PS3 VS HIGH END PC

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

DUDE! Enough withthe COLOURS and Oversized Type, if you can't make your point without it, then your position is obviously pretty weak. :roll:

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.

How do you guarantee that. It's opinion, and I could buy a GF6150 enabled A64 3500+ with 160GB Sata HD plus 1GB memory for the same price as an original Xbox was selling which can't play a game like Oblivion and which at launch played Morrowind with lower quality. That 'guarantee' of yours only works for some situations, and the further in time you go the worse the console is, but at launch they are also over priced. and how do you 'cost' the console, the cost of making it to Sony/M$ or the negative pricing used to lock you into higher priced proprietary content?

You have to compare them at the same cost and time (someone said their new PC smoked a 5+ year old PS2, congrats)

The problem is that they don't exist in a vacum, and at the PS3 launch their 'cost' of buying one was way WAY above their MSRP (same with X360), so that needs to be properly accounted for. And then as for the games themselves it depends on the titles, look at Morrowind, that same PC with an X1800GTO would cost the same as the X360, and play the game better. So it is really dependant on use. And even then it depends on how much you game, lots, then the Console is more expensive, which is how it pays for the low price. Buy and Xbox just to play less than a half dozen games, and then it's a better deal.

Plus you can't play PS3 games on a PC

Sure you CAN, they just won't LET you, because once again they want you to finance the PS3 through over-priced restricted content. The title selection is not a PC vs Console thing, it's a developer vs consumer thing. It shouldn't have to be pointed out 30 times to console defenders.

just like Apple blows cause you can't play a Windows game on it.

You sir, are a sheltered myopic tool of the console crowd. You can play Windows games on an Apple, it's called boot camp. Once again not the hardware that's the limitation. Just like the many times more options for PC are because the consoles are locked up tight. If you want to discuss software limits, take this st00pid thread to the software forum or consoles where it belongs, for hardware PC>consoles now, and there's no argument you could possibly make there. :roll:

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

Not true, the PS3 and Xbox have specifically gone beyond that. The only one that's evem close to gaming only is the Wii.

"The Cell processor is vastly..."

Overhyped. Not even Sony's own core developers are anywhere near reaching any level of efficiency with CELL to compete with single Desktop CPUs, the CELL is still far better for enterprise situations than gaming.

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

Which don't cost $600 and can't do half the gaming things a PC can.
The true END of this would be to move it where it belongs, consoles or software, because as far as hardware goes PC>consoles.

 

[Nova46]

Guys please i have not declared the war against PCs but i really do think that next-gen video game consoles are a better choice for gaming.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.Many have written in your replies that the cpu plays no role in gaming performance.Ok if this is true i can equip my ancient 486 dx2-66 with a geforce 7800gtx 512mb and have amazing performance.ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.I still insist that ps3 is many times better than any pc that exists today but i agree that PCs will eventually keep up with PS3 in the future.I would also like to note that it is absolutely ridiculous to spend 3000 euros for a pc just to play games decently for 6 months until NVIDIA releases its next super chip and intel her next pentium processor.

The PS3 can suck my rigs nuts. The PS3s GPU is an entire generation behind the 8 series. Yes at the time that the PS3s specs were revealed, it was better than any PC on the market. But now that it has actually come out, it's a whole generation behind computers. Consoles can't win. Computers are constantly being updated where as you have to wait another 5 years for a new console to come out. Gaming consoles really don't make enough sense for me to buy one... I'd rather have just one computer that does everything really well and I can upgrade it at any time.

 

[atp777]

You do all know that Crysis on the PC will smoke consoles ... right? DX10 + 8800 = no competition.

 

[makrossv]

Consolefanbois pwned by the Great-ape...good points, Ape. If you're not really a fanboi none of this entire post should offend you. If you're offended, then LOL.

Most people do not realize that the Xboxes and PS3s are actually selling below their cost through real retailers. I think the true cost of a PS3 is over at least 800$. Anyways, those stupid PS3s were selling for as much as 3,000-15,000$ last I checked on the other markets.

