360,ps3= pc equivalent

Showtimextx said:
I guess it all depends on each game, games like GTA have no visual differences from what I can see but Bioshock had some.
Click to expand...

Go look at the Crysis images above. There is a HUGE difference between the PS3 (sucky) and the PC (scaled down and still looking great).

EDIT: Wow, I feel smart! @_@ Thanks lucky777.

Yeah, Bioshock looks way better on the PC.
 
Red Falcon said:
Crysis looks better on my friend's machine with only an 8800GTS 320MB than it does on the PS3 (by far).
Click to expand...

Wait a minute. Crysis has been ported to the PS3? And your friend already owns a copy? Wow, that's news to me.
 
RamonGTP said:
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.
Click to expand...

exactly. "zomg! the cell has got 2TFLOPS of performance! Just look at the folding numbers!!" Thats wonderful, and I'm glad your using that PS3 to save lives, but its an extraneous tidbit if it doesn't make the image on the screen any better looking or any more fluid.

The thing that gets me about the cell is it looks so intentionally setup to handle intense physics calcs and seriously advanced AI, but neither really exist yet. I would like to see sup-com on the PS3, bet it would do better than any kentsfield or hell maybe it would outperform two Yorkfields on a skulltrail (the numbers certainly imply it might), but supcom isn't on the PS3 (or if it is, its a poorly marketed port). As for physics, as far as I can tell Sony has no physics development environment. So much parallelism, so much wasted.
 
in terms of graphical power, the pc pwns any console period. discussion is over.
in terms of games. now thats the kicker. i think consoles games have more exclusive titles, making it the only reason to buy a $400 ps3 just for re5 and mg4 :(
 
MrWizard6600 said:
exactly. "zomg! the cell has got 2TFLOPS of performance! Just look at the folding numbers!!" Thats wonderful, and I'm glad your using that PS3 to save lives, but its an extraneous tidbit if it doesn't make the image on the screen any better looking or any more fluid.

The thing that gets me about the cell is it looks so intentionally setup to handle intense physics calcs and seriously advanced AI, but neither really exist yet. I would like to see sup-com on the PS3, bet it would do better than any kentsfield or hell maybe it would outperform two Yorkfields on a skulltrail (the numbers certainly imply it might), but supcom isn't on the PS3 (or if it is, its a poorly marketed port). As for physics, as far as I can tell Sony has no physics development environment. So much parallelism, so much wasted.
Click to expand...

AFAIK Sony bought the right to use the PhysX API to all PS3 games from AGEIA in a one time deal...:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articl...into-strategic-licensing-agreement-with-ageia
 
Atech said:
I love how he couldn't define "High End PC", but still used it as an "argument" ;) *L*
Click to expand...

Try to use some critical thinking skills for a change and realize why I did not define your question. I'll help you out.

I didn't define "high end" because everyone has their own opinion as to what high end is. I can define high end as my current gaming rig while someone else may consider it mid-range because there are better parts out there. Which is specifically why I said revised my statement to make it a bit easier to grasp for the folks who need everything spelled out for them by using the term "higher-end" as it stands in relation to console hardware, and the PS3 in particular. You asked a question that is impossible to define, that's why I didn't define it. :rolleyes:

And Red Falcon, I understand and agree with what you are saying. Never once did I say that the PS3 is a better gaming machine that a modern PC. It's more than the CPU in the PC has to deal with more stuff, it's the software too. Drivers have to be able to work with a wide variety of hardware and software. Just look at all the possible combinations on the PC, CPU, motherboard, motherboard chipset, GPU (ati or nivida and which family) driver versions, operating system. 64bit vs 32bit, the list goes on and on.

All these different possible combinations are nearly endless and the games have to be coded to work with all or nearly all of it. By it's very nature, that makes the the software (game) less efficient, and that is above and beyond the simple fact that the CPU on a PC has to do more work. On the PC you've got hardware that needs to do more work combine with games that are less efficient (for the most part, there are exceptions I'm sure)

What I'm saying is very simple and it is the truth. PC's need to be more powerful than consoles to achieve the same level of gaming. I'm really not sure why a select few of you are up in arms about this. I am NOT saying today's PC's can't match it which I'm somehow being accused of by a select few.

I'm also far from a console fanboy, I do >80% of my gaming on my PC. It seems to me that a few of you are not even reading my posts, but just seeing a snippet that offends you and you start firing away, all the while I never actually said anything that was contrary to what you're saying
 
The only problem I have with consoles is resolution, af, and aa. I just finished playing Vampire Bloodlines and you can tell that the graphics are old by looking at the blocky character models and buildings, and low res textures. BUT...running at 1600x1200 with 16xaf and 4xaa @ 60fps I could care less about all that because the game itself appears sharper than ANY console game I have ever seen, not to mention gameplay/story that is superior to anything on consoles as well. To be fair though, I also just finished playing FF12 on PS2, and my only complaint was what I mentioned above, resolution, aa, and af.

I believe that the next generation of consoles will solve all of the problems I have with them. Also, if they add native keyboard/mouse support (with the ability to remap to whatever you like), there will be no reason why consoles will not be able to reign supreme in all genres, including MMO and RTS. I think it would be funny if Nintento, having decided to sit out this generations graphics battle, while at the same time making the most money and having the most sales, comes out with the killer console for the next generation. I don't think its impossible either...with the money they are making with the Wii.
 
RamonGTP said:
Try to use some critical thinking skills for a change and realize why I did not define your question. I'll help you out.

I didn't define "high end" because everyone has their own opinion as to what high end is. I can define high end as my current gaming rig while someone else may consider it mid-range because there are better parts out there. Which is specifically why I said revised my statement to make it a bit easier to grasp for the folks who need everything spelled out for them by using the term "higher-end" as it stands in relation to console hardware, and the PS3 in particular. You asked a question that is impossible to define, that's why I didn't define it. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Now you whine because I wanted YOU to specify an "argument" YOU made? :rolleyes:
.oO(where is my ignore button, this troll is too lame...)
 
The argument I made still stands. I'm trying to explain it to you since you're obviously too dense to understand it. Maybe if I saw it from your point of view I'd see where you're coming from, but I don't think I could ever get my head that far up my ass.
 
RamonGTP said:
Try to use some critical thinking skills for a change and realize why I did not define your question. I'll help you out.

I didn't define "high end" because everyone has their own opinion as to what high end is. I can define high end as my current gaming rig while someone else may consider it mid-range because there are better parts out there. Which is specifically why I said revised my statement to make it a bit easier to grasp for the folks who need everything spelled out for them by using the term "higher-end" as it stands in relation to console hardware, and the PS3 in particular. You asked a question that is impossible to define, that's why I didn't define it. :rolleyes:

And Red Falcon, I understand and agree with what you are saying. Never once did I say that the PS3 is a better gaming machine that a modern PC. It's more than the CPU in the PC has to deal with more stuff, it's the software too. Drivers have to be able to work with a wide variety of hardware and software. Just look at all the possible combinations on the PC, CPU, motherboard, motherboard chipset, GPU (ati or nivida and which family) driver versions, operating system. 64bit vs 32bit, the list goes on and on.

All these different possible combinations are nearly endless and the games have to be coded to work with all or nearly all of it. By it's very nature, that makes the the software (game) less efficient, and that is above and beyond the simple fact that the CPU on a PC has to do more work. On the PC you've got hardware that needs to do more work combine with games that are less efficient (for the most part, there are exceptions I'm sure)

What I'm saying is very simple and it is the truth. PC's need to be more powerful than consoles to achieve the same level of gaming. I'm really not sure why a select few of you are up in arms about this. I am NOT saying today's PC's can't match it which I'm somehow being accused of by a select few.

I'm also far from a console fanboy, I do >80% of my gaming on my PC. It seems to me that a few of you are not even reading my posts, but just seeing a snippet that offends you and you start firing away, all the while I never actually said anything that was contrary to what you're saying
Click to expand...

Man, I was just giving you crap. ;)

I know what you're saying, but the hardware that is the consoles is over 2 years old and is heavily dated compared to today's PC's.

The same could be said for the PS2 when it came out in 2001. The best machines out at that time were early Pentium 4's (really sucky) and GeForce2 cards. The PS2 blew them out of the water. By 2003 though, the Athlon 64 was out and so were the FX series cards and Radeon 9700 cards. The PS2 lasted a long time, but it too was eventually overtaken by PC hardware.

Granted, consoles don't need the heavy amounts of compatibility that PCs do due to all of the drivers and architectures at work, but it does not make them more efficient in terms of gaming (hardware-wise, not price-wise).
 
lucky777 said:
Ummm....strike two! Bioshock never came out for the PS3 either.
Click to expand...

RAWR! I never said it was! But yeah, it did look like I did. So, Bioshock looks better on the PC than it does on the 360. HA! Oh yeah, first base! What!?! Not a fly ball! He's out!

Nooooo!!!!!1!!1!!!one!!1
 
Red Falcon said:
Man, I was just giving you crap. ;)

I know what you're saying, but the hardware that is the consoles is over 2 years old and is heavily dated compared to today's PC's.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but to clarify, "Today's PC's" does not mean 7900 series GPU's

The same could be said for the PS2 when it came out in 2001. The best machines out at that time were early Pentium 4's (really sucky) and GeForce2 cards. The PS2 blew them out of the water. By 2003 though, the Athlon 64 was out and so were the FX series cards and Radeon 9700 cards. The PS2 lasted a long time, but it too was eventually overtaken by PC hardware.

Granted, consoles don't need the heavy amounts of compatibility that PCs do due to all of the drivers and architectures at work, but it does not make them more efficient in terms of gaming (hardware-wise, not price-wise).
Click to expand...

I was referring to efficiency as it relates to coding for the games. It's a lot easier for the developer to write highly optimized code for a specific set of hardware/software. Most won't take the time to optimize their code for all the hardware combinations available for the PC's. We see it all the time in the real world, some games run better on ATI while others on nVidia. We may not actually see it all that often now since ATI is so far behind, but back when they had comparable GPU's, it was not uncommon to see different games favoring different cards.
 
I have more fun with a PC. I can tweak and customize it to whatever I need to be. I like the mouse/keyboard combo better for 90% of the games I would play. I can upgrade in the future and get more out of my favorite games. I can play with the audio, through better headphones and sound tweaks, more fps, etc, you get the point. Consoles are too laid back for me, I feel constrained when I play on it.
 
Atech said:
Now you whine because I wanted YOU to specify an "argument" YOU made? :rolleyes:
.oO(where is my ignore button, this troll is too lame...)
Click to expand...

Um, he's not really trolling. Believe me, I've seen worse. He's just trying to make a point that games are easier to code for a console because there is far less overhead to deal with such as x86, x64, architectures, drivers, buses, etc. that are all on a PC.

However, I have yet to see a game coded properly for the Cell processor that everyone (outside of this thread) keeps going on about and how great it is.

Since the hardware is older, it may or may not be easier to code for. My opinion is a gaming console is the poor man's PC. For $300 to $400 for a system, getting a PC at that price with similar performance results won't happen. But a person can't do video/audio editing on a console either. So it really depends on what the user needs to do/get done and what price range they are looking at.

If they want to game, but not spend lots of money, get a console. If they are willing to pay the extra though, or don't need to game, get a PC (or Mac).
 
Red Falcon said:
Man, I was just giving you crap. ;)

I know what you're saying, but the hardware that is the consoles is over 2 years old and is heavily dated compared to today's PC's.

The same could be said for the PS2 when it came out in 2001. The best machines out at that time were early Pentium 4's (really sucky) and GeForce2 cards. The PS2 blew them out of the water. By 2003 though, the Athlon 64 was out and so were the FX series cards and Radeon 9700 cards. The PS2 lasted a long time, but it too was eventually overtaken by PC hardware.

Granted, consoles don't need the heavy amounts of compatibility that PCs do due to all of the drivers and architectures at work, but it does not make them more efficient in terms of gaming (hardware-wise, not price-wise).
Click to expand...

I think by the time the gf3 rolled around ps2 were already way behind.
 
christpunchersg said:
I have more fun with a PC. I can tweak and customize it to whatever I need to be. I like the mouse/keyboard combo better for 90% of the games I would play. I can upgrade in the future and get more out of my favorite games. I can play with the audio, through better headphones and sound tweaks, more fps, etc, you get the point. Consoles are too laid back for me, I feel constrained when I play on it.
Click to expand...

This is one of the reasons I don't really care for consoles. They aren't really upgradeable.

I don't really game any more, so video editing and audio editing/recording is a must for me. Therefore I don't see the need for myself to own a console... at least not until Resident Evil 5 comes out! :cool:
 
RamonGTP said:
I didn't define "high end" because everyone has their own opinion as to what high end is. I can define high end as my current gaming rig while someone else may consider it mid-range because there are better parts out there.
Click to expand...

That is the exact reason you need to define what *you* consider "high end" when you use it in an argument.

And Red Falcon, I understand and agree with what you are saying. Never once did I say that the PS3 is a better gaming machine that a modern PC. It's more than the CPU in the PC has to deal with more stuff, it's the software too. Drivers have to be able to work with a wide variety of hardware and software. Just look at all the possible combinations on the PC, CPU, motherboard, motherboard chipset, GPU (ati or nivida and which family) driver versions, operating system. 64bit vs 32bit, the list goes on and on.

All these different possible combinations are nearly endless and the games have to be coded to work with all or nearly all of it. By it's very nature, that makes the the software (game) less efficient, and that is above and beyond the simple fact that the CPU on a PC has to do more work. On the PC you've got hardware that needs to do more work combine with games that are less efficient (for the most part, there are exceptions I'm sure)
Click to expand...

Actually, from a programming standpoint, all those different configurations are pretty much identical to code for, as you go through whatever API you are using (OpenGL or DirectX). Bugs occur because of different configurations, but that doesn't reduce the efficiency or make the code bloated (it can even lead to the reverse - a more streamlined version that actually follows the spec. Eliminates the bug and improves performance). You also have all these exact same problems with consoles - they use more or less the same APIs, and have the same problems - *including* bugs occuring on some, but not all, consoles (*cough, GTA IV freeze issue, cough*)

What I'm saying is very simple and it is the truth. PC's need to be more powerful than consoles to achieve the same level of gaming. I'm really not sure why a select few of you are up in arms about this. I am NOT saying today's PC's can't match it which I'm somehow being accused of by a select few.
Click to expand...

Because it is *NOT* true, THAT is why I am arguing it. Consoles use the SAME APIs, and have the SAME issues as PCs. There is still an OS, there are still drivers (likely built into the OS - but it amounts to the same thing), etc... Consoles, however, don't get driver updates (or they get them less frequently - not too familiar with the PS3/360 update cycle) - so every time a driver release comes out that improves performance, that is free performance that consoles don't get. Consoles are basically PCs in an HTPC enclosure - they aren't any more efficient.
 
kllrnohj said:
Because it is *NOT* true, THAT is why I am arguing it.
Click to expand...

To each their own in that case beucase I don't agree. I have been gaming on PC's for many years now. My first gaming card was the original Voodoo, followed by the Voodoo 2 and then TNT2 and I've built system around all the popular gaming cards since then and I can honestly say that the machines using 7900 series cards could not compare with what I see when I load up a game in the PS3.
 
RamonGTP said:
To each their own in that case beucase I don't agree. I have been gaming on PC's for many years now. My first gaming card was the original Voodoo, followed by the Voodoo 2 and then TNT2 and I've built system around all the popular gaming cards since then and I can honestly say that the machines using 7900 series cards could not compare with what I see when I load up a game in the PS3.
Click to expand...

Should be easy enough to test - I'm still running a 7900 series card. So, take a game that is a quality port on the PC (such as UT3 or mabye Assasins Creed, etc..), and we can do a test. I'll run the game at the resolution of the PS3 (1280x720 or lower if the game runs lower) and at a comparable quality level and we can see if it is playable. Sound fair enough?
 
kllrnohj said:
Should be easy enough to test - I'm still running a 7900 series card. So, take a game that is a quality port on the PC (such as UT3 or mabye Assasins Creed, etc..), and we can do a test. I'll run the game at the resolution of the PS3 (1280x720 or lower if the game runs lower) and at a comparable quality level and we can see if it is playable. Sound fair enough?
Click to expand...

Not really. Its a G71 based core. Thats it. It is in no way anywhere near equivalent in terms of power. The memory specs alone are enough to cripple it compared to an actual 79xx.
 
Sure, it sounds far enough, but what is a comprable quality level? I've already done this test with CoD4 at my cousins hosue who happens to have a PS3 and a PC with a 7900GT.

The PS3 runs this game at 1280x720 iirc (720p) but we ran at at 1280x1024 on the PC. Really that's the fairest way to do it since that was the native res and anything less wouldn't look good. At any rate, we ran the PC at the highest settings that still offered good FPS.

Gameplay wise we both preferred the PC beucase of the keyboard/mouse factor. Visually we prefferred the PS3. Both were perfectly playable.

He's only running an X2 4400+ so maybe that has something to do with it, and maybe it was playing on a 50" that gave us the wow factor, but that's what we came away with.
 
RamonGTP said:
Try to use some critical thinking skills for a change and realize why I did not define your question. I'll help you out.

I didn't define "high end" because everyone has their own opinion as to what high end is. I can define high end as my current gaming rig while someone else may consider it mid-range because there are better parts out there. Which is specifically why I said revised my statement to make it a bit easier to grasp for the folks who need everything spelled out for them by using the term "higher-end" as it stands in relation to console hardware, and the PS3 in particular. You asked a question that is impossible to define, that's why I didn't define it. :rolleyes:

And Red Falcon, I understand and agree with what you are saying. Never once did I say that the PS3 is a better gaming machine that a modern PC. It's more than the CPU in the PC has to deal with more stuff, it's the software too. Drivers have to be able to work with a wide variety of hardware and software. Just look at all the possible combinations on the PC, CPU, motherboard, motherboard chipset, GPU (ati or nivida and which family) driver versions, operating system. 64bit vs 32bit, the list goes on and on.

All these different possible combinations are nearly endless and the games have to be coded to work with all or nearly all of it. By it's very nature, that makes the the software (game) less efficient, and that is above and beyond the simple fact that the CPU on a PC has to do more work. On the PC you've got hardware that needs to do more work combine with games that are less efficient (for the most part, there are exceptions I'm sure)

What I'm saying is very simple and it is the truth. PC's need to be more powerful than consoles to achieve the same level of gaming. I'm really not sure why a select few of you are up in arms about this. I am NOT saying today's PC's can't match it which I'm somehow being accused of by a select few.

I'm also far from a console fanboy, I do >80% of my gaming on my PC. It seems to me that a few of you are not even reading my posts, but just seeing a snippet that offends you and you start firing away, all the while I never actually said anything that was contrary to what you're saying
Click to expand...

Games do not have to be programmed specifically for the numerous hardware out there. This is why we have Direct X/OPENGL API .
 
RamonGTP said:
Sure, it sounds far enough, but what is a comprable quality level? I've already done this test with CoD4 at my cousins hosue who happens to have a PS3 and a PC with a 7900GT.

The PS3 runs this game at 1280x720 iirc (720p) but we ran at at 1280x1024 on the PC. Really that's the fairest way to do it since that was the native res and anything less wouldn't look good. At any rate, we ran the PC at the highest settings that still offered good FPS.

Gameplay wise we both preferred the PC beucase of the keyboard/mouse factor. Visually we prefferred the PS3. Both were perfectly playable.

He's only running an X2 4400+ so maybe that has something to do with it, and maybe it was playing on a 50" that gave us the wow factor, but that's what we came away with.
Click to expand...

Why didn't you hook the PC up to the "50?
 
IIRC, 360 renders games at 640x480 and upscales them.The need for TOP-TOP of line tech isn't necessary. I think both consoles are RAM limited.
 
RamonGTP said:
Sure, it sounds far enough, but what is a comprable quality level? I've already done this test with CoD4 at my cousins hosue who happens to have a PS3 and a PC with a 7900GT.

The PS3 runs this game at 1280x720 iirc (720p) but we ran at at 1280x1024 on the PC. Really that's the fairest way to do it since that was the native res and anything less wouldn't look good. At any rate, we ran the PC at the highest settings that still offered good FPS.

Gameplay wise we both preferred the PC beucase of the keyboard/mouse factor. Visually we prefferred the PS3. Both were perfectly playable.

He's only running an X2 4400+ so maybe that has something to do with it, and maybe it was playing on a 50" that gave us the wow factor, but that's what we came away with.
Click to expand...

Um, re-read what nissan said above. The PS3's card is a G71 core which is way more powerful than a 7900GT. Also, you need to compare them both on the same screen and the same resolution to get true comparable results. Seeing it on a 50" screen will more than likely look better than some old ass TFT LCD screen. Also, his 4400+ would not bottleneck a single 7900GT.

Sorry, but compare it to a PC using his processor with two 7900GTX's in SLI @ 1280x720 (720p), not 1280x1024.

Also, what refresh rate is your 50" running at? If it is only 24 or 30 fps, that will make a big difference (if the PS3 is set to that) vs 60 fps at a greater resolution (possibly more lag).
 
Red Falcon said:
Um, re-read what nissan said above. The PS3's card is a G71 core which is way more powerful than a 7900GT. Also, you need to compare them both on the same screen and the same resolution to get true comparable results. Seeing it on a 50" screen will more than likely look better than some old ass TFT LCD screen. Also, his 4400+ would not bottleneck a single 7900GT.

Sorry, but compare it to a PC using his processor with two 7900GTX's in SLI @ 1280x720 (720p), not 1280x1024.

Also, what refresh rate is your 50" running at? If it is only 24 or 30 fps, that will make a big difference (if the PS3 is set to that) vs 60 fps at a greater resolution (possibly more lag).
Click to expand...

No, the PS3 uses a G71 like GPU, but with a 128-bit bandwidth. Furthermore, the 7900GT utilizes a G71 core, so how could a G71 be way more powerful than a 7900GT when the 7900GT uses the exact same core?

I have tested SLI'd 7800GTXs with UT3, COD4, GeoW and Assassin's Creed. They all run very well except for Assassin's Creed. It doesn't even run good on low-medium @ 768. I don't know why it's like this. I guess AC just doesn't like the fixed design of the 7800.
 
lucky777 said:
No, the PS3 uses a G71 like GPU, but with a 128-bit bandwidth. Furthermore, the 7900GT utilizes a G71 core, so how could a G71 be way more powerful than a 7900GT when the 7900GT uses the exact same core?

I have tested SLI'd 7800GTX with UT3, COD4, and Assassin's Creed. They all run very well except for Assassin's Creed. It doesn't even run good on low-medium @ 768.
Click to expand...

Damn you for always being right! ARGH!!@

Yeah, memory bandwidth is only 22.4GB/s @ 128-bit (same as my 8600GT, heh).
 
Red Falcon said:
Um, re-read what nissan said above. The PS3's card is a G71 core which is way more powerful than a 7900GT. Also, you need to compare them both on the same screen and the same resolution to get true comparable results. Seeing it on a 50" screen will more than likely look better than some old ass TFT LCD screen. Also, his 4400+ would not bottleneck a single 7900GT.
Click to expand...

I don't need to re-read his post becuase my post was in responce to kllrnohj who wanted to comapre it to a 79xx series card. Using them in SLI would make them more powerful than the PS3, the whole point is to compare using similar hardware with the same game and seeing what happens.

Comparing it to his PC at 1280x720 and the PS3 would win hands down in the visual aspect becuase that is not the native res of the monitor. I was actually doing the PC a favor by using the settings that look best on the monitor we were using.
 
RamonGTP said:
I don't need to re-read his post becuase my post was in responce to kllrnohj who wanted to comapre it to a 79xx series card. Using them in SLI would make them more powerful than the PS3, the whole point is to compare using similar hardware with the same game and seeing what happens.
Click to expand...

I have to agree there. The point isn't how well you can do if you spend tons of money (even in the same generation); of course a PC will win there. The point is given comparable hardware at a reasonable price, which one is better. A single 7900 GT is the fairest comparison; both G71 cores, reasonably priced, and very common (unlike the 7950 GT which came out shortly before the 8800 series, or the very expensive 7900 GTX or 7950 GX2). So RamonGTP's friend's test was almost there. To be truly fair, you must use the same resolution on the same monitor; I'd be impressed playing on a 50" HDTV too, even if it's a Wii game. ;) Not to mention that the 1280x1024 PC monitor has 40% more pixels to push than a 720p HDTV.

If done properly, it would be a very interesting test. The 7900 GT has more brute force (if it's true that the console has a 128-bit G71), but the console is more narrowly-focused for gaming. I would be very curious as to the result.
 
Comparing to a 7900 series card would not be a fair test. The RSX is a G71 based core. Its not a G71. The memory bus of the RSX is half of the G71 based PC cards. If you really wanted to compare it to the 7900, you should at least underclock the memory and bring down the bandwidth to level the playing field.
 
farfromhome said:
To be truly fair, you must use the same resolution on the same monitor; I'd be impressed playing on a 50" HDTV too, even if it's a Wii game. ;) Not to mention that the 1280x1024 PC monitor has 40% more pixels to push than a 720p HDTV.
Click to expand...

Agreed, we did the best we could with what we had. The way the room is setup makes it very hard to hook the PC up to the tv and impossible to be hooked up and playing at the same time. The PC is setup on a 19" NEC Multisync 90GX2 which is one of the better 19" monitors made. Still, not a perfect comparison, I agree.
 
Your all forgetting that the consoles hardware is dedicated solely to running games and not a OS on the side. Your also forgetting that the consoles potential specially the PS3 hasn't been fully used in any current game. I would say for 360 equal PC would be a quad core and 9600GTX at least. The PS3 cell can be dedicated to graphics because it was designed to crunch through floating points unlike regular PC CPUs. The developers intended the cell to be used along side the graphics engine of the PS3.

A good example of this is to use [H]s review of Rainbow 6 since its a direct port to the PC. Look at what cards struggle to even get near the 60FPS cap for the 360(even though its a higher res then either console). The PS3 has a ton more headroom for games.
 
RamonGTP said:
Sure, it sounds far enough, but what is a comprable quality level? I've already done this test with CoD4 at my cousins hosue who happens to have a PS3 and a PC with a 7900GT.

The PS3 runs this game at 1280x720 iirc (720p) but we ran at at 1280x1024 on the PC. Really that's the fairest way to do it since that was the native res and anything less wouldn't look good. At any rate, we ran the PC at the highest settings that still offered good FPS.

Gameplay wise we both preferred the PC beucase of the keyboard/mouse factor. Visually we prefferred the PS3. Both were perfectly playable.

He's only running an X2 4400+ so maybe that has something to do with it, and maybe it was playing on a 50" that gave us the wow factor, but that's what we came away with.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I have to cry foul here :p 1280x720p is only 70% of the pixels of 1280x1024. It may not be native res, but it may allow you to up any other settings (AA/AF, for example). The way I was going to do it was to run it in window mode (slight extra overhead for running in window mode - but it shouldn't be too bad)

But if they offered comparable framerates and the PC was running at the games highest settings, then the PS3 doesn't have any sort of a visual advantage (other than being on a big TV with you sitting farther back - less likely to notice lower detail/lower res textures)

Comparing to a 7900 series card would not be a fair test. The RSX is a G71 based core. Its not a G71. The memory bus of the RSX is half of the G71 based PC cards. If you really wanted to compare it to the 7900, you should at least underclock the memory and bring down the bandwidth to level the playing field
Click to expand...

And clock the core up to 550mhz, of course. To be fair and all.

Your all forgetting that the consoles hardware is dedicated solely to running games and not a OS on the side. Your also forgetting that the consoles potential specially the PS3 hasn't been fully used in any current game. I would say for 360 equal PC would be a quad core and 9600GTX at least. The PS3 cell can be dedicated to graphics because it was designed to crunch through floating points unlike regular PC CPUs. The developers intended the cell to be used along side the graphics engine of the PS3.

A good example of this is to use [H]s review of Rainbow 6 since its a direct port to the PC. Look at what cards struggle to even get near the 60FPS cap for the 360(even though its a higher res then either console). The PS3 has a ton more headroom for game
Click to expand...

Arg not this crap again - go re-read the thread, this time all the way through. The 360 and PS3 have comparable GPU horsepower to last generations cards (x19xx series and 79xx series respectively) And you do realize your example, Rainbow Six, was playable on a 9600GT at 1920x1200, a resolution the PS3 only dreams of being able to run at? We are talking well over twice the number of pixels than what the PS3 or 360 version is running...
 
That's the thing kllrnohj, the PC was not running at the highest game settings. I was running at the highest settings that still allowed for good frame rates. I don't recall exactly what those settings were, but they certainly were not maxed out.

I mean, if we REALLY want to get technical, the only truly accurate way to get a comparison is to have two identical TV sets side by side so you can do a head to head comparison.
 
RamonGTP said:
That's the thing kllrnohj, the PC was not running at the highest game settings. I was running at the highest settings that still allowed for good frame rates. I don't recall exactly what those settings were, but they certainly were not maxed out.
Click to expand...

Ah, gotcha, it wasn't very clear what you meant. Dropping the resolution down is definitely a must - if I get some time later I'll fire up windows and try it

EDIT: At least I would, if I still had CoD4 installed :(
 
What is the heresy? You uninstalled CoD4?
But seriously I'll test it and be back with numbers and observations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top