360,ps3= pc equivalent

Bman123

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
5,087
What would a 360 and a ps3 equal in pc terms.
I am talking video card,processor and ram.
 

berndawg3

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
245
IIRC, the PS3 is a 7800 series NVIDIA card and has 512MB of RAM. Not sure on the processor or of the x360, except that the 360 uses ATI as opposed to Nvidia.
 

Brent_Justice

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2000
Messages
17,755
Well the 360 uses an ATI Xenos chip, basically previous generation level GPU performance, but its a unified shader core, so shares a little tech with current gen ATI GPUs, but only has 48 shader units, compared to the current gens 320. One advantage it has however is 10 MB eDRAM. So its a mix of last gen + this gen ATI GPUs.

The PS3 uses NVIDIA's RSX chip for GPU, which is also NV's last gen GPU, basically G7x series. It however has separate pixel/vertex units, so not unified.

In terms of which has a more advanced GPU I'd give my hat to the 360.
 

dnottis

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 14, 2001
Messages
4,768
360,ps3= pc equivalent

Sorry but there isnt the PC is quite superior.
 

RussianHAXOR

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 14, 2007
Messages
5,590
Im pretty sure he's asking about what kind of configuration would equal the same in console terms.

So id say like a 7800GT or 7800GTX + 2GB of ram + Dual Core CPU, like an AMD(3800+) or Intel(E6300)
 

nissanztt90

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 13, 2007
Messages
3,858
As far as CPU, the PS3 uses the IBM Cell processor, which is an 8 core chip, but the PS3 only uses 7, and 1 is for the system itself so only 6 cores are available for games.

The 360 uses another IBM chip called the Xenon i believe, someone correct me if im wrong, which is a 3 core chip, but each core is capable of 2 threads at once, kinda making it like a 6 core CPU. Cant comment on the architecture, not sure what it would be closest to.
 

Solar

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
228
The 360 uses another IBM chip called the Xenon i believe, someone correct me if im wrong, which is a 3 core chip, but each core is capable of 2 threads at once, kinda making it like a 6 core CPU. Cant comment on the architecture, not sure what it would be closest to.

Wikipedia says you're right. As for analogies, how about a hyperthreaded Phenom Tri-Core (If there was such a thing)?
 

Bman123

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
5,087
yeah seeing how the 360 gets 60fps I dont know about ps3.
I wanted to know what would equal these consoles on a pc
 

kllrnohj

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 1, 2003
Messages
6,845
Well, seeing as CPU core scaling sucks in games, I'd say a 9600GT + midrange C2D would spank the PS3 or XBox360 in graphical abilities.
 

Elledan

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - April 2010
Joined
Oct 18, 2001
Messages
15,913
Don't forget that the Xenon CPU is an in-order design, which can completely kill performance if the programmer and/or compiler got some things wrong. All x86(-64) CPUs are out of order designs, meaning that they can re-order opcodes to improve performance. All modern CPUs can execute multiple threads simultaneously.

The Cell is a so-called streaming vector processor. It has multiple simplistic processing nodes and a regular PPC CPU to regulate memory access and other such activities, as well as allowing for boring non-streaming code to be run on it.

While the Xenon CPU is pretty standard and easily compared to desktop CPUs, the Cell processor is a completely different beast. In HPC (high-performance computing) benchmarks, the Cell wipes the floor with the competition, be it desktop CPUs, server CPUs (including IBM's latest) and GPUs.

Also interesting is that both CPUs are a poor match for a videogaming console, as the Xenon with its in-order design does poor at AI and other branching code, and the Cell is poor at branching (it's a streaming design, after all) and is bloody hard to program for (kind of like the PS2's Emotion Engine).

The GPU however is easily matched or exceeded. Just grab the latest and most expensive :)

RAM is easy in the X360, as it uses fairly standard DDR RAM. The PS3 uses XDR RAM, which gives the PS3 insane bandwidth. All taken together I'd say that an X360 is easily emulated, a PS3 is at this point extremely hard to fully emulate with commercially available parts obtainable by regular consumers.
 

Bman123

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
5,087
so a athlon 64x2 5000+ and a 9600gt would be good?
I am still a little confused about the pc gaming.A console can hit and stay at 60fps but pc gaming is totally different.You can go as high as the moon on fps or you can be @0.
What makes pc gaming so different from consoles?
Are the console games just made better,as in they make sure the game will run @60fps all the time?
 

nissanztt90

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 13, 2007
Messages
3,858
Build the most powerful PC you can for 400 dollars, and see how it performs against a 360 or PS3. I would guess its fairly equal. Keep in mind, your only playing at 1280x720 on the PC.

Console games absolutely do not run at 60fps constant. Some can, some cant.
 

