GPU of PS3?

Status
Not open for further replies.
schizo said:
Please don't turn this thread into an asinine fan-boy console battle to the death. It's harder to develop for, that's a fact. That doesn't mean it's doomed to fail. The PS2 was infinitely harder to develop for than the xbox1 and it did just fine.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to turn this thread into anything. I think you took that quote a little of context as well. but what you said proves my point exactly, so I dunno. consoles and pc's are different, plan and simple. there's no need to argue about computing power and all that jazz. they do different things. I don't play racing games on pc because they suck on pc, and I don't play FPS on consoles because generally they suck on consoles (mouse and keyboard spoiled me). To the people comparing resolutions and stuff like that. Lets see a a game that is made to run in 1080p run on a 50+in HDTV in the correct resolution and using the right cables, etc. then we'll talk. also not a launch game.

edit: lets not forget what it takes to run a game with all the bells and whistles at 1900x1020 or whatever and 1600x1200
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
Sony / SquareSoft Needs to release FF7 with redone gfx and sounds for pc so I can live happy ~
Click to expand...

Amen to that, brother :)

But I agree, console's are built for a purpose, PC's are built for multi-purpose. Because of that reason, even if the PS3's RSX is 'only' a 7800 based GPU, it will be able to do things in a PS3 that it would never be able to do in a PC, so don't compare the RSX to a equivalent PC card, cause that's just not how it works. It's like putting a 528 HEMI into a Escalade, then putting that same 528 HEMI into a CRX. Guess which one will go faster even though it's the same engine powering the vehicle?

And please, we have to realize that this is just the launch of the PS3. Let's not be so focused on the relatively crappy launch titles. The PS3 (if anything like the PS2) will be around for 5 or more years. Give the console a few months/a year and it will be churning out games that rival even the most powerful computers, I'd put money on it.
 
That's_Corporate said:
It's like putting a 528 HEMI into a Escalade, then putting that same 528 HEMI into a CRX. Guess which one will go faster even though it's the same engine powering the vehicle?
Click to expand...


hehe, and the CRX weighs under 2000 lb's
:p
 
That's_Corporate said:
Amen to that, brother :)

And please, we have to realize that this is just the launch of the PS3. Let's not be so focused on the relatively crappy launch titles. The PS3 (if anything like the PS2) will be around for 5 or more years. Give the console a few months/a year and it will be churning out games that rival even the most powerful computers, I'd put money on it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, with sony's trend, the PS3 will be a 5 year investment, whereas microsoft gives their owners roughly 3ish...I mean, I bought my PS2 ages ago...and guess what, Final fantasy 12 only just came out! Still churning good games!
 
i read to page five and then got tired of reading...

I have this to say.

I've been playing games on both PC and console since the late 80's. I had the pong console, I had the atari, I had a tandy 1000 (4.5mhz PC with 4 colors output until I upgraded with another 184kb of ram that cost me 60 bucks - which then gave me 16 colors)


My current PC is in my sig and though not cutting edge ---I've never found a game I couldn't play on high settings at less than about 20FPS. Most new games I can still play on med/hi settings at 35-45 fps.

boil it down to a p4 3.6ghz with a 6800GT ----------

I say all that to say this - - - - I've never seen better graphics on any PC game than a couple of the titles on Xbox 360.

there's no game on PC, or Nvidia/ATI demo for that matter that I've ever seen that compares to these three titles on Xbox360.

Kameo - the sheer amount of activity on screen blows away any other game I've ever see - they just through details in there to show of the HP of the xbox360...it's amazing. There are like 30 dragons flying around, tons of sparks, fire, particles, and shadows going everywhere ---I still to this day think it looks better than any tech demo by about 2xs that I've seen for PC.
Fight Night Round 3 - the most realistic characters I've ever seen in a game - puts hl2 character animation to shame.
Gears of War - Maybe the best graphics to date in any game. I've played it on my computer monitor using the VGA out and 1280x1024 res. It's beautiful - I think Kameo still impresses me more with the sheer amount of on screen activity at any time ---impresses me more in the sense that no PC game could do this ----- where as gears of war graphics are just a matter of a software developer taking the time to make the game on for the PC.....
 
