PS3 VS HIGH END PC

Page 5 - 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.
The GPU structure of the consoles are most of the time 1-2 years ahead of the current PC technology.
Click to expand...

That's the case for the Xbox, since the R520 is far ahead of what's out there, but considering that the PS3 uses the RSX chip which is basically the GF7900, whichis a 90nm shrink of the GF7800, which is really the NV47 we were expecting over a year ago., the PS3 from the start was destined to have a graphics core that is equal to or behind the best desktop.

Because the firms simply don't want the consoles to be outdated easily. So if you compare a PS3 and a high performance PC at the time of the release you will probably see that PS3 simply outperforms in games.
Click to expand...

Except that the PS3 in particular has been pushed back SO FAR that a 2xdual-core (ie 4 core) desktop running 2 G80 or 2R600 will likely blow it away. Even by the time the PS3 is finally released the Xbox360 will likely be 3rd fiddle feature wise to the two chips I just mentioned.

Again it is pointless to compare the two other then gaming. At least that is what I think :).
Click to expand...

Agreed to some extent. We can discuss and debate the features, but not the overall effect of the gaming experience.
 
High end PCs will "always" be superior to their console counterparts. Where does the hardware come from that makes it faster? I wish that they made that special magical console technology available for custom built computers.
 
Also i have to say that the original x-box is equipped with a pathetic geforce 2 but the graphics it can produce are still decently good.Tell me if there is any pc with a geforce 2 today and even if there was any the results would be disappointing.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. The Xbox has what Nvidia calls the X-chip, which is a tweaked Geforce 3 card, not a Geforce 2. It lies somewhere inbetween the GF3 and GF4 GPU's. Also, that 7 core cell CPU is no better than the dual core processor that are in production today.
 
what ur all forgetting is that up til the xbox 360 consoles wer unlike pcs.. they were definitely inferior. They required much less powerfu; hardware since you only outputing a low resolution (640 x 480 ish) image and from what i see thers no AA or AF.. you dont really need AA anyway cos the low res TV blurrs any sharp lines anyway. Any pc would massacre them, as we know, play most games at TV resolution and ul get immense performance.

Its only since the XBOX 360 that as far as i can tell, the graphics actully come close to looking as detaioled and gd as those on a PC.. thatsi if u have a hi res monitor to display it all on.

So, the pc is always ahead, since as was mentioned ati and nvidia make the gpus anyway, and they r not gonna loose out on selling their high end gpus to hardcore computer freaks as well as for use in pcs.. it just wouldnt make sense.. I think its games consoles that are the inferor things, always playing catchup with PC technoogy

bt anyway who cares they do different things, specialsed in differnt areas, but as i say its the games console that unsure of itself, and gradually morphing into a PC!
 
erm.. sorry about the revive of old post. but can i know why the emulation of console game are damn slow on PC?
is it because the emulator just s*ck or?
playstation 1 emulator are ok with P3 but playstation 2 emulator are damn slow...
 
@ Grape.

I finally see somebody (besides me) happen to catch that NV47/G70 thing.

You have no idea the emotions I was experiencing over a year ago.
I get a 7800, I'm toying with Rivatuner, the core name displayed as NV47 before the news broke.....i was a little confused at the time.
 
:lol:
Great comparison. Turn any game you play on a PC down to the detail levels of a console, and it doesn't take that much processor or graphics power to run the game smooth as silk. Reminds me of the old Voodoo Monster 3Dfx cards. Made your 3dfx PC games run like silk, and look fairly good, but the resolution and detail level was very mid-range.
 
@ Grape.

I finally see somebody (besides me) happen to catch that NV47/G70 thing.
Click to expand...

LOL @ U bastards replying to this old thread. I had to go back and re-read to figure out what you were commenting on with that. :tongue:

Yeah, I mentioned it in the other thread yesterday, in fact remember we were actually expecting the NV48 the whole time (based on the previous nomenclature NV38 being the FX5950 [the nV 45 in relation to NV35 {FX5900} had already been taken by the PCIe reresh]), and then it turned out to be the NV47.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/21/nvidia_nv48/
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=19992
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20041220031126.html

SO like I said we were expecting NV48 after the ATi refreshes, and we expected a monster then even, and then we waited and waited, and then the GF7800 appeared and was known to not be the vaunted NV50 despite what all the G70 naming wanted to impart to the new chip, but actually was the NV47 we now know it to be.

