Xbox 360 & PS3 vs PC graphics
- Thread starter Brumboy
- Start date
Hmm sucks if its a limit on vga with some tvs.
Maybe Sonic could use something like this to have more hdmi inputs in his tv?
http://is.gd/CkjA1d
Maybe Sonic could use something like this to have more hdmi inputs in his tv?
http://is.gd/CkjA1d
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 7,058
- Location
- Bedford
Lol guys OP is mainly asking about which gpu card is equivalent to consoles gpus and look at the trolling and infighting that has taken place
.Yeah. I think in consoles cpus make heavy contribution and probably this is one of the reasons why games on xbox 360 and ps3 still look so good.
Isn't it agreed upon that ps3 cell broadband cpu acts more like a gpu than a conventional pc cpu plus it's architecture varies immensly from pc processors. How many cores is it? I still can't figure it lol out as it has one PPE and 8 SPEs with one disabled if I am correct.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 7,754
- Location
- Cornwall
i had a pc, ps3 and xbox360, and to be honest, i didnt really notice a huge difference. but then i got fifa11 and f1 2011 on all 3 and to be honest, when upgraded to my HD6850 and then added the second, it just looks a lot nicer on the pc, and for this reason, i now no longer have a PS3 or 360.
i admit, that the consoles have their uses, they are easy for people who just like to pick up and play without the fuss of changing settings etc. but they do lack something when you compair the same games side by side on the same screens.
99% of the time i would play one of the consoles, and at one point i sold my pc and only used consoles. but with newer technology and the release of some games that DO have good pc ports, then i will stick with the trusty pc with my 360 controller.
as for playing at 720p on a 1080p tv, i had that issue too via vga so i got a HDMI switch and the difference is noticable, whether thats because the resolution is higher or because the signal is better quality via hdmi i dont know, but i would not say 720p was unplayable or poor, i do sit a good 2-3m away from screen, but 1080p is deffinatly better.
Multi platform games primarily designed for the 360, then badly ported across to the PS3. Black Ops is a prime example, it even runs like **** on the PC. I'd love to see graphics like Uncharted, Killzone or MGS on the 360 but it wouldn't manage it.
Oh dear. Some people have misunderstood the point I was trying to make.
Of course a higher resolution would look better. But the point I'm making is I use my PC at 1280x768 which is around the same resolution as most consoles run native and there is nothing wrong with the image. Yes, in a comparison side by side you would clearly see the difference but just using this resolution on its own still looks absolutely fine. Maybe I do have lower standards, but as long as I enjoy my games on ALL my systems I don't care about that. This resolution also allows me to enjoy the very latest games on my PC at decent frame rates while still looking gorgeous with all settings on the highest the game(s) will allow at a very small price.
This hate thread was clearly started by an Elitist to cause trouble and I'm simply pointing out a fact there is nothing wrong with playing games either on a PC/Mac/360/Ps3/whatever at those kinds of resolutions.
I didn't come in here for a war, just to stop the minority Elite in their tracks from posting any more stupid threads like this. I am not having a go at normal PC gamers as I know by the knowledge and help I have received in the past from many a PC gamer on this site, they are generally mature, decent people who rise above such things.
I hope this helps to clarify things.
Of course a higher resolution would look better. But the point I'm making is I use my PC at 1280x768 which is around the same resolution as most consoles run native and there is nothing wrong with the image. Yes, in a comparison side by side you would clearly see the difference but just using this resolution on its own still looks absolutely fine. Maybe I do have lower standards, but as long as I enjoy my games on ALL my systems I don't care about that. This resolution also allows me to enjoy the very latest games on my PC at decent frame rates while still looking gorgeous with all settings on the highest the game(s) will allow at a very small price.
This hate thread was clearly started by an Elitist to cause trouble and I'm simply pointing out a fact there is nothing wrong with playing games either on a PC/Mac/360/Ps3/whatever at those kinds of resolutions.
I didn't come in here for a war, just to stop the minority Elite in their tracks from posting any more stupid threads like this. I am not having a go at normal PC gamers as I know by the knowledge and help I have received in the past from many a PC gamer on this site, they are generally mature, decent people who rise above such things.
I hope this helps to clarify things.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 7,058
- Location
- Bedford
I have been doing some reading on PS3 Cell cpu and it seems in single-precision floating point operations (32bit) it is capable of 204.8GFlops. However in double-precision (64bit) it only managed 20.8GFlops although theoretically it is capable of 102.4GFlops.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(microprocessor)#Architecture
Now Intel Burn Test and LinX are both Linpack which is a double-precision benchmark program.
My [email protected] is capable of 45GFlops out of a possible 54.4GFlops at this speed in IBT. So it would seem in double-precision my Q6600 beats Cell
.
However IBM did release PowerXCell 8i which managed 102.4GFlops in double-precision although it is a server cpu and not incorporated in PS3.
The SB i7-2600K is capable of over 120GFlops as it contains AVX instructions which doubles the peak theoretical performance hence SB getting over 100GFlops aswell.
http://www.overclock.net/intel-cpus/869018-intel-amd-gflops-data-thread-looking-59.html#post12049787
So if I am correct Sandy Bridge is faster than PS3 Cell cpu although I don't know how applicable are double precision Flops in gaming or real world usage?
