PS3 VS HIGH END PC

[ninjaquick]

Thats what i said.

I was trying to prove the point that, sure maybe you can buy it off ebay for 15k but those who bought it in store spent the MSRP of the PS3 to get it. I was trying to illustrate that for the price of the 8800GTX you can get a game console with pretty good performance, with no need for upgrades, where as the 8800GTX is just one part of the unit called a PC, and in order to not create bottlenecs any where, youd have to put the Core2 6800 2 gigs of that corsair ram thats like 1.xGHZ and a pretty crazy raptor raid. not to mention a PSU to power all of that. Seriuolsy man, i respect that you know loads of stuff, ive seen you on lots of topics and usually agree with you, but this once i think you missed the point, At 3000 you could potentially buy the PS3 and a 46" HDTV (samsung 720P Projection Screen @ www.outpost.com = 1350) a copule more controllers and several games, and even upgrade ur hardrive space, and buy you girlfriend/wife a nifty present.

I can see you are a PC user. I personally like anything that plays games (xcept the ds). and i just spent 700 bucks on a new pc, and bought a Xbox360. The Xbox cost less and looks better, and i can play split screen on it, But it does not have the versatility of my PC.

 

[Surferosa]

What a stupid argument. Relatively speaking;

PS3 / Xbox = very good, cheap games playing machine (and, to a lesser extent, entertainment centre) for people that either; cant afford the big upfront cost of the PC; cant be bothered with the hassle of having a PC; dont know anything about PC's but want to play games.

Computer. Highly flexible upgradable machine; capable of perfoming an infinite amount of tasks that a console cannot; and can play games at a higher specification than a console (in the case of the PS3; thats at launch.. not 2/3/4 years into its lifecycle).

And a for $3000 dollar computer vs PS3.. where are you shopping? In the UK £1000 will get you a machine to outperform the PS3 (if it had hit europe)..

In summary, if you play games and a) have the money b) dont mind using a computer c) want a computer for other uses.. then you buy a computer. If your rich, you buy both.

Edit:
Ive just read the above post, and I think you are seriously overestimating the PS3 performance. The 8800gtx is in a league of its own.. heck even the x1950 is a better gpu than whats inside the ps3. And dont get me started on the cell processor.. the biggest load of marketing garbage in quite a while...

 

[ninjaquick]

What a stupid argument. Relatively speaking;

PS3 / Xbox = very good, cheap games playing machine (and, to a lesser extent, entertainment centre) for people that either; cant afford the big upfront cost of the PC; cant be bothered with the hassle of having a PC; dont know anything about PC's but want to play games.

Computer. Highly flexible upgradable machine; capable of perfoming an infinite amount of tasks that a console cannot; and can play games at a higher specification than a console (in the case of the PS3; thats at launch.. not 2/3/4 years into its lifecycle).

And a for $3000 dollar computer vs PS3.. where are you shopping? In the UK £1000 will get you a machine to outperform the PS3 (if it had hit europe)..

In summary, if you play games and a) have the money b) dont mind using a computer c) want a computer for other uses.. then you buy a computer. If your rich, you buy both.

Edit:
Ive just read the above post, and I think you are seriously overestimating the PS3 performance. The 8800gtx is in a league of its own.. heck even the x1950 is a better gpu than whats inside the ps3. And dont get me started on the cell processor.. the biggest load of marketing garbage in quite a while...

You missed something somewhere. I know that a 1000 USD pc is fully capable of beating a PS3. But i was talking about the latest and greatest PC, in response to another post i read.

If you read the thread you would understand that a User mentinoned that the 8800 and C2D had left the PS3 obsolete B4 launch, however, i responded mentioning the price of the 8800 and the price of such a platform that could run 2 8800GTXs, and that this platform could easily reach, in price the 3000 USD range (2x600 for the GPUs= 1200 + 1000 CPu= 2200 + 600 (Corsair DDR21111)=2800 + 160 (2 250gb hardrives for a raid)=2960 and then a cse with a 750 w psu is over 3-400 bucks, thus putting us over 3000 dollars. So i was not saying that it costs 3000 to outperform the PS3, i was just saying why the ps3 is a better buy than that 3000 dollar pc, as far as gaming is concerned.


CRAP again, ive been had, i went off topic: The PS3 and PCs are different and must not be compared... The PC is a solitary gamelay system whilst the PS3 is an entertainment center that is meant to be played by more than one player. Dont compare dogs and cats or mix oil with water. They are two very different systems with very different uses.