Archaea said:
i read to page five and then got tired of reading...

Kameo - the sheer amount of activity on screen blows away any other game I've ever see - ... There are like 30 dragons flying around, ...no PC game could do this ...
Click to expand...

Oh, wow 30 dragons!!! I'm so impressed. Meanwhile on a PC I'm stuck with only being able to see about 20,000 soldiers fighting it out on a game like Medieval 2. I guess Company of Heroes isn't even worth mentioning.

The Xbox 360 is doing it at such an impressive 720x1280, while those poor PCs are currently limited to low resolutions like 2560x1600. Well hopefully PC resolutions will improve soon.
 
Archaea said:
i read to page five and then got tired of reading...

I have this to say.

I've been playing games on both PC and console since the late 80's. I had the pong console, I had the atari, I had a tandy 1000 (4.5mhz PC with 4 colors output until I upgraded with another 184kb of ram that cost me 60 bucks - which then gave me 16 colors)


My current PC is in my sig and though not cutting edge ---I've never found a game I couldn't play on high settings at less than about 20FPS. Most new games I can still play on med/hi settings at 35-45 fps.

boil it down to a p4 3.6ghz with a 6800GT ----------

I say all that to say this - - - - I've never seen better graphics on any PC game than a couple of the titles on Xbox 360.

there's no game on PC, or Nvidia/ATI demo for that matter that I've ever seen that compares to these three titles on Xbox360.

Kameo - the sheer amount of activity on screen blows away any other game I've ever see - they just through details in there to show of the HP of the xbox360...it's amazing. There are like 30 dragons flying around, tons of sparks, fire, particles, and shadows going everywhere ---I still to this day think it looks better than any tech demo by about 2xs that I've seen for PC.
Fight Night Round 3 - the most realistic characters I've ever seen in a game - puts hl2 character animation to shame.
Gears of War - Maybe the best graphics to date in any game. I've played it on my computer monitor using the VGA out and 1280x1024 res. It's beautiful - I think Kameo still impresses me more with the sheer amount of on screen activity at any time ---impresses me more in the sense that no PC game could do this ----- where as gears of war graphics are just a matter of a software developer taking the time to make the game on for the PC.....
Click to expand...
I really really hope you are just being sarcastic...

Ever played games like FEAR, Oblivion, HL2:Episode1, etc in HD resolution with the eyecandy all the way up on a 7900 or 8800?
 
xFlankerx said:
The card is NOT weaker than the Xbox 360's card. They're both the same generation.
Click to expand...

Oh, so the FX5200 was as powerful than the 9800XT? I did not know that.
 
i've played all those games.

did you read my post...

and sarcasm completely aside.

the xbox360 graphics levels are much higher than my 6800GT and p4 3.6 graphics has ever seen. ---- you can say that a 6800 GT isn't a 7xxx or an 8xxx card, but on all the games you mentioned my 6800GT can use every single option available in that game and still play perfectly smooth at a resonable resolution - 1158x864 with 2x AA and 4x AF. On my 19" CRT that's perfectly reasonable to me. Medeval war looks like crap - sure there are 10,000 chars on the screen - they all look identical and are spritish in nature - it's no comparison to the activity level in Kameo. Company of Hereos is the only game mentioned that I haven't tried yet. I think you should look into my statements and figure I must have some truth in my opinon --- I've been around gaming since the late 80's --- which is longer than some of you have been alive.

All those PC games you mention are crap compared to the three I mentioned...I would surmise because of your response that you haven't played the three on an HDTV and therefore aren't able to really make a true acertation. I have a 100" projector setup and 720p is indistinguishable - no scratch that - 720p looks better at a couch viewing distance on a high quality HDTV or projector than a PC monitor at 1600x1200 sitting 1 foot away.
 
Who let the necromancer in?

Archaea said:
i read to page five and then got tired of reading...
Gears of War - Maybe the best graphics to date in any game. I've played it on my computer monitor using the VGA out and 1280x1024 res. It's beautiful - I think Kameo still impresses me more with the sheer amount of on screen activity at any time ---impresses me more in the sense that no PC game could do this ----- where as gears of war graphics are just a matter of a software developer taking the time to make the game on for the PC.....
Click to expand...

Congratulations of having the first title to use the unreal engine 3. Give it 6 months and there'll be a few pc games using it (including UT2k7) which will look much better, and play at higher resolution, than Gears.

And comparing the character models in FN3 to HL2? One of these games is designed to only have 2 characters on screen, the other is designed to handle dozens.

The reason the 360 has these unique games is because the industry doesn't think there's the market for them on the PC, not because of technological differences. Compare games on both platforms and see which look better - Oblivion, NFS Carbon etc.
 
Archaea said:
All those PC games you mention are crap compared to the three I mentioned...I would surmise because of your response that you haven't played the three on an HDTV and therefore aren't able to really make a true acertation. I have a 100" projector setup and 720p is indistinguishable - no scratch that - 720p looks better at a couch viewing distance on a high quality HDTV or projector than a PC monitor at 1600x1200 sitting 1 foot away.
Click to expand...
lol?
I've played all the games on my 37'' Westy 1080P, and on my friends 32'' Olevia 720p. The graphics are pretty good, but still not overall better than the PC titles I mentioned. I play at 1920x1080p with all settings maxed, it totally blows away anything I've seen so far on PS3 and X360... and we're not even on DX10 yet. :p
 
The guy who originally said that the PS3 can do more because it's a closed system is absolutely right. Let's take a look at the fact that every PS2 game is on the DVD format. We still get games cutting shit out or overly compressing audio in order to fit on one cd (doom3). Why? Because not everyone has a dvd-rom yet. Multi-cd games are still quite common and a pain in the ass. You never have to cater to older hardware with a console. Never. The human beings that write unified drivers for all the graphics card ranges don't have to play see-saw with complex bugs cropping up all over the place from all the different hardware you have to support under one implimentation. Same with developers - their focus is much clearer on a console and they know what they have at their disposal, no more, no less. I gaurantee you that we will see the PS3 take faster advantage of multiple-cores than the burdensome PC scenario.

But there are already threads discussing the merits of console gaming over PCs. Usually it comes down to mouse/keyboard as the big argument for PC. If the new consoles simply had keyboard/mouse support for every game, no one would dick with PC gaming ever again.
 
FitzRoy said:
The guy who originally said that the PS3 can do more because it's a closed system is absolutely right. Let's take a look at the fact that every PS2 game is on the DVD format. We still get games cutting shit out or overly compressing audio in order to fit on one cd (doom3). Why? Because not everyone has a dvd-rom yet. Multi-cd games are still quite common and a pain in the ass. You never have to cater to older hardware with a console. Never. The human beings that write unified drivers for all the graphics card ranges don't have to play see-saw with complex bugs cropping up all over the place from all the different hardware you have to support under one implimentation. Same with developers - their focus is much clearer on a console and they know what they have at their disposal, no more, no less. I gaurantee you that we will see the PS3 take faster advantage of multiple-cores than the burdensome PC scenario.

But there are already threads discussing the merits of console gaming over PCs. Usually it comes down to mouse/keyboard as the big argument for PC. If the new consoles simply had keyboard/mouse support for every game, no one would dick with PC gaming ever again.
Click to expand...

First off Doom 3 NEVER came on just 1 CD for any platform its either 3 CDs or 1 DVD. Your whole point on this makes no damn sense at all...If you dont have the $$$ for a DVD rom then obviously you dont have the cash for a computer to play Doom 3 at highest settings. Thier not cutting out a damn thing to cater to anyone in fact its quite the opposite us PC gamers are getting MORE because they are catering to the limitations of consoles.

To be honest i havnt seen a game on a single CD in quite some time.

You think developing a game for computer is a see saw for developers??? How about making a game for multiple DIFFERENT consoles. You think its harder to make a game for computer than to make one for PS2 and having to port it to the XBOX and gamecube or vice versa??
 
FitzRoy said:
The guy who originally said that the PS3 can do more because it's a closed system is absolutely right. Let's take a look at the fact that every PS2 game is on the DVD format. We still get games cutting shit out or overly compressing audio in order to fit on one cd (doom3). Why? Because not everyone has a dvd-rom yet. Multi-cd games are still quite common and a pain in the ass. You never have to cater to older hardware with a console. Never. The human beings that write unified drivers for all the graphics card ranges don't have to play see-saw with complex bugs cropping up all over the place from all the different hardware you have to support under one implimentation. Same with developers - their focus is much clearer on a console and they know what they have at their disposal, no more, no less. I gaurantee you that we will see the PS3 take faster advantage of multiple-cores than the burdensome PC scenario.

But there are already threads discussing the merits of console gaming over PCs. Usually it comes down to mouse/keyboard as the big argument for PC. If the new consoles simply had keyboard/mouse support for every game, no one would dick with PC gaming ever again.
Click to expand...


I partly agree with you on your perspective only because I feel that, as an owner of an Xbox 360, Microsoft has taken the console world much closer to PC-like performance. Xbox Live offers a great multiplayer experience and HDTV's have allowed for much better resolutions (visuals) from standard TV's. You can probably say the same thing about the PS3, but I cannot say for sure as I have no hands-on experience with one.

But, to say that a mouse and keyboard would drive everyone to consoles is too bold a statement for me to agree with. This is [H]. Most people here are looking at the cutting edge of performance. Consoles are convenient, but not too fun if you're [H]ard :cool:. While the console market has been growing seemingly exponentially, games like WoW and Counter-Strike stand as representatives of a permanent PC market. As far as I can see, the duality of the gaming market will remain as is. I personally enjoy both forms of gaming.

This is, of course, my opinion.
 
i read thru the first four pages but then got fustraighted. it might have been said once, bull ill say it again.

I dont think the PS3 uses anything like the G70 or G71. PS. for all those still quarriling, the 360 is on ATIs R500, which is unified.

The PS3 graphical core was once called by Nvidia the "7800RSX", weather or not that has any relation to the G70 (7800s) or G71(7900s) i did not know. I sorta assumed that it would be some 7900 on steroids or something.

In a later interview Nvida stated that they were making the graphical core on the PS3 far more powerful then the recently released G71.

in an even later review, sony stated they were delaying the PS3 because Nvidia was working on "adding another Cell", making for a total of four cells. I have no idea what a Cell is, I have no idea if it has any relation to an SP or a pipe.
 
Dynafrom said:
Im not sure, but don't both the PS3 and X360 use in-order processors? If so, then they are SEVERELY crippled and won't be performing as well as they should ;). Also, the Xenos, and the RSX both have only a 128bit memory bandwidth.
Click to expand...

Waternoose (The Xbox processor) has three cores, with two threads each. These threads are similar to the HyperThreading used on the Pentium 4 processor (SMT), such that if a thread stalls on I/O, the processor switches to the other thread.

This allows an in-order processor to mask the latency normally associated with cache misses, and it can also be used to switch threads. If it's fine-grained enough (alternates between threads periodically) it can even mask some of the latency associated with no branch prediction (nobody knows if the Waternoose has branch prediction hardware).

So, in general, SMT can provide many of the benefits of traditional hardware solutions to performance (like out-of-order execution and branch prediction) without nearly as much custom hardware. However, this just moves the problem out of hardware and into software: unless the developer writes multi-threaded software, the performance will suffer. There's also potential for contention with that tiny 1MB shared L2 cache - multiple threads can easily thrash a cache that size.

As for The Xbox GPU, don't forget the unique embedded DRAM framebuffer, which yields "for free" 4xAA without impacting main memory bandwidth. Think of it like a TurboCache card (on steroids). TurboCache cards have a dedicated 64-bit bus just for framebuffer, then use the system memory via PCIe for texturing. For a surprisingly low cost, you can build a card that's almost as fast as it's 128-bit counterpart, and that's somewhat like what ATI has done here.

RSX, on the other hand, will probably be constricted in performance. I expect the performance to be somewhere between a 7600 GT and 7900 GT depending on texture load, and I am certain developers will use AA sparingly (especially if they're supporting 1080p).
 
Archaea said:
i read to page five and then got tired of reading...

I have this to say.

I've been playing games on both PC and console since the late 80's. I had the pong console, I had the atari, I had a tandy 1000 (4.5mhz PC with 4 colors output until I upgraded with another 184kb of ram that cost me 60 bucks - which then gave me 16 colors)


My current PC is in my sig and though not cutting edge ---I've never found a game I couldn't play on high settings at less than about 20FPS. Most new games I can still play on med/hi settings at 35-45 fps.

boil it down to a p4 3.6ghz with a 6800GT ----------

I say all that to say this - - - - I've never seen better graphics on any PC game than a couple of the titles on Xbox 360.

there's no game on PC, or Nvidia/ATI demo for that matter that I've ever seen that compares to these three titles on Xbox360.

Kameo - the sheer amount of activity on screen blows away any other game I've ever see - they just through details in there to show of the HP of the xbox360...it's amazing. There are like 30 dragons flying around, tons of sparks, fire, particles, and shadows going everywhere ---I still to this day think it looks better than any tech demo by about 2xs that I've seen for PC.
Fight Night Round 3 - the most realistic characters I've ever seen in a game - puts hl2 character animation to shame.
Gears of War - Maybe the best graphics to date in any game. I've played it on my computer monitor using the VGA out and 1280x1024 res. It's beautiful - I think Kameo still impresses me more with the sheer amount of on screen activity at any time ---impresses me more in the sense that no PC game could do this ----- where as gears of war graphics are just a matter of a software developer taking the time to make the game on for the PC.....
Click to expand...


Hmmm how to you like those blurry texture's in the distance? Thats called NO AF. How about all those jaggys? Thats called lowish resolution with maybe 2xaa and less likely 4x if your lucky. I have gears of war, I really hope it's not a great indication of what the unreal 3 engine is going to look like, maybe it's unreal 3 engine on medium settings and no AF. There are some textures in that game that look like ps2 textures with overly shiny shaders thrown on it. Look at the brick walls up close, horrible texturing there. They basicly made the characters look great and some pretty special effects but lots of other spots in the game looked shitty. I really think that the unreal 3 engine will be able to look much much better on a high end pc. We'll actually be able to play it with some half decent lod settings,and af yay!
 
defaultluser said:
Waternoose (The Xbox processor) has three cores, with two threads each. These threads are similar to the HyperThreading used on the Pentium 4 processor (SMT), such that if a thread stalls on I/O, the processor switches to the other thread.

This allows an in-order processor to mask the latency normally associated with cache misses, and it can also be used to switch threads. If it's fine-grained enough (alternates between threads periodically) it can even mask some of the latency associated with no branch prediction (nobody knows if the Waternoose has branch prediction hardware).

So, in general, SMT can provide many of the benefits of traditional hardware solutions to performance (like out-of-order execution and branch prediction) without nearly as much custom hardware. However, this just moves the problem out of hardware and into software: unless the developer writes multi-threaded software, the performance will suffer. There's also potential for contention with that tiny 1MB shared L2 cache - multiple threads can easily thrash a cache that size.

As for The Xbox GPU, don't forget the unique embedded DRAM framebuffer, which yields "for free" 4xAA without impacting main memory bandwidth. Think of it like a TurboCache card (on steroids). TurboCache cards have a dedicated 64-bit bus just for framebuffer, then use the system memory via PCIe for texturing. For a surprisingly low cost, you can build a card that's almost as fast as it's 128-bit counterpart, and that's somewhat like what ATI has done here.

RSX, on the other hand, will probably be constricted in performance. I expect the performance to be somewhere between a 7600 GT and 7900 GT depending on texture load, and I am certain developers will use AA sparingly (especially if they're supporting 1080p).
Click to expand...
I don't think they always use that 4xaa, I swear some of the games I've played on the 360 @720p obviously use only 2xaa, hate bringing up GoW again but it doesn't use 4xaa, it's obvious, and if it is using some sort of 4xaa it's some horrible antialiasing there.
 
w1retap said:
Its the Nvidia G71.. or 7900GTX based.
Click to expand...

Um, NO. It's far closer to being a Geforce 7600GT than a 7900. It was *completed* even BEFORE the 7900 was, and it's long ago been announced to be a G70 part, not G71.

More importantly, RSX has only HALF the memory bandwidth that a 7800--much less a 7900--has.

God, I can scarcely believe we STILL have people spouting that drivel.
 
is this like the thread of misinformation or what. It is well published that the PS3 < 360 < highest end of PC graphic cards.
 
rantanamo said:
is this like the thread of misinformation or what. It is well published that the PS3 < 360 < highest end of PC graphic cards.
Click to expand...

Wow how clueless you are...

Well published my ass, care to link a real source?
 
That's_Corporate said:
And please, we have to realize that this is just the launch of the PS3. Let's not be so focused on the relatively crappy launch titles. The PS3 (if anything like the PS2) will be around for 5 or more years. Give the console a few months/a year and it will be churning out games that rival even the most powerful computers, I'd put money on it.
Click to expand...

Hell yeah - games today on the 5 year old XBox rival a high end PC, no question. :D
 
rantanamo said:
is this like the thread of misinformation or what. It is well published that the PS3 < 360 < highest end of PC graphic cards.
Click to expand...

Certainly, both have less rendering horsepower than an 8800 GTX, but that's no reason to toss away discussion. What's being discussed here is the RELATIVE performance levels of the three. With the exception of a few flamers, this has been an interesting thread.

Would you like to make an interesting contribution instead of reposting the obvious?
 
DragonMasterAlex said:
Um, NO. It's far closer to being a Geforce 7600GT than a 7900. It was *completed* even BEFORE the 7900 was, and it's long ago been announced to be a G70 part, not G71.

More importantly, RSX has only HALF the memory bandwidth that a 7800--much less a 7900--has.

God, I can scarcely believe we STILL have people spouting that drivel.
Click to expand...
oh_my_god_the_drama. rofl.

Sorry, G70, my bad. Half the legitimate Sony and gaming sources online say G71, and the other half G70.
 
great powercirclejerk you all are having here.

my comments:

I ran yellowdog Linux on a mac for about two months here to say I did. They have been around for years.

I would like to look more into both architectures. If they are using any type of programmable shaders on their gfx cards then they would be interesting to develop into streaming application servers for data mining. I know the cell has one FPU and a few ALU areas, while the xbox360 has a three core IBM risc chip. It would be cool if they can be put to work.


As far as the console pc debate there is a reason that I like playing multi player games because there is a different club of enthusiasts. The only real reason for the new gen consoles having such graphics is because of us PC gamers that continually demand new products every 6 months.
 
XSNiper said:
Very True, if you took one PC and had someone develop a game solely for that one PC, you could make one of the greatest looking games ever seen in this world. But we get by with still better graphics on games that aren't nearly as optimized...crysis
Click to expand...
I dont understand why Microsoft doesnt create a baseline hardware profile for games that developers can optomize around. To play games at X quality settings you must have X hardware profile. I like Vista's performance ratings and wish developers would optimize around the differing performance index numbers. Kinda OT but still wish it would happen.
 
Considering you can take the hd-dvd drive from the xbox and plug it into your computer, xbox live is awesome, and the xbox has a better graphics card, it makes it very hard to justify buying a gaystation in my mind
 
Rasha said:
Considering you can take the hd-dvd drive from the xbox and plug it into your computer, xbox live is awesome, and the xbox has a better graphics card, it makes it very hard to justify buying a gaystation in my mind
Click to expand...

lol
 
Rasha said:
Considering you can take the hd-dvd drive from the xbox and plug it into your computer, xbox live is awesome, and the xbox has a better graphics card, it makes it very hard to justify buying a gaystation in my mind
Click to expand...

Xbox fangirl?
 
i made a compleatly logical arguement to why i personaly believe the xbox is a better choice for me over the gaystation, if you can argue agianst those points then do so rather then just scream !!!!!! crap
 
Rasha said:
i made a compleatly logical arguement to why i personaly believe the xbox is a better choice for me over the gaystation, if you can argue agianst those points then do so rather then just scream !!!!!! crap
Click to expand...

Well, calling it the "gaystation" really throws the credibility of your argument out the window ;)
 
Rasha said:
i made a compleatly logical arguement to why i personaly believe the xbox is a better choice for me over the gaystation, if you can argue agianst those points then do so rather then just scream !!!!!! crap
Click to expand...


Gaystation are you fucking 10?
 
well its a gaystation because it is absolutly obvious that the only people who would buy one, are people who believe in hype and or use emotions to make decisions so i figure if they were a man they'd be a little limp wristed hense the term gaystation since based on what it currently offers you can't use any sort of logical decision making processes in your decision to purchase one


but i'm just kidding on all of it outside the original reasons why i wouldn't buy one just figured i'd try to get people to relax a little bit and chid some folks into taking it less seriously :0
 
Varmint said:
Hell yeah - games today on the 5 year old XBox rival a high end PC, no question. :D
Click to expand...

Hey, I didn't say it would take the PS3 5 years to come out with fantastic playing and looking games, I just said give it a few months, maybe one year.
 
That's_Corporate said:
Hey, I didn't say it would take the PS3 5 years to come out with fantastic playing and looking games, I just said give it a few months, maybe one year.
Click to expand...

and what do you expect from PC in a few months to a year..lower end g80 and r600, UT 2007, UE 3, Vista...your argument isn't a great one

O and where can I get a PS3 for under $1000...let alone $500 as some are saying in this thread? So now for a while the value aspect is gone
 
That's_Corporate said:
Hey, I didn't say it would take the PS3 5 years to come out with fantastic playing and looking games, I just said give it a few months, maybe one year.
Click to expand...

Oh right, I misread it. You're still wrong though - high end PC gamers play at 1680 x 1050 or higher at 60-90 FPS. The 360 and PS3 are mostly running at 1280 x 720 at 30 FPS. That's 1/4 the rendering output.
 
this thread is kind of rediclous, seriously its barly the lunch of the ps3!! u cant judge it to gears of war(a year into the 360 game) even though resistance fall of man isnt too too far from gears of war;s grafics! u need to compare the launch titles to other launch titles. its as easy as that, the ps3 is just better than the 360. and u cant compare consle graphics to computer graphics, consle graphics stay the same they r set to a solid state and only game developers can take them to there fullest potental, pc graphics can alwasy be changed and higher resoulitions and aa and af and hdr which all four of those take performance as u set them higher. and with pc graphics, if ur not getting the perfomace of qualty u want u can always up grade almost anything to make it go up!
 
ITSTHINKING said:
Gaystation are you fucking 10?
Click to expand...

Agreed

Only little teenybopper kids use the word gay like that. So the PS3 is homosexual, eh? It only wants to have sex with its own gender? Please enlighten me how this can be.
 
Render said:
and what do you expect from PC in a few months to a year..lower end g80 and r600, UT 2007, UE 3, Vista...your argument isn't a great one

O and where can I get a PS3 for under $1000...let alone $500 as some are saying in this thread? So now for a while the value aspect is gone
Click to expand...

Who's arguing?
Personally, I think GT5 coming out for PS3 will most likely be absolutely mindblowing, in many aspects other than pure graphics.

All I'm saying is that it will have some great titles.
Just look at Final Fantasy XII. It came out right at the end of the PS2's life, but it's an unbelievable game, one of the best (if not THE best) RPG's many people have played to date.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top