PC GPU vs PS3 GPU

I have all three. PS3 XB360 and a top of the line C2D set w/8800gtx. and I keep coming back to the PC. graphics trounce both consoles and did so even when I had a 7800gtx in the box. just can't say that consoles have any merit outside of those who don't want to invest in high end pc. save the 600 and put it in your box. you'll be alot happier. you may miss some titles but the ones you get are gonna be killer and worth it.
 
I recently built a $600 PC for my cousin. It had an X2 3800+, a gig of ram, a 7600GT, and a 80GB HDD. IMO, that PC > PS3, but I'll still get one when Ratchet and Clank: Tools of Destruction comes out :D
 
BladeVenom said:
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.
Click to expand...

The guy you quoted just said that when he said that standard TV's are interlaced.

This is not the case with modern HD sets.
 
Scooby22B said:
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............. 6824
CPU Score................. 10548

CPU Test 1..................7.0 fps
CPU Test 2................. 7.1 fps

What you got (StealthyFish) with your 4GHz PC on 3DMark05 ?
Click to expand...

I know StealthyFish's 7600 GT OCed gets about 7000-7100 in 05, but he volt modded the card now so I don't know his latest score.
 
Scooby22B said:
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....
Click to expand...

I was using the example of a G80. I know the PS3 does not use the G80 core, but even if it did have a crippled version of it, the system would still be horribly bottlenecked. That's what everyone here doesn't understand... CPU's can bottleneck graphic card performance. I've only got 3dmark 05 scores right now.

I find console gamers to be generally more retarded than the normal computer noob. The majority of console gamers lack knowledge about computer hardware and most seem to have never touched a computer that's near high end. lol. Example: I used to have a 1.8Ghz willamette P4 + 512mb of RAM and an MX400, and when I got my Xbox, i thought it had amazing graphics. I moved up to an X800 and 1gb of RAM + P4 630@ 3.8, then to a 7600GT volt modded 700//1800, PD950, 1gb RAM, and now, my computer can shit better graphics and performance than most of the consoles on the market.

My system does around 7010 with a 5400RPM low power laptop drive (non-volt modded, 630//1630). Just to show a little bit of conroe power, Cupholder2.0 scores around 7200 - 7300 on 3dmark05 with a 2.93Ghz E6400 and a PNY 7600GT (600//1700). There's a clear difference in performance. At default, I score around 6100-6300 on 3dmark05 and I believe Cupholder2.0 scores around 6500-6700 stock.
 
vietkangta said:
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.
Click to expand...

Is it an LCD or tube TV? I would expect an LCD tv would look no better than an LCD monitor, but a scanning CRT TV would be less pixelated and look better.
 
StealthyFish said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't think you have a solid grasp on the strengths of various CPU designs. Because if you did you wouldn't make such a ridiculous statement. Last time I checked PC CPU's and Cell were targeted at very different types of tasks. You might want to check the F@H standings for an idea of what I'm talking about.
 
hell my system is bottlenecked at the cpu and i am running C2D @ 3.5ghz. 8800gtx hasn't even reached full potential yet.
 
trinibwoy said:
I don't think you have a solid grasp on the strengths of various CPU designs. Because if you did you wouldn't make such a ridiculous statement. Last time I checked PC CPU's and Cell were targeted at very different types of tasks. You might want to check the F@H standings for an idea of what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

So you are now saying that the Cell was not made for gaming, but more for folding? I thought the PS3 was built for gaming, and I'd expect the hardware to be configured for gaming, but apparently I was wrong. It's only for folding. Computer processors have much more variable in what tasks they can do, not just fold, they can game as well. From what you just said, I received the implication that those PS3 CPU's are nothing more than folding chips. Remember, the performance is equivalent to a G5. From the benchmarks I saw, they were doing a lot of processing benchmarks, productivity tests, for processing power, and it looks like the Cell is equivalent to the G5 in almost every bench (except for the multicore benchmarks, but that's expected of a multicore CPU), I would say the Conroe is still much much more superior. So to say that consoles are better than PC's is just ludicrous.

I do recognize that certain architectures are designed to be optimized for a certain task. MCH is built to be a hub, not a central processing unit, so is the ICH. Both are configured and optimized as hubs for USB controllers and information being sent from the socket, PLL, DIMMs, etc... These parts are specialized for a certain task.. But logically, the PS3 was designed for people to play video games. Am I missing something or are you telling me that it was not built for gaming?
 
StealthyFish said:
So you are now saying that the Cell was not made for gaming, but more for folding? I thought the PS3 was built for gaming, and I'd expect the hardware to be configured for gaming, but apparently I was wrong. It's only for folding. Computer processors have much more variable in what tasks they can do, not just fold, they can game as well. From what you just said, I received the implication that those PS3 CPU's are nothing more than folding chips. Remember, the performance is equivalent to a G5. From the benchmarks I saw, they were doing a lot of processing benchmarks, productivity tests, for processing power, and it looks like the Cell is equivalent to the G5 in almost every bench (except for the multicore benchmarks, but that's expected of a multicore CPU), I would say the Conroe is still much much more superior. So to say that consoles are better than PC's is just ludicrous.

I do recognize that certain architectures are designed to be optimized for a certain task. MCH is built to be a hub, not a central processing unit, so is the ICH. Both are configured and optimized as hubs for USB controllers and information being sent from the socket, PLL, DIMMs, etc... These parts are specialized for a certain task.. But logically, the PS3 was designed for people to play video games. Am I missing something or are you telling me that it was not built for gaming?
Click to expand...

That isn't what he is saying at all... Here's a thought... Is it possible that perhaps PS3 games are coded differently than PC games? To be more specific so you don't miss-represent what I'm trying to say like you did here, do you think that perhaps the PS3 games are coded to take advantage of the in-order architecture of the CELL processor? Hmmm... What a novel concept!
 
DarkStar02 said:
I wonder what would happen if you installed a copy of linux on a ps3 and ran 3dmark on it.
Click to expand...

Well, you can get Yellow Dog Linux installed on the PS3 and it's supported by Sony. Damn, I wish I had one so I could test this out, I think it'd be a neat little thing.
 
trinibwoy said:
Cell were targeted at very different types of tasks. You might want to check the F@H standings for an idea of what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

That seems like you were saying that the Cell was designed for a different task than PC processing units.

and of course, the Cell will have programs optimized for it, but in all reality, the hardware will still limit the performance of the game. There's a reason why the developers at Crytek decided not to have Crysis be made to run on consoles...
 
Interesting article, especially the last paragraph.

Geekbench also isn’t able to exploit the eight vector processors on the Cell processor. Any program designed and optimized for the Cell processor should be a lot faster than one designed for a generic processor (like, say, Geekbench). So while the Geekbench results might seem disappointing, keep in mind that Geekbench can’t exercise the PlayStation 3 to its full potential.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to expand...

Which is what I and a few other's have been trying to say. Using software that is meant to be used on modern desktop processors to compare the CELL's performance is by no means an accurate depiction of it's capabilities.
 
RamonGTP said:
Interesting article, especially the last paragraph.

Which is what I and a few other's have been trying to say. Using software that is meant to be used on modern desktop processors to compare the CELL's performance is by no means an accurate depiction of it's capabilities.
Click to expand...

Since the majority of games are cross platform it's an accurate benchmark for most games. Actually it's accurate for every game for the PS3 that's come out so far. Name one game that takes advantage of the PS3's cells. Name one game that couldn't be done just as well or better on an Xbox or a PC.
 
BladeVenom said:
Since the majority of games are cross platform it's an accurate benchmark for most games. Actually it's accurate for every game for the PS3 that's come out so far. Name one game that takes advantage of the PS3's cells. Name one game that couldn't be done just as well or better on an Xbox or a PC.
Click to expand...

I am not responsible for the development of any PS3 games so I cannot answer that question with any amount of certainty. How do you know that none of the current games do not take advantage of ANY of the additional cores? I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just wondering how you know that, and if you could post some credible links to where you got this information from? I find it hard to believe that all the current games are letting 80% of the PS3's potential just sit there, and if they are, then more credit to the Cell CPU, as I can only image how much better the games will be when the power is actually put to use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top