PS3 vs Computer Gaming

[Eggothewaffle]

I love PC gaming and I also enjoy my PS3. Why not have both?

 

[jvz555]

An 8800gt with an e8400 can smoke a ps3!

 

[capnstabn]

From what I have noticed pc gaming usually reaches more popularity when the consoles have been out for a while. Before xbox360 came out it seemed tons of people were playing pc games. It wasnt until price cuts that everyone moved to consoles again. Both Microsoft and Sony plan to keep the current platforms out for some time. I am sure after Diablo 3, Starcraft, and ToR come out there will be a large migration back towards pc gaming. Especially with video card deals being as great as they are.

 

[noobman]

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.

The PS3 is obviously superior... it can do TWO TERAFLOPS! The 4870 can only do ONE!

You've answered your own question... PS3 > all PCs, forever. Period.

Seriously now... a FLOP is an acronym for FLoating point Operations Per Second. A floating point operation is an aritmetic operation done on two floating points. A floating point is a number that can have virtually any value. It's called a floating point (or float) b/c of the variablity of the point (12532.25 vs 3.542620927642) as compared to a fixed point data type or an integer.

In a nutshell... saying that something can do two teraflops means that it can do 2x10^12 math calculations per second. While this number is a great expression of theoretical peak performance, and of great value for folding and it says very little about its performance in games.

Note that the Radeon HD4670 can do ~450 GigaFLOPS, while the GeForce 8800GT does less than 400Gigaflops. Ask anybody which card performs better and they'll tell you that it's the 8800GT.



As for which is more fun... well... I grew up with PC gaming, so I've always given the edge to that. The "better with your buddies over" quality of console gaming is dying now that very few games are supporting splitscreen. Multiplayer seems to be more of an online thing... making them no different from the PC, really.

Oh well... I like my Xbox360, but I use it exclusively for sports and 360 exclusives. IF any game comes out on both platforms I almost always play it on the PC (unless it's a horrendous port).

 

[BladeVenom]

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.)

But a $400 console isn't even remotely close to a $2,000 PC. Even a $500 PC is far better than a console, and far more versatile.

 

[noobman]

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.)

Ghostbusters on the PC is significantly different from Ghostbusters on the console. The PC version of the game is single player only, whereas the console version of the game has the same single player mode plus two online multiplayer modes... hence the lower price on the PC version. The PC version of any multiplatform game is always ~$10 less, since there is no licensing fee to be paid for publishing the game.

 

[Syntax Error]

But a $400 console isn't even remotely close to a $2,000 PC. Even a $500 PC is far better than a console, and far more versatile.

QFMFT.

 

[stevedave]

I HATE people to do a price comparison between PC and Console. HATE IT.

Everyone needs a PC so mine as well get one that can game. So the EXTRA cost to make a PC able to play games on par with a PS3 can be less than 100bucks and 200bucks is a safe average.

My "gaming PC" is also my main PC, and very few people have a PC for gaming only(many people on this site do because they are nerds and have the money).

So to accurately calculate the cost of PC gaming you need so calculate the difference between a none gaming PC and a Gaming PC.

 

[CruisD64]

My "gaming PC" is also my main PC, and very few people have a PC for gaming only(many people on this site do because they are nerds and have the money).

lol

 

[OmegaAvenger]

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.

they dont need to know how, sony sells an HTPC with this capability, and I believe alienware has 2 models of HTPCs that are capable of it as well.

The normal consumer would buy an htpc if they needed one.

 

[haste]

they dont need to know how, sony sells an HTPC with this capability, and I believe alienware has 2 models of HTPCs that are capable of it as well.

The normal consumer would buy an htpc if they needed one.

for what, 2 grand?

gimme some links

 

[dccmadams]

ps3 and xbox 360 are crap compared to a gaming pc.

 

[Casus]

I HATE people to do a price comparison between PC and Console. HATE IT.

Everyone needs a PC so mine as well get one that can game. So the EXTRA cost to make a PC able to play games on par with a PS3 can be less than 100bucks and 200bucks is a safe average.

My "gaming PC" is also my main PC, and very few people have a PC for gaming only(many people on this site do because they are nerds and have the money).

So to accurately calculate the cost of PC gaming you need so calculate the difference between a none gaming PC and a Gaming PC.