Bman123

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
5,087
well I am getting a 22inch lcd WS monitor so my res is gonna be 1650x1050.
I want better performance then my 360 had.
what do I need to make this possible video card wise
 

bpizzle1

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 27, 2007
Messages
4,206
well I am getting a 22inch lcd WS monitor so my res is gonna be 1650x1050.
I want better performance then my 360 had.
what do I need to make this possible video card wise

pretty much anything out of the current generation of gaming cards will be faster than the GPU's in the 360 and ps3.
 

InCogneato

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 1, 2006
Messages
1,236
it depends on what kind of work youre applying it too. in some ways the ps3 cannot be touched by any PC, in other ways it can be surpassed by a mid ranger
 

kllrnohj

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 1, 2003
Messages
6,845
it depends on what kind of work youre applying it too. in some ways the ps3 cannot be touched by any PC, in other ways it can be surpassed by a mid ranger

I think it is safe to say that the "work" is only gaming in this case, in which case both the 360 and PS3 will get stomped by a midrange PC ;)
 

TheGardenTool

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 12, 2006
Messages
3,526
Are you trying to build something cheap that equals performance of the 360 or something with better performance? I think you said you wanted something better but other people are talking about trying to build systems that perform similarly.

Modern hardware should be good enough to play games with equal or better performance of the consoles. The consoles do use the same hardware so the developers can optimize the code to make the games performance well even on slightly older hardware. PC developers need to take into account the millions of different possibilities of configurations.

When Oblivion came out you needed an expensive SLI setup to gain high settings on a high resolution. When the 8800 series came out, a single card could run the game well but cost the same as the 360 (8800GTS 640). I guess the prices fell a couple months later with the 8800GTS 320 but it couldn't run as well in higher resolutions and was still the cost of the 360 Core.

I'd say just grab an E8400, 9800GTX and 2-4GB of RAM and you'll be set. If you have a Crossfire board you could spend a little bit more on a 3870 x2 and grab another 3870 or 3870 x2 down the line.

But any 8800 series, 9800, 3870, most of the Core 2 series and 2-4GB of RAM should give you performance equal to or greater than your 360 in most games.
 

Decko87

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 23, 2007
Messages
2,161
I played bioshock and oblivion side by side on my old computer(1900xt, x2 4400+, 2gb DDR 400), and xbox 360. The 360 didn't have near the image quality at the very similar settings or the frame rate. Bioshock was the lesser noticable of the two. But I own an 8800 GT currently, and after seeing the Xbox 360 and PS 3 versions of Assassin's creed, there's no question which is graphically superior. I hear the 9600 GT is close to the 8800 GT so that would be a solid choice.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
2,363
so a athlon 64x2 5000+ and a 9600gt would be good?
I am still a little confused about the pc gaming.A console can hit and stay at 60fps but pc gaming is totally different.You can go as high as the moon on fps or you can be @0.
What makes pc gaming so different from consoles?
Are the console games just made better,as in they make sure the game will run @60fps all the time?
The majority of console games run at 30 FPS, including even the most popular ones such as Halo 3, Gears of War, and The Orange Box. Some games that do run at 60 FPS are Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and Burnout: Paradise, but even those games have some frame rate dips here and there.
 

InCogneato

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 1, 2006
Messages
1,236
I think it is safe to say that the "work" is only gaming in this case, in which case both the 360 and PS3 will get stomped by a midrange PC ;)

not really, depending on the methods you use and how you code the game the PS3 could theoretically stomp a high end PC. its too early to make any solid claims about the PS3's hardware
 

kllrnohj

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 1, 2003
Messages
6,845
not really, depending on the methods you use and how you code the game the PS3 could theoretically stomp a high end PC. its too early to make any solid claims about the PS3's hardware

The PS3 only dominates when it comes to theoretical CPU performance - which doesn't mean squat for games. In terms of pretty graphics, a PC will easily win with a higher end current generation video card. But even though the PS3 has that limited CPU advantage, it won't help much as things like physics can/are being offloaded onto the GPU.

So no, it isn't too early the make any solid claims about the PS3's hardware, as the PS3 uses last generations technology - this is always a problem with consoles, and it always will be.
 

Gorankar

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 19, 2000
Messages
11,018
Rigth now, your typical sub $500 dual core store bought pc with a ram upgrade to 2 gigs and a $175-$200 vid card, is as fast, or faster, than the consoles, with similar or higher graphics settings, in the same games. This is true for even some of the more poorly coded ports.
 

Uberbob102000

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Messages
2,243
Well, Consoles get better frame rates because they run at lower resolutions as well. Before I hear "but my 1337 360 or PS3 is at 1080p" most consoles upscale the image and render it at 720p or sometimes lower.. It depends on the game. Any reasonable PC should be able to beat a console in gaming. Something like a Athlon 5000+ BE or E2200 (OC'ed), 2GB DDR2-800, 9600GT would beat a console and rendering at a higher resolution as well.
EDIT: I came up with $486.93 for a console beating computer.
 

WhiteGuardian

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
421
console are for lazy people that likes to sit on the couch with their dong in their hand while they play.
 

