PS3 VS HIGH END PC

Page 6 - 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.
Look its this simple... price😛erformance. Consoles like the Ps3 and 360 offer a better performance to price ratio. A high high end pc will easily (well maybe not easily) play any game ported from those consoles at much higher resolutions. If you're looking for a budget buy, get a 360. Less expensive and has a much better looking selection of games coming out for it. Don't let the hype mislead you, just becuase it costs more and is a year late doesn't make it any better.

P.S. Bluray isn't looking very good next to HD-DVD right now... its only currently at 25GBs while HD is at 30.... not to mention the vastly greater support for HD.
 
PC'S 6 Months ago ripped apart the PS3, now with the dawn of Core 2 duo and the 8800 GTX the PS3 looks horrendously slow. Theres nothing special about the PS3 other then Sony's marketing. The GPU in the PS3 is nothing special, its an over glorified 7800 GTX with lower clock speeds and lower ammout of ROPS 12 if im not mistaken. The cell is not this magical peice of hardware that every developer was waiting for. And you really need to simply ignore the TFLOP scores of that console. The processor did not score that... IBM got a score of 256 GFLOPS with the cell running @ 4.0 ghz, without having one core disabled and running 800 mhz slower. The cell in the PS3 does not acheive 256 GFLOPS. And its just my guess but im going to bank on clock speed having a significant effect on the Cell's performance, along with having one core disabled for higher yeilds. BTW the 360 has a more powerful and flexible GPU then the PS3, its really simple, look at the specs for both GPUS and youll easily if able to understand the numbers clearly see that the 360 has a distinct gpu advantage. Either way, the consoles are very similar in performance and multiplatform games between the two consoles will not vary in graphical wonder.
 
We really need to let this thread die. It's been going since february. As with all pointless console vs pc threads, it could go on for much longer.

PC's are superior power wise. no question. no "cell procs the ROXORS". no valid arguments there.

PC's are generally more expensive, but give superior performance, and the games (for the most part) are cheaper or become cheaper faster than console games.

Consoles are cheaper, give usually better performance than a pc of the same price. but you need an hdtv to get the most out of them.

this argument could continue forever. anyone who starts another thread like this should be branded a troll (like mechluke since i don't see him around here after the first couple of posts). we need to stop dealing with this bs :evil:
 
dude, ill go straight to what counts:

1.- a high end pc is what costs several grand (USD) where as the ps3 costs 600.

2.- A high end pc is usually (but not always) several times louder than a ps3 (which brings me to my next point)

3.- A monster pc is for your bedroom office, for solitary brooding and websurfing, a ps3 is to invite ur friends over to play on your giant screen tv (assuming you have the money for one, since you bought that expensive computer), and here is the tie in with my previous point: The PS3 is an entertainment center (save reciever, which again, you already have since that monster pc was in your price range) your monster pc is uncomfortably loud whilst the ps3 is quite quiet.

Honestly, to PCs what is of PCs, and to game consoles; game consoles.

Lets not mix oil and water, two very different things ppl, and thats that.
 
PC's are extremely versatile machines, however, gaming consoles are becoming psudo pc's in some ways, with multimedia, and internet, etc. Consoles are better suited for gaming in some aspects, due to the fact that they have very little overhead which waists system resources like our windows os. Therefore they can specialize at performing one task, the task of using hardware to the fullest to produce a game that looks great. This doesn't mean that PC's for gaming is bad, I think it just means that in some instances for a PC to run a game that looks as good as the latest generation Consoles, they must have beefier hardware specs. For instance, more video memory, system memory and faster CPU's.
 
Can a PS3 run BF2142 at a resolution of 2560x1600? I don't think so. I was at the nVidia Reality Tour and I actually played on their system with the 8800GTX, Core 2 Extreme, etc... Let me tell you this. That PC blows the PS3 out of the water. Also, you can't compare the two systems. The PS3 is for gaming, period, the end. A PC is meant for doing, well doing everything extremely well. Personally I would rather have a PC over a PS3 any day.
 
I would love to see a playstation 3 or a 360 even try to take on my PC. :lol:

E6400@3.4ghz
4gig ddr667 running at 987mhz 4 4 4 5
8800GTX@650core 2100mem
Click to expand...
Yeah, no contest; PS3 for sure! :wink: :lol:
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!)
Click to expand...
The R500(Xenos) is nothing like the R520(X1800) other than the fact that they're both built on a 90nm process.
 
You missed the point, if you equipped a PC with a similar amount of ram, GPU, CPU as the PS3 or XBOX 360 at this point, do you think the PC would run the same game title at the same resolution and visual features as fast as the PS3? This is the difference I'm looking at.
 
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!!!!

Um.. I was being sarcastic, hence the rolling eyes at the end :roll:
 
Did you miss my post afterwards where I said I made a mistake as I missed the rolling eyes due to being over tired yesterday.

I'm just so fed up with the ps3 fanboys. More than half of my friends have ps2's and are already giving me $hit and the ps3 is only releasing here in march!!!
 