Which, these days you can do for what? <500$

Top it off you can make it make it extra snobish and only shoot for the console resolution of what? 1080x720? on the low end, 1920×1080 on the high end? (If you've got an 1080p TV, which I know plenty of folks that do not)

To match 1920x1080, your going to need one of these:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009175

Now you'll need a vid card, well, not using a super big resolution massive resolution, so maybe somethign like this:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102801

Hell, throw in some extra RAM:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231166 (ddr2 1066)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145241 (ddr2 800)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231225 (ddr3 1600)

Which, on the low end is $350~ (with the ddr2) on the high is $400 (with ddr3)
And that's just to throw into whatever desktop you bought off the shelf, which, has been mentioned, is almost assured, since I doubt anyone is going to be doing the majority of the word processing, email checking, internet surfing, youtube watching, general computing off their PS3/360/Wii.

Same price as a PS3 currently IIRC, and about as much for any of the worthwhile 360 packages, I know, there's a barebones version for $200, but in my experience without a decent hard drive on the 360 your gaming experience gets seriously gimped.

So, yea, hardly cost prohibitive to game on your PC.

 

[KillaChaos]

I really wish this discussion stuck towards tech and not fanboy wars.

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

I don't understand what you mean by General Purpose and Scientific Number crunching?
If by GP you mean integers and Scientific Numbers you mean floats then I believe your statement is wrong. The OP is right, the Cell is capable of 2 TeraFlops, that is FLOATING point operations. These operations are for mainly Scientific number crunching, where the where you don't always get nice even numbers and graphics and vectors (which is why we buy a GPU instead of having our q66's handle rendering).

The other poster was right, the 6/8s of the Cell is about the same power of a core on the i7. The reason we don't see Crysis on the PS3 is because of 1.) The non existent GPU, while the Cell can easily make up for a GPU, it misses vital parts like AA, OpenGL Hardware Accel, etc. and 2.) The 256MB limit.

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...

John Carmack was said to solve this problem with "streaming" textures in the iD Tech 5, so the problem would not be the size of the memory, but the size of the medium delivering the content - a place where Blu-ray would come in handy.

Heck, this engine, with a blu ray reader for PC, may even completely eliminate the need to set Texture Resolution to high again, enjoy 128000x128000 pixel textures with only 256MB.

 

[PS3]

So what have we learned?

Nerds have a lot of money and can buy all the consoles and a sweet 2k rig.

Casual gamers have a life and don't need 4 consoles and a gaming rig, and probably don't analyze Crysis screenshots all day - lol.

Seriously go with the:



PC if extra eye candy is really a must for you. Price you pay for that is some times, driver issues which are eventually solved quickly however with newly released drivers. A pc is far more expensive as well. You can get a PS3 / 360 for like $240 now easily used, so for those saying a pc isn't that much more expensive, it'll be three times more expensive.

PS3/360: if good overrall graphics and exclusive games like Forza 3, GT5, MGS4, etc. is more to your liking then a console would be a better choice. No driver issues, and more quality games that are pushed to the hardware's limits. Graphics quality will always be a bit sub-par however to a really powerful pc...but it will be good enough to the point that it will go unnoticed and won't take away from game play.

 

[stevedave]

So what have we learned?

Nerds have a lot of money and can buy all the consoles and a sweet 2k rig.

Casual gamers have a life and don't need 4 consoles and a gaming rig, and probably don't analyze Crysis screenshots all day - lol.

Seriously go with the:



PC if extra eye candy is really a must for you. Price you pay for that is some times, driver issues which are eventually solved quickly however with newly released drivers. A pc is far more expensive as well. You can get a PS3 / 360 for like $240 now easily used, so for those saying a pc isn't that much more expensive, it'll be three times more expensive.

PS3/360: if good overrall graphics and exclusive games like Forza 3, GT5, MGS4, etc. is more to your liking then a console would be a better choice. No driver issues, and more quality games that are pushed to the hardware's limits. Graphics quality will always be a bit sub-par however to a really powerful pc...but it will be good enough to the point that it will go unnoticed and won't take away from game play.

Apparently not much was learned. Spend an extra 100 bucks on your HOME computer and making a gaming computer. NOT EXPENSIVE to pc game.

Only if you are freak who doesn't already have a computer does PC gaming become expensive; you don't need a GTX 285 to game, I use a 9600gt which I got for 50 bucks.

