Gorankar
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,107
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
360,ps3= pc equivalent
- Thread starter Bman123
- Start date
Red Falcon
[H]ard DCOTM December 2023
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 12,449
The PS3 has been out for waaay too long for it's hardware to not be taken advantage of already. I could understand within the first 6 months of games released, obviously they wouldn't perform. But by now, the games still look (and feel) worse than they do on PC's.
The only real reason to buy one of these systems is for the unique games such as GTA IV, Resident Evil 5, Metal Gear Solid 4, Dead Space, etc.
This is assuming they don't come to PC.
Edit: Just turned into a Gawd. Oh yeah!
SatTech
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2005
- Messages
- 3,381
The only real reason to buy one of these systems is for the unique games such as GTA IV, Resident Evil 5, Metal Gear Solid 4, Dead Space, etc.
Or to FOLD!!
Or to FOLD!!
next-Jin
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2006
- Messages
- 7,387
wow your an idiot... stop playing Crysis on an overclocked Celeron 300A, and stop posting flame bait because imho no one is that freaking stupid to say Crysis looks worse. Post a 1920x1200 screenshot of Crysis or even a 1280x1024 png which we have "ALL" seen a billion times.
Because we are bored and its something to do
@InCognito: What did you do? Run Crysis on the lowest settings at 640x480 and then slap a photoshop blur filter on there? Regardless, you are still comparing different games - which shows the differences in the GAME not the HARDWARE.
I actually think that the PS3 shot still looks crappy.
PS. Incogneato here is the Crysis screenshot thread with people who took screenshots at normal (read not minimum settings).
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1251098
heatthegreat
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2007
- Messages
- 424
yea, it varies from game to game. with my 8800gt and c2d 6750 with 2gb of ram when i bought it ( 800 ish) yes, gears of war, assasins creed, CoD 4, all look better, the textures are sharper etc., but I dunno, GTA IV at high settings wouldnt be feasible on a $500 rig, neither would MGS 4, which looks pretty good... Im curious to see how my rig handles Mass Effect at 1920x1200, I loved it for 360 and hopefully, it looks even better on true HD, not that upscalled 360.
Yes, it absolutely would. You are forgetting that the PS3s hardware is a constant - it can never get better. Games can be coded better and optimized, but that will more or less translate to the PC side as well. If your rig is faster in current games, it will be in future games - the PS3 can't improve. Also, the PS3 version of GTA IV runs at a pathetic 640p (~1140x640 afaik or about 55% of the pixels of 1280x1024). A $500 rig with a 9600GT is more than powerful enough to run GTA IV at much higher resolutions than that.
nissanztt90
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2007
- Messages
- 3,858
Your overlooking quite a few things here...like, console games are specifically coded for the hardware...they dont go through an OS. Console games do start to look better and better as developers start to take advantage of the hardware, thats a fact. PC's are not even close to the same. PC's games improve because the hardware improves.
"If your rig is faster in current games, it will be in future games - the PS3 can't improve"
So untrue, i dont even know what to say.
"A $500 rig with a 9600GT is more than powerful enough to run GTA IV at much higher resolutions than that."
Your not even close to an even comparison. You have absolutely no idea what will run GTA4 on a PC. Your comparing an apple to lettuce, with out tasting either.
Injection of <3
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2008
- Messages
- 610
I've tasted lettuce (gta4 on 360) and I'm not impressed. Unless rockstar really screws up the port, the game will have no reason whatsoever to have high requirements.
nissanztt90
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2007
- Messages
- 3,858
I never said it would or wouldnt, but i would bet its going to need a decent CPU...
Consoles *do* have an OS, and they *do* use PC hardware (at least in the GPU area). Look at the 360 - I can literally take .NET code that runs on the PC and drop it on the 360 and it will run more or less the same. Hell, even the graphics API (DirectX) is more or less the same. There is very little to no low level tweaking going on with games any more - console or PC. The rewards aren't worth nearly the coding time. Also, PCs *do* get optimizations and graphical improvements without needing an upgrade. Look at UT3 - looks great and runs great on yesteryears hardware - producing prettier graphics than were available when the cards were released (talking about 7 series and X1xxx series), without needing an upgrade.
