Hmmm, so I should dismiss everything I've read that says that the Cell is indeed a very powerful CPU because of what appears to be someons mere opinion? I've read all about in-order CPU's, and it has some down sides, but it also has plenty of upsides. Sounds like a biased view on PS3 hardware to me. I guess hard for some people to accept that a "kids toy" can give their mighty PC's a run for their money.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
PC GPU vs PS3 GPU
- Thread starter Scooby22B
- Start date
cupholder2.0
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2006
- Messages
- 260
Your attempts to ridicule my post are futile, it would be wise for you to retaliate by providing scientific evidence to support your claims rather than continue with your insistent jabbering.
GoodBoy
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2004
- Messages
- 2,806
I might actually own a 360 or PS3 if I could play using my mouse and keyboard. I got a smart joyfrag adapter for the Xbox, and played Halo2 using mouse/keybd (played Halo1 on pc) and it wasn't bad. Played Far Cry and Prey and Doom3 on the pc and was impressed with them all. FlatOut2 is pretty slick on PC as well. I think if I played them on a console it might be less of a gaming experience tho. The pc games also have "Veteran" difficulty modes (which I play thru on the first try), not sure console games have that (selectable difficulty). But, the console games that get ported to PC that I've played (Pariah comes to mind), your character has "health" in 25% increments? Can only save once you reach the "loading point". For me many console games feel too simplified I suppose is what I'm trying to say. The pc games can have more "story" to them as well. Consoles are good at some gametypes, for example Soul Calibur. I bought a used Dreamcast just for that game, which is fun to play using the controller. I can't get into FPS's using controllers tho.
Controllers are only suited to a few game types IMHO. Wii has the best controller yet.
Console: Easy to start up your game. Tends to be reliable performance, no need to worry about upgrading. The platform is made solely for gaming. (all good things)
PC: Fastest, easier to control, and a larger range of software genre's. Games can be as engaging and as in-depth as a developer chooses to make it. (better things, to me anyway)
My pc is my most used gaming platform. Consoles have their place. But they keep trying to be pc's
(I think of the funny mac-pc commercials, tape a camera to his head)
When they let us be more customizable with controls on consoles (like use a keyboard or mouse or trackball if I want) I'll be more gung-ho on consoles.
I do love the Wii tho, simply fun.
I own: N64, Gamecube, Dreamcast, Xbox, Wii, and my PC. I play the PC more than all the consoles combined. Dreamcast=Soul Calibur. Gamecube=Soul Calibur 2 with Link (there's a little bit of cool factor there), zelda games, mario party. N64=mario kart, Xbox=Halo2 (with mouse/keybd adapter), Wii = all the new sports games, zelda. PC = everything else like Wow, Splinter Cell, Far Cry, Doom, Prey, Call of Duty, FEAR, Quake, and hundreds of old but still fun games.
Ok I rambled on there... I suppose it is a bit interesting comparing the computing power of console A vs Console B vs the PC (if any of these previously posted specs can be believed). But it's not super relevant, since the games, and the fun mostly comes from the developers writing the games. The Wii can be more fun than a PS3 yet its probably what 1/10th the computing power?
It's really all about the software.
Controllers are only suited to a few game types IMHO. Wii has the best controller yet.
Console: Easy to start up your game. Tends to be reliable performance, no need to worry about upgrading. The platform is made solely for gaming. (all good things)
PC: Fastest, easier to control, and a larger range of software genre's. Games can be as engaging and as in-depth as a developer chooses to make it. (better things, to me anyway)
My pc is my most used gaming platform. Consoles have their place. But they keep trying to be pc's
(I think of the funny mac-pc commercials, tape a camera to his head)When they let us be more customizable with controls on consoles (like use a keyboard or mouse or trackball if I want) I'll be more gung-ho on consoles.
I do love the Wii tho, simply fun.
I own: N64, Gamecube, Dreamcast, Xbox, Wii, and my PC. I play the PC more than all the consoles combined. Dreamcast=Soul Calibur. Gamecube=Soul Calibur 2 with Link (there's a little bit of cool factor there), zelda games, mario party. N64=mario kart, Xbox=Halo2 (with mouse/keybd adapter), Wii = all the new sports games, zelda. PC = everything else like Wow, Splinter Cell, Far Cry, Doom, Prey, Call of Duty, FEAR, Quake, and hundreds of old but still fun games.
Ok I rambled on there... I suppose it is a bit interesting comparing the computing power of console A vs Console B vs the PC (if any of these previously posted specs can be believed). But it's not super relevant, since the games, and the fun mostly comes from the developers writing the games. The Wii can be more fun than a PS3 yet its probably what 1/10th the computing power?
It's really all about the software.
There is no need for me to spam this thread any more than it already is with information that you can easily access yourself through a simple google search. I did not create this "myth" of the CELL processor being powerful with my previous post. The information has been out there since WELL before the PS3 was even released. Jabbering would be more like posting something that sounds like this... "hey, i'm really not going to give you any solid facts, but just take my word for it that the CELL cpu sucks and ignore everything else you hear" which is basically what you posted. It is obvious that you fell for this persons opinion simply because it was what you wanted to hear.
Lol this thread is funny. There are probably only two posts from people who know what they're talking about. All the rest is either uninformed or ignorant or blindly supporting someone else's uninformed opinion. No wonder so many people don't understand this stuff - people just spew a bunch of crap and other people lap it up.
My advice? Go do your own research because the majority of people who "know stuff" are really morons.
My advice? Go do your own research because the majority of people who "know stuff" are really morons.
Sigh, nonsense. The advantages of OOE include lower compiler complexity and better management of unpredictable memory access latency which are useful in a general usage environment like a PC. Since CELL's workloads are very specialized a lot more work can be done on the compiler side so that instruction reordering in hardware isn't as necessary. Memory access latencies are also highly predictable in the SPU's (it's all local store) and this can be used during compiler optimization. But like I said, don't take my word for it - do your own research. After all, I could be a moron too
No they wont because you will have hardly any games that tap that power. What? Crysis and Alan Wake? One of those is already console bound. And most of the other ones are as well. It doesnt matter, by the numbers how the PC gpus and hardware is better. We don't get the games, you can't argue that. We just dont, I play tons of PC games and theres maybe a small handful that look good and RUN good even with good hardware.
You have to brute force the shit out of the latest games to get them to run well. Even if they don't look that great. A good example is Rainbow Six Vegas. Looks fine, great on the XBOX 360, 360 is as you guys have shown, inferior to the PC's hardware capabilities. But it runs like ass on a PC unless youre really running bleeding edge. Yet the bleeding edge stuff right now is a lot better than the 360. Why is this? Optimization. Face it boys your money is better spent on a console and a sweet TV as opposed to blowing 3000 on the best PC hardware and monitor you can get.
We only get a few releases in our 'bleeding edge's hardware life cycle that take advantage of what we just blew our money on. The rest is just meh. And most of these 'sweet' releases will be on consoles too, exclusives are occuring much less. Especially when Microsoft is in the picture. You could spend 400$ on a 360, and a bunch of money on an awesome TV. And that'll give you beautiful games for 5 years with no hassle. And even when the consoles life cycle is over you'll still have a great tv that you don't need to replace, and you can get a new console after that. We love our super hardware on a theoretical level, we mostly don't get to see what its really capable of. We all dream. I spent a lot of money on my rig and aside from Oblivion I can't say I've experienced any games that wowed me. Yet ive seen tons of stuff on the 360 and PS3 that wow me. Double Agent and R6 Vegas were the only games on PC last year aside from Oblivion that really wowed me and both of them run like shit on the PC due to optimization. Oh and all 3 of those were on the consoles too.