Uberbob102000

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Messages
2,243
console are for lazy people that likes to sit on the couch with their dong in their hand while they play.

I don't agree with this. I have a PS2, Wii, PS3, Xbox 360 in my house and I play them but computer gaming is the pinnacle of gaming with 2560 x 1600 resolutions, 16x AA 16x AF, high resolution textures, modding and, best of all (for some games), keyboard and mouse.
 

kllrnohj

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 1, 2003
Messages
6,845
console are for lazy people that likes to sit on the couch with their dong in their hand while they play.

I guess you've never heard of the Wii :rolleyes:
 

InCogneato

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 1, 2006
Messages
1,236
The PS3 only dominates when it comes to theoretical CPU performance - which doesn't mean squat for games. In terms of pretty graphics, a PC will easily win with a higher end current generation video card. But even though the PS3 has that limited CPU advantage, it won't help much as things like physics can/are being offloaded onto the GPU.

So no, it isn't too early the make any solid claims about the PS3's hardware, as the PS3 uses last generations technology - this is always a problem with consoles, and it always will be.

please explain why killzone 2 and gran turismo 5 @ 1080p look better than any PC game, including crysis? youre wrong, thats why. you dont know what the future holds, period.
 

kllrnohj

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 1, 2003
Messages
6,845
please explain why killzone 2 and gran turismo 5 @ 1080p look better than any PC game, including crysis? youre wrong, thats why. you dont know what the future holds, period.

I almost hate to be the one that has to tell you that, but neither of those games run at 1080p. It is very likely that they don't even run at 720p, but rather something even less than that. Just look at all the current PS3 gamest that run at less than 720p and get up scaled - its nothing new, and its not going to change. Regardless, even if they are running at 720p (doubtful), that is still only 70% of the pixels of 1280x1024 - a resolution considered low to moderate in the PC gaming world. Pushing less than 1 million pixels is hardly an impressive feat, seeing as 1920x1200 (2.3 million pixels) is very possible on the PC with even the "budget" 9600GT, depending on the game.

And you are quite right, I don't know what the future holds. But I *do* know that the PS3 can't change to adapt to the future, PCs can. I *do* know that PCs currently have more graphical power than the PS3. I *do* know that there is absolutely zero chance that this can change, as the PS3s hardware is pretty much set in stone until the PS4, and I *do* know that the PS4 will also be outdated less than a year after its release, just as consoles always are. The reason is simple. Consoles don't get any future super secret hardware, just what is available at the time. Innovation and better tech will come, and a console will be left behind. Consoles are merely snapshots of the tech available when they are launched, nothing more.
 

jsu718

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 29, 2001
Messages
2,409
The computer I came up with that topped a console a month ago was $350. Even a 9600GT is beyond the level of graphics that the 360 and PS3 put out. The biggest difference, as has been pointed out, is that neither of the consoles actually do 1920x1080 graphics most of the time, and the PC benchmarks you see typically are at higher resolutions than what the consoles would be running. I nearly bought a 8800GT yesterday for $149 (after MIR) but passed since it will be cheaper in a few months when I can actually afford it. PC hardware has gotten much much cheaper since both consoles came out. The comparison on price doesn't work anymore. The comparison on performance hasn't worked since about a month or two after the systems came out.
 

InCogneato

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 1, 2006
Messages
1,236

That's what I was thinkining. Is he blind, or did he see some one trying to play Crysis on a 6800gt or x1800 vanilla or something.

2jb4abn.jpg


33p64pu.jpg


yeah...
 

NoNRG

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
2,124
Your blurry gameplay screenshot vs. a highly produced non-gameplay screenshot shows nothing.

Why are we fighting about this? I enjoy gaming on consoles and PC, who cares which one looks better. They are both fun.
 

leetskeet

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 23, 2007
Messages
493
my brother brought a 360 home from school and played cod4 on our toshiba 720p lcd and i thought it looked like a n64 game compared to my setup...i was truly disappointed.
 

Gorankar

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 19, 2000
Messages
11,018
Your blurry gameplay screenshot vs. a highly produced non-gameplay screenshot shows nothing.

Why are we fighting about this? I enjoy gaming on consoles and PC, who cares which one looks better. They are both fun.

Again, that's what I was thinking. If he likes I could prolly dig up marketing renders from UT3 that look that good.

The op wanted to know how much pc he needs to = or better a console. That has already been answered.

InCogneato...As it has been for the last little while with the consoles. On release day it takes a new, fairly high end pc to match them. A year or two later, a new, low to mid end pc to match or beat them.
That is pretty much a fact. We can argue it if you want, but at least use in game screenies against in game screenies in your argument. Not ingame screenies against a marketing render. And no, I am not interested in arguing about who's marketing team makes the best promo renders.

Edit: Oh, and Crysis looked better on my old Opty 175/x1900xt rig than the screenie you just offered up.
 
Top