For 3000, you can get a quadcore($999) system with an 8800gtx($700) and top of the line soundblaster($200) plus many other good parts($1000 left lol?) $200 mobo, $200 raptor hdd, $300 2gb ddr2....endless possibilities. Lotta loonies out there...

Rants aside, the real argument was that which platform is better for gaming... None of the platforms can emulate more systems than the PC if any can. If you can create or find emulators, the PC will run almost anything you throw at it. I don's see consoles doing such a thing. No other platform other than the PC will alow you to customize graphics or control settings like the PC.

Simply put this way, if there were no copyright laws, legal issues or sueing, there would be no market for consoles. Everyone would buy a PC and buy, pirate, write the software to run the games more openly.

 

[georgelawton]

oh pls, the ps3 is no where near close to a high end system.

a c2d and 8800 smokes it badly.

Bear in mind a few months ago, maybe the ps3 would have been up to the challenge to rival a highend desktop. But with c2d and 8800's, there is simply no match.

 

[randomizer]

Why did this thread get past page 1? People please stop reiterating the same points over and over. We all know that a PS3 < a high end PC, some people just dont want to admit it.

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!!!

Yes I did miss that post, it's painful to read this whole thread.

 

[turboflame]

It's really just a matter of personal preference, that's why this thread will never be resolved. No one here is right or wrong. Except for the NOOB who started this thread, claiming that PS3 could beat the fastest pc.

I have a somewhat decent pc and a gamecube (a wii sometime, hopefully) so i'm all set.

 

[Heyyou27]

I still love my little Lunchbox console. (Gamecube)

 

[randomizer]

The wii is a pretty boring looking console I think, but again its just opinion.

@ Heyyou27 The gamecube is a great console if you dont need a dvd player and stuff, and its the only console thats really portable. Honestly, who carries their xbox around with them (almost a guarentee someone is going to say they do)? Unless your a weight lifter of course.

 

[dmacfour]

with vista, and the new games for windows campaign from microsoft, the average joe shouldn't have any trouble using their computers for gamin. ol' bill wants the PC to be seen as a competing platform against gaming consoles. he's also releasing a version of Xbox live for "games for windows" titles. many big name companies are allready producing games under this title.

 

[Mike995]

I just found a really interesting performance number.... its really actually sad how Sony and Ibm went on about the amazing GFLOP count of their cell processor.

"For double-precision, as used in personal computers, Cell performance drops by an order of magnitude, but still reaches 14 GFLOPS."
-wikipedia.
I dont know about anyone else but 14 GFLOPS really isnt any thing special.

 

[enforcer22]

This isnt a reply at grapes i just couldnt find the person i wanted to reply to from his post.

Split screen IMO is NOT a selling point to me it compleatly ruins multi player.

To whome ever said the core2 made the ps3 cpu obsolete. Its inferior as a cpu to almost and probly every cpu you can buy on any etailers site same with the xbox. The video card in a ps3 is a vary bad example of video power accourding to what i been reading all the ps3 numbers are so inflated no one can figure out how in the world they even came up with them.

Not sure who said you cant play ps3 games on a console but you can play ANY console games on a pc with the correct emulation software.

that cell processor and the xbox processor are not vary good at gaming i really need to find that link someone posted in another thread so some people here can read it. Lucky for us though gaming doesnt rely a whole lot on the cpu and they both have video exceleration.