Well, the question I want to ask is... why the hell does it matter. But, I will try to answer. NO, it won't. If you were running the same operating system, and the same chopped down games, then it might. Otherwise I doubt it. But, at the same time, you can't buy the cell cpu and play games on it, much less find any of the hardware to go along with it. I honestly don't see the point of your question though. Even if you find an answer to your question, it is IMPOSSIBLE to build a computer with those specs, and in all honesty, I would not want to. You would be much better off asking if you could build a pc that would play games as well as the 360 would, since it is graphically stronger than the PS3. None the less, PC>360>PS3....

I wouldn't waste the cash on a PS3, since for about the same you would spend on the ps3, you could build a pc that would play games about the same as it would, since more than 1 core isn't really necessary for games, unless it is an in order like Cell is.

wes
 
I think people are getting the wrong idea about the whole PS3 vs. PC thing. PS3 is a better for gaming - sure pc's will surpass it but at least you know you'll never have a problem running a game on PS3 (since a gam designed for the PS3 will run on all PS3's) 😛

You pay $600 and you're set for the next 5 years.

Whereas with a PC you pay $2000, then next year you upgrade your graphics card another $600, next year another $600, the following year they've now decided to bring out another type of slot for the graphics card so another $200 (motherboard), $800 (CPU), $300 (because they've standardized a new type of memory as well) and yet another $600 (graphics card). Repeat.

It makes more sense to use a games console for gaming and a pc to do whatever else you need to do.

However, if money is no object, then I'd have to go with pc's better for gaming 😛
 
You are forgetting that the $2000 pc comes with sound and monitor where you have to buy that extra for the PS3 as well. You don't pay $600 to upgrade everytime. It is not illegal to sell your old stuff, no? And you also don't need to buy a new CPU every year or so. For gaming a cheap E6300 is just fine and if they bring out a new GPU interface they will have mobo's with older sockets.

Practicality, I agree the ps is simpler (no upgrades/game requirements) but it is still obsolete (performance-wise), even at launch.
 
I think people are getting the wrong idea about the whole PS3 vs. PC thing. PS3 is a better for gaming - sure pc's will surpass it but at least you know you'll never have a problem running a game on PS3 (since a gam designed for the PS3 will run on all PS3's) 😛

You pay $600 and you're set for the next 5 years.

Whereas with a PC you pay $2000, then next year you upgrade your graphics card another $600, next year another $600, the following year they've now decided to bring out another type of slot for the graphics card so another $200 (motherboard), $800 (CPU), $300 (because they've standardized a new type of memory as well) and yet another $600 (graphics card). Repeat.

It makes more sense to use a games console for gaming and a pc to do whatever else you need to do.

However, if money is no object, then I'd have to go with pc's better for gaming 😛
Click to expand...

I can see how it could be better for gaming if thats teh type of gaming you like. However i dont so tis not better for me.

I look at it more as your stuck in time for 5 years never going anywhere which thankfully isnt a problem in a PC since i can upgrade it.

It deosnt make more sense to game on a console and use a pc for anything else unless you want to do that.

I have no idea what gave the op of this thread the idea the ps3 was better then any pc let alone even comparable to a high end one. Now the graphics card in a xbox is vary vary nice however would doubtfully hold up to a computer in even the terms of graphics in the next couple months. i read a vary extensive artical about the hardware in both box's and seriously only thing i can say from a hardware standpoint is xbox all the way and i hope sony gets some good games for once.
 
Great points. I like gaming on a pc much more than on a console anyday as well, even though my graphics are all very low. The limited options with the controller just doesn't compare to my mouse and keyboard. I have a controller for my pc and all I use it for is final fantasy 7 8, or 9 because I need to press more buttons than what my keyboard allows.
 
lol @ this thread.

Only good thing about consoles = sports games.

First person shooters blow on consoles just because I'm so used to being incredibly accurate with my mouse.

I use my PS2 as a dvd player.
 
I have to say that yeah the PS3 is nice and a good gaming console, but in a few months PC will top the PS3 and months from then PS3 will be outdated
like all consoles which makes to PC superior to all of the consoles bucause PC's can do basically everything and more. So with that said, all hands down
for the PC .
 
Yeah, who wouldnt ather have a 3000 dollar pc over a ps3, but not everyone can go out and buy a pc like that... the 8800GTX costs as mucha as a ps3.
 
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!!!!

Um.. I was being sarcastic, hence the rolling eyes at the end :roll:

lol noob, the 8800 runs off gddr3.
 
Yeah, who wouldnt ather have a 3000 dollar pc over a ps3, but not everyone can go out and buy a pc like that... the 8800GTX costs as mucha as a ps3.
Click to expand...

3000 dollar PC/parts make better eyecandy than a PS3 =]
LAN Party ftw.
 
Yeah, who wouldnt ather have a 3000 dollar pc over a ps3, but not everyone can go out and buy a pc like that...
Click to expand...

But most people HERE would. It's a stupid argument, the cost of running a PS3 is much more.

the 8800GTX costs as mucha as a ps3.
Click to expand...

BS, you show me the PS3 currently for sale for the same as a GTX, right now they are $900US on eBay, so really that economic model only works if you were willing to wait in line for 18hrs, and at the value of my time, there's the price of a GTX.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom