine, but your comparison is that of an idiots. where whould u get a 1600x1200 tv...thats like a $100k 100 inch plasma hdtv.. noob
 
Hi Guys.

I know consols are cheaper, PC are expandible, etc etc.
Before we get so deep in discussion, lets get back to basics.

RAM, what kind?
How fast is the PS3 in textals/sec, vectors/sec,
How fast in flops, intops/sec ?
etc etc.
These numbers might be only theoretical, but we need to start someplace.
The same for high-end PCs please.

I expect a $4000 PC (in 6 months from now) to have more muscle than a $400 console. But what is the advantage exactly?

If all this was already done, what is the link please.
thanks!
 
Too be fair, no-one in this forum should be comparing price's, because the forum is about comparing a PS3 to a 'HIGH END PC' ,if your comparing it to that, then stop moaning about PC prices.

Secondly, PC's are simply a better all around platform, and that includes for gaming! I mean, sure...a PS3 and XBOX360 might have top of the range video cards, but a PC can now have 4 top of the range graphics cards. It speaks for itself really.

As for the CPU here is an experiment for people with decent high end PC's, take out your GPU and see how far your CPU will take you with games, and you'll quickly find that the answer, is not very far! Which proves the point that the PS3's CPU can have as many cores as it wants, it is GPU power that is the real bottleneck in 3D performance in gaming.
 
Consoles are only cheap because they are heavily subsidized. I believe Microsoft loses about $300 for every xbox sold. They can only do this because they collect revenue from every game sold for their console, so they have to hope console owners will buy enough games for them to get back the difference. It's a bit like Printer companies who sell their printers for almost nothing, but rape you with the ink costs.

PC all the way for me. 😀 The main thing for me is modding. I have been modding pc games for a good few years now, and there is nothing better than being able to run your own game server. The dedicated server online model is imo the best way for a game to be online for everyone. The Development company does not have to pay out for servers for everyone, online is free for all players, and server admins can host their own servers.

Imo, a tiny gamepad joystick can't come anywhere near a mouse's speed, accuracy, responsiveness etc for controlling a fps.

You can't really compete in game leagues/ladders on a console, or online communities with their own server they can control.

You can't make and distribute (or watch) demos (videos) of gameplay, infact you can't do anything creative at all with a console.

Etc.

Consoles are only a hollow shell of what online gaming is really about. 8)

The only thing a console can do better than a pc is be easy use. So easy to use, an inbred crackhead could use it without trouble. Once you buy an HD tv, the price difference is not that great between a 'normal' gaming pc and a console.

One thing I do like about consoles are Light Guns. They are pretty much dead now, due to them not working with modern TVs.
 
THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO TURPIT!!!

there that should let you know who this is going to, because if you had read the top of my reply(in message before this one) you would have realized that it was directed towards heyyou, which is why he left a reply to me.

You spent spent a lot of time chastizing me about something I didn't read, when you missed something too. Ironic. I'm gonna ignore most of what you wrote, cause I would probably react the same way too if I was you.

By the way, GPU does count for most of a game's features, but CPU does effect performance, and can have a big affect on how a game will perform. Why else would people spend $1000 on AMD FX processors? Check out benchies on any tech site, CPU power is important.

Um yea, for that guy that called me an idiot about the whole res thing, look at SuperFly03's comment...weird, seems that 1080p res. is BETTER than 1600x1200. I don't understand, do people just feel compelled to talk shit without knowing anything?

Heyyou27, you're right, consoles are an EFFICIENT. But this is the gaming world here. I didn't know a lot people liked to settle for efficient. I thought this was all about power??

And please, mechluke, stop posting, because you keep posting stuff that is incredibly wrong. No PC that can play FEAR 1600x1200??? Have you been hiding in cave?

I'm done with this thread, it's worthless.
 
Dresden,

1) Apparently, your not even smart enough to read your own posts. I strongly recommend you do, since, in fact, the header of your reply (to which I replied) clearly states “in response to turpit” In other words, you replied to my post, regardless of whether or not I or heyyou was your intended target. You have no basis for argument

2) Again, I direct you to the other posts in this forum. Specifically Jag1977’s and theolendras’s posts concerning CPU demands. Their posts are correct. Your opinion is not. Dedicated gaming systems don’t have to run bloat ware OS’s, interface protocols, load or run thru non applicable component drivers, incredibly long ini’s or registries. PCs on the other hand, must, in order to be as flexible as they are. All of this costs processing efficiency and demands higher processor power for a PC to achieve equitable performance in relation to dedicated gaming systems. This, I know as fact, having actually worked on the purest of gaming systems, arcade games. Both as profession, in my youth, and as hobby in my later years. And I can tell you, for fact, that the processors in the old Galaxian games couldn’t even power a 3rd generation TI scientific calculator. The processors in the more up to date arcade games barely approach 100DX performance levels, while the absolute newest gaming processors barely approach the power of an XBOX. As for consoles, they are computers and need some form of os, so most have better processors than arcade games. But, they still don’t need to be nearly as powerful as a regular PCs, since they don’t have to overcome the bloat-ware before executing the game code. Since I know you wont believe me, don’t. Simply run any convenient processor usage monitoring utility. Run it with out a game running. Record the CPU usage. Then, run the utility again, with a game running. Subtract the first results from the second. This will tell you just how much (or rather, how little) demand the game places on your processor. Then, you can come back and argue. You will have no argument.

3) You spoke about people talking shit in relation to 1080i resolution.? Dude, clearly, CLEARLY, you are the one who doesn’t know shit. 1080i is NOT higher resolution than 1600 x 1200. 1080i resolution is 1920 x 1080. This is a 16:9 aspect ratio! 1600 x 1200 is a 4:3 aspect ratio! Different animals, but if you insist on comparing them, then your going to have to do some math. If you knew your basic high school trigonometry, you would know that a(squared)+b(squared)=c(squared). (for bonus points, which you desperately need, name this theorem) In other words, you have to convert the 2 aspect ratios to 1 aspect ratio in order to acurately compare them. If you do convert the aspect ratios, then 1080i, in terms of 4:3 aspect ratio = 1440 x1080. I would say that’s lower resolution than 1600 x 1200. Anyone care to second that? Going the other way and converting 1600 x 1200 to 16:9 would yield an equivalent resolution of 2133 x 1200. Still higher than 1920 x 1080. This is based on hieght as the constant since, in 16:9 vs 4: aspect ratios (ie letterbox vs normal) it is the witch that is variable. Either way you do the math, if you insist on comparing the 2 then 1600 x 1200 is in fact, a higher resolution than 1920 x 1080. You have no basis for argument.

4) Settle for Efficient? vs Power? Dresden, do you even know what Power is? Efficiency? Clearly not. Power is the measure of how quickly work can be done. Efficiency is the ratio of a systems output to its input. I think the word you’re looking for is Performance. Since I doubt you know what that is, I give you that definition as well: The actual output and quality of work performed.
. Performance = FPS, not power. Yes, you can achieve high FPS through brute power. Not efficient. Extremely wasteful. This is what a PC does in relation to gaming. Because it has to overcome all the bloat. You can also achieve high FPS through efficient use of minimal power. This is what a console does. Achieves high performance by using its resources to perform a single function. You have no basis for argument.
4) Again, you have the sac to cast aspersions at other posters here? Dresden, the only person I see posting stuff that’s truly “incredibly wrong”, is you. You’ve made accusations and claims without providing a single shred of evidence or fact in support. Just speculative opinionated suposition. You’re not even posting here-say or rumors. Your just jumping up and down, throwing a tantrum spouting your opinion “..its better, its better”. For craps sake, you don’t even know who’s post you replied when you hit the “reply” button. Dude, what are you? 12 years old?
 
Simply lopping off pixels off the 1920x1080 to get it to fit a 4:3 aspect ratio is short changing the GPU's work load. The same goes by just adding pixels tot he 1600x1200 to get it to match 16:9 ratio, that would overstate the GPU's work load. If you compare the SHEER pixel count, 1920x1080 comes out on top of 1600x1200 on by about 150k pixels. All I was saying is that they are reletively simliar, not exactly the same. your Pythagoreum theorum arguement has apoint in that the aspect ratios are diffrent but it doesn't really matter becaues the GPU still has to render all of the pixels to get an image.
 
Excellent point indeed!

In a pure pixel count comparison, and GPU task loading, I have to agree with you. In retrospect, based on you argument, I dont think my argument is even applicable, and your's is. And, you got the bonus points too!

I believe I owe Dresden an appology. At least on that point. Dam
 
Excellent point indeed!

In a pure pixel count comparison, and GPU task loading, I have to agree with you. In retrospect, based on you argument, I dont think my argument is even applicable, and your's is. And, you got the bonus points too!

I believe I owe Dresden an appology. At least on that point. Dam
Click to expand...

I try to be reasonable :)
 
WTF is this thread doing in THIS forum?

GET the FAQ outta here with this CRAP!

For this forum the answer is simple, XBOX beats current PC beats PS3.

ie R500>R520/580>RSX/G7x graphics wise (not talking speed).

Wanna debate that? Go ahead, but I really don't care about a powerPC architecture where the originator of this thread confuses which one has 'cores' (Xbox is multi-core, PS3 has multi-FPUs but only 1 core!). :roll:

PS, to the dingalings talking economics (a topic close to my heart 8) ), don't forget negative pricing when calculating the difference and how much more you pay for games, peripherals and services over the life of that console.

Now either focus on the graphics or take this somewhere else, because it's boring beyond boring because it's all been said/done before. :evil:
 
Comparing PC vs Console shows how retarded people are.

1) Different Price Tag
2) Different Architecture
3) Different Evolutivity
4) Different Software Available
5) Different User Base

The latest console will ALWAYS be more powerfull than a same price PC.
The lasted PC will ALWAYS be more powerfull than than the latest console.
You will ALWAYS be retarded if you try to compare them.
 
Unlike 1080i/p, 1600x1200 is not the highest a pc can do. Many 21" CRT's do 2048x1536, and if you get something like a Dell or Apple 30" LCD you can get 2560 x 1600.

Even though TV’s may be physically larger than computer monitors, you sit much closer to a computer monitor, so in terms of how much of your view the screen takes up, a pc monitor is probably larger. :roll:
 
I won't disagree with the fact that many monitors can go above 1600x1200 but on a pixel for pixel basis 1920x1080 is pretty darn close to 1600x1200. Just as a general point, how many games go beyond 1600x1200? I'm not being sarcastic, im genuinely curious because I know windows goes that high, but if the games don't then its kind of a moot point. Also TV's clearly scale better, but you sit closer to a monitor, lets just not get into a debate that will be circular and prove no point :).

To each is own, both consoles and PC gamers are here to stay, lets all just hold hands and sing kumbaya.
 
OpenGL games can generally do 2048x1536, higher if you have a higher res monitor, or span 2 monitors.

Eg Quake 3 supports 2048x1536 & higher, you can specify custom resolutions for widescreen. Eg if you have 2 monitors, and set them up to span so it acts like 1 monitor, you can run the game in high enough res to display on both monitors at max res. I imagine quake 4 can do that to (I know q4 supports 2048x1536) so doom 3 will to. Not sure what dx games like HL2 can do, but I would be surprised if it can't do 2048x1536.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom