hi all im currently playing on a ps3 and im gonna buy as new gaming pc, I want an I7 930 and a SSD drive but this means i can only afford a gtx460 gpu, I was hoping to upgrade the GPU next year to a more top of the range card, Ive got £1200 to spend on a new rig and need the whole shabbang even windows 7, although ill be using a 42" lcd HDTV so dont need a monitor, I just wanted your opinions really about the GTX460 compared to PS3, will the graphics be better? if not i might just hold out till next year and buy a rig with a good GPU, I want an I7 930 as I will be doing some home audio recordings and I want something that is gonna last me a few years as ive always bought pre built pc's that dont play all the latest games 2 months after buying. and its friggin frustrating and a waste of money. thanks all.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
GTX 460 vs PS3 Graphics
- Thread starter JonKLJ
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 1,480
If you were to run your pc games at 1280x720 then you could run almost everything at max settings. The PS3 can't even handle 720p for some games. The 460 will be able to run anything at better settings than the PS3 and at 1080p.
The PS3 is nothing compared to the 460, between the highly purpose-built, optimized games and the ridiculously low res TV's + average viewing distance you honestly can't compare the two. Whether it can handle everything PC gaming has to offer with that HDTV of yours is an entirely different matter however.
- Ordokai
- Ordokai
Last edited:
I've got an I3 which is clocked to 4Ghz (was very easy) 4GB RAM. An SSD handles the OS and a couple of games the rest on a HDD. I use a GTX460 with again a very mild clock and I only have to turn off a few things in Metro 2033 and nothing you wouldn't miss.
This is all at 1900x1200. Any other game is maxed.
This is all at 1900x1200. Any other game is maxed.
A 42'' TV will either be 1280x720 (ancient prehistoric resolution PC gamers used to use 10 or so years ago) or 1920x1080 (resolution commonly seen across 22'', 23'' and 24'' PC monitors). The GTX460 is more than capable of either.
I own both of those. The PC will always have better graphics than the PS3 but it varies game to game. With some games there is quite a gap but other games the difference isn't as big. PC's are different than consoles. A GTX 460 will look just as good as a GTX 480 but will run at a lower frame rate if it is a demanding game but there won't be a difference in image quality. It's completely different to comparing 2 generations of console. On paper, the GTX 460 is much more powerful than a PS3's GPU but comparing console/PC specs doesn't really work. Console games are usually very well optimised and run amazingly well for the limited hardware that they have. With the PC, you rarely get optimisation like that. It's still better though, just not as much as figures/specs might suggest. I'm not trying to put you off, I'm just making it clear that the games won't suddenly look 4x better.
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 1,201
- Location
- Liverpool
The PS3 uses a something like 7900gtx so no comparison!
As I mentioned above, it doesn't really work like that.
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2009
- Posts
- 9,287
- Location
- United Kingdom
GTX 460 would be a good start to any system, when funds allow you could add another and that'll keep you sorted a for goo while! As for any differences, most PS3 games I believe are at 720p with the odd one at 1080. PC graphics will look better, even on a large screen. i7 will be overkill for just gaming, better of going down i5 route with a 760.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 7,058
- Location
- Bedford
What Mame said is correct. The only reason PS3 games look so good is because they are well optimised for the console. Most of the PC games are just console games which are ported back to PC so obviously don't take much advantage of PC hardware. It's not as if they have been recreated from scratch for PC.
So running assassin's creed 2 on ps3 and pc won't result in huge difference with the pc version looking noticeably better.
Crysis though it has bugs is a native PC game whereas Metal Gear Solid 4 is a native console game. If you compare the two at same resolutions you will notice big difference provided you have a high end graphics card for Crysis. Crysis would look way more better than MGS4.
If most PC games were created from scratch to take full advantage of i7, 5970 crossfire etc they would demolish console games.
So running assassin's creed 2 on ps3 and pc won't result in huge difference with the pc version looking noticeably better.
Crysis though it has bugs is a native PC game whereas Metal Gear Solid 4 is a native console game. If you compare the two at same resolutions you will notice big difference provided you have a high end graphics card for Crysis. Crysis would look way more better than MGS4.
If most PC games were created from scratch to take full advantage of i7, 5970 crossfire etc they would demolish console games.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 2,181
- Location
- Ashton-Under-Lyne
mostly dependant on the game than the card for how good it looks, but unless you buy a 5-year old GPU, you can get better looks in a game, at playable framerates, than you can get with a console
Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the GPU's on the PS3s equivalent to the 7800/7900GTX? The GTX460 is FAR superior. As mentioned above console games are tailored for that hardware, whereas a lot of PC games are simply ports of those, so the levels of play are different.
Generally speaking any new PC with graphics even going back a year or two will still outperform a console variant...
Generally speaking any new PC with graphics even going back a year or two will still outperform a console variant...
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 1,201
- Location
- Liverpool
I meant there was no comparison technologically speaking.
Consoles have the advantage of standardised specs and a long shelf life so every drop is wringed out over time, with some stunning results.
consoles also cut corners to allow them to work. IE they remove some of the more graphical effects u get on the pc that a lot of ppl dont usually notice to get better performance
and of course, u dont usually get much in the way of AA on consoles, nothing compared to pc's at least.
but to the OP, there will be little to no difference in graphics quality between a GTX460 and a GTX480, the difference is simply how fast they will run.
running a game on the same settings on both cards will look the same, althou the faster card will get more FPS.
the 460 should handle most games at a decent res with full graphics on, so its only the few more demanding games where the better gpu's will have the advantage, but this will most likly be far supieror graphically to a PS3 anyways
and of course, u dont usually get much in the way of AA on consoles, nothing compared to pc's at least.
but to the OP, there will be little to no difference in graphics quality between a GTX460 and a GTX480, the difference is simply how fast they will run.
running a game on the same settings on both cards will look the same, althou the faster card will get more FPS.
the 460 should handle most games at a decent res with full graphics on, so its only the few more demanding games where the better gpu's will have the advantage, but this will most likly be far supieror graphically to a PS3 anyways
i was playing cod5 yesterday at an internet cafe on an old cibox monitor lol at it looked better than a console on 1080p that was without aa on a 7900gt at 1440x900 :L still prefer consoles for their bare simplicity though lol