 

[Mike995]

I agree. All of the ps3 numbers are sadly faked. Sony claimed 256 gflops performance for their cell. IBM got a total of 256 gflops on an 8 core cell processor running @ 4.0 ghz. The cell in the ps3 has one core disabled, plus only runs at 3.2 ghz. And in double precision floating point operations its only 14 gflops which is really nothing special at all. Also there is not a single way they could have possibly acheived 1.8 TFLOPS on their graphic processor (RSX) it only has 12 ROP'S, with a total shader op count of 24, running at 550 mhz, the mem bandwidth is only 22 gb/s. The 7800 GTX 512 mb has more then 50 GB/s of mem bandwidth. Nothing in the ps3 is special at all, as you know. It really is sad to see how uneducated our society is. All i hear in my computer programming class is OMFG THE CELL IS SOOOO POWERFULL SONY PS3 IS AMAZING ITS SO MUCH FASTER THEN ANYTHING ON THE PLANET. I try to ignore their ignorant comments, but it does get hard to sometimes.

 

[enforcer22]

I guess you have the link im trying to find handy 🙁

 

[JonathanDeane]

Yeah that pretty much sums up Sony's line on consoles. The PS2 was supposed to deliver Toy Story quality graphics in real time (in all fairness some of the best games kinda come close but still overly optimistic if you ask me) The PS3 is a great system, it should be for the price !
I say go with a computer as even a cheap 400$ computer can do things the PS3 just cant (im not talking about graphics or sound)

In the end there is no PS3 VS Computer debate. If you have the cash a good PC will play realy good games with a realy good video card (DX10)
If you want to do more then play games then you dont even have a choice... PC or Mac or Linux (all PC's to me)

 

[Parge]

that cell processor and the xbox processor are not vary good at gaming i really need to find that link someone posted in another thread so some people here can read it. Lucky for us though gaming doesnt rely a whole lot on the cpu and they both have video exceleration.

you mean this link?

http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=1

 

[enforcer22]

No but its vary simler.

The information in it is the same really so i guess yes this is the link. It detailes the technial side of the two consoles and hte hardware in it. Vary good reading IMO. ty for posting it.

 

[pauldh]

I hate split screen too. Compared to LAN gaming it's just pathetic. I was a MOHAA PC multiplayer junkie and then tried it split screen with 4 players on a gamecube. That was unbearable IMO.

 

[pauldh]

This is probably a copy of the text from the original link that you are refering to:
http://gprime.net/board/archive/index.php/t-5989.html

Some good quotes from that article:

The most ironic bit of it all is that according to developers, if either manufacturer had decided to use an Athlon 64 or a Pentium D in their next-gen console, they would be significantly ahead of the competition in terms of CPU performance.

Regardless of the reasoning, not a single developer we've spoken to thinks that it was the right decision.

We already know that's not the case as game developers have already told us that the Xenon CPU isn't even in the same realm of performance as the Pentium 4 or Athlon 64.

In the end, despite what these horribly concocted numbers may lead you to believe, they say absolutely nothing about performance. The exact same situation exists with the CPUs of the next-generation consoles; don't fall for it.

Many other goodies, but I'm too lazy to search for them. We discussed this here in depth ages ago.

 

[atp777]

True that man... one thing I found interesting though is that the "Xenos" GPU in the 360 is an early version of the R600 and it seems to be amazing. I'd say that's about the only thing that can hold it's own against a PC.

 

[pauldh]

The GPU is where it shines. CPU is alot wimpier than what marketing says. We have already heard no Crysis for PS3 or XB360 because they lack sufficeint processing power.

Anyway, I missed a good quote:

And that's what we have here today, with the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. Both consoles are marketed to be much more powerful than they actually are, and from talking to numerous game developers it seems that the real world performance of these platforms isn't anywhere near what it was supposed to be.

 

[tygrus]

A PC based gaming can allow the user to trade off quality/FPS and play with all sorts of settings. Traditionally, better capacity to save games, addons, variety of input and cope with updated hardware (still some limits but generally more flexible for CPU/GPU/sound). Flexible screen resolution, newer games can use multi-screens. Deteriates over time with games and non-game software install&uninstall, OS updates, user documents, music etc. Requires user maintenance and can have more security and performance risks. Can be used for more than just games but you pay for all the extras. Games have some HW optimisations and some compatibility overheads.