 

[Syntax Error]

PS3/360: if good overrall graphics and exclusive games like Forza 3, GT5, MGS4, etc. is more to your liking then a console would be a better choice. No driver issues, and more quality games that are pushed to the hardware's limits. Graphics quality will always be a bit sub-par however to a really powerful pc...but it will be good enough to the point that it will go unnoticed and won't take away from game play.

Not to mention shitty FPS.

Ever consider that PCs can also be used for other things? I dunno...web browsing, media playing, work, e-mail, communications, etc, etc, etc?

Maybe gaming on a PC is just another feature amongst many on a PC?

 

[KaptainKhaos]

use the PS3 for a cheap blu ray player and media server connection, would i game on it probably not but the kids enjoy it.

 

[silent hero]

Not to mention shitty FPS.

Ever consider that PCs can also be used for other things? I dunno...web browsing, media playing, work, e-mail, communications, etc, etc, etc?

Maybe gaming on a PC is just another feature amongst many on a PC?

You can do all those things on a PS3.

 

[redman223]

One thing I have noticed is that all of my friends with consoles dont have desktops, they all have laptops, and crappy ones at that. So no gpu upgrades possible. But I am trying to convince them to build a desktop and have converted one or two lol.

My dad wont have any of it though, he is a complete console convert. He used to play PC games, but he is not a graphics nut and therefore his PS3 meets all his needs. I am the opposite and am willing to pay more for better graphics, and plan on building a really nice htpc setup when I move into my new apartment in August. A 61'' Samsung DLP, 3D Vision, Onkyo 607, Infinity Primus 7.1 speakers, and the new Auzentech HDMI card should do the trick nicely, no console needed .

 

[psyside]

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.

/thread Wining Eleven

 

[Jorenm]

You can do all those things on a PS3.

Yeah, but who'd want to?

I'd never considered the argument, but the only cost comparison that makes sense is how much it costs to make a gaming PC over a general purpose PC, since we can safely assume the need for a PC.

 

[Syntax Error]

You can do all those things on a PS3.

OK, go write an essay, work on an Excel spreadsheet, while running a movie in the background all while having a game minimized, chatting with friends and browsing Facebook.

 

[silent hero]

OK, go write an essay, work on an Excel spreadsheet, while running a movie in the background all while having a game minimized, chatting with friends and browsing Facebook.

If you got a 360 AND a PS3 you COULD multitask. You could search Facebook on the 360 and use the browser on the PS3. The 6 tab limit kinda sucks though.

 

[Syntax Error]

If you got a 360 AND a PS3 you COULD multitask. You could search Facebook on the 360 and use the browser on the PS3. The 6 tab limit kinda sucks though.

But then that's as expensive, if not more than a PC! Where is your God now?!

 

[silent hero]

You make a good point. hehe

 

[Technoob]

use the PS3 for a cheap blu ray player and media server connection, would i game on it probably not but the kids enjoy it.

how is the ps3 a cheap blu ray player for 400 bucks when we have sub 100 dollar blu ray players at walmart now?

 

[Bman123]

It all boils down to this.The 360 is better and thats that. J/K both are great systems

Games are made around the consoles,so the games look great and run great on the consoles.On the pc you build your pc to play games.Like when crysis came out people had to upgrade their rig in order to keep up with the jeffersons.

Pc gaming is nice,it had alot of free shit plus the mods are a blast.The bad thing is the price.
You can pay $500 for a PS3 and play games for around 10 years on it.
Try to build a $500 pc and not swap out any hardware for the next 8 years and play at 1920x1080 it's not gonna happen.


The console is better for sports games and that is the deal breaker for me.I play football,basketball,boxing,and golf games.I cannot do that on a pc
The pc is leaps and bounds ahead of the 360 and ps3 in terms of graphics.Nothing is like seeing a 30 inch monitor playing cod4 on a pc compared to it running at 720p on a 360.The difference is night and day.

 

[Red Falcon]

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.

Paper-wise, the PS3 should be superior in processing power via the CPU, but the graphics card in it is about the equivalent to two 6800 Ultra's in SLI, extremely weak by today's standards.

If you notice, games like Bioshock run at lower settings on it because of this and look like crap compared to the PC equivalent. This is why most games also can only be run at 720p (1280x720). Even a meek 9600GT has more video processing power than the PS3's RSX GPU.

The cell processor is great, but without a GPU upgrade (PS4 maybe?) and better programming per game to fully utilize it, it's a mute point. This isn't 1991, games don't run purely off of the CPU any more.

It is nice though that it has Blu-Ray functionallity, but it's not enough to invest in one.

It is, essentially, the poor-man's gaming PC.

I've played enough PS3 games to know what it is fully capable, and it sucks compared to even a mid-range, sub $600 PC.


Also, I like the keyboard and mouse better, but this is my personal bias as many people prefer the controller (which the PS3 has the best controller of all the modern consoles, imo).

 

[trick0502]

/thread Wining Eleven

i loved winning eleven on the ps2!!

for me the pc will always be better without question. i mostly play fps games, so the only way a console would even be considered would be if it had keyboard and mouse support. every k/m, not just sony or microsoft ones.

and for the guy who was saying that 720p was 1024x720 two pages back. you have your numbers mixed up.

1280x720 = 720p

 

[defaultluser]

The claim by Sony of 2 Teraflops is complete bullshit. The Cell itself is capable of only 218 Gigaflops sustained (and that's only if you're performing multiply-add operations). Any other number is pure fantasy.

The 7800GTX GPU (RSX) is capable of around 200 Gigaflops.

Combined, the processors comprising the PS3 can't approach even ONE Teraflop, let-alone TWO.

FOR COMPARISON PURPOSES, an Intel i7 produces about 70 Gigaflops, but it is easier than Cell for programmers to take advantage of all that power. Typical GPUs of today (4800 series, 280 GTX) are capable of around 1 Teraflop.

Now will you people PLEASE stop parroting this Sony marketing literature like it's gospel?

 

[King of Heroes]

Honestly, it depends on what kind of games you like to play and how often you game.

PC gaming is completely dominated by MMORPGs (Sims and WoW specifically), First Person Shooters and Real-Time Strategy. If these are your primary interests, then PC gaming all the way for you.

If sports games, Final Fantasy-style RPGs, fighting games or 3rd person action-adventure is your thing, invest in a console.

Honestly, my interests lie mostly in fighting games, FF-style RPGs, and 3rd person action-adventure (with God of War 1 and 2 being my current 'FAVORITEST GAME OF ALL TIME!'), and I'm a casual gamer (though it took me a while to admit this to myself). I do enjoy the occasional first person shooter though, hence why I maintain a sufficiently powerful (okay, admittedly, its overpowered considering my gaming habits) PC. I don't have a PS3 or 360 because I can't afford either right now, and I still have too many PS2 games I haven't finished.

In short, rather than asking people what's better (which is a pretty worthless question anyway, since no one really has the same criteria for 'what's better' as you), you need to ask yourself exactly what games you want or like to play and which platform caters best to those types of games. You may find that, for the most enjoyment, you'll want both.

I'll probably be investing in a new console around this winter, since the number of games I really, REALLY want to play that have no hope of getting a PC release is reached a sufficient level (with BlazBlue and Metal Gear Solid 4 being at the top of the list). Resident Evil 4 for PC should keep me occupied till then at least.

 

[block70]

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.

I like the titles on PS3 like the ones you cant find on PC ex Gran Turismo, and it looks awesome on a 46!

 

[Sycraft]

In terms of graphics, nothing beats a PC. The reason is that these days the consoles get graphics solutions developed by the same people that make PC cards, ATi and nVidia. So when a new console comes out, it is usually top of the heap. It is as good as the latest tech on the market, and depending on launch time, maybe even a bit ahead of what you get on PCs. However, that quickly changes. The graphics march on PC proceeds at a quick pace, so a year after the console came out, PCs have much more powerful cards.

Also PCs have the advantage of having more memory, both system and graphics. Consoles can't go nuts on that because they need to keep the costs down. In both cases the high end current gen consoles have 512MB RAM. On the 360, that's unified system and video, on the PS3 it is 256MB for each system and video separate.

So if you are a "Graphics are the most important thing," kind of person, then PC is where it is at.

However, we've gotten to the point where graphics are pretty damn good. It isn't as though anyone is looking at the consoles going "Oh man those graphics are bad." Though they might not be up to what a PC can handle, they are still very good. So really what it comes down to is games. While some games come out for all the platforms, some are specific to a single one.

So you need to look at the kind of games you want to play, with regards to which system(s) you should own. If MMOs are your thing then the PC is the only way to go. Consoles have hardly any, and they are poor quality compared to the PC ones. Likewise strategy games are all over on the PC, almost non-existent on consoles. However platformers are somewhat uncommon on the PC and have been a console mainstay forever. Sports games are also far more plentiful in the console area. Then there are some exclusives like Halo 3, that are on the 360 or nothing.

So really, don't worry about the graphics, they are all good. Worry about the games.

 

[Eggothewaffle]

And worry about control options, mods, and if you need to do any computationally intensive work with a computer too ;]

 

[PS3]

Seriously, the 360 should be in the conversation here and should be in the op's title. I really like the 360 as Forza, and Forza 2 are really awesome games. If I had to do it all over again, I would get a 360 and watercool it.

But my only gripe with the 360 is you can't swap the hard drives, so it wouldn't make a good media player. Oh and I'd have to change my user name. Anyone know off the top of their heads if you can set up a media server to the 360?

 

[krameriffic]

PC gaming is on a whole 'nother level. Comparing consoles with PCs is like comparing little league baseball with the MLB. It's an enthusiast's niche and a nice hobby to have in the same way that some people really like to restore and maintain old cars.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3875370&postcount=562

I mean, you just look at something like that and are reminded of what it means to be a PC enthusiast.

 

[redman223]

I used to think the PS3 and 360 had crappy graphics, but that was because I was used to seeing them run on my dads 70'' Sony, or my friends 65'', but once more of my friends got consoles and smaller TV's I realized that 720p is good enough for most people out there since most people end up with a 42'' TV and 720p looks fine at that resolution. Also, since most people dont have access to a huge TV they wont see the difference and wont care if they do since they wont have a TV like that for a long time, at least thats how all of my friends think about it.

For big screens I cant stand console graphics, but that is gonna change when the next generation of consoles is released, as I am sure 1080p with AA/AF will be possible finally. If they allow full customization of controls, allow any controller to be used like on the pc, consoles will win over a huge amount of pc gamers imho.

 

[MrWizard6600]

[sorry but the way i read threads is front to back, post first and ask questions later ... edits to follow ]

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.

Lost planet in full DX10 mode:

I was playing COD4 on a 40" TV over HDMI (IIRC it was setup to export full 1080p), and I was so underwhelmed it almost hurt. COD4 on my crappy 22" looked lightyears better then a 360's COD4. I couldn't tell you why: I have taken a colorimeter to my TV, and my 8800GTS can almost max out COD4, but not quite, and the difference was... just annoying.

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.)

Having never programmed for the PS3, but having looked at it pretty extensively, I can say a couple things about it; Its 7 Reduced Instruction Set processor cores (RISC) strapped to a single big ALU (for complicated calls and thread devision) and excruciatingly fast memory subsystem. But, it can't push pixels, so they contracted to Nvidia for a modified G70... G70!!! Thats the same core thats in the 7800GTX! blegh. Microsoft contracted to IBM and ATI for their three core RISC (although substantially more like X86 ("POWER 6" infact, relative to the old mac platform) than the cell) Xenos CPU, and to ATI for their full DX10 compliant R500 chip (not to be confused with the R520 or R580, the R500's closest X86 relative is the R600, the catastrophe that was the HD 2900).

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.)

Both consoles are so heavily subsidized by their respective manufacturers that it's hard to keep a clear picture. But yeah, I just checked futureshop today, COD:WAW in 360 form goes for $69.99, in PC form for $59.99, and in Steam's downloadable form for $49.99. at a delta of $10 a pop it doesn't take long to make a couple hundred dollar difference.

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.

This, and that's a topic thats been long discussed, quiried, thrown out, appealed, buried, dug up, given to your mother, and finally filed with the lobbyists. Fundimentally we need a serious revamping of IP rights.

 

[psyside]

i loved winning eleven on the ps2!!

for me the pc will always be better without question. i mostly play fps games, so the only way a console would even be considered would be if it had keyboard and mouse support. every k/m, not just sony or microsoft ones.

and for the guy who was saying that 720p was 1024x720 two pages back. you have your numbers mixed up.

1280x720 = 720p

LOL i love it on ps1 also played that game even before it become popular it was not
yet called Wining Eleven can't recall the name it was more then 10 years ago