PS3 VS HIGH END PC

[biohazard420420]

Let me start by saying no I have not read every post in this thread so bear with me if this has already been said. I feel almost a compulsion to do this same post on every thread like this comparing pcs to consoles. A CONSOLE AND A PC CANNOT BE COMPARED. That is not an apples and apples comparison both have their advantages. As has been said 1000 times before pcs can be upgraded and consoles cannot. Also when developing for a console you have ONE set of hardware to develop for be it ps3 or xbox360 or wii. Console games are coded very specifically for one set of hardware to make the most out of what you got. With pc games there are millions of hardware combinations, but because of the ever increasing power of pc's computer games will always look better than on a console. There is absolutely no fair way to compare a console to a pc they are in 2 totally different worlds and it is utterly pointless to try and compare one to the other. Both have advantages and disadvantages just go for what you want.

I wanted to add personally I think there should be a ban on all console vs pc threads. They do "sometimes" provide good information but in the end it is a fruitless discussion. There will never be a diffinative answer and it only leads to endless page after page after page of arguments that end up not being very productive.

 

[TabrisDarkPeace]

Using the [Ignore] button there can be 2-3 'conversations' per thread, and the arguments / flaming can be reduced or even cease.

Then everyone gets to discuss, with fellow thinkers that share their views, within the same thread - All without starting a war.

As FPS players are taught not to hesitate, it is very hard to do so in a forum about something people are passionate about.

8)

 

[uberclops]

I play games with my imagination 😎

I don't need your fancy "PC"'s and "PS3"'s 😛

 

[TabrisDarkPeace]

Oh, I play 'Internet Forums', they run on a really old PC and even a modded out really old console will run them.

The goal is to collect as many apples and oranges as a mario / sonic style player, and rescue the princess.

Later on you make fruit salad, and compare all the apples and oranges.

Also the Octopus gets a race car.

 

[enforcer22]

Using the [Ignore] button there can be 2-3 'conversations' per thread, and the arguments / flaming can be reduced or even cease.

Then everyone gets to discuss, with fellow thinkers that share their views, within the same thread - All without starting a war.

As FPS players are taught not to hesitate, it is very hard to do so in a forum about something people are passionate about.

8)

Bah i dont come on here to talk to people who share my views that would make for some uninteresting conversation. I come here to talk to people who dont share my views and who have different opinions and experiences so that maybe i might learn something or teach something to someone else.

Might as well talk to my self if all i want to do is talk to people who share my views.

 

[dmacfour]

Another interesting fact, is that, with regards to Flops, the 360 was rated at one Tflop, and the PS3 at 2. what they failed to mention was that the number was produces with a combination of CPU+GPU. most computers, however, are only rated with one piece of hardware. apearantly, the X1900 architecture by ATI is capable of producing 1 teraflop. Add a CPU in and you will probably exceed the PS3's claimed 2 Tflops. thats with (allmost) last years stuff too.

 

[kolix]

Guys i write this article in order to hear everyone's opinion about this.Gaming and pc i think is a very expensive sport.I have spent many money till now for my pc just to play games and i still can't have the results i am looking for.The ps3 will be much more powerful than any pc that exists today and it will cost only the fraction of the cost of a pc.I personally think that PCs will need at least two years of development for their hardware to be comparable of that to ps3.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?

now that the PS3 is out, we (or I) just have to wait how the games perform.
which leads to how well the games are programmed to run on the ps3 and not just some bad port.
no matter how powerful one system is, bad programming and bad optimization won't take advantage of the system's potential.
so go after the software/game developers instead.
yes they have deadlines to meet but go after them anyway.
it's the software developers that don't do the system its deserved justice.
if done well (like Gran Turismo 4 for PS2), we all benefit from it.
so if a game is very well developed taking advantage of everything PS3 has to offer and give a bad port to the PC, then the game will perform well, if not better, than the PC.
more burden rests on developer's shoulders than anyone else.

 

[Lathangrill]

Uh-oh....

Gf8800 is out.
Qx 6700 is out too.
Still waiting for AMD / ATI answer ...

Considering pure computing power, a PC is vastly superior to any console.
A PC does many things a console don't even dream of (printing a letter? any console?).
Playing on PC is sometimes a hell. Install failed. Drivers issues. Patch required 'cause game marketed too early (and not finished).
Playin on console go smoothly. Disc in, hit power on. Play.

The point is a console is better for your gamer social life than a PC. Call friends, order Pizzas and a Tekken Tournament (for exemple) will last all night long. You hardly play with a friend on the same PC (however multiplayer and online communication is so superior with PCs).

The debate "PS3 VS HIGH END PC" doesn't matter. You do not use your console the way you use your PC. A high end PC (and even a not so high end one) will always stomp on a console, because hardware is developed for PC, not for console.
The way games are coded matters much. A console CPU has no useless driver to manage, no antivirus, no background tasks running, no sound video or image application to handle on user's demand. It's dedicated. It runs the game, nothing else. So it does not need to be as powerful or versatile as a PC CPU.
As for games, I prefer a fully customizable AZERTY keyword (I'm french) to a 10 buttons (or less) paddle.

 

[enforcer22]

Uh-oh....

Gf8800 is out.
Qx 6700 is out too.
Still waiting for AMD / ATI answer ...

Considering pure computing power, a PC is vastly superior to any console.
A PC does many things a console don't even dream of (printing a letter? any console?).
Playing on PC is sometimes a hell. Install failed. Drivers issues. Patch required 'cause game marketed too early (and not finished).
Playin on console go smoothly. Disc in, hit power on. Play.

The point is a console is better for your gamer social life than a PC. Call friends, order Pizzas and a Tekken Tournament (for exemple) will last all night long. You hardly play with a friend on the same PC (however multiplayer and online communication is so superior with PCs).

The debate "PS3 VS HIGH END PC" doesn't matter. You do not use your console the way you use your PC. A high end PC (and even a not so high end one) will always stomp on a console, because hardware is developed for PC, not for console.
The way games are coded matters much. A console CPU has no useless driver to manage, no antivirus, no background tasks running, no sound video or image application to handle on user's demand. It's dedicated. It runs the game, nothing else. So it does not need to be as powerful or versatile as a PC CPU.
As for games, I prefer a fully customizable AZERTY keyword (I'm french) to a 10 buttons (or less) paddle.

The first part here (even if your not) sounds vary fanboyish so ill respond with a equaly fanboyish responce. did you say that the 4 years give or take intel couldnt awnser to amd's chips? Anyways i dont actualy care i just hate those remarks.

Alot of things go wrong on consoles to course not as often. Most notably are game freezes becuase of shotty rushed to market coding which needs patching but until recent consoles wasnt possible. Also added content to games which reffer to previous statment. Also hardware failuers which arent nearly as easy to fix as a pc. If anyone has had a console at least im my exp. with alot of people the xbox had alot of hardware failuers and the ps2 to a lesser extent.

Gaming in general going along with social life. Well i know alot of people would dibate that one till blue in hte face. You do realise that statement doesnt actualy make much sense considering if you wanted to put a pc on a tv and play together on a couch (but whatever since split screen play to me kills most any game i want to play)

Actualy Hardware is developed for both only real difference is one can be upgraded hardware wise aside from the cpu mob on a xbox which seriously isnt much to care about.

Tecnicly the only game specialised console anymore is the nintendo and any piece of computer hardware connected via the internet is vonerable to viruses, spyware, ext.

Keypads are kinda opinion though. Looking at some games like sports and all keypads rule but that doesnt hold true for all types of games especialy fps games.

 

[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?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.

After New Years PS3 will cost MSRP as Sony has promised 1 Million units +. Most basic PCs run $1500 and gaming PCs run $3000 esp. if you can drive four screens while gaming (most games do not support more than two screens) .. I can buy nice cars all day long here for $1500. PS3 has USB2 and supports external burners. You mention other general tasks which have nothing to do with gaming, does your PC run Apple based graphics art programs? PS3 supports alternate OSs & the web including surfing and messaging. PS3 supports 1080p (1920 × 1080) all day long, way above 1280x720. Image quality is a limitation of hardware and is not adjustable per se. Blu-ray is the next gen technology that allows TRUE HD content to be recorded and displayed AS NEVER BEFORE in true 1080p; a comparison to UMD is silly. Plays PS2 & PS3 games and has the most native launch titles of any previous game system. And obviously you havent seen the game Oblivion .. latah

 

[bullaRh]

ok some guy is a topic digger and when this was made there wasnt dx10 or a 8800gtx card 😵


i dont think a ps3 could smack pc, lets say we play crysis with dx10 and a 8800gtx maybe on highest quality - i doubt it could handle from what ive seen with the dx10 movies

there may be more bugs in PC games but the pc is alot bigger and can do alot more

 

[Opterondo]

:?: HELLO 8800GTX = OUTDATED PS3

HELLO 8800GTX ($650) + gaming PC = cost of (5) PS3s

OUTDATED .. the purpose of any console is to provide superior performance dollar for dollar and that is what the PS3 does.

Here's a simple economics lesson Sony eats $200 on every PS3 .. PC makers typical profits 80-100% on every gamer PC.

 

[bullaRh]

maybe the PC cost more but u can do alot more stuff on it than a console and the console games cost more than PC games

 

[JonathanDeane]

:?: HELLO 8800GTX = OUTDATED PS3

HELLO 8800GTX ($650) + gaming PC = cost of (5) PS3s

OUTDATED .. the purpose of any console is to provide superior performance dollar for dollar and that is what the PS3 does.

Here's a simple economics lesson Sony eats $200 on every PS3 .. PC makers typical profits 80-100% on every gamer PC.

I dont know PS3's are going for tons of money right now (unless you hit the Sony lotto and actualy get one at a store..... good luck with that one...) At least if you wanted you could get a 8800GTX
But all this is moot anyway PS3 will be cheaper eventualy (especialy if BluRay does fail in the market and it becomes a non reason to own a PS3) I can see the PS3 being 299.99 by next christmas, If it hasnt dropped at least a little in price by then, I honestly can say it will probably go the way of the 3DO or NeoGeo. The 3DO sold like hotcakes when it first came out too hmm would be interesting to dig up some sales numbers but I can bet they are very simular to what the PS3 is doing right now. Early adopters will pay almost anything to the first to own something.

Never mind that software support is going to be a little thin for the PS3 for a bit (I feel sorry for the people who pay thousands of dollars for one off of eBay....)

 

[Opterondo]

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

:roll: your right there, you used them too so i guess you called yourself weak

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?

Ur n00b cause your off about 2 years there on that PC m8 .. you'd be rocking a XP 2200+ and a 9600 maybe 9700 and not for the cost of a $300 Xbox 1 maybe twice the cost, 1 Gig was $180 by itself. Your launch B&M is lame, by new years the PS3 will be MSRP on the shelf. You answered your own question see quote directly below. How do you cost it? --The same way you cost any popular electronics they drop in price over time ..? ie DVD player , digital cameras, lcd tvs, laptops, pcs ... etc

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.

boohooohooo and C2Q costs 2x MSRP $1200 boohooo dont see me complaining and a month it'll half kinda a mute point.

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.

negative your pc is inferior architecture for playing PS3 games and would take like a 12GHZ to even mimic it. software emulation sucks thats why there is a complete ps2 engine on every ps3

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. :rolls: in poo

.. most Apples in circulation do not play Win games nor run boot camp (non Intel)
from apple.com
What you’ll need
Mac OS X Tiger v10.4.6 or later (check Software Update)
The latest Firmware updates (check Support Page)
10GB free hard disk space


=======>>>>>>An Intel-based Mac


A blank recordable CD
A printer for the instructions (You’ll want to print them before installing Windows, really.)
A bona fide installation disc for Microsoft Windows XP, Service Pack 2, Home or Professional (No multi-disc, upgrade or Media Center versions.)

Your so smart you just made yourself look stupid

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.

Console RISC based PCs CISC based been this way for 25 years - its not about what they run its about what they run efficiently

"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.

Efficiency is not relevent to total performace PC CISC cpus are more inefficient than console RISC cpus regarding 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.

Boohoo they don't cost $600 dollars a week after release , "half the gaming" WTF? END would be when you get educated then POST ... latah

 

[Opterondo]

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.

Well if you throw cost out the window .. but we are being realistic unlike you. Also you are obsessive because upgrading any pc vid card that already supports dx9 and 1280 x 1024 is retarded and purely marketing.

btw 1080p gaming is 1920 × 1080 which the PS3 bones for breakfast.

 

[ralio]

The price comparison is an interesting one. The initial investment of purchasing a computer is a lot higher, however the overall argument that a PC is more expensive is debatable.

 

[Opterondo]

The PS3 can suck my rigs nuts.

Your rig can suck my PS3 1080p Blu-ray nuts all 8 of them :twisted:

 

[Mike995]

Yea heres the link to the 14 GFLOPS performance during Double precision floating point operations. What other links would you like ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_microprocessor

 

[Opterondo]

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.

For 3,000 you get a decent gaming PC I can easily build a 5,000 gaming PC .. you can't use a crap case p/s water cooling raptor is crap use SCSI etc. Anyways I was talking about a retail system with legal software / your the goof.

..Not true at all software emulation is total ass and very inefficient basic computer knowledge .. JAVA sucks ass too

 

[Mike995]

Seriously dude, you are clearly on the loosing side of this argument. The only reason why you would have to have a superiorly faster pc to run PS3 games, is because current emulators arent optimised. Also PS3 games designed to steam code over non-existant spe's clearly isnt going to be properly optimised to suit the pc archetecture. Either way, the ps3 is nothing powerfull and is simply terrible. The cell is nothing powerful either, your just another Sony clone, who beleives their horrendously BS based advertising. I personally dont see a single PS3 game that looks half as good as GOW. To bad that RFOM (resistance fall of man) looks like a game from last generation with the physics to back up last generation.

 

[Opterondo]

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.

Your not getting the point for the same cost .. dollar for dollar

high end / does your pc output 1080p (1920 × 1080) smoothly over HDMI?

 

[Mike995]

Are you forgetting to factor in the cost of a high definition television capable of viewing the PS3 in all of its lame glory ? because if you want to argue about cost, in-order to fully view a ps3's visual fidelity in any game you need to run it on a high definition television. Which if you havent noticed arent cheap. You can easily build a 1200 $ computer that would completly rip the ps3 in all areas, while having tons more functions.

 

[atp777]

PS3 doesn't support 1080p... only 1080i, sorry.

 

[Opterondo]

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!


you say .. show me a $600 retail PC that owns a $600 PS3

--you have to find a common denominator to compare something, cost is good in this case--