A console is good value (subsidised HW&SW) when purchased and ages gracefully. It is simpler for users to setup. Games have a target resolution and speed which users don't have to worry about console not being fast enough. Upgrades are limited and subsequent gen consoles have trouble with backwards compatibility(varying success, some none, some quite good but not 100%). The old PS2 and xbox had limited graphics support which meant you were limited to tv graphics ie. typically worse than 640x480 on PC. While the game ran at 50/60 interlaced fps on the 2-3yr old console you could have a PC run it with 1024x768@50fps with the latest hardware (ie. 2-3yrs after console release). Very few updates to software and limited risk of harddisk clutter (older consoles had no hard disk drive and no or small system software updates ie. firmware). Newer consoles are starting to get more like PC's in terms of OS, internet access (and security issues) additional features and use of disk drive. Low risk of security attack if no internet use and/or lockdown system. Higher HW optimisation and no overhead to cope with changes to CPU,RAM,GPU etc. hardware.

It's a pity they don't design the consoles and games for more flexibility of HW upgrades. I wished fr a PS2.5 or Xbox1.5 with 2x to 3x CPU and 4x GPU power to handle newer games and higher def TV resolutions with greater visual quality. The idea is to be 100% backwards compatible (eg. Xbox1.5 use PIII derived core at 1.4GHz or greater with 733MHz fallback) and come out between major console upgrades eg. before PS3, Xbox2. You could take advantage of process shrinks and better GPU's for reasonable cost&price (to make & to sell).

 

[TabrisDarkPeace]

Most people that buy consoles fall into a consumer group, not a prosumer group.

Most people on these forums are prosumers, and some understand hardware quite well.

Heck, 1080p or 1080i (540 a frame).

Using some psuedo-resolutions:
16:9 = 1920 x 1080
16:9.6 = 1800 x 1080
16:10 = 1728 x 1080

Most 'decent' PCs will be able to power 3D engines of games at higher resolutions, on screens with a smaller dot pitch size, and decent FSAA (which both console and PC GPU do).

Then consider it might only be 1080i, in which case it is only pushing 1,036,800 pixels per frame, and at a lower frame rate than twich-guru gamers would play at, typically on a TV screen with a refresh rate of 60 Hz (TFT or not it makes a difference).

Even excluding the real nitty-gritty (covered above I'm sure), these 'simple' differences are what make PCs / Macs 'superior' in my eyes, and in the eyes of many others.

Sure Linux can run on the PlayStation 3, and the CPU architecture is different (lets people 'learn' about it, different experience), but it is a game console at heart, plus DVD playback and web surfing. (PCs were doing all this stuff 6+ years ago, just minus the latest and greatest CPU / GPU).

The Blu-Ray is nice, but Sony have had Blu-Ray burners on the market for several years for PC users too. Just the discs cost around $80, and the Blu-Ray media started off around 20 GB (apx rounded down) in size. (It has grown since).

The Blu-Ray marketted at consumers, and all this rubbish about it being the laser making the units cost so much - is total tripe. (Sony have been making Blu-Ray drives for years for PCs, in a smaller space, with more power restictions, problem free in Japan for years now).

Then add in the 'shortages', I dunno what they are planning here to be honest, low yields on the Cell processor, and Blu-Ray laser issues.... has their quality control department gone to hell ?

(Low yield on a IBM designed processor - Can you say bullshit ? - They typically get better yields, own all the patents, and design the chips so even faulty ones can be used, as there might be 2 extra SPEs and more cache per unit than will be activated for example)

The whole thing has a very sus feel to it (Low production runs).

My personal gut instinct, bear in mind I've been watching the large players at a macro/micro level for over a decade, is that Sony want to mitigate their risk and sell every unit. Instead of mass producing a 'cutting edge' device that consumers might not buy, be able to afford, or can't justify owning. (As older tech is almost as good for most people, and far less expensive, plus not many Blu-Ray titles to watch. Normal people want Blu-Ray movies, not Blu-Ray data discs with a Linux mod on their PSX-3 - Chicken & Egg situation for the movies - and that is what consumers 'desire').