If it is untrue then please point to how Sony plans to push out more power via a software update? Is there some magical switch in the hardware where its "full potential" won't be enabled until 2009? No, of course there isn't. The PS3 *cannot improve*. It is physically impossible - I don't know why you are even arguing the point.
Perhaps, but unless Rockstar seriously bombs the port and throw in tons of do nothing loops, I can estimate relative performance based on previous PS3->PC ports, all of which point to the 9600GT bitch slapping GTA IV into submission. Unless you care to produce a counter-example?
nissanztt90
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2007
- Messages
- 3,858
No, they dont. The games are coded specifically for the hardware. Just because you can install Linux on the PS3 doesnt mean it has an OS. They have an interface...where you can select a few options...the fact that you say consoles have an OS is pretty much...funny. They have an interface, at best.
"There is very little to no low level tweaking going on with games any more - console or PC. The rewards aren't worth nearly the coding time."
Oh yeah? And you know this because you develope and program games for MS for the 360 while youre still in high sk00? I mean, thats according to your profile...
"Look at UT3 - looks great and runs great on yesteryears hardware"
The unreal 3 engine has been around for over a year and a half now. Yester-years hardware is G80. Give me a better counter-arguement next time, because quite frankly, your points are barely worth responding to.
"producing prettier graphics than were available when the cards were released (talking about 7 series and X1xxx series), without needing an upgrade"
Because UE3 uses very nice textures to look good, and not *so* much attention to detail, and its been in the works for a long time, and optimized over and over again, by some of the best developers and coders in the industry. The UE3 engine is not typical of most games, so dont even bother to use it as a comparison in the sense that your trying. UE3 is an amazing engine, period.
"Is there some magical switch in the hardware where its "full potential" won't be enabled until 2009?"
I dont know, but ill believe Sony before someone who hasnt graduated high sk00.
"The PS3 *cannot improve*. It is physically impossible - I don't know why you are even arguing the point."
Just like every other console in history wasnt improved from their release to there newest released game.
"Perhaps, but unless Rockstar seriously bombs the port and throw in tons of do nothing loops, I can estimate relative performance based on previous PS3->PC ports, all of which point to the 9600GT bitch slapping GTA IV into submission. Unless you care to produce a counter-example?"
No, i cant, because it hasnt been released on PC yet. You can estimate, but guess what....all your guess is...is a guess. I hope youve considered into your guesstimation equation the the console version loads the entire GTA world at once, with 6 cores doing the work on the PS3 version, and 3 hyperthreaded cores on the 360 version. How many gamers even have a quad core again?. GTA isnt exactly about graphics quality so much as gameplay. I wont even touch the euphoria physics engine aspect.
Not quite. Core scaling is quite good in many PC games (though admittedly, not all) and even better on the consoles. Console games are written MUCH more efficiently than PC games are so you can't say because it's this way on one platform, that it's going to be the same on another. I highly doubt the PC configuration you gave will be able to run a game like Gran Turismo 5 at 1920x1080 which the PS3 has no problems doing at a sustained 60fps.
It's also not physically impossible to improve consoles. If you think it is, you need to take a physics class, because physically, it's very possible. Weather Sony chooses to improve it is another question, but physically? Yes, it is certainly possible. In-fact, the PS3 has already seen one die shrink on the Cell CPU and is about to get another one real soon with the intro of the 80GB model this summer. Die shrink means less power, less heat, less material needed for cooling and possibly even be able to get away with passive cooling. This equals improvement.
No, they have an OS. What the hell do you think loads when you first turn on your PS3? *GASP*, an OS! NO FREAKING WAY MAN!
Hell, one entire SPE on the PS3 is reserved for the OS (which is why developers can only use 6 of the 7 SPEs) But since you don't seem to like to look anything up before you argue a point, I'll cite my source:
Actually, I'm not in "high sk00" (sorry I don't obsess over my profile), and I am interning for a game company at the moment (doing actual coding - not coffee runs). But you don't even need a job in the industry, seeing as MS made a huge deal of this. You may have heard of it. Its called "XNA" - ring any bells? Maybe you should, you know, look it up?
I clarified "yesteryear" as the 7 series/X1xxx series. I don't consider the G80 "yesteryear" as it is still the current generation (G92 is just a shrink). Also, I didn't say the unreal 3 engine, I said UT3, kthx.
A crappy engine is a crappy engine, and a good engine is a good engine - regardless of the platform. How is your point valid? Hell, you disproved your own argument that PC games require new hardware to get better by just agreeing to my point that engines are optimized. Yeesh, figure out what your own point is first please.
Mmmk, have fun believing in magic. I'll be over here in the real world
Just like every other console in history wasnt improved from their release to there newest released game.
Uhm.. Correct. Console hardware in terms of power is pretty much constant from its release until its EOL - congrats on finally understanding.
Lets do some critical thinking here, shall we? First off, GTA IV doesn't boast anything all that spectacular in the CPU area (AI/physics/etc...). Second, 99% of the games out there still can only take advantage of a dual core on any platform. So it is completely irrelevant that the PS3 has 6 cores as it is highly likely that only 2-4 are being used by the game at most. Likewise, anyone here can tell you that a vast majority of games are not CPU limited, but GPU LIMITED, an area that the PS3 is seriously lacking compared to a cheap PC with a 9600GT. Oh, and Euphoria does run on the PC, too, so clearly the PS3's limited CPU advantage isn't being taken advantage of, as GTA IV also runs on the XBox 360 - which only has 3 cores. Not that the number of cores actually means anything (case in point, Phenom X3 vs. high clocked C2D)
Ok, that was a bit poorly phrased. What I was trying to say is that if you buy a PS3 now, it can never get any faster. That is what I meant by physically impossible. Contrast that to a PC, where you can, say, add more RAM, upgrade individual components, etc.. without having to scrap it and buy a new rig.
nissanztt90
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2007
- Messages
- 3,858
Ill be waiting here when you care to address me with an actual counter arguement, or multiple counter-arguements. Until then, do some research, or at least a little more than some wikipedia browsing.
One thing you said i really cant help but comment on however is....
"Lets do some critical thinking here, shall we? First off, GTA IV doesn't boast anything all that spectacular in the CPU area (AI/physics/etc...)."
This statement alone clearly shows you dont know dick about what your saying.
Look up the Euphoria physics engine. Its more or less revolutionary in terms of the amount of detail it incorporates. It makes Havoc look like a little bitch. So much for you being a critical thinker, and if you did know anything about Euphoria before you mentioned it...you probably wouldnt have brought it up.
Oh and the 360 has 3 cores, yes...but if you bothered to know anything about it, youd know that each core can handle more than 1 thread at once.
"What the hell do you think loads when you first turn on your PS3? *GASP*, an OS! NO FREAKING WAY MAN!"
Its an interface dude...sorry to break your heart. Maybe when i can install AIM or Office on my PS3, ill consider it to have an OS But while i can only select options and choose to run a game made for the hardware.....all it is, is an interface.
One thing you said i really cant help but comment on however is....
"Lets do some critical thinking here, shall we? First off, GTA IV doesn't boast anything all that spectacular in the CPU area (AI/physics/etc...)."
This statement alone clearly shows you dont know dick about what your saying.
Look up the Euphoria physics engine. Its more or less revolutionary in terms of the amount of detail it incorporates. It makes Havoc look like a little bitch. So much for you being a critical thinker, and if you did know anything about Euphoria before you mentioned it...you probably wouldnt have brought it up.
Oh and the 360 has 3 cores, yes...but if you bothered to know anything about it, youd know that each core can handle more than 1 thread at once.
"What the hell do you think loads when you first turn on your PS3? *GASP*, an OS! NO FREAKING WAY MAN!"
Its an interface dude...sorry to break your heart. Maybe when i can install AIM or Office on my PS3, ill consider it to have an OS
But while i can only select options and choose to run a game made for the hardware.....all it is, is an interface.farfromhome
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2007
- Messages
- 1,018
Its an interface dude...sorry to break your heart. Maybe when i can install AIM or Office on my PS3, ill consider it to have an OS
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Do console programmers roll up their sleeves and program machine code? Do they all come up with their own memory allocation routines and device drivers? Of course not. There is a layer that isolates the programmers from that, and handles low-level details so that each and every game does not have to handle them. That's pretty much the definition of an OS. Remember, MS-DOS is still an OS, and that does much less than the so-called "interface" layer of the console. It doesn't have to run (Open-)Office to qualify as an OS. How much of the hardware's capabilities are exposed to the programmers is irrelevant.
nissanztt90
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2007
- Messages
- 3,858
My entire point was PC developers code for a DirectX API, while console developers code pretty much straight to the hardware. Consoles have an interface, at best. If you *really* want to argue...ill agree that consoles have an extremely low level type of OS, but there is no way you can say or argue they are similar to PC's as someone else said.
farfromhome
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2007
- Messages
- 1,018
I said that how much of the hardware's capability's are exposed doesn't matter, not the capabilities themselves.
