my stupid friends

OK, i have this bet with my stupid friends who think a ps3 or 360 is better than any computer.

I know there has been another thread on this on here but they couldnt understand that...soo explain why a freaking computer is a million times better in stupid terms k?

tell them right here right now that a computer...best rig out there

thanks...

*sight* no again

Read that

Is a good start for PS3

You can upgrade your PC, good luck swapping parts inside a PS3.

Why do you keep idiots around yourself as friends, then? Have you considered the fact that your closed-mindedness has made you an idiot in their eyes?

It's a stupid argument either way, in my opinion. If you want a console, you get whichever console you think is best or has the games you want. If you want a computer, you either buy one, build one, or pay someone to build it for you. It's that simple.

There is no "best" for everyone. There is a best for you, and a best for another person.

And for the love of God, why do you keep double posting on your own posts? EDIT. I really wish there was a forum block, but I can't help but flame incompetence.

Well, you could mention the larger amount of software that you can use on a computer (I dare you to use photoshop or gimp on an xbox).

And don't forget upgradeability, and not buying your hardware from either sony or microsoft.

Graphics are better on the consoles now. In 6 months they will be better on the PC and stay that way for years until they come out with the next next gen.

A PC is just more versatile. If they can't accept that, then they don't care and won't ever know why a PC always trumps a console in terms of everything except for the (momentary) graphics advantage. Good Luck convincing them...

When those consoles were designed, thier gfx processor was pretty state of the art. Unfortunetely for them, it's been a long time since design. Your gfx card is only a little better than thiers is now. Next year will bring better games and better gfx cards. Then, where will they want to play?
You should understand that consoles are special purpose devices, they do games very well. They are also good value, as the mother company will sell at a loss, hoping to profit from game sales.
If you need max bling, consoles cant compeat. If you just want a good value gaming machine, consoles are a steal.

IMO:

The PC is a better extreme high-end gaming machine than a X360 or a PS3.

The longer a given console is out the more this become apparent.

Right now, the best graphics are about the same on the X360, PC, and PS3. This is mostly due to the games and software not taking full advantage of hardware. Particularly on the PC where the hardware ranges from ancient history to bleeding edge tech but the high-end will have that bleeding edge tech.

For the same game? The extreme high-end PC wins.

In a year, who will have the better looking sharper image with smoother frame rates and better controls? The extreme high-end PC.

Will all PC games in a years time take advantage of todays high-end hardware? No.

Will most games for the PS3 or X360 take advantage of their respective hardware? Probably.

But by that time the extreme high-end PC should have new bleeding edge tech that should stomp the X360 and the PS3, again it won't be fully utilized.

If you really think the PS3 is this powerful than you need to lay off the drugs.

I hope you didn't bet a lot of money... You are in a no-win situation. They will always have their opinion, and you will always have yours. Just humour yourself knowing that there are many other things that you can do besides playing games and maybe doing limited web browsing or email...

PS3 narrowly beats XBox 360 graphics-wise, and if I remember correctly, the graphics part in the PS3 is already 1 generation old. An 8800GTX utilising DX10 will beat it comfortably. Some PC games are optimized to take advantage of multiple cores, whereas a lot of PS3 games have to be specifically coded for the Cell processor, which is sort of multicore... It's more like the architecture of the 8800 than a CPU, actually... Anyway... As has been said many time before... By the time tight code exists for the Cell, Intel and AMD will be fabbing 4 and maybe even 8 core processors at 32nm. Which basically means that the performace curve of a PS3 will never be higher than the performance curve of a high-end PC.

However, if you want a PC to "beat" a PS3 with, you'll need to spend significantly more...

The original Nintendo console was even better,
.... because people couldn't access the Internet (or Forums) using one and ask questions that have already been answered in several other fthreads.

- TabrisarkPeace

though of course core 2 duo is more expensive than the cell processor and wasnt around when the PS3 was being designed

Once you get through the classical arguments about the hardware, the games availile and the like try this on a console.
Add a level or custom charater.
Patch a flawed game, it happens even to consoles.
I've got over a thousand "mods" for Quake 3 myself.
That, IMO, is what sets the computer apart from the consoles.

You can do some amazing stuff with junk hardware if you code your software right.

I am not calling the cell processors junk. The cell is a very innovative processor.


Would you put a 6 year old kid in a formula 1 racing car and expect him win every time? No.

This is analogs to the relationship between software and hardware. The best hardware in the world won't do anyone any good if it is strapped to software that doesn't take advantage of it.

Multi-core technology is a prime example of this, wonderful idea to nearly double the performance of most apps but practically no-one is coding for it. This is all in spite of it rapidly becoming mainstream and having been on the market for a year and a half and people having seen the writing on the wall for at least a year before it's introduction.

If you have sub-par hardware but wonderful software engineering which sports near 100% utilization then you will be literally amazed at what it can do.

Anyone remember the game Max Payne(the first one)? Ran beautifully on (very) sup-par hardware because it's coding was so wonderfully engineered. BTW, the poster child for quad-core gaming, Alan Wake, is being made by the same people that made Max Payne.

HAHAHAAHHA LMFAO the Fuking dumbest post I have ever read in my life! Here! You earned it! Bwahahahahahaahahahah

wow I don't think so.

I'd like to see any console that can match my SLI'd 8800 GTX's at 1920x1200 or higher with 32x FSAA etc. Most console games don't even do such high res.

You don't even get tactical games like Oblivion or Rome Total War on consoles. Lets not even get into Flight Sims or other non-gaming stuff like word processors or spreadsheets or printers or scanners or useable web surfing or a million other things.

Also I hate those crappy controllers you get with consoles. They're especiialy crap for FPS games like UT. I'd much rather play anything with a mouse and keyboard and I'm much faster/more accurate with a mouse/keyboard too.

BTW, if your friends are more clueless about technology than you, I fear for them.

I prefer my Nintendo 64 over all.

wow I don't think so.

I'd like to see any console that can match my SLI'd 8800 GTX's at 1920x1200 or higher with 32x FSAA etc. Most console games don't even do such high res.

You don't even get tactical games like Oblivion or Rome Total War on consoles. Lets not even get into Flight Sims or other non-gaming stuff like word processors or spreadsheets or printers or scanners or useable web surfing or a million other things.

Also I hate those crappy controllers you get with consoles. They're especiialy crap for FPS games like UT. I'd much rather play anything with a mouse and keyboard and I'm much faster/more accurate with a mouse/keyboard too.
SLI'd G80 cores will absolutely slay any console in terms of raw performance. Isn't the PS3 RSX GPU based on the G70?

It doesnt even take that much. A single X1900XT would do the same.

BINGO!

This is an unwinnable bet. You can't disprove their opinion unless they let you.

Yay for super smash brothers!

They don't have better architecture where games are concerned. The primary processing type performed in games is executing the same instruction on a LOT of data very repetitively... The Vector architecture of the Cell is designed around this principle. It really is super-computer architecture on a single chip. And what are supercomputers designed to do? Execute the same instruction(s) on LOTS of data...

So in the realm of gaming, (which is what consoles are designed to do) the Cell architecture is unparalleled. (pun intended ) In a couple of years when developers really get to grips with its potential, we'll start seeing some truly incredible things... trust me

EDIT: After reading the OP again, I think I should share that I made a bet with my friends that bananas are WAY better than apples. Can someone here prove that I'm right so I can win my bet?

Easy, tell them to overclock on stock cooling
OH, and i want to see some of the 3dmarkxx scores

Remember that the cost of a PS3 (mfg price, that's in large quantity directly to Sony) is ~$850 for the upper end model. Can you build a competing computer for that (considering that you get all your parts at close to cost)? I would say that's at least a $1000 budget in retail dollars, if not a little more.