They'll be making a 'Revision 2' PSX-3 around April 2007 for sure, and just trying to 'fish' for developers and ideas via the rich (and very) early adopter crowd.

===============================================

... yet after writing all that, and reading the other posts above (cover the more 'hardware spec side of it to a very nearly electronic level' I'd still consider a PlayStation 3, just to run Linux on it and learn about it. - Only as a prosumer I can't justify the cost. Nor do I plan on doing more console gaming (Armed Assault FPS needs a mouse, and maybe a TrackIR), the only exception being the Tekken series, of which older versions have issues on the PlayStation 3 (PS3 / PSX-3 ?).

[/b]

 

[TabrisDarkPeace]

.....
It's a pity they don't design the consoles and games for more flexibility of HW upgrades. I wished fr a PS2.5 or Xbox1.5 with 2x to 3x CPU and 4x GPU power to handle newer games and higher def TV resolutions with greater visual quality. The idea is to be 100% backwards compatible (eg. Xbox1.5 use PIII derived core at 1.4GHz or greater with 733MHz fallback) and come out between major console upgrades eg. before PS3, Xbox2. You could take advantage of process shrinks and better GPU's for reasonable cost&price (to make & to sell).

Market / Add this to various Sony PlayStation 3 / Microsoft X-Box forums run by Sony / Microsoft themselves - It'll catch on - I love the idea.

 

[quantumsheep]

DUDE! Enough withthe COLOURS and Oversized Type, if you can't make your point without it, then your position is obviously pretty weak. :roll:

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.

How do you guarantee that. It's opinion, and I could buy a GF6150 enabled A64 3500+ with 160GB Sata HD plus 1GB memory for the same price as an original Xbox was selling which can't play a game like Oblivion and which at launch played Morrowind with lower quality. That 'guarantee' of yours only works for some situations, and the further in time you go the worse the console is, but at launch they are also over priced. and how do you 'cost' the console, the cost of making it to Sony/M$ or the negative pricing used to lock you into higher priced proprietary content?

You have to compare them at the same cost and time (someone said their new PC smoked a 5+ year old PS2, congrats)

The problem is that they don't exist in a vacum, and at the PS3 launch their 'cost' of buying one was way WAY above their MSRP (same with X360), so that needs to be properly accounted for. And then as for the games themselves it depends on the titles, look at Morrowind, that same PC with an X1800GTO would cost the same as the X360, and play the game better. So it is really dependant on use. And even then it depends on how much you game, lots, then the Console is more expensive, which is how it pays for the low price. Buy and Xbox just to play less than a half dozen games, and then it's a better deal.

Plus you can't play PS3 games on a PC

Sure you CAN, they just won't LET you, because once again they want you to finance the PS3 through over-priced restricted content. The title selection is not a PC vs Console thing, it's a developer vs consumer thing. It shouldn't have to be pointed out 30 times to console defenders.

just like Apple blows cause you can't play a Windows game on it.

You sir, are a sheltered myopic tool of the console crowd. You can play Windows games on an Apple, it's called boot camp. Once again not the hardware that's the limitation. Just like the many times more options for PC are because the consoles are locked up tight. If you want to discuss software limits, take this st00pid thread to the software forum or consoles where it belongs, for hardware PC>consoles now, and there's no argument you could possibly make there. :roll:

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

Not true, the PS3 and Xbox have specifically gone beyond that. The only one that's evem close to gaming only is the Wii.

"The Cell processor is vastly..."

Overhyped. Not even Sony's own core developers are anywhere near reaching any level of efficiency with CELL to compete with single Desktop CPUs, the CELL is still far better for enterprise situations than gaming.

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

Which don't cost $600 and can't do half the gaming things a PC can.
The true END of this would be to move it where it belongs, consoles or software, because as far as hardware goes PC>consoles.


Just need to add one little thing:

OWNED!