 

[Surferosa]

The PS3 and PCs are different and must not be compared... The PC is a solitary gamelay system whilst the PS3 is an entertainment center that is meant to be played by more than one player. Dont compare dogs and cats or mix oil with water. They are two very different systems with very different uses.

Well, I dont think our views are that different then. Only, when you post that you can buy a 46" inch hdtv with the same price- it kinda makes out that the PS3 is better. Its not; a high end PC is well ahead of the PS3- so you are arguably getting a much better gaming experience (albeit a more expensive one). Indeed, I dont know what res your 46" is going to at; but this ia an area where the console gets left behind.

As for whether its a better buy- I dont know that Id agree with that either- I know that the PS2 games look dated graphically now- but they have to develop on a platform that cannot be altered; whereas I can switch the res and detail settings down on my pc and still play current games on a pc I built 4 years ago (and, yes, even oblivion).

But as I said at the start- I agree with you. They are very different, and therefore any comparison over their price (which you make) must also be matched with a look at their capabilities (which other have made).. anyways, I live in the UK.. so I wont see one for 4 months min :roll:

Edit:
Solitary gaming playing system? World of warcraft? Counter-strike? Battlefield 2? Age of empires? Any of these ringing any bells?

 

[ADM-86]

mmm I hate fan boys!

PC IS BETTER !!NO! wait PS3 IS BETTER...WAIITTT....I wouldn't be surprised if a jackass comes here and says that the NES is better then the ps3 and the pc together!!!!!!! KILL IT! :twisted:

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Thats what i said.
but those who bought it in store spent the MSRP of the PS3 to get it...

Had to wait in line sometimes for days just for the 'priviledge' to buy it at MSRP. So no, what you said is nowhere near the same thing I said.

and in order to not create bottlenecs any where, youd have to put the Core2 6800 2 gigs of that corsair ram thats like 1.xGHZ and a pretty crazy raptor raid.

What does a bottleneck have to do with it, it's a bottle neck at already better levels? Even with an X2 3600+ with 1GB of cheap ram is faster than the PS3 and Xbox in multi-platform games.

not to mention a PSU to power all of that.

Which comes with most cheap computers (remember you're now talking price).

At 3000 you could potentially buy the PS3 and a 46" HDTV (samsung 720P Projection Screen @ www.outpost.com = 1350) a copule more controllers and several games, and even upgrade ur hardrive space, and buy you girlfriend/wife a nifty present.

Seriously you are missing the point inwhy the comparison is not the same. Comparing a VooDoo PC to a PS3 is like comparing a an overpriced vanity roadster to a Plain Mustang. However let someone build their own Chevelle, and yeah it might cost a little more but it'll blow the doors off that stock Mustang. And really right now the PS3 has less functionality @ nearly the same cost (be it waiting in line for MSRP or buying one of eBay with that cost built-in). The difference also becomes that they already own the Chevelle body and drivetrain. I could use the same Case, Same PSU, and even the same HD and if I wanted same memory as the rig I built in the original Xbox days as a startig point. It's upgrade costs, and the benfiits far outweigh those of just limited gaming and limited entertainment. The only adv. PS3 right now has is for BluRay, and really the titles aren't there, and it's an artificially low price on the PS3 (because they will get the money back and they know it) and artificially raised price on the PC for such hardware.

I can see you are a PC user. I personally like anything that plays games (xcept the ds).

Yes I am a PC user, but if you think that's all I use, then I'd say you haven't read enough of my posts. I play more Xbox than PC for about the past 2 months. I USE a PC more than anythings else, but not as much for gaming at this time (too busy) I play Xbox and X360 at work and with friends (Gears of War is a sweet game to bad not on PC). I also own a PSP, and have had, a Gamecube, PS2, PS1, N64, SNES, NES, Sega Genesis, ColecoVision (computer+console), Intellivision, Atari, and Pong/Hockey unit. And I'll probably get a Wii in the New Year, and maybe a PS3 depending on BluRay and game titles. I know both camps, but like I said earlier in this forum and this thread, this is not the place for this silly debate, there is only 1 winner here, and people who try and defend Consoles always use the hyperbole of the price without factoring every other cost, and then the setup, as if PCs didnt have more output options (Display devices and Resolutions, etc),as if they don't have controllers, can't be put in living rooms, nor could be quiet (PS the PC can be much quieter than either the X360 or PS3)

The Xbox cost less and looks better,

Case Asthetics are pretty weak. The Faceplates are a nice touch, but no different than moded cases, and unlike a current console, I can use my old case for my new PC, whereas the X360 and PS3 have the same as everyone else, and the internals are nt meant to be used in other cases.

and i can play split screen on it,

Which you can also do on a PC. It just depends on the developers supported modes, and also your chosen output device.

But it does not have the versatility of my PC.

Which is why the PC should not be compared head to head in anything other than gameplay, and hardware. For price that's like comparing the cost of a Car for it's nice integrated radio, to a standalone radio. The extras are what make up the PC, but some people spend a ton to trick out their rigs to make it the best. But it's not apples to apples.

 

[joseph85]

Personally I like the direction Nintendo is headed

 

[quantumsheep]

E but the PC version was at least twice as better

Sorry for seeming like a nit-picking bastard here, but isn't the correct phrasing "twice as good"? I'm just one of those people that hates mistakes :-\

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Personally I like the direction Nintendo is headed

Well and that's my pony. I will probably get a Wii for it's game library.

The PS3 has no titles except maybe Lair that interest me to the point of "Oooh gotta get a PS3", but I might get it for BluRay depending on features, and if it cuts off 5% ofthe screen like the Samsung BluRay [st00pid] player.

The X360 I have access to at work and friends' and was personally waiting for an internal HD-DVD version which is likely next Spring. Halo3 may get me to buy, but we'll see. Gears of war is tempting, but way WAY too busy right now (School, Work, Ski Season starting [going to Louise tomorrow], Preping for Australia).

To me the Wii is cheap, and access to truely exclusive content, that has the nostalgia factor (I have more retro games for the PSP than new, and a ton of MAME and pakckaged retro games for PC).

PS3 for me is a cheap BluRay player, and that would likely tick Sony off because they don't make anywhere near the same markup on BR disks as games.

 

[joseph85]

Personally I like the direction Nintendo is headed

To me the Wii is cheap, and access to truely exclusive content, that has the nostalgia factor (I have more retro games for the PSP than new, and a ton of MAME and pakckaged retro games for PC).
Exactly, Nintendo does'nt try to compete with a Pc, they've realized in terms of power it's just impossible to. Instead they're making a console that was meant to be fun, be nostalgic as well as innovative in gameplay making it hugely compatible with alot of different styles of gaming and gameplay

 

[Opterondo]

There is a simple answer to this question with out going off 100 different ways. Remember a game console is specifically designed to crunch through games at the cheapest cost. I guarantee that dollar for dollar the console is running that game better than a PC would at THE SAME COST.

You have to compare them at the same cost and time (someone said their new PC smoked a 5+ year old PS2, congrats) for this thread to even make sense. Plus you can't play PS3 games on a PC just like Apple blows cause you can't play a Windows game on it.

Architecturely speaking a console is RISC based specialized for one task, running games:

"The Cell processor is vastly different from conventional processors inside. This tiny chip contains a powerful 64-bit Dual-threaded IBM PowerPC core but also eight proprietary 'Synergistic Processing Elements' (SPEs), essentially eight more highly specialized mini-computers on the same die." To some folks dismay this IS an 9 core processor on-die. 1 PowerPC core to control the 8 SPEs; with one SPE dedicated to OS system related tasks and one disabled for redundancy.

Whereas a PC is CISC and is unspecialized for any one task, does most things okay not one thing great.

So as far as playing games, not to mention HD blu-ray movies, a $600 PC gets smoked by a $600 PS3

-THE END-

 

[joseph85]

There is a simple answer to this question with out going off 100 different ways. Remember a game console is specifically designed to crunch through games at the cheapest cost. I guarantee that dollar for dollar the console is running that game better than a PC would at THE SAME COST.

You have to compare them at the same cost and time (someone said their new PC smoked a 5+ year old PS2, congrats) for this thread to even make sense. Plus you can't play PS3 games on a PC just like Apple blows cause you can't play a Windows game on it.

Architecturely speaking a console is RISC based specialized for one task, running games:

"The Cell processor is vastly different from conventional processors inside. This tiny chip contains a powerful 64-bit Dual-threaded IBM PowerPC core but also eight proprietary 'Synergistic Processing Elements' (SPEs), essentially eight more highly specialized mini-computers on the same die." To some folks dismay this IS an 9 core processor on-die. 1 PowerPC core to control the 8 SPEs; with one SPE dedicated to OS system related tasks and one disabled for redundancy.

Whereas a PC is CISC and is unspecialized for any one task, does most things okay not one thing great.

So as far as playing games, not to mention HD blu-ray movies, a $600 PC gets smoked by a $600 PS3

-THE END-

Don't know what the point was, :? but okay

 

[Opterondo]

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

Yeah, no contest; PS3 for sure! :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!)

