PS3 VS HIGH END PC

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?

its not 7 cores, its a cell proccessor, and CPU power is not all that counts in a video game.

Hi, there was already a xbox360 vs ps3 thread HERE, and here is what have been said :

PS3 will be a tough machine, but dont forget GDDR4 is already developed by SAMSUNG, and it should be aboard the 8*** NVIDIA cards which are about to enter market soon I hope.

And say take a look at the intel road map, 4 cores very soon, about the same is AMD, and 4 quad graphics is just around the corner WITH 4 7800

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

why do these idiots post up, then again im probably just as stupid. lets get one thing straight a cpu CANNOT PROCESS GRAPHICS or at least not as well as a gpu. that is why the ps3 as well as the 360 has a dedicated gpu. now who makes these i wonder? oh wait its ati and nvidia last time i checked. the same companies that make the pc parts. what, do you think sony makes the parts for it's ps3's?. the cpu is basically ibm's brainchild and only the powerpc based part is worth anything and without it, the processor wont run damn all.

now i cant link you to the article which i read this stuff on but if you google you should find something similar. oh and btw where is your evidence of this superior tech? i and the rest of us would love to hear it.

sorry about the rant before. not sure how useful this is now as its pretty old now but its an article about the cell processor in case people need refreshing

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2379&p=1

tbh due to its in-order processing it looks a bitch to code for considering a pc cpu can run any old garbled mess.

just found this one as well

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453&p=1

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.

PS3 might be faster than most high end computers when it comes out. It should be, otherwise no one is going to buy it. But its not comparable to a computer other than gaming. There's a reason why pc's are expensive, it can do pretty much everything and PS3 can only play games and online thing. But by the end of this year pc would be twice as fast than todays high performance pc. But I'm buying the PS3 when it launches even though I only play couple of games on it.

You have bitten into the hype of 3 core or 7 cell cpu's and theoretical performance. A single core A64 > the multicore / cells in the Xbox 360 and PS3.

read this thread for info snagged off of Anandtech before the article was pulled:
http://forumz.tomshardware.com/har [...] os&start=0

Note some quotes that were in 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."

"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. "

"The Cell processor is no different; given that its PPE is identical to one of the PowerPC cores in Xenon, it must derive its floating point performance superiority from its array of SPEs. So what's the issue with 218 GFLOPs number (2 TFLOPs for the whole system)? Well, from what we've heard, game developers are finding that they can't use the SPEs for a lot of tasks. So in the end, it doesn't matter what peak theoretical performance of Cell's SPE array is, if those SPEs aren't being used all the time."

"Right now, from what we’ve heard, the real-world performance of the Xenon CPU is about twice that of the 733MHz processor in the first Xbox. Considering that this CPU is supposed to power the Xbox 360 for the next 4 - 5 years, it’s nothing short of disappointing. To put it in perspective, floating point multiplies are apparently 1/3 as fast on Xenon as on a Pentium 4.
The reason for the poor performance? The very narrow 2-issue in-order core also happens to be very deeply pipelined, apparently with a branch predictor that’s not the best in the business. In the end, you get what you pay for, and with such a small core, it’s no surprise that performance isn’t anywhere near the Athlon 64 or Pentium 4 class.
The Cell processor doesn’t get off the hook just because it only uses a single one of these horribly slow cores; the SPE array ends up being fairly useless in the majority of situations, making it little more than a waste of die space. "

"Although both manufacturers royally screwed up their CPUs, all developers have agreed that they are quite pleased with the GPU power of the next-generation consoles. "

"Just because these CPUs and GPUs are in a console doesn't mean that we should throw away years of knowledge from the PC industry - performance doesn't come out of thin air, and peak performance is almost never achieved. Clever marketing however, will always try to fool the consumer."

Edit: forgot this one in the conclusion:
"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. "

And it's that marketting and hype that you bit into. The GPU's in both consoles are nice to see, but the cpu's don't live up to the hype. Don't expect the PS3 to pawn a high end PC.

i hear that the PS3 was initially designed to run at the HD res of 1080p,

but the hardware wasn't powerful enough so they changed it to upscaled 1080i

im not sure if this is true though


and people, even thouigh the XBOX 360 and PS3 are trying to integrate PC features on to their gaming machines, they weren't designed to replace PCs, and they won't any time soon. so you can't really compare the two. its like comparing apples and oranges.

im not getting an XBOX 360 because i already have a PC (the good games on the XBOX are already on the PC! like Call of Duty 2 and Oblivion, so whats the point!)

i don't plan to get a PS3, unless the games i desperately seek are on it.

here we go agian another thread about pc versus console long story short console looks more impressive but pc will always be better cause you can upgrade it!

you've missed the whole point of this thread by that comment. what some are trying to say is that the console is not more impressive and that its all marketing hype.

wtf is with you people saying two years to catch up or a few months. there s no evidence to support the view that it is even ahead. until it comes out and a game that is coded exactly the same is played on the exact same monitor at the same detail levels can we even begin to compare the two. by compare i mean not just fps rates but how it looks as well. that will be the litmus test and until then we should stop speculating

I have seen and played Dead or Alive 4 for XBOX 360 on SONY 40" BRIAVA (spell). It was awsome. Those of you who are into Final Fantasy or Capcom games, PS3 will be soooo bloody awsome.

While you PC freaks out there worrying about the performance of your current 3d-gfx card on FEAR or QUAKE4 and trying to figure out "the best" OC config., PS3 or xbox users will be playing one more round of their favorite games!

nuff said!

/Agreed

OC'ers ftw!

You're an idiot. Plain and simple. The PC isn't a gaming machine? You've got to be kidding. Also, the PS3 is not superior to any pc system today. I bet you any money that you could build a PC that could blow the shit out of the PS3.

The PS3 and Xbox360 are capable of great graphics for a 400$ price tag, but they simply can not compare to high end PCs.

Sony itself does not plan to make a profit out of selling PS3s, as if they did intend that the price of the PS3 would be too high

Computer manufacturers (and parts manufacturers) do on the other hand want to make a profit of selling their stuff, and so is priced accordingly

yes, part of the fun of PC gaming for us PC gamers is worrying about framerates, boasting about framerates, spending money on our systems for their birthdays, taking loving time maintaining your system washing/oiling fans and heatsinks and stuff like that

err, perhaps some would say i don't have a life,
but who needs a life

Its a too-long post. I appologize. I bolded the most applicable parts if you want to skip to those, but you will miss out on some stuff.

LMAO,

Who really cares if you can overclock a console? Can you overclock a Saturn5 rocket? Can you overclock your pen, or your matress? Why would you want to, and who really gives a crap.

I dont think mechluke was asking about versatility--he was asking about a very narrow-very specific topic. Gaming

A console does what it does, play games. Anyone who knows anything about gaming, in this day and age, knows that in the verbal battle of mines bigger than yours, the size of your GPU that counts (sorry, couldnt resist) a little bit more than the size of you CPU

In that respect, both the 360 and PS3 should do/be doing well. When the 360 was introduced, its GPU was (supposedly) 3 generations ahead of what ATI was building for PCs. The NVIDIA chipset for the PS3 has been rumoured (please note that I say rumoured-as in unverifiable heresay-not fact and probably not true) to be as many as 7 generations ahead of anything NVDIA has on the market for PCs. So as games approach photo-realistic graphics as they are now, what you need is GPU power . Better GPUs = better/faster graphics rendering, the most tasking part of any game. Unless your still playing a BB D&D turn based RPG.

Looking at those rumours, and only those rumours, then, consoles would seem to be the better way to go. Really for all the people who keep whining about versatility/upgradability, CPU cores and clock speed, for craps sakes, let it go. Its not applicable to what mechluke was asking. Be honest now, how many of you plan on encoding MPEG4s, ripping CDs, running spread sheets or doing word processing on your XBOX or PS? Are you really going to produce your next PowerPoint market share presentation on your PS3? --- Sorry but I just cant resist the sarcasm.

Sarcasm aside, another (and in my opinion more important) factor in the console vs PC battle is one which I havent seen a single post on. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with how big the consoles or PCs whangs are. It is title availability. I have seen several titles, which I would have liked to purchase for my PC (I dont own a console. Wouldnt waste the money on it) that simply arent ported for the PC, and never will be. So, I'll just have to by a console (NOT!) or do without. Boo-hoo.

Is this important? you bet your a** it is. Why? Because this is where MS and Sony have you by the short and curlys. Yes, a PC is better than a console, but WTF difference does it make if the games you want to play arent available for a PC? And dont think for one second that MS and Sony dont know that. With the release of the 360 and PS3, we will see continuing increase in the trend of non-PC ported game titles. Period. Why? Because Bill Gates doesnt want you to buy a PC equiped with MS software OR a XBOX, he wants you to buy BOTH. Thats not evil, its just smart business.

Furthermore, multiported games like NFS underground2 have had different graphics and performance options based on the platform they were ported for. You can play NFS U2 on several different systems (XBOX, PS*,PC, GC etc) and never experiance the same level of performance or graphical fidelity twice. Take a look at the game cube version of this game, its slow AND it looks like it was painted by a 3 year old, relative to other consoles. With the GC, its a performance issue since GC cant handle really handle NFS U2. But more to the point, its a precursor of things to come. Is this important. You betcha. Why? It aint gonna be nothin' but a thang' for the title manufacturers and console manufacturers to "reward" the console owners with better graphics/performance/options with in a given title. Not based the consoles or PCs capabilities, but as a marketing enticement to buy the damn console. Look, its simple. You gotta have the PC for word processing, email, video/audio encoding/ripping etc. But, if your PC can play games too, then why bother spending money on a console? How does a manufacturer make people want to buy the console if they dont need it? Simple, make them need it by not porting the games for PC, or offering limited performance versions for the PC.

Dont believe it? Check out Bill Gate's "grand plans". Gates doesnt want to see a computer in every home. He wants to see 5. One for entertainment, one for household appliance/enviromental control, one for word processing and business-productivity apllications/one for security/....and I forget what the 5th one was for. Why does Bill want this? Microsoft doesnt make computers after all. Ahh, but MS does make software and every computer needs its own OS/software. 5 computers in every home = 5 times the demand for MS's software. This = more mulah for MS and Bill.
Its just smart business. Why try to write, debug, produce, market and ship a new OS or series of software titles every year, if you can produce 1 set of each every 5 years, but have the consumer buy 5 copies. 5 times the profit for 1/5 the capitol investment. Very, very smart. Not to mention the problem of trying to convince everyone to run out to buy a new OS or buisiness suite once every 12 months. Bills already figured out that he's not going to sell us on new software every 12 months. The thing thats really biting at Bill's balls right now, is that he also wants to see us all buy seperate computer for gaming, but that conflicts with his wanting every houshold to have a XBOX. He cant figure out how to sell us on buying 2 separate items that do exactly the same thing. But if theres one person who can solve that problem, its Bill. Hell, he's been convincing half the planet that the widows OSs are the most secure OSs for years.

We do have hope, though sadly, for us, its fading. While the hackers/crakers and porters have been working hard to come up functional XBOX/PS2 emulators for the PC, they havent not achieved the same level of success as the arcade/PS/atari etc etc etc emulators have had.

So, ultimately you're left with thinking about what games you want to play. For the moment, if the titles you want are ported for PC, by all means, skip buying a console and save the cash. You'll need it, because sooner or later, you, me and the rest of us are probably going to have to bite the console bullet. Unless the emu-wizards can get their programs up and running for "XBOX1040", or "PS4&1/2" it looks like we're all going to wind up buying consoles if we want to play anything more than quake6/doom5/CnC Frocked 2nd Lieutenants Burnt-Umber Alert. Not because the future PCs wont be able to handle those notional future game titles, but because the industry wants to separate the consumer from more of their hard earned dollars/pounds/euros/yen etc etc etc. Again, not evil plot or a conspiracy, just smart business.

Oh, just for shits-n-grins, lets go back to the "mines bigger than yours" for a second. With the current graphics battle between ATI and NVIDIA raging out of control, I doubt that the rumoured "advanced" graphics capabilities the 360 or PS3 have over the PC will stay advanced for too long. That is unless MS and Sony forced ATI and NVIDIA to sign some kind of "technology advancement restraining" clause. I doubt it, but ya never know.

gaming systems will always be on par with computers when they are first released. the reason pc's are better is because the technology is constantly improving every three to six months. not everyone can constantly keep up with those upgrades but the computer you buy now will be as good as the ps3xbox 2 and the computer you buy in six months will be better.

have you guys"people saying the ps3 are going to have better graphics"ever heard of directx 10 if the news is true is suppose to blow away any next gen console, so put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Bullshit. Just absolute utter crap.

Just go and buy your stupid overpriced console and shut it up FFS!

My question is, that if nVidia and ATI are capable of producing GPU's for consoles that are 7 and 3 generations ahead, respectively, why wouldn't they bring them to the PC market to trump the other company? We all know its ATIv Nvidia in WW4 (WW3 is AMD v Intel lol).

I'm not bashing consoles, i have about 8 (i keep all my old ones, who can live without the original sonic?). They are just desinged around a diffrent premice. I hate that there are console only games (Halo 2 in particular), but its marketing at its best. But because I have to have a PC to get through life (school work necessitates one), I figure why not trick a PC out instead of having 2 machines to do the same thing?

I've seen and played with the 360 but for some reason it can't compare to sitting down in a chair 2ft away froma 1600x1200 lcd with 4xAA and 16xAF in a comfratable ass chair sniping people in BF2. Then once I'm bored with that, its back to OC'ing. A computer, TO ME, is just much more entertaining than a $400 box that is strictly for gaming.

To each his own, but I won't give up my PC

the answer: no one can live without the original Sonic, SuperFly!

yes. lots of people have modern computers for their daily computing needs, why not use it to play games as well (got dangit even teh high school computers with their powerful P4 2.4s with a graphical and memory upgrade may be able to play Call of Duty 2).

other than that, the only reason i would get the console is if it has a game i really want to play that is not available on PC, not because it may be more powerful than my current PC

if nvidia and ati did bring out there best cards which are 3 - 7 gens ahead and stomp the competition, then no one would buy their products since everyone will have one... say amd wins over intel and intel went bye bye.. then everyone would have an amd so then why would someone else buy anymore? especially the general consumer market. they upgrade like every what? 2 - 5 years? how would the company make money for r and d? they need each other to survive.