In other words, the OS of the PS3 isn't suited towards office apps. So what? It's geared towards gaming, as well it should be.As for directly to the hardware, no. Perhaps in the days of the SNES and the Genesis, but that age is long past. The XBox360 uses the very same DirectX as Windows. In fact, a worse one as it only runs DirectX 9. Perhaps it can be slightly optimized due to the known hardware, but that is quite easily overcome by the more powerful video cards on the PC side.
As for the PS3, that uses a modified version of OpenGL. Just like World of Warcraft.
Edit: In response to your edit, I agree that they're stripped down compared to desktop operating systems. My whole point of my previous post was that they're still operating systems though, which you have now conceded.
Ill be waiting here when you care to address me with an actual counter arguement, or multiple counter-arguements. Until then, do some research, or at least a little more than some wikipedia browsing.
One thing you said i really cant help but comment on however is....
"Lets do some critical thinking here, shall we? First off, GTA IV doesn't boast anything all that spectacular in the CPU area (AI/physics/etc...)."
This statement alone clearly shows you dont know dick about what your saying.
Look up the Euphoria physics engine. Its more or less revolutionary in terms of the amount of detail it incorporates. It makes Havoc look like a little bitch. So much for you being a critical thinker, and if you did know anything about Euphoria before you mentioned it...you probably wouldnt have brought it up.
Oh and the 360 has 3 cores, yes...but if you bothered to know anything about it, youd know that each core can handle more than 1 thread at once.
"What the hell do you think loads when you first turn on your PS3? *GASP*, an OS! NO FREAKING WAY MAN!"
Its an interface dude...sorry to break your heart. Maybe when i can install AIM or Office on my PS3, ill consider it to have an OS
"Ok, that was a bit poorly phrased. What I was trying to say is that if you buy a PS3 now, it can never get any faster. That is what I meant by physically impossible. Contrast that to a PC, where you can, say, add more RAM, upgrade individual components, etc.. without having to scrap it and buy a new rig."
I dont want to get...too picky...but...
With the die shrink you quoted, are you saying Sony couldnt increase clock speeds with the same power input and same thermal solution, thus improving performance? I mean, you said its *physically impossible* to improve console performance, after all, regardless of whether they should or shouldnt...seems like youre the one in need of a physics course (careful friend, im an applied physics/astrophysics major). Heres your quote, in case you forgot...
Do you have any idea what youre talking about?
A few things here, while I'm definitely not in agreement with kllrnohj, I don't really think he has a firm concept of consoles vs PC's, in fact, I know he doesn't, I do have a few bones to pick here.
First of all, you are miss-quoting him. The last quote in this post was made by me in response to kllrnohj. Secondly, about this "interface" deal. I also think you are misusing the word. The PS3 DOES have an Operating System. Windows Vista is an Operating System. Vista Aero is an interface, see the distinction? The interface is simply the part of the OS that the user interacts with. The "interface" is part of the OS. Just because you cannot install AIM on it, does not mean it isn't an OS, it just means that the feature you're looking for is not supported. But you can install FaH on it, because that IS supported by the PS3 Operating System. You can also install games you download from the PlayStation Store, again, because it's supported by the OS.
MrWizard6600
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Messages
- 5,791
the 360 uses an R500 which is the little brother to the R600. The conversion to X86 didn't go so well for that GPU though. I believe it runs something similar to an IBM POWER cpu.
The PS3 has 256mb of QDR (quad data rate) memory strapped to the Sonys custom cell. I remember reading up on this extensivly and I've forgotten most of it lol. the Cell consists of one distribution hub sitting on top of 7 (produced as 8, ones disabled to increase yield)... I spose threads is the best term. Sony calls each of these threads "Synergistic Processing Units". The rumor is that Sony began development of the cell with image rendering in mind but production got a little to expensive so they outsourced to Nvidia. Nvidia allegidly modified a G70 to work with this new architecture.
It really is apples to oranges. If anything here was X86, we might be able to make a comparison, but since its not we cant really.
The PS3 has 256mb of QDR (quad data rate) memory strapped to the Sonys custom cell. I remember reading up on this extensivly and I've forgotten most of it lol. the Cell consists of one distribution hub sitting on top of 7 (produced as 8, ones disabled to increase yield)... I spose threads is the best term. Sony calls each of these threads "Synergistic Processing Units". The rumor is that Sony began development of the cell with image rendering in mind but production got a little to expensive so they outsourced to Nvidia. Nvidia allegidly modified a G70 to work with this new architecture.
It really is apples to oranges. If anything here was X86, we might be able to make a comparison, but since its not we cant really.
Any particular reason you chose to ignore what I said about Euphoria? I did talk about it. Maybe you should finish reading what I say before responding, it will probably help your case.
Yes, I know this, but that doesn't really make it any faster. Each core can still only execute one thread at a time. Heck, the benefits of hyperthreading likely barely make up the loss from it being an in-order CPU.
Its an interface dude...sorry to break your heart. Maybe when i can install AIM or Office on my PS3, ill consider it to have an OS
Since others have already responded to this quite well, I just want to point out that every Sony Playstation (including the PSX) has had an OS
In terms of CPU power it would be hard to make a comparison, but as 99% of games are GPU bound, this really isn't much of a problem. The RSX in the PS3 is based on the G71 and has 24 pixel and 8 vertex shaders - hardly a powerhouse. A faster CPU doesn't make prettier graphics (unless you are CPU bound - but games aren't CPU bound, so it still comes down to a GPU vs. GPU fight)
Consoles scuks and their performance "numbers" are based on theoretical values, not real world, did everyone forget this little tidbit?:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050629-5054.html
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050629-5054.html
Anyone who is criticizing the power of the console is nothing more than a PC fanboy. It's very simple, LOOK at how the games appear and how they play. Like I said in an earlier post 1920x1080 @ 60fps with excellent physics and graphics is not easily achieved. It would take a high end PC to match that.
PC fanboys keep in mind, just because a mid-range PC may be able to match the "power" of consoles, does not mean it can match it's gaming ability. PC's are general purpose computers, the operating system on a PC has to do a LOT more than a console OS does. Games written for PC's have to work with a very very wide array of hardware as well as software drivers. The consoles OS is optimized for one purpose, the games for consoles are highly optimized since they only have a single set of hardware/software to work with. It's simply not possible to get PC games and OS' as optimized as they are on the consoles for the reasons mentioned, and because of these differences, Consoles do not need to have as powerful of hardware to easily match up against much higher end PC's when it comes to gaming.
PC fanboys keep in mind, just because a mid-range PC may be able to match the "power" of consoles, does not mean it can match it's gaming ability. PC's are general purpose computers, the operating system on a PC has to do a LOT more than a console OS does. Games written for PC's have to work with a very very wide array of hardware as well as software drivers. The consoles OS is optimized for one purpose, the games for consoles are highly optimized since they only have a single set of hardware/software to work with. It's simply not possible to get PC games and OS' as optimized as they are on the consoles for the reasons mentioned, and because of these differences, Consoles do not need to have as powerful of hardware to easily match up against much higher end PC's when it comes to gaming.
Injection of <3
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2008
- Messages
- 610
So even if someone brings up facts (console's specs/game graphics) to back up their argument they're still just a pc fanboy, right? Nice logic.
And as I've said earlier, I have gta4 for the x360 and I'm not too impressed by the blurry textures, blurry backgrounds, and the draw in distance. Also what is this console game that runs at true 1080p (upscaling doesnt count) @60fps with excellent physics and graphics? I'd love to play it.
Acutally we have an PS3 at work and comparing the GFX to my 8800GT, i can say this:
The PS3 sucks donekyballs...fangirl
Just loook at GoW...on console..dumbed down UT3 engine(lets call it UT2.5)...unlike the FULL flegded UT3 engine on GoW for PC...
That and the facts that I can use MODS on my PC, makes me look at the console and think:
Crappy controls compared to my PC, crappy hardware compared to my PC, no MODS..and a lot of kiddies playing...no thanks give me my PC.
No AA/2(?)AF is not my style either...and don't give me the crap about "AA if the games run at 720"...I game in 1600x1200 WITH AA and AF!
Acutally we have an PS3 at work and comparing the GFX to my 8800GT, i can say this:
The PS3 sucks donekyballs...fangirl
Just loook at GoW...on console..dumbed down UT3 engine(lets call it UT2.5)...unlike the FULL flegded UT3 engine on GoW for PC...
That and the facts that I can use MODS on my PC, makes me look at the console and think:
Crappy controls compared to my PC, crappy hardware compared to my PC, no MODS..and a lot of kiddies playing...no thanks give me my PC.
I'm not saying consoles have better graphics through and through. What I'm saying, is that a console will have better graphics that an equivilent spec'd PC. Like I said, it would take a high end PC to match it. I gaurantee you that a 7xxx series video card which in thoery is equivilent to what the PS3 has will not be able to put up the graphics in the PC as it does on the PS3. I would certainly hope that the 8800 series would be able to since it's a whole new generation.
Nice comeback with fangirl though, how old are you? 12? You should get along with the kiddies just fine.
Define "high-end PC"...untill you do, you have made no argument.
Don't cry when you get as you give...
Here is my 2 cent. First off I made the jump from the 360 to the PC and the 360 and PS3 don't hand a candle to a current get pc on the lower end. First you need to throw that whole 60fps thing out of your mind. The 360 and PS3 can max out at that with v-sync, AA, and AF all turned off. Also the systems use lower textures and are optimize to run at 1280 x 720. On the PC side of things the sky is the limit based off of your budget and resolution.
The big thing you are missing from this thread is how much you want to spend. say you wanted to spend $800 on everything, I would say grab an 8800gt, q6600, evga 750i ftw board and some good ram and a nice PSU. and you would kill the consoles out on the market now!
The big thing you are missing from this thread is how much you want to spend. say you wanted to spend $800 on everything, I would say grab an 8800gt, q6600, evga 750i ftw board and some good ram and a nice PSU. and you would kill the consoles out on the market now!
Define "high-end PC"...untill you do, you have made no argument.
Don't cry when you get as you give...
Not crying, simply calling it as I see it.
It would be pointless for me to define "high-end" since there is no real defination, spec-wise as to what constitutes a high-end PC.
The main point I am trying to get across for those people who are saying X PC hardware is equivilent to X PS3 hardware is that the PS3 will make better use of that hardware, becuase of the highly optomized code. A PC would need hardware that is "higher" end that what is in the PS3 to match it's abilities. Like I said previously, the PC is general purpose, it has to do a lot more things than then worry about gaming, so naturally it would need more powerful hardware to match a PS3 when it comes to gaming. It's simple logic really.
yeah...
I am sorry but I had to reply to this. You got to be kidding me that is what you post. Here these are screens from my AMD platform that was getting 25fps in crysis mix between high and medium and I currently get 37fps average with vertical sync on with the setup in my sig. And these have been down sampled from photo bucket. They were all original 1920 x 1080 with 2x AA!
all in game!
farfromhome
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2007
- Messages
- 1,018
Which makes sense, but then the question is how much more powerful does the PC hardware have to be to equal the console with its optimizations. If a console has the equivalent of a 7800 GT, would the computer need a 7900 GT or a 8800 GS to match it? I'd hazard a guess that the answer would be a lot closer to a 7900 GT; it's not like there's magic fairy dust in the consoles or anything, and the OS on a PC generally eats up CPU power (and even then, minimal for modern multi-core CPU's), when games mostly stress the GPU.
Can you even name any PS3 games that run at those specs? The current trend is less than 1280x720 (key word: less than, such as GTA IV - which runs at 640p), and the games still don't average 60fps
Cry me a river..using the term fanboi and the whining like a little bitch when the favour is returned show to me you are a whiner...
So you don't have a point, just pointless, empty fluff?
My rig will walk all over any console...even if i pull my killerNiC, PhysX and X-Fi...Q6600/8800GT will cream any console...AND give me AA and AF(usually 4xAA/16xAF)...something consoles only can dream of...
And it STILL gets beaten by the PC...just wait untill AMD/NVIDIA/INTEL next offerings...they will make you console look like a calculator...
Injection of <3
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2008
- Messages
- 610
He's making shit up to support his "consoles are great" argument and yet we're the fanboys.
I don't know if this adds anything to the argument, but the original Xbox did run on a "stripped down" Windows 2000. So technically, it is running a operating system. Probably uses waaaayyy less resources than say... Vista or XP, but it still is a operating system, stripped down or not.
Seeing as how the Xbox 360 interface hasn't changed *THAT* much over the Xbox, I'd say it uses something similar.
Seeing as how the Xbox 360 interface hasn't changed *THAT* much over the Xbox, I'd say it uses something similar.
I love how he couldn't define "High End PC", but still used it as an "argument"
*L*
Red Falcon
[H]ard DCOTM December 2023
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 12,449
Wow, I knew PC's were better but not THAT much better!
lol @ the consoles and RamonGTP
Armake21 did a review on this on youtube. Check it out here.
RamonGTP, I get what you are saying about the hardware and coding being more efficient, but the hardware in these systems is from 2006. Even at best these would only be considered a mid-range PC at best in terms of actual performance. The cell processor does not give the PS3 enough of an advantage to beat modern PC's in games (or Macs w/ OpenGL games).
The GPU's on both the 360 (Xenos) and PS3 (7800GTX modified) are very weak by today's standards. Crysis looks better on my friend's machine with only an 8800GTS 320MB than it does on the PS3 (by far). GTA IV running on the 360 and PS3 lags at times that almost make the game unplayable in certain situations. Very frustrating. I don't see that problem with mid to high-end PC's.
So, RamonGTP, where's your argument. You could talk the talk before, can you walk the walk?
EDIT:
Oh, give me a break. You're acting like the biggest console fanboy of all time, Chadwardenn himself!
Ok, so the PC's CPU may be hung up a little with the OS (not really). So, the GPU(s) is then left to process the game. I'm not saying CPUs aren't important, but even a single core CPU can run today's games as long as the graphics card is decent enough. It's going to bottleneck you say? Not at 640p, which is what GTA IV runs at natively. Even 720p wouldn't bottleneck with a decent GPU and a good single-core processor. Now, this is a single core CPU I'm talking about with a single GPU. Not dual or quad core with 2-4 GPU's. If we throw those into the fray, bu bye bandwidth and performance bottleneck.
lol
EDIT #2:
Even if he IS 12, he makes a better argument than you do.
lol @ the consoles and RamonGTP
Armake21 did a review on this on youtube. Check it out here.
RamonGTP, I get what you are saying about the hardware and coding being more efficient, but the hardware in these systems is from 2006. Even at best these would only be considered a mid-range PC at best in terms of actual performance. The cell processor does not give the PS3 enough of an advantage to beat modern PC's in games (or Macs w/ OpenGL games).
The GPU's on both the 360 (Xenos) and PS3 (7800GTX modified) are very weak by today's standards. Crysis looks better on my friend's machine with only an 8800GTS 320MB than it does on the PS3 (by far). GTA IV running on the 360 and PS3 lags at times that almost make the game unplayable in certain situations. Very frustrating. I don't see that problem with mid to high-end PC's.
So, RamonGTP, where's your argument. You could talk the talk before, can you walk the walk?
EDIT:
Oh, give me a break. You're acting like the biggest console fanboy of all time, Chadwardenn himself!
Ok, so the PC's CPU may be hung up a little with the OS (not really). So, the GPU(s) is then left to process the game. I'm not saying CPUs aren't important, but even a single core CPU can run today's games as long as the graphics card is decent enough. It's going to bottleneck you say? Not at 640p, which is what GTA IV runs at natively. Even 720p wouldn't bottleneck with a decent GPU and a good single-core processor. Now, this is a single core CPU I'm talking about with a single GPU. Not dual or quad core with 2-4 GPU's. If we throw those into the fray, bu bye bandwidth and performance bottleneck.
lol
EDIT #2:
Even if he IS 12, he makes a better argument than you do.
Showtimextx
Weaksauce
- Joined
- May 13, 2008
- Messages
- 71
I guess it all depends on each game, games like GTA have no visual differences from what I can see but Bioshock had some.