There is simply no incentive, to try to squeeze the power out of the latest greatest hardware past its reign of latest and greatest. A new toy comes out, the developers use that to push the high end settings of their next new game. If your hardware should theoretically be able to handle those graphics at good settings, and it doesnt, oh well. We have to keep up with them, not the other way around. Everyone else gets to play on medium or low settings depending on their situation. But if you want to enjoy your games 'the way its meant to be played' you're going to have to keep up constantly with hardware, the best gpus and processors that don't limit them. And with all the socket switching and RAM changing thats been going on lately thats even more expensive than it used to be.
Theres simply too many variables to ever get the kind of performance our hardware is capable of on a consistent basis. Thats why 90% of the games that come out look like whatever and we get a few big hit games, that were likely designed around the release of some hot shit hardware (Crysis). Console developers are dealing with the same hardware on day 1 as they are 5 years from launch. They'll crank it out all the time, they don't have any reason not to. In fact many times they do so at the cost of gameplay (Lost Planet). They don't have to worry about specific ram, processors, motherboards, operating system SKUs, drivers, model makes. Gaming will never be as good as it is on consoles on PC's. All we have is FPS and RTS and thats because of control issues. If they let me play Halo 3, or Rainbow Six Vegas or any other sweet FPS game on the 360 with a mouse and keyboard, id never buy a gaming PC again.
blazingrig
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 242
who cares really....consoles graphics suckkkk. you have to cripple texture quality and AA just to play the damn game.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This kid is a blatant fan boy who has no idea what he is talking about, the 360 and current PC graphics are on par, and beyond in most cases any games out on the PC right now. This is coming form someone who has 2 7900 GTX's in SLI and plays every game out there so I know what Im talking about.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This kid is a blatant fan boy who has no idea what he is talking about, the 360 and current PC graphics are on par, and beyond in most cases any games out on the PC right now. This is coming form someone who has 2 7900 GTX's in SLI and plays every game out there so I know what Im talking about.
blazingrig
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 242
del.
blazingrig
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 242
del
This argument will soon be null and void. This always pops up when new consoles are released and there is some parity with PC's. What do you think is gonna happen when PC hardware starts pulling away in a year or two? Sure, there will be a few games on consoles that really tap the potential of the hardware and produce stellar graphics but after a while the average console game on PS3 or 360 will start to look pretty shitty compared to those on the PC.
But I fully agree with the notion that PC hardware is barely used to its full potential and at the moment you certainly get more bang for the buck from consoles. Not sure if Microsoft's Games for Windows program and DX10 will help with this but the day that developers start taking full advantage of PC hardware the console guys will be in for a rough time.
But I fully agree with the notion that PC hardware is barely used to its full potential and at the moment you certainly get more bang for the buck from consoles. Not sure if Microsoft's Games for Windows program and DX10 will help with this but the day that developers start taking full advantage of PC hardware the console guys will be in for a rough time.
Honestly, barring photorealism, does it need to get better than Crysis? Frankly if every game that came out in the next 5 years looked as good as Crysis I couldn't care less.
That's more than enough visual quality for me. Hehe.vanilla_guerilla
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,895
Honestly, barring photorealism, does it need to get better than Crysis? Frankly if every game that came out in the next 5 years looked as good as Crysis I couldn't care less.
lots of people said that when far cry came out. then lots of people said that when f.e.a.r. came out. then lots of people say that now that oblivion is out. then lots of people will........
YES!
Honestly, barring photorealism, does it need to get better than Crysis? Frankly if every game that came out in the next 5 years looked as good as Crysis I couldn't care less.
Well yeah it can get better - much better. But you do have a point - I'd be very happy if the PC games over the next year or two looked like Crysis on average. But we know that's not gonna happen due to a lack of talent and/or resources. Crytek seems to be the only development house really trying to maximize the PC's potential.
where u been....Consoles already using Keyboards and mouse well on some games...ive read threads of dudes playing oblivion with there USB keyboard/mouse on there Xbox360..idk about the PS3 though
Thats a hack, not native. The control schemes aren't designed for mouse and kb.
krameriffic
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2006
- Messages
- 3,214
$2500? My system cost $1200 a year ago and can still run everything just fine.