The R500(Xenos) is nothing like the R520(X1800) other than the fact that they're both built on a 90nm process.

Considering you PC doesn't play PS3 games or Blu-ray movies for that matter and costs the same as a car i'd think you lose. Are you saying your PC is more powerful than five PS3s?

 

[Opterondo]

There is a simple answer to this question with out going off 100 different ways. Remember a game console is specifically designed to crunch through games at the cheapest cost. I guarantee that dollar for dollar the console is running that game better than a PC would at THE SAME COST.

You have to compare them at the same cost and time (someone said their new PC smoked a 5+ year old PS2, congrats) for this thread to even make sense. Plus you can't play PS3 games on a PC just like Apple blows cause you can't play a Windows game on it.

Architecturely speaking a console is RISC based specialized for one task, running games:

"The Cell processor is vastly different from conventional processors inside. This tiny chip contains a powerful 64-bit Dual-threaded IBM PowerPC core but also eight proprietary 'Synergistic Processing Elements' (SPEs), essentially eight more highly specialized mini-computers on the same die." To some folks dismay this IS an 9 core processor on-die. 1 PowerPC core to control the 8 SPEs; with one SPE dedicated to OS system related tasks and one disabled for redundancy.

Whereas a PC is CISC and is unspecialized for any one task, does most things okay not one thing great.

So as far as playing games, not to mention HD blu-ray movies, a $600 PC gets smoked by a $600 PS3

-THE END-

Don't know what the point was, :? but okay

Don't strain

"I guarantee that dollar for dollar the console is running that game better than a PC would at THE SAME COST."

 

[ADM-86]

Come on , lets stop being childish ....the ps3 is supposed to be a high affordable game station and it is.....sort off...coz 600 isn’t cheap and to fully get the juice out of the ps3 we need a HDTV and that’s expensive and that’s that...................but just face it the pc gaming is the big league ,it has the best graphics available, the best multi tasking experience and the best upgradeability...and with direct x 10 just coming into play there’s no competence.

And damn I think the big winner here is the Nintendo wii….the got it right, we want to have fun playing a console not just go and say wow nice graphics….but same shit….mmm.

 

[Opterondo]

Come on , lets stop being childish ....the ps3 is supposed to be a high affordable game station and it is.....sort off...coz 600 isn’t cheap and to fully get the juice out of the ps3 we need a HDTV and that’s expensive and that’s that...................but just face it the pc gaming is the big league ,it has the best graphics available, the best multi tasking experience and the best upgradeability...and with direct x 10 just coming into play there’s no competence.

And damn I think the big winner here is the Nintendo wii….the got it right, we want to have fun playing a console not just go and say wow nice graphics….but same ****….mmm.

My point consoles are like 33.3% more efficient per $$$ at playing games.

 

[DWAYO83]

And if you dont know about the developing of the computer speeds, it grows at an exponential scale, by the year 2020 ( I personally think earlier) the computer power should oertake brain power. while the console speeds normally tend to harvest the PC results. BUT thats just my opinion

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/question54.htm

HAHA...I had just read this article and I thought that was funny.

 

[ninjaquick]

Great Grape Ape:

Aiite, i see your point, and what i meant by the xbox looks better is that its visuals are bettert (gfx).

Dude, okay, i was wrong with my comparison, and i never meant to make anything sound-look better than anything. Its just there are people who compare top of the line systems to consoles, or top of the line items to consoles and what i was simply trying t oillustrate is that there is no comparison. As i said, To PCs what is of pcs and to consoles what is of consoles.

To everyone else:

But there are few PC games that can be played at casual parties, unless its everyone with their own pc. Thats what i love about the whole Console Experience: everyone can play at once while having a nice conversation (which in the case of halo turn into a verbal brawl bout screen looking). I Would buy all three consoles if i had the money, i would not buy a 600 video card instead of a ps3 cuz what ive got now runs all the games i play and even the newest one run fine.

I think that the problem is that PC enthusiasts dont see why someone would go out and buy a 600 dollar console. PC gamers dont quite understad either i ont think. The console is something that can be enjoyed by everyone at a party, one cuz its fun to play, and two cuz its fun to watch.
And sure, theres no upgradability in a console but who cares, im just fine with it running all the games i ever buy for it. I played Gran Turismo 3 to death, more than any other game ive ever played (except BF2). I was playing it up to september when i finally sold my PS2 ot get some money to buy my Xbox360. I played GT3 for something like 3 years, despite the fact that my computer had better GFX. Thats what a console is about. Fun.