You have no idea the emotions I was experiencing over a year ago.
I get a 7800, I'm toying with Rivatuner, the core name displayed as NV47 before the news broke.....i was a little confused at the time.
Click to expand...

Oh I'm sure, and remember their GTX-512 refresh tried to also say that something wasn't what we thought it was but indeed turned out to be what we thought it was all along;
http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2005q4/geforce-7800gtx-512/index.x?pg=1

Imagine that, there really is a GF7800 Ultra. :wink:

Why nV decided to dump the name ultra and create more confusion with another GTX with totally different clock speeds is beyond me. What was wrong with the 'Ultra' name other than it confirmed what people had expected from the day the GT/GTX launched?

BTW, maybe we should continue this discussion in the other thread from yesterday and let this silly thing die.
 
Remove the HS/F from the 512 GTX and it carries 7800U right on the core


Yeah...lets let this thing go.

Need linkage to the other thread....

Can ya help a brotha out?? :lol:
 
Well, this topic has been beat to a pulp. You posed a question to a bunch of computer enthusiasts. I hope you didn't expect to get off lightly? Anyways, one thing not pointed out and probably one of the only reasons i would consider getting a PS3 is the inclusion of a Blu-Ray disc player. Obviously, there is a format war going on but if I was in favor of the Blu-Ray, why not pick up a player that doubles as a gaming console. 2 products in one package for a reasonable price. Otherwise, PC trumps console.
 
I really can't see why any of you are still letting this mockery continue. This is def. the most stupid thing I have ever wasted my time in reading. I don't figure how anyone can think a ps3 will perform better when the they are putting an aging video card that came from a pc into the ps3. Also with the cell processor (which everywhere I read) sucks. Just end it its a console and is only better for racing games ect. Not fps' which we all love.
 
Anyway, the PS3 is superior to any computer in every way; in the same way a mac is better than a pc :roll:
Click to expand...
How ignorant can you be?

So you can also do database work on your ps3 or design websites.
So the ps3 has DX10 video cards? Don't think so.
It has a crappy old 5400RPM hard drive and GDDR3 not 4 like the DX 10 8800 cards and 10000RPM Raptors, not to mentions SCSI drives.
http://apcmag.com/node/4581

Crytek even said they aren't bringing crysis to the ps3 or 360 because they are not strong enough
ps3 and 360 can't handle crysis
another

Now can all the console fanboys please just let this thread die. It's bad enough that this is argued about on a pc enthusiast site. This thing comes from bloody February!!!!
 
In regards to the comment about games not using the CPU as much anymore for PC's. This is true, games are now optimised to be heavily GPU oriented because that grants a favorable performance curve. Also, someone mentioned that "who the hell would use 7 cores anyway!". In response to both of these statements I ask the following questions. If you were writing a programming language for a console with a 7 core CPU, wouldnt you make it so that more computing was done using the multiple cores than current games are on PC's?

If you compare a PC to the PS3 in terms of pure gaming, the PS3 is the undeniable champ, at least in regards to performance per dollar. The code for the PS3 is optimised for its setup, so it doesnt matter if pc games are GPU focused, they don't compare this way. Game designers for console's have the ability to create graphics that fit the hardware perfectly, whereas for PC's they have to modify the code in order to comply with hundreds of different rigs so that the most number of people can play the game. Economic's is what slows the PC gaming industry down, no game designer will make a game that can only run on $12,000.00 Falcon Northwest wet dream machines! This is why it is very reasonable to say that on average, the PS3 will out perform in pure gaming power, most pc's for 18-24 months. If rumors of being able to run linux on PS3's is true than we can really see what the cell can do. The cell, as a concept, the the processor that show what mainstream Proc's will be doing over the next few years. From 4x4 to QXXXX each show that even if games don't take advantage of multiple cores, the advantages are prevalent. Now just imagine if games did take advantage of all the cores, what if there were, say, 7 of them, and lets say that the GPU was an RSX, wouldn't that be something! Suffice to say, consoles inspire the gaming industry to grow, they are what create innovation and better graphics in the gaming world. If not for consoles pushing developers to make games look better than all the games we'd play would be simple and cheap. Consoles let a bar be set for artists to reach, a higher level of gameplay, and an ever more interactive world to play in.

