PS3 vs Computer Gaming

[sethk]

Couple of points, while the PS3 outputs at 720p (1280x720) a lot of the more taxing games are internally rendered at lower resolutions, sometimes 1024x576 and then scaled up to 720p, because the GPU is a limiting factor, as is the case with the 360.

Also regarding the difference between the SPUs and the main ALU core on the Cell, the biggest difference is not just integer versus FP, it's that the SPUs are very poor at branching and are therefore not good for running any kind of user input driven general purpose code, or evaluating AI and so on.

Rendering and other calculation heavy code that do not require any "IF x do something, otherwise do something else" type of code are much more suited for SPUs.

 

[Proxy]

 

[MiG31_Foxhound]

You just made my morning, sir.

 

[Deleted member 201992]

If you can afford a nice pc setup, if not, buy a console. I have a ps3 too.

 

[Syntax Error]

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.

Your logic is flawed.

You're supposing that a PS3's appreciable lifespan would be ten years, when even the PS2, a long-living console, really had an appreciable lifespan of 6 years or so. A computer could have the same hardware for 8 years and be used for other things, though an 8 year old computer would be totally obsolete by that time period.

But so would a 10 year old PS3. We'd probably be at PS5 by then, and you and many other console players would have gotten the newer stuff anyway.

I don't see people playing the original PlayStation still, do you?

You also have to remember that a PC serves much more functions than just gaming. I'd even argue that gaming is just a secondary or even tertiary function for many people's PCs.

 

[Krenum]

PC. It has better expandability and customization options.

 

[BladeVenom]

Microsoft's Xbox 360 & Sony's PlayStation 3 - Examples of Poor CPU
Performance

The Cell processor is a boatload full of FAIL. It's main processor is about the equivalent of the old out of date Apple G4 CPU.

http://www.geekpatrol.ca/2006/11/playstation-3-performance/
Highlights: 1.6 G5 vs. PS3 with Xeon benchmarks added.

bzip2 Compress (multi-threaded scalar)
PlayStation 3 - 124.1
Power Mac G5 - 168.4
Xeon 5160 - 1194.4

bzip2 Decompress (multi-threaded scalar)
PlayStation 3 - 99.5
Power Mac G5 - 133.1
Xeon 5160 - 1353.3

JPEG Compress (multi-threaded scalar)
PlayStation 3 - 94.8
Power Mac G5 - 103.0
Xeon 5160 - 877.6

JPEG Decompress (multi-threaded scalar)
PlayStation 3 - 72.9
Power Mac G5 - 119.2
Xeon 5160 - 788.9

 

[rincewind]

Even if you have a relatively poor PC there are a plethora of older titles (often with better gameplay than the glitzy tech-demos or re-hashes we often get) which will be just fine. Pushing graphics boundaries is great, but I still find myself playing a lot of older titles because they are actually more fun. Just purchased Discworld 2 for pennies and it's great (think I've finally worn out the replay value of BG2 and Torment). There are also a surprising number of indie games out there worth playing, and they nearly all have meagre system requirements. Heck, the majority of new releases don't really need much in the way of hardware unless you're an eye-candy freak (that's me) or run a super-high resolution.

I actually think a lot of people are wary of PC gaming purely because it appears more nerdy, when in reality the move to on-line multiplayer has made the console experience on X360 and PS3 very similar. I know a number of people who play COD4 et al on-line (ie ALONE) until the wee small hours....the same people who decry WoW as being sad (not that I'm a fan of that either).

FWIW, I do still play Worms and True Pinball on the original Playstation with friends. We even get all nostalgic and play Korn, Therapy?, L7 and RATM on the stereo like we used to in the good old days when I didn't associate a bong with watercooling

 

[Treyshadow]

What? Parappa the Rappa can be played at anytime. PS one games are still around, just not played by the [H].

I say PC though as a 8 year old PC, 8 years from now will still have some very good legs.

 

[gravityparade]

I'll remember this next time I want to play some sweet Teraflops in HD.

BTW can you please list what games are rendered in 1080i? I'm wondering how that big, huge, massive catalogue of HD games is coming along.

.... wait nvm I'll find it for you:

50 Cent = 1280x720 (blur filter)
Afro Samurai = 1280x720 (QAA)
Alone in the Dark = 1120x630 (no AA)
Army of Two = 1280x720 (no AA)
Assassin's Creed = 1280x720 (QAA)
Battle Fantasia = 1280x720 (no AA, toggable blur filter)
Battlefield: Bad Company = 1280x720 (no AA)
Beijing 2008 = 1024x768 (no AA)
Beowulf = 1280x720 (no AA)
Bionic Commando = 1120x640 (no AA)
Bioshock = 680p (no AA, blur filter)
Bourne Conspiracy, The (demo) = 1280x720 (no AA)
Burnout: Paradise = 1280x720 (2xAA)
Call of Duty 3 (screenshot) ~1088x624 (2xAA)
Call of Duty 4 = 1024x600 (2x AA)
Call of Duty: World at War = 1024x600 (2x AA)
Cars Mater-National = 1280x720 (QAA), 1920x1080 (QAA)
Chronicles of Riddick: Dark Athena = 1024x720 (QAA)
Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 = 1280x720 (no AA)
Conan (demo) = 1024x576 (no AA)
Condemned 2 = 1280x720 (no AA)
Conflict: Denied Ops = 1280x720 (no AA) or 960x1080
Dark Sector = 1152x640 (no AA)
Darkness, The (demo) = 1024x576 (no AA)
Dead Space = 1280x720 (no AA)
Def Jam Icon (screenshot) = 1152x648 (no AA)
Devil May Cry 4 = 1280x720 (2xAA, temporal)
Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion = 1280x720 (no AA)
FaceBreaker = 1280x720 (QAA), 960x1080
Fallout 3 = 1280x720 (no AA)
Fifa Street 3 = 1920x1080 (no AA)
Full Auto 2 (demo) = 1920x1080 (4x AA)
Fracture = 1152x648 (no AA)
Ghostbusters = 960x540 (QAA)
Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter 2 = 1280x720
Godfather II = 1200x720 (blur filter)
Golden Axe: Beast Rider = 1280x720 (no AA, blur filter)
Golden Compass = 1280x720 (no AA)
Grand Theft Auto IV = 1152x640 (no AA)
Guitar Hero 3 = 1040x585 (no AA)
Guitar Hero Aerosmith = 1040x585 (no AA)
Guitar Hero World Tour = 1040x585 (no AA)
Haze (demo) = 1024x576 (2xAA)
Heavenly Sword = 1280x720 (4xAA)
Incredible Hulk = 1280x720 (no AA), 960x1080 (no AA)
Jericho (demo) = 996x560 (2x AA)
Juiced 2: Hot Import Nights = 1280x720 (QAA)
Kung Fu Panda = 1280x720 (no AA), 960x1080 (no AA)
Lair = 800x1080 (2xAA) - AA buffers are merged to produce 1600x1080 for further scaling
Legend of Spyro: Dawn of the Dragon, The = 1280x720 (no AA)
Legendary = 1280x720 (no AA)
LEGO: Batman = 1280x720 (no AA, slight blur filter)
LEGO: Indiana Jones = 1280x720 (no AA), 960x1080 (no AA)
Lord of the Rings: Conquest = 640p (no AA)
Lost Planet = 1280x720 (temporal 2xAA)
Madden NFL '09 = 1280x720 (no AA)
Marvel: Ultimate Alliance (screenshot) = 1920x1080 (no AA)
Mercenaries 2: World in Flames = 1280x720 (no AA)
Metal Gear Online = 1024x768 (2xAA, temporal)
Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriot = 1024x768 (2xAA, temporal)
Midnight Club: Los Angeles = 960x720 (QAA)
Mirror's Edge = 1280x720 (no AA)
MK vs DC = 1024x576 (QAA)
MLB08: The Show = 1280x720 (2xAA) - The rendering window is adjustable down to 576p without upscaling to 720p i.e. the frame has black borders
MLB09: The Show = 1280x720 (2xAA) or 1920x1080 (no AA)
Motorstorm = 1280x720 (2xAA)
MX vs ATV (demo) = 1024x576 (no AA)
NBA07 (demo) = 1920x1080 (no AA)
NBA08 (demo) = 1920x1080 (no AA)
NBA Live '08 = 1280x720 (no AA)
NBA Street Home court (screenshot) = 1920x1080 (no AA)
Need For Speed: Undercover = 1280x720 (QAA)
NFL Tour = 1280x720 (no AA, poor framerate)
NHL '09 = 1280x720 (4xAA)
Ninja Gaiden: Sigma = 1280x720 (has weird scaling to support 1080p)
Overlord = 1280x720 (no AA)
Pirates des Caraibes (screenshot) = 768x1080 (no AA)
960x720 en mode 720p
Prince of Persia = 1280x720
Pro Evolution Soccer 2008 = 1280x720 (QAA)
Prototype = 1120x640 (QAA)
Quake Wars: Enemy Territory = 1280x720 (no AA)
Race Driver: GRID = 1280x720 (2xAA)
Rainbow Six Vegas 2 = 1280x720 (2xAA)
Ratchet & Clank: Tools of Destruction = 1280x704 (2xAA, centered on 720p output)
Red Faction: Guerrilla = 1280x720 (no AA)
Resident Evil 5 = 1280x720 (dynamic 0-QAA)
Resistance: Fall of Man = 1280x720 (QAA)
Resistance 2 = 1280x720 (2xAA - GDC09 slides)
Ridge Racer 7 (demo) = 1920x1080 (no AA)
Rise of the Argonauts = 1280x720 (no AA)
Ryu Ga Gotoku 3 = 1024x768 (no AA)
Sacred 2: Fallen Angel = 1280x720 when sub-HD output selected, 1920x1080 for any HD output (no AA)
Saint's Row 2 = 640p (QAA)
SCORE International Baja 1000 = 1280x720 (no AA)
SEGA: Rally Revo = 1280x720 (4xAA, alpha blend)
SEGA: Superstars Tennis = 1280x720 (QAA, 30fps)
Silent Hill: Homecoming = 1024x576 (no AA)
Skate = 1280x720 (no AA)
Soldier of Fortune: Payback = 1280x720 (no AA)
Sonic Unleashed = 880x720 (blur filter)
Soul Calibur IV = 1280x720 (no AA), 1280x576 in 1080p mode
Spiderman: Web of Shadows = 1280x720 (no AA)
Street Fighter IV = 1280x720 (no AA), 630p in up-close character view?
Star Wars: The Force Unleashed = 1280x720 (no AA)
Stormrise = 1280x720 (2xAA)
Tiger Woods PGA Tour '09 = 1280x720 (no AA)
Tomb Raider: Underworld = 1280x720 (QAA)
Tom Clancy's EndWar = 1280x720 (2xAA)
Tom Clancy's HAWX = 1280x720 (no AA, horizontal blur)
Tony Hawk's Project 8 = 1280x720
Tony Hawk's Proving Ground (demo) = 1024x576 (no AA)
Top Spin 3 = 1280x720 (QAA)
Transformers (screenshot) = 960x1080 (no AA)
Turning Point: Fall of Liberty = 1280x720 (no AA)
Turok = 1280x720 (no AA)
UEFA Euro 2008 = 1280x720 (no AA)
Uncharted: Drake's Fortune = 1280x720 (2xAA)
Unreal Tournament III = 1280x720 (no AA)
Viking: Battle for Asgard = 960x720 (2xAA) - AA buffers are merged to a 1920x720 framebuffer, which is then downscaled to 1280x720
Virtua Fighter 5 (screenshot) = 1024x1024 (no AA)
1024x768 en mode 1080p
Virtua Tennis 3 (demo) = 1920x1080 (2x AA)
WWE 08 (screenshot) = ? 640x720 ? (2x AA) - les edges ont l'aparence du 1280x720 mais d'apres certain artefact il semble que ce soit le resultat de la fusion de 2 buffers MSAA 640x720
translation StefanS: "The edges give the impression of being 1280x720p, but because of a certain artifact it seems that it is the result of the fusion of 2 MSAA buffers of resolution 640x720"
WALL E = 1280x720 (no AA)
Wanted = 1120x640 (no AA)
Wheelman = 1280x720 (no AA)
World Series Of Poker 2008 = 1920x1080 (2xAA)
X-Men Origins: Wolverine = 1280x720 (no AA)