If you dont understand the concept of fun, im sorry. But id rather play halo2 for 5-6 hours with my friends than spend a whole day playing WoW or something along those lines by myself. Thats what a console is about. The technical specs really dont matter, 4 years of gaming is worth 600+ dollars. 4 years of having fun with your friends is worth 600+ dollars.

Sure, having the latest and greatest hardware is sweet. But one of the best things on earth is playing a platform game on SNES for the kicks.

The PS3 is weak.. but for 600 what are you expecting? I think that its a bargain deal, not only cause sony loses money for every one they sell, but because 600 is a small price to pay for the fun that you can have with a PS3. same goes for the XBOx360... but not the wii, the Wii is special. Its a pure game console. It might not have stunning visuals or loads of features, but its fun. 2GB DDR2800 from corsair are not as much fun as the wii is.

Thx to Gr8 ape for helping me see this, and to all those noobs who are still fanboys of some rich guy (aka Microsoft, nVidia, Ati, Nintendo, Sony, Intel, AMD...) who will never care about them in the least and who continue having stupid fights about retarded differences.

Edit:
And my fav game of all time is Chrono Trigger, and the second one is Grandia. Id play those till i die. and if i still had a PS2 id be playing GT3.
what a way to break the 100 post envelope.

 

[powerbaselx]

(...)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?

Well, seems that what you said (Low PC+PS3) fits well on your "needs" and budget. That's ok and shouldn't be a problem for anyone.

IMO it's only a matter of interest on each platform. For example, personally i prefer to have a high-end PC (or near it...) because i always liked to play games on PC, i don't have the need to bring a game machine when i travel (although i have also a laptop), i have a good DVD player in the restroom, i can afford to keep a HE PC with great graphics, and i like a lot to modify and upgrade my PC. It's always a good exercise to do it and i can do a lot of other things over time on the PC rather then playing games.

Probably PS3 is an excellent game platform with a great CPU multi-core and BluRay player, portable game machine, etc, at a great price. It has its own limitations as the PC has.

It's your own choice to fit the best solution for your needs, preferences and budget, and not a question on if a PS3 is better or worse a HE expensive PC. I'm pretty sure that if you could afford easily, you'd have both plus an HE laptop and even a Nintendo Wii side-by-side! 🙂

 

[Heyyou27]

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

Yeah, no contest; PS3 for sure! :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!)

The R500(Xenos) is nothing like the R520(X1800) other than the fact that they're both built on a 90nm process.

Considering you PC doesn't play PS3 games or Blu-ray movies for that matter and costs the same as a car i'd think you lose. Are you saying your PC is more powerful than five PS3s?My PC didn't cost nearly as much as my car, and if you'd prefer to wait in line for 3 days, or pay $500 over the retail price to get the PS3, that's your business. Tell me, can I hook four displays up to the PS3? Can I burn CDs and DVDs? Can it do my video encoding? Can I download and test new operating systems or applications? Does it support games at a resolution higher than 1280x720? What if I want my game to look better, can I increase the image quality? Can I use my instant messaging applications on th PS3? Can I use it for Google earth? What can I do with the PS3 that I can't do with my PC other than watch movies on a format that's going to end up like UMD? If you tell me "play PS3 games" don't waste my time as there isn't a title on that system other than F.E.A.R. that looks even decent.

 

[lordaardvark2]

i prefer pcs b/c they're alot more open ended: you can puts stuff in, take stuff out, tweaks stuff... its great. you can do your work for school, for...well... work, you can make movies and animations, you can play bitchin games, you can MAKE games, you can connect to your friends worldwide.... i prefer computers because they are more flexible, in certain terms.

also: computers have mods. do consoles? nah, not really. where did counter strike come from? a mod. i think, in that aspect, the computer gaming industry will always be ahead: when you can play garrys mod or red orchestra or any number of things, that are mods made by other people, then thats a good deal.

 

[speedemon]

:?: HELLO 8800GTX = OUTDATED PS3

 

[ninjaquick]

see? thats the kind of noob i was talikng about... the dude who says 8800GTX makes the ps3 out dated... seriously

 

[ninjaquick]

Great Grape Ape:

Aiite, i see your point, and what i meant by the xbox looks better is that its visuals are bettert (gfx).

I sure hope your comparing the Xbox to a PS3 and not high end PC.

i guess ou havent read the whole thread. you missed alot. I was comparing it to my pc that cost 100 more than my xbox360 (including the games and controllers).

 

[Fulmar]

The amount of money I save on games/programs using a PC is amazing.

if you catch my drift