What he said...
It all depends on one's interpretation of "just fine." A week ago, I ordered the gaming cube in my sig for $1900. It'll perform as well or better than yours, but a $400 console is still a huge bargain over either of our systems.
Digital Viper-X-
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 15,123
thats simply your opinion, I have played games on my PC with an X1900XTX that looked far better then the xbox360 counter parts, LOTR BFME2 is one, NFS Carbon, totaly destroyed by the PC version IMO, even without hte so called optimiztions you guys are calling for PCs hvae alot more resources to dedicate to a game, try oblivion on 360, then go look at the pc version, then add some addons for the pc version and tell me they are in the same league,
"Just fine" is your personal perception. The question is, does your 1200$ system allow you to run games out both on 360/PS3 and PC, at the same visual quality or greater than what is possible on those same games on consoles?
Not likely.
BladeVenom
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2005
- Messages
- 7,707
720 at 25 frames per second is pathetic. A $130 video card could do that easily.
The Cell processor doesn't do general tasks very well. It's only good for specialized taks, made with specialized programming. Gaming so far isn't one of those tasks, and there's been no games for the PS3 that couldn't have been made a lot better with a general purpose processor. Most of the time it's about equal to a G4 processor. PS3 Benchmarks.
I don't know where people get PC gaming is expensive. If you already have a decent PC all you need is decent video card. PC gaming is only expensive if you are trying to make up for something by having the fastest PC you can make. As long as you goal isn't trying to impress other guys who are also deficient in certain areas, then PC gaming can be less expensive than console gaming. Just think of all the money you save since PC games are usually less expensive than console games.
CPU/Mobo combo $143
Arctic Cooling Freezer $19
160 GB Hard Drive $51
PSU $50
Graphics Card 1900GT $130
1 GB Super Talent DDR2-667 $52
SATA DVD Burner $34
Total $479
Most people should already have a case, accessories, and a copy of XP. For only a little more you could buy a couple of improvements like more memory, bigger hard drive, sound card, or better video card. With PCs you have a choice of which is more important to you.
All those prices can be found at Newegg, and eWiz. If you live near a Fry's you could get the E4300/Mobo combo, but otherwise the AMD X2 3600 combos are still a decent choice, and you get a nicer motherboard with the AMD combos.
And just think next month both AMD and Intel will be having price cuts so soon it will be even cheaper to make a basic gaming PC.
The Cell processor doesn't do general tasks very well. It's only good for specialized taks, made with specialized programming. Gaming so far isn't one of those tasks, and there's been no games for the PS3 that couldn't have been made a lot better with a general purpose processor. Most of the time it's about equal to a G4 processor. PS3 Benchmarks.
I don't know where people get PC gaming is expensive. If you already have a decent PC all you need is decent video card. PC gaming is only expensive if you are trying to make up for something by having the fastest PC you can make. As long as you goal isn't trying to impress other guys who are also deficient in certain areas, then PC gaming can be less expensive than console gaming. Just think of all the money you save since PC games are usually less expensive than console games.
CPU/Mobo combo $143
Arctic Cooling Freezer $19
160 GB Hard Drive $51
PSU $50
Graphics Card 1900GT $130
1 GB Super Talent DDR2-667 $52
SATA DVD Burner $34
Total $479
Most people should already have a case, accessories, and a copy of XP. For only a little more you could buy a couple of improvements like more memory, bigger hard drive, sound card, or better video card. With PCs you have a choice of which is more important to you.
All those prices can be found at Newegg, and eWiz. If you live near a Fry's you could get the E4300/Mobo combo, but otherwise the AMD X2 3600 combos are still a decent choice, and you get a nicer motherboard with the AMD combos.
And just think next month both AMD and Intel will be having price cuts so soon it will be even cheaper to make a basic gaming PC.
DarkStar02
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,144
I've been debating whether or not to build a PC or to get a PS3 and HDTV (out of price vs. performance ratios) for a couple weeks now and this video just made up my mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aOk3IpomA4
P.S. An OEM X2 3600+, generic $70 mobo with basic OCing features, 2GB value ram, and a 8800gts 320mb costs about 600 after shipping and CA taxes.
BladeVenom
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2005
- Messages
- 7,707
illgiveumorality
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2005
- Messages
- 3,026
lol, video card forum
Consoles can get away with a lot of things, such as lower detail levels thanks to the quality of your TV/viewing distances. I've noticed a lot of texture filtering "problems" on the 360, but the answer is in the quotation marks. Again, like other people have already said, it is apples to oranges.
Consoles can get away with a lot of things, such as lower detail levels thanks to the quality of your TV/viewing distances. I've noticed a lot of texture filtering "problems" on the 360, but the answer is in the quotation marks. Again, like other people have already said, it is apples to oranges.
vietkangta
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2005
- Messages
- 316
How come a a game on the tv with about 640 x by 480 (480p) res on the tv look so much better than one that is on a pc running at 640 by 480. or 800 x 600.
someone explain that to me.
someone explain that to me.
Because you're sitting 2 feet away from the PC monitor and 10-20 feet from the TV? Also we've gotten used to high resolution PC displays and low resolution TV's so maybe there's some psychology playing a part there too.
StealthyFish
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2005
- Messages
- 1,591
Is over half of this thread telling me that the Cell is a greater processor than a Core 2 Duo conroe? I'm getting the impression that many of you ARE just ignorant fools who do not understand anything about computers. If in-order processing is such a great process, we should just dump our out-of-order CPU processing orders and just switch over. In fact, I'll go to intel tomorrow and inform all of the Engineers over at JF5 at Jones farm and tell them that we should go buy a Cell and examine it's structure because it's such a great design... much more powerful than any PC CPU.
Even if the GPU was a crippled G80, the CPU would still hold back the system way too much. Look at the AMD users with 8800s and Intel C2D users with 8800s, and you tell me which is faster. Now, compare the cell to a low end AMD. Must be faster, right?
Even if the GPU was a crippled G80, the CPU would still hold back the system way too much. Look at the AMD users with 8800s and Intel C2D users with 8800s, and you tell me which is faster. Now, compare the cell to a low end AMD. Must be faster, right?
just quoting not to reply but to benchmark my machine with (StealthyFish) 4+GHz machine.... What's your 3DMark03 and 3DMark05 total score for each with default settings....? if u dont mind me asking...cuz im curious what my C2D/x850xt can do agence your 4+GHz Pentium D/7600GT PS: the PS3 GPU is base on the G7 series cards mainly equal to a single 7800GT.....not the G80 series like some people on here want to believe....
Digital Viper-X-
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 15,123
for 1 , its your native resolution or close to it, CRT TVs are interlaced(unless you have an LCD/Plasma or digital CRT( think they came out with these) and they produce 480lines per frame, computer monitors are not interlaced, and have a much higher resolution which is why you need a better card to push higher end monitors
you want to read about why that is......check out this link. it should answer your question and then some...
http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/vidres.htm
well lets benchmark ..with my OC speed posted below i ran 3Dmark05 free version so the (feature test, and the batch size test) did not run..but besides that this is what i scored
3DMark Score............. 6865
CPU Score................. 11041
CPU Test 1..................7.5 fps
CPU Test 2................. 7.2 fps
What you got (StealthyFish) with your 4GHz PC on 3DMark05 ?
3DMark Score............. 6865
CPU Score................. 11041
CPU Test 1..................7.5 fps
CPU Test 2................. 7.2 fps
What you got (StealthyFish) with your 4GHz PC on 3DMark05 ?
BladeVenom
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2005
- Messages
- 7,707
Also TVs are much more blurry than a computer monitor. That does kind of cover cover up many small faults that are easy to see on a PC monitor.