Wow I can play ....Cars Mater-National,Conflict: Denied Ops, FaceBreaker, Fifa Street 3, Full Auto 2, Incredible Hulk, and Kung Fu Panda in 1080 resolution.... sweet!

How the hell can't we get more HD games with all those Teraflops? All My PC games manage to play in 1920x1200.....

 

[trick0502]

i think this was posted by MrWizard6600

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 360 gpu isn't dx10.

 

[Krenum]

I'll remember this next time I want to play some sweet Teraflops in HD.

BTW can you please list what games are rendered in 1080i? I'm wondering how that big, huge, massive catalogue of HD games is coming along.

.... wait nvm I'll find it for you:



Wow I can play ....Cars Mater-National,Conflict: Denied Ops, FaceBreaker, Fifa Street 3, Full Auto 2, Incredible Hulk, and Kung Fu Panda in 1080 resolution.... sweet!

How the hell can't we get more HD games with all those Teraflops? All My PC games manage to play in 1920x1200.....

Teraflop.
http://searchcio-midmarket.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid183_gci213119,00.html

 

[King of Heroes]

I'll say it again, just in case this point got buried under a bunch of useless posts about resolutions and teraflops:

It doesn't matter how WTFAwesome the hardware of a platform is, if that platform doesn't have the games you want to play. People who use consoles do so because consoles have the kind of games they want to play. People who use PCs do so because PCs have the kind of games they want to play.

Do you like fighting or sports games? Don't bother with a PC then, get a console.

Do you like first person shooters or real-time strategy? Don't bother with a console then, get a PC.

So on and so forth.

It doesn't matter if Platform A can play any kind of game at 3840x2400 at 120 frames per second. If it doesn't have any of the games you want to play then don't get it.

It doesn't matter if Platform B can only render games 1280x720 at 24 frames per second. If it has the games you want to play then get it.

 

[PS3]

I like both pc and ps3, but stuck with the ps3 and ditched the gtx280 sli pc for two reasons: sports games, and gt5 is going to be a must have game, plus getting tired of pc shooters and mmos and rts games aren't my thang you dig?

 

[kllrnohj]

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.

You're right, its not going to happen. Just like when the PS3 and XBox360 were brand spanking new they still weren't rendering 1920x1080. And guess what? As the games have gotten more graphically demanding, the resolution has DROPPED. Up until a couple of months ago I was using a 7950 GT, which was still plenty for 1280x1024 (bit higher res than the PS3 renders at). Consoles can't magically make hardware faster. The RSX is basically a 7900 GT and it will ALWAYS be a 7900 GT and it will ALWAYS perform like a 7900 GT from now until the end of time. Being inside of the PS3 doesn't make it magical. Being renamed doesn't make it any better. Its an old, slow GPU paired with a high spec'd but impractical CPU in a system starved of RAM. The only reason consoles don't show their age like PCs do is because you tend to sit a hell of a lot farther away from your TV than a PC monitor. The PS3 and Xbox 360 also have much better upscalers than typical PC LCDs do (meaning they can fake it better)

 

[gravityparade]

Teraflop.
http://searchcio-midmarket.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid183_gci213119,00.html

You missed the point entirely. I know what a Teraflop is, my point was that the difference has little relevance to real gaming performance.

 

[Derfman]

You're right, its not going to happen. Just like when the PS3 and XBox360 were brand spanking new they still weren't rendering 1920x1080.

QFT. I have only seen a few console games render true 1080P and the only one off the top of my head that I can think of was MGS4 for the PS3. It was in development for centuries and is more like Movie Gear Solid 4 than Metal due to it's ridiculous 3/4 CG scene setup. So little game play, what it did have was beautiful but lets face it, it's not breaking any records other than the most expensive interactive BD.

I have all the consoles and a gaming PC. I have my cake and eat it, the real reasoning behind this? Well some games ONLY come out for consoles, some for certain consoles, and they ALWAYS end up being games that I really want to play. If you want graphics you go game on your PC, you can always run a game at 1080P on mid range to low end hard ware, just turn down the pretty effects. You don't have this option on the console games and this is another reason why your stuck playing at a lower resolution than most new and even new "affordable" TV's offer.

Lets face it, consoles usually look good when they first come out, seem to be up to par with current mid to top range PCs, but they will never be a replacement for best graphics quality at the highest resolution that HDTV's currently offer.

 

[defaultluser]

QFT. I have only seen a few console games render true 1080P and the only one off the top of my head that I can think of was MGS4 for the PS3. It was in development for centuries and is more like Movie Gear Solid 4 than Metal due to it's ridiculous 3/4 CG scene setup. So little game play, what it did have was beautiful but lets face it, it's not breaking any records other than the most expensive interactive BD.

I have all the consoles and a gaming PC. I have my cake and eat it, the real reasoning behind this? Well some games ONLY come out for consoles, some for certain consoles, and they ALWAYS end up being games that I really want to play. If you want graphics you go game on your PC, you can always run a game at 1080P on mid range to low end hard ware, just turn down the pretty effects. You don't have this option on the console games and this is another reason why your stuck playing at a lower resolution than most new and even new "affordable" TV's offer.

Lets face it, consoles usually look good when they first come out, seem to be up to par with current mid to top range PCs, but they will never be a replacement for best graphics quality at the highest resolution that HDTV's currently offer.

The good part of this is: with the next generation of consoles, they will hardly break a sweat running at 1080p. And since 1080p is about as high a resolution as the TV world is likely to see for some time, we won't have to have these arguments anymore.

Unfortunately, today we have the PS3, powered mostly by Sony hot air. It's a decent midrange system for 2006, but very tame by the standards of 2009. You can get some impressive graphics out if it if you use Cell to do software rendering effects, but that basically restricts your game to a single platform; this is because the optimizations you use won't easily transfer to a cache-coherent multi-processing system like the Xbox 360, or a system where GPUs can handle the effects like the PC.

 

[tomana]

just passing thru

 

[Technoob]

QFT. I have only seen a few console games render true 1080P and the only one off the top of my head that I can think of was MGS4 for the PS3.

MGS4 does not run in 1080p, period. You can find many sources by googling. You can visit the console subforum for a true list of actual 1080p games.

 

[kllrnohj]

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.

You know, I'm curious how Sony is claiming 2 tflops. The breakdown their marketing claims is ~200 gflops for Cell and ~1.8 tflop for the RSX. In reality, the RSX/7900GT is ~200 gflops. I guess by Sony marketing logic you could make the claim that the 4850 (really 1 tflop) is 9 tflops (Sony's marketing seems to be multiplying the actual value times 9). Interestingly, the 360's Xenos is ~250 gflops and technically the superior GPU between the two systems.

 

[PS3]

But the RSX is not a 7900gt exactly.

 

[Derfman]

MGS4 does not run in 1080p, period. You can find many sources by googling. You can visit the console subforum for a true list of actual 1080p games.

My TV had received the signal as 1080P, unless they offer a type of up scaling in that game that is only available in their game (similar to how my 360 handles all games), then I don't know what to tell you, period.

 

[Technoob]

My TV had received the signal as 1080P, unless they offer a type of up scaling in that game that is only available in their game (similar to how my 360 handles all games), then I don't know what to tell you, period.

The game and many others certainly upscale, we were discussing native resolution.

 

[Mega0v]

My TV had received the signal as 1080P, unless they offer a type of up scaling in that game that is only available in their game (similar to how my 360 handles all games), then I don't know what to tell you, period.

Psssst I have a hint for you so people won't pick on you.

Console games use scaling i.e. the game is rendered at 1280x720p (or even lower) and then upscaled to whatever. Some games aren't even that here check out this http://xbox.joystiq.com/2007/09/28/halo-3-is-only-running-at-640p/ halo 3 runs at 1152x640. Halo 3 is probably a unique pos and mgs4 and what not run at 1280x720 but they still don't actually run at 1920x1080 they are upscaled. Most console games do not run at native 1920x1080 and the ones that do are typically piece of shit games.

 

[Derfman]

Psssst I have a hint for you so people won't pick on you.

Thank you Captain Obvious. I'll let you in on a hint, the post you quoted, I stated exactly THAT. My PS3 DOESN'T scale games to 1080P, my TV receives it as a 720P signal. Yes my resolution is set to 1080P, yes my main menu in the PS3 displays in this, and yes when I load up any recent game it then shows that it is switching to 720P. My 360 does not do this, why? Because it scales it. Just like I was hinting towards, and just like you reiterated for me.

MGS4 actually showed 1080P signal on my TV, no other PS3 game has done this. As I stated in my last post. Unless this game in PARTICULAR is using it's own form of upscaling, the system itself doesn't do this.

I hope your attempting to troll me with feeble knowledge (that was already present in my first post). Otherwise I got a hint for you. Psssst. You need or need new reading glasses.

The game and many others certainly upscale, we were discussing native resolution.

Thank you. Exactly the answer I was looking for. Though I am curious as to what other games for the PS3 offer scaling on their end, because out of my library of 25 games for the PS3, MGS4 has been the only one to actually upscale a signal to 1080P to my TV.

As far as the 360 goes, regardless of what the developers set the game's max resolution at, the system automatically upscales all games to 1080P, so my TV sees it as such. And for the n00bie above, I already knew about that Halo 3 fiasco, I read on it when it occured years ago...

 

[Mega0v]

lulz. all upset and stuff.

 

[Technoob]

Thank you Captain Obvious. I'll let you in on a hint, the post you quoted, I stated exactly THAT. My PS3 DOESN'T scale games to 1080P, my TV receives it as a 720P signal. Yes my resolution is set to 1080P, yes my main menu in the PS3 displays in this, and yes when I load up any recent game it then shows that it is switching to 720P. My 360 does not do this, why? Because it scales it. Just like I was hinting towards, and just like you reiterated for me.

MGS4 actually showed 1080P signal on my TV, no other PS3 game has done this. As I stated in my last post. Unless this game in PARTICULAR is using it's own form of upscaling, the system itself doesn't do this.

I hope your attempting to troll me with feeble knowledge (that was already present in my first post). Otherwise I got a hint for you. Psssst. You need or need new reading glasses.



Thank you. Exactly the answer I was looking for. Though I am curious as to what other games for the PS3 offer scaling on their end, because out of my library of 25 games for the PS3, MGS4 has been the only one to actually upscale a signal to 1080P to my TV.

As far as the 360 goes, regardless of what the developers set the game's max resolution at, the system automatically upscales all games to 1080P, so my TV sees it as such. And for the n00bie above, I already knew about that Halo 3 fiasco, I read on it when it occured years ago...

the thread in the console forum has quite good information on resolution and knowledgeable people who can answer your questions. Console games all do odd things. Halo at sub 720, GTA4 on the ps3 is sub 720, but the 360 version is 720 native, etc etc.

 

[kllrnohj]

But the RSX is not a 7900gt exactly.

Correct, its worse (half the memory bandwidth, the rest of the specs are the same)

Thank you Captain Obvious. I'll let you in on a hint, the post you quoted, I stated exactly THAT. My PS3 DOESN'T scale games to 1080P, my TV receives it as a 720P signal. Yes my resolution is set to 1080P, yes my main menu in the PS3 displays in this, and yes when I load up any recent game it then shows that it is switching to 720P. My 360 does not do this, why? Because it scales it. Just like I was hinting towards, and just like you reiterated for me.

MGS4 actually showed 1080P signal on my TV, no other PS3 game has done this. As I stated in my last post. Unless this game in PARTICULAR is using it's own form of upscaling, the system itself doesn't do this.

Give this a read: http://www.beyond3d.com/content/articles/16/

Basically the PS3 sort of has a hardware scalar, but it wasn't exposed initially. Games *could* opt to implement their own scaling (and some did), but most didn't. Hence why you see varied results (most games 720p, a few 1080p). MGS4 is one of the few upscaling higher than 720p on the PS3. GT5 Prologue is another that is up scaling during races, only it is using the hardware scaler and hence renders at 960x1080.

The 360's hardware scaler has been available since launch, and I do believe that it doesn't require developer support either, which is why all of your 360 games put out a 1080p signal.

 

[Unknown-One]

PC hardware is so far ahead of consoles that, at this point, even a cheaply built mid-range can game just as well as an Xbox 360 or a PS3. It's most likely possible to build a PC for around $500 that will play GTA IV just fine at the same quality settings as a PS3 (for reference, GTA IV runs at 1152x640 at nearly the lowest quality settings on the PS3).

PCs offer superior flexibility, superior performance, superior graphics, and superior controller options. If you invest more in a PC, you get more out of it; that option simply isn't there with a console.

 

[Mega0v]

Go take this to system wars on gamespot.com people there might give a shit.

I have other names here, not all are as early as this one.

 

[Bman123]

PS3 is a better money wise desicion when it comes to gaming.Just spend $400 and be done with it.You cannot build a pc from scratch for $400 that will hang with the ps3.

You dont have to upgrade the ps3 every 2 years or so either to have great gameplay.You dont get madden on pc,and that is a big seller for me

 

[Bman123]

If you have alot of cash go with a os if not get a PS3

 

[Unknown-One]

You dont have to upgrade the ps3 every 2 years or so either to have great gameplay.

You don't have to upgrade a PC every 2 years either, you just drop quality settings. That's the same thing that happens with consoles, the hardware doesn't improve so neither can the graphics.

 

[Bman123]

Yeah but on a console the game gets made for the console.On pc they make they game and if you need a new video card to play it on max settings then oh well screw the consumer.

I am telling you the game dev's and the video card companies work together on this shit.Look at crysis and tell me that your 2 yr old pc could play crysis on max @ 1080p or even 720p.There wasn;t anything capable of playing crysis on max no matter how much you spent.

So for the people who want to spend $400 for at least 5 years of great gameplay the obvios choice is the console.

The pc however does have the upper hand on content.there is so much more you can do on a pc mod wise then a console.You can really make a game last a long time (CS) do to the content.

They both have their place in the market but a pc is truly alot more expensive then a console

 

[cannondale06]

Yeah but on a console the game gets made for the console.On pc they make they game and if you need a new video card to play it on max settings then oh well screw the consumer.

I am telling you the game dev's and the video card companies work together on this shit.Look at crysis and tell me that your 2 yr old pc could play crysis on max @ 1080p or even 720p.There wasn;t anything capable of playing crysis on max no matter how much you spent.

So for the people who want to spend $400 for at least 5 years of great gameplay the obvios choice is the console.

The pc however does have the upper hand on content.there is so much more you can do on a pc mod wise then a console.You can really make a game last a long time (CS) do to the content.

They both have their place in the market but a pc is truly alot more expensive then a console

its only as expensive as you want it to be. for someone that was going to have a decent pc anyway then throwing a $75 9600gt in there will still give you a better visual experience than a console can give. in the long run a console can easily be more expensive just from the price of the games alone. and remember playing a pc game at med setting usually still looks better than what you get on the consoles. if I didnt care about mouse/kb and playing around with mods then I could see how a console could be appealing. the prob is that I would likely have to buy both the xbox360 and ps3 to play the games I would like to play.

 

[Unknown-One]

Yeah but on a console the game gets made for the console.On pc they make they game and if you need a new video card to play it on max settings then oh well screw the consumer.

Why are you obsessed with running max settings? Consoles don't run brand new games at max settings, they tone things down in order to fit within what the hardware is capable of.

You can do the same thing with a PC, no video card upgrade required, just drop the visuals down. They aren't out to screw the consumer; if they were, they wouldn't let you change quality settings at all.

I am telling you the game dev's and the video card companies work together on this shit.

Yes they do, to help optimize performance.

Look at crysis and tell me that your 2 yr old pc could play crysis on max @ 1080p or even 720p.There wasn;t anything capable of playing crysis on max no matter how much you spent.

Right, no PC and no console of that era can play Crysis on max settings, what's your point? Drop the visuals down and a PC of that era can play Crysis fine.

So for the people who want to spend $400 for at least 5 years of great gameplay the obvious choice is the console.

It's not quite as clear cut as that, I hope I've made that clear.

 

[hstuehmeyer2000]

PS3 is a better money wise desicion when it comes to gaming.Just spend $400 and be done with it.You cannot build a pc from scratch for $400 that will hang with the ps3.

Actually you can do it for around $300 if you played your cards right. What makes the pc better from a money stand point is the price of the games. You can get good pc games on sale for $5-10 all the time.

 

[Sycraft]

I don't find that PC vs console price arguments are very useful because the thing it doesn't take in to account is that you'd probably own a PC anyhow, if you didn't game. I mean obviously everyone here owns a PC .

The real question is how much PC would you bother to own, if you didn't game? That isn't easy to answer in all cases. For some people, they'd own only a very basic, old PC, games are the only reason to upgrade. Others like having a fast PC for normal work and thus making it game capable isn't much of an upgrade, if at all.

For example suppose you want a reasonably nice PC for web surfing videos and the like. You get a Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, a 22" monitor and so on. Only think you don't get is a video card, you use the integrated card. Well, making that thing capable of running all current games well is cheap: $100 gets you a Radeon 4850 or about $20 more gets you a GTS 250. Either way, you are good to go for any PC game out there at a nice high detail.

However, suppose you own an old P4 with 512MB RAM and you are just fine with it for office-type work. To upgrade that to a gaming system would be a good deal more money since you have to replace a large part of the core hardware.

So what kind of value a given system is really depends on your case.

It also depends on what you want. One thing PCs have going for them is continually upgraded hardware. You can get more powerful graphics on a yearly basis, or even more often if you really want. That means they'll quickly outpace consoles. However one thing consoles have going for them is compatibility. A game either works or does not work with a given console. There's none of this trickiness of compatibility like sometimes crops up on the PC.

However really, it comes down to what kind of games you like. If all you play is sports games, get a console. If RTSes are the only thing for you, get a PC. Get the platform that has what you play, that's what really matters.

Or, and here's a secret: You don't have to choose just one! You can have a console AND a PC, if you like and game on both.

 

[kllrnohj]

If you have alot of cash go with a os if not get a PS3

I would argue that if you have the money, get a gaming PC, otherwise get a 360. Having recently bought a PS3, I am rather disappointed at how ridiculously expensive this thing is just for the console. $400 doesn't get you shit compared to the $300 360 Pro (which I also have). Out of the box with the PS3 you get a controller and 480i output. The 360 gives you a controller, headset, component + composite cables (meaning 1080p is possible without buying any cables), 2 full games and a couple of arcade games. Also, IMO the 360 has the superior interface (XMB is slooooowwww - especially in game) and feels far more connected to the online community than the PS3. I also like the 360 controller more (the triggers, mainly), but I do have larger hands, so ymmv. As for the PS3's larger disk space, well, it seems to actually need it (and the update process is so incredibly slow). Since I don't store my media on either console (stream it from a server), the 360's hdd has been plenty - I've never been below ~20gb of free space on it. The PS3 seems determined to use up all its hdd space for me.

Far more importantly, however, is that the 360 has the superior game catalog, especially older titles that are now in the bargin bin. A 360 + 5 great games for $400 is easily achievable, with games like Crackdown, PGR3/4, Dead Rising, etc.. going for under $20 (some as low as $8 if you buy used at gamestop or similar). PS3 doesn't have that, as all its great exclusive games are pretty new.