Take some time to reflect back onto what started it all. The economics of gaming plays a pivital role in how it has developed and excelled. As a last note, PC's will be limited by their success, everybody has one, but not all are equal, if you want to sell a game to as close to 100% of PC owners as possible you will limit the outcome to whatever has the lowest risk and highest gain. Consoles are mearly a challenge of utilizing the hardware to the highest degree possible, that is why the PS3 will at least match or out perform nearly all pc's for years to come.


I am a pc user, i don't use consoles, but I am objective about this. The PS3/X360 prove that pure gaming is affordable and offers performance that would cost far less than what a pc could do for the same price (speaking purely of gaming of course). You pay a price for a limitless machine that is a PC, but you pay far less for a limited machine geared for gaming.
 
The only place where the ps3 wins is the price. You don't need 12K to beat the ps3. A simple E6600 (not even, just an example) and a single 8800GTX will wipe the floor with the ps3.

But wait, then there is SLI. You can't get resolutions like that on a ps3. In fact, the only reason a ps3 "looks so good" is because tv's don't have resolutions as high as a pc. 640x480 looks totally different on a tv and a pc. Try connecting a ps3 to a hdtv and put it next to a high end pc's screen. The difference is astounding.
 
About three years ago i would have fulley agreed to what this guy is stateing.

BUT now I have to say one thing that almost all Console Fan boys never mention

XBOX 360 - $300
PS3 - $700
Nintendo Wii - $250

Gaming PC w/ monitor and speakers- $2,500

Now here is what is failed to be mentioned

now the XBOX 360 and PS3 WILL ONLY LOOK THEIR BEST ON A HD 1080P SCREEN

Cost of a full 1080P Screen - $3,000 average (screen size pending
cost of Surround Sound Sterio - $500 (Budget)

Monthly Subscription for online gaming for XBOX 360 or PS3 - $10-15
Monthly Subscription for online gaming for PC - EL ZILCHO, NADA, $0
(Note World of Warcrack is excluded as with most MMORPG's)

SO now which would you rather fork over

$2500 for complete Gaming PC setup

or

$4,250 for complete console setup
 
Anyway, the PS3 is superior to any computer in every way; in the same way a mac is better than a pc :roll:
Click to expand...
How ignorant can you be?

So you can also do database work on your ps3 or design websites.
So the ps3 has DX10 video cards? Don't think so.
It has a crappy old 5400RPM hard drive and GDDR3 not 4 like the DX 10 8800 cards and 10000RPM Raptors, not to mentions SCSI drives.
http://apcmag.com/node/4581

Crytek even said they aren't bringing crysis to the ps3 or 360 because they are not strong enough
ps3 and 360 can't handle crysis
another

Now can all the console fanboys please just let this thread die. It's bad enough that this is argued about on a pc enthusiast site. This thing comes from bloody February!!!!

He was being sarcastic :roll:
 
The real question should be 360 vs PC because of the 360s Unified RAM and Xenons (360 graphics card) unified pixel pipelines!
 
My bad. I was afraid something like that'll happen today. I'm so damn tired and all the work isn't helping.

I have a valid point though. No use in me editing it coz you quoted me already.
 
I also read something interesting about the game Call of Duty 3.

This game is (for now) exclusively on consoles. There's 3 versions : Wii, 360 and PS3. Of course on the Wii, it looks real bad and there's no multiplayer, due to the console's less advanced hardware.

The interesting point is that, based on the Gamespot reviews, it looks like CoD 3 performs better on the 360 than the PS3. The PS3 version has constant drops in frame rates, and the image quality is not really better than on the 360. Of course it could be because of the coding, but I think it could be linked to the GPU in these systems.

360 has an ATI GPU, that if I'm not mistaken, is a modified version of x1800 with features similar to DX10.
PS3 has a Nvidia GPU based on the 7800, again if I'm not mistaken.
The 7800/7900 series has been known to produce better raw frames than the ATI one (x1800, x1900), but when we cranked up image quality, resolution, AA, AF, ATI always maintained higher frame rates (and more constant frames). Maybe that this could explain why the 360 performed better in CoD 3.

And the 360 was released in 2005, so it's probably sure that the PC hardware already surpassed the one of the 360. The Oblivion screenshots in this thread illustrate it quite well. So if my hypothesis is true and the Xbox 360 GPU is stronger than the PS3 GPU, it is quite clear that PC hardware is better and more powerful than PS3 hardware.

(Of course, this is mainly speculation!)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom