• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

PS3 vs Computer Gaming

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tomana

<----- Likes the Cock
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
413
I just read an article about the specs for the PlayStation 3

The PS3 combines state-of-the-art technologies featuring Cell, a processor jointly developed by IBM, Sony Group and Toshiba Corporation, graphics processor (RSX) co-developed by NVIDIA Corporation and SCEI, and XDR memory developed by Rambus Inc. It also adopts BD-ROM (Blu-ray Disc ROM) with maximum storage capacity of 54 GB (dual layer) , enabling delivery of entertainment content in full high-definition (HD) quality, under a secure environment made possible through the most advanced copyright protection technology. To match the accelerating convergence of digital consumer electronics and computer technology, PS3 supports high quality display in resolution of 1080p(*) as standard, which is far superior to 720p/1080i. With an overwhelming computing power of 2 teraflops, entirely new graphical expressions that have never been seen before will become possible.

2 teraflops? I recently learned that the 4870 makes the claim of being the first graphics card to hit 1 teraflop but 2 teraflops?

Is gaming with the PS3 that much better than using my computer? I ask because gaming is the only reason I buy high end graphics cards.
 
Doesn't answer anything but the 4870 is 1.2 teraflops, nVidia 295 is 1.7 I think
 
Even a budget gaming PC would blow away the PS3. It's not even close to what a midrange graphics card can do. Most PS3 games run at 720 or less.
 
A lot of PS3 games have better art style than most PC games but that is because they have bigger budgets. A good comparison would be the art style of Killzone 2 to the sheer graphics of Crysis. And yes Crysis graphics ARE much better than Killzone's despite what the fanboys may tell you. Any decent PC and optimized game will graphically own anything the PS3 will ever be capable of.
 
Last edited:
i hear ati and nvidia are going to team up and create a super console that actually works on a TV like a console but is in a PC so you can play PC games on a console but still have a PC and it will play crysis 2. in the future, everytthing is in 3d.
 
tomana said:
Is gaming with the PS3 that much better than using my computer? I ask because gaming is the only reason I buy high end graphics cards.
Click to expand...


You cant look at technology like the way you are. A great example is that my cpu is clocked at 3.0 ghz. Its a core 2 duo e6550. The Pentium D 960 is also a dual core intel chip, but is clocked at 3.6ghz.. so the Pentium D is faster right? Not even close.

PS3 will have a good selection of games that are optimized for the exact hardware that a ps3 comes with. The downside is once the ps4 comes out, your ps3 is good for nostalgia and will make a good paper weight in terms of playing new games.

PC gaming is fully expandable and upgradeable. The library might be slimmer and you might run into an occasional compatiblity issue, but you still see people with AGP systems from 8 years ago playing current gen games.

Asking which is better is like asking "which soda should be my favorite?"... nobody can answer that but yourself.
 
I've done both. I like the PS3 more for gaming, but not because it has better graphics, but because it has better games. I only game casually now though and I don't need 16xaa, lol.
 
PS3 said:
I've done both. I like the PS3 more for gaming, but not because it has better graphics, but because it has better games. I only game casually now though and I don't need 16xaa, lol.
Click to expand...

I dunno, i think the PC has better games. PS3 has more though
 
Even a budget gaming PC would blow away the PS3. It's not even close to what a midrange graphics card can do. Most PS3 games run at 720 or less.
Click to expand...

This. Nearly every console game this gen runs at 1280x720 at 0/2xaa. Hell some games run even lower than that. You can do the same with a <$500 PC.

Killzone 2, though, has ridiculously awesome smoke and particle effects. I haven't seen better in any other game.
 
The PS3 does have a very powerful CPU, even by today's standards, but it's GPU is nearly non-existant, again, by today's standards. Many of the graphical effects are done in software becuase the GPU can't handle them, so that alone takes up a lot of processing power versus modern gaming PC's where GPU's are powerful enough to process ALL functions relating to graphics and still have power left over to do physics calculations much of the time, and then of course we have our CPU's doing what they're designed to do as well.

But the PS3 has Gran Turismo....
 
Oddly enough, I just ran an evaluation of console versus PC gaming for a media class. The PS3 is theoretically much more powerful than the 360, but coding for 9 asymmetric cores is more than most developers can do - especially considering that most PS3 games are on the 360 as well and developed by the same group. Of course, one core of an I7 is roughly equivalent to 5-6 Cell cores in some aspects - though the PS3 architecture is for some reason VERY fast at double precision floating point arithmetic, almost equivalent to last generation's Xeons and about 2/3 of an I7 core. (Some eggheads are planning to repurpose the Cell architecture for ultra-high-end modeling.)

The difference is of course in bang-for-buck, where a $400 console that performs anywhere remotely close to a $2,000 PC is an advantage to the consumer. Of course, the same game on the PS3 can occasionally cost twice as much as the PC equivalent. (Check Amazon for the new Ghostbusters game.)

Ultimately though, developers love consoles because it is much harder to pirate games on them. There's been some scuttlebutt about Activision dropping the PS3, mostly due to exorbitant royalties paid to Sony, but that's more a blip than anything else.
 
RamonGTP said:
The PS3 does have a very powerful CPU, even by today's standards, but it's GPU is nearly non-existant, again, by today's standards..
Click to expand...

The PS3 cpu is more akin to a single core pentium M (I.E. very low general purpose performance), coupled to some specialized vector hardware (nvidia cuda or something would be the closest aproximation in pc-world). While it is true that the Cell chip has a lot of number crunching potential, very little of that is actually usefull for games. Games love general purpose resources, scientific number crunching loves cell

nephilim said:
. The PS3 is theoretically much more powerful than the 360, but coding for 9 asymmetric cores is more than most developers can do .
Click to expand...

The cell in the PS3 has one of its SPE's disabled (for yield purposes), and at the very least one (perhaps two, i am not certain) is reserved by Sony for the OS, so at max the developers can use 6 SPE's and the PPC core on cell.


Also, the memory architecture on the PS3 is brain-dead.. 256mb for the cpu, 256 mb for the gpu. At least the shared architecture on the 360 allows developers to decide where they put the emphasis, if they want a gorgeous game with 400 megs of textures, they can do it, as long as the rest of the engine fits into the remaining 100 mb.. And dont get me started on the rambus hype...
 
nephilim said:
Ultimately though, developers love consoles because it is much harder to pirate games on them.
Click to expand...

At least for now it is, but only for the PS3, games for the 360 and Wii are even easier to pirate than PC games! People can play most pirated games on xbox live with no problems! You cant easily do this with PC games, I would say it looks like the developers made a mistake by using the PC piracy as their scapegoat, but the sad truth is that they push enough units to more than make up for the loss so they still dont care about the pc gaming market as much (not all developers though).
 
Mr. Bluntman said:
Equivalent to a 7900GT, to be precise. PC>XBox 360>PS3 IMO.
Click to expand...

yes it’s equivalent to the 7900GT, but it offers much better graphics quality than a 7900GT based PC rig. For me PS3 is just for playing Wining Eleven with friends, and when it comes to real gamming I use PC.
 
With the ps3 or 360, the advantage is using big hdtv monitors, where as a pc, using a big HDTV monitor isn't really practical. Plus if you play sports games and have people over, a console is a better advantage if you have a few controllers. PS3 can make a good karaoke machine as well.

With the PC, you use a smaller monitor, and it's just you. Of course you can Lan I guess, but then the other peson needs their own pc, a router, and well, that gets a bit nerdy, but fun none the less. I think in the end ps3/360/wii is just more practical, and suits the lifestyles of most, which is why pc gaming is a very niche market. Oh and like someone else said, ps3 has gt5. Graphics hardware will always be superior on the pc, but I don't think gaming wise the pc will ever be up to par with consoles in general. PC gaming will only get worse as well unless they put a stop to piracy, whch will probably never happen.
 
I use my PC to game on my 40" HDTV all the time. Not sure why you think that's not practical.

This is more or less a console vs PC debate. Consoles will always have the better variety of games. That alone is a huge reason why, to me, consoles beat PCs for gaming. Yes, the PC version of multi-ported games will almost always be superior to the console version. But that doesn't mean diddly when you are up against the likes of Final Fantasy XIII, Super Mario/Zelda, and what have you. The type of games that the PC gaming library is sorely missing.

The main reason I built my gaming PC is for MMORPGs and FPS. And even those types of games are becoming more and more available on consoles.

I also think consoles have a few more pluses. Less cheaters, and everyone tends to be on the same playing field. I like that.
 
yeah you gotta understand that the PS3 is running most games at 1080x720p, assuming you have it connected to an HDTV. That's the kind of resolution I was running on my computer 8 years ago. Today I'm running all games on 1920x1200p, which is a little better then even bluray quality. Computer monitors are so much more advanced then TV screens that the power needed to run on a console can be less then half a computer.

With that said though, playing COD on a 50" high def TV and against players with the same platform and same resolution/lag/quality, and against a larger group that consists of my friends...IMO....beats playing the same game on my 24" monitor against people that have different platforms, and none of my friends are really playing PC games these days... :(

its clear the momentum over the next 5-10 years is going towards consoles....if you're going to say the PC is ready for a huge comeback that is going to shut the consoles out in the rain.....is a sad denial for a vet pc gamer
 
Since the overwhelming majority of games I play are FPS,I can only comment on that aspect - PC beats console,hands down.Better controls,better graphics,and with all the mods and conversions a game's playing life can be extended for quite some time.
 
I play a lot of Left 4 Dead and I tried the xbox360 version and DAMN it looks like shit. and for now the XBOX360 has had better game development than the ps3(but that might change)


Both PS3 and Xbox360 were made with very bad timing, had they waited just 1 year they would likely be have Core2duo ish CPU power and 8800gtx ish gpu power. as it stands they have X2 ish power and 7900gt ish power. BIG difference between the two.


Honestly I think both consoles are heavily underpowered and so far this GEN should either be skipped or wait until the consoles are 129.99 in price tag for anyone with a PC.
 
I have a PS3 and a gaming pc hooked up to my Samsung 52" lcd and the PC obviuosly looks better. There are however 2 games that stand out on the PS3 due to their awesome graphics. Metal Gear Solid and Killzone 2 blow away anything I've ever played on my 360.
 
Hooked up my ps3 to my 23inch monitor via hdmi. 720p resolution with crappy AA filtering no thanks. PS3 Looks decent on a 50inch plasma 10feet or so away, just wish the thing had enough horsepower to output games at 1080 then maybe it would look nicer than when I had a 7800gt in my system.
 
Stanley Pain said:
The PS3 has more games? Are you cracked?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess I wasn't clear enough. The PS3 has put out more mainstream level games than PC's since PS3's came out. Yes, if you count all PC games ever made, obviously there are more, but I'm not counting the games that are crap that no one has even heard of...
 
CruisD64 said:
Yeah, I guess I wasn't clear enough. The PS3 has put out more mainstream level games than PC's since PS3's came out. Yes, if you count all PC games ever made, obviously there are more, but I'm not counting the games that are crap that no one has even heard of...
Click to expand...

Are you including non-exclusive titles in your assumption? Because even if you are't, your assumption is way off. You really need to define what you mean by mainstream. Are you talking about sales, casual gaming, ???
 
CruisD64 said:
Yeah, I guess I wasn't clear enough. The PS3 has put out more mainstream level games than PC's since PS3's came out. Yes, if you count all PC games ever made, obviously there are more, but I'm not counting the games that are crap that no one has even heard of...
Click to expand...

Objection.

To subjective for a statement like this.
 
Zinn said:
i hear ati and nvidia are going to team up and create a super console that actually works on a TV like a console but is in a PC so you can play PC games on a console but still have a PC and it will play crysis 2. in the future, everytthing is in 3d.
Click to expand...

Then it crashes due to shitty drivers.

ATI and Nvidia working together? My god...the horror... :eek:
 
Nothing is perfect. I have a 360 and my goodness that looks bad most of the time. Even when a game looks ok. It chokes big time. Even with my 360 cooling mods, Skate 2 had to be returned due to massive frame drops.

My pc, with a 280gtx and the new drivers 186.18, looks amazing at 1920x1200 on my 26" Asus($320 new, great gaming monitor btw). Even COD2 modded servers looks great. Newer games are fantastic looking.

The main issue is that I am STILL playing a game from what 2004? More than anything else. No game, on any platform, has really grabbed my attention since BF2. Sad.

Fingers crossed for something great this year. Just been a long time between hits for me.

Different for everyone. Just my situation and preference.
 
stevedave said:
Objection.

To subjective for a statement like this.
Click to expand...

I'm going to agree with it being subjective and back out. My opinion seems to differ from many peoples. :)

BTW, by mainstream I meant popular titles. In any case, I may be wrong. My knowledge of consoles is limited today compared to what it used to be.
 
CruisD64 said:
I'm going to agree with it being subjective and back out. My opinion seems to differ from most peoples.
Click to expand...

It does :D

Seriously though, by definition of "mainstream" I'd say the Wii has everyone beat, both in terms of sales numbers (not so much recently), and in terms of the demographic buying the console and games (people that normally don't buy consoles to begin with).
 
i sold my ps3 and just bought a blu-ray drive for my computer.

pc owns the ps3 in every way. but of course it all comes down to the consumer and how tech savvy they are.

i kinda doubt any "normal" consumer could run the setup i have without them running into problems.
 
What does being tech savvy have anything to do with it? I know a tonne about computers and electronics in general and gave up on pc gaming a few years ago.
 
I'm sure PS3 as a whole package is a great, but it can't compete with PC when it comes to gaming.
 
TomGreen321 said:
What does being tech savvy have anything to do with it? I know a tonne about computers and electronics in general and gave up on pc gaming a few years ago.
Click to expand...

how many people do you know use their main rig for watching blu-ray movies over hdmi to a 1080p television and use the same computer for hardcore gaming?

i dont believe the normal consumer would even know how to put something like that together or even build a computer for that matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top