What do you think guys ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(microprocessor)#Architecture
Now Intel Burn Test and LinX are both Linpack which is a double-precision benchmark program.
My [email protected] is capable of 45GFlops out of a possible 54.4GFlops at this speed in IBT. So it would seem in double-precision my Q6600 beats Cell
.
However IBM did release PowerXCell 8i which managed 102.4GFlops in double-precision although it is a server cpu and not incorporated in PS3.
The SB i7-2600K is capable of over 120GFlops as it contains AVX instructions which doubles the peak theoretical performance hence SB getting over 100GFlops aswell.
http://www.overclock.net/intel-cpus/869018-intel-amd-gflops-data-thread-looking-59.html#post12049787
So if I am correct Sandy Bridge is faster than PS3 Cell cpu although I don't know how applicable are double precision Flops in gaming or real world usage?
What do you think guys ?
I dont see why it couldnt manage graphics that those games put out. I think its more of a question of talent.
I don't care how fast my PS3 cpu is...........What do you think guys ?
As the same games on my PS3 still look rubbish compared to my what they look like on my PC
So i stick to using my PS3 for watching blu-rays..and the odd PS3 only games..
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 7,058
- Location
- Bedford
I don't care how fast my PS3 cpu is...........
As the same games on my PS3 still look rubbish compared to my what they look like on my PC
So i stick to using my PS3 for watching blu-rays..and the odd PS3 only games..
That's why I said that I believe sandy bridge is faster than cell cpu as it is capable of much higher double-precision GFlops of over 120GFlops even reaching 130GFlops as I have seen on the internet.
Whereas PS3 cell cpu as claimed could only manage 20.8GFlops in double-precision (64 bit) even though it is capable of 102.4GFlops which is still less than what Sandy Bridge is capable of achieving.
So a SB or even Core 2 Quad or Phenom paired with modest to high end gpu will decimate PS3, though as stated I don't know how much gaming makes use of double-precision calculations. Perhaps software programmers, developers will have better answer
.Cell cpu in number crunching utilising single-precision calculations will beat almost any computer processor but in double-precision floating point operations, it will struggle even against the likes of Q6600 unless it is provided with some instructions that can speed up the cell in double-precision.
Last edited:
1280x720 sharp on a monitor that is say, 20"+? No. The native res would be 1680x1050 at the minimum.
1280x720 sharp on a TV that is say, 20-50"? Yes.
I have a 42" plasma, it's 'only' 720P but Band of Brothers look freaking insane on Blu-Ray. My PS3 and 360 look sharp too, well of course it can be game dependant!
Also, I'm a PC gamer mostly so don't say I'm wrong about 1280x720 being sharp, you should go to specsavers if that is the case. The fact is monitors and TVs both need their native res to look clear. Anything lower will start to blur and be aliased. It's more evident in monitors because they go far beyond 720P where as the mainstream resolution is 720P for TVs.
1280x720 sharp on a TV that is say, 20-50"? Yes.
I have a 42" plasma, it's 'only' 720P but Band of Brothers look freaking insane on Blu-Ray. My PS3 and 360 look sharp too, well of course it can be game dependant!
Also, I'm a PC gamer mostly so don't say I'm wrong about 1280x720 being sharp, you should go to specsavers if that is the case. The fact is monitors and TVs both need their native res to look clear. Anything lower will start to blur and be aliased. It's more evident in monitors because they go far beyond 720P where as the mainstream resolution is 720P for TVs.
Its tradeoffs mean its not really suited to general purpose stuff, and just because it faps repetitive calculations quickly doesnt make it an advanced processor. Current PC desktop cpus are far more intelligent and dont require anywhere where near as much optimising effort.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 7,058
- Location
- Bedford
Yup.
Cell main strength mainly seems to lie in single-precision (32 bit) calculations whereas it compares poorly in double-precision (64 bit) against PC processors. So PC processors are better at processing larger numbers involving more decimal points.
PC processors are best for multi-tasking.
Last edited:
Most of you guys are talking sense, the graphics are truely better on the pc by a long shot but what you seem to be forgetting is that a new top of the range graphics card is £200 - £300 thats a lot for a graphics card alone, especially when you can pick up a whole unit PS3 for £250 and Eggbox For £150, out of the box and ready to game, so im just saying your all missing the point, its a cost thing not a general hardware thing. Yes pc are by far the superior machine and its guys like us that keep the market afloat for pc, but for avearge joe who wants to play the latest fifa hes hardly gonna fork out £800 on a new rig when he can pop in game and get and eggbox for a fraction of the cost. Oh and 95% of the population of the planet dont know how a pc work
PC is supposedly superior, however the software, is becoming less and less superior. Often worse than its console counterpart. I am like most of you, given this forum, a hardware junkie, but in the last couple of yrs, I am finding it very difficult to justify spending out on new hardware to play a crap, buggy, unfinished, low frame rate port on technically superior hardware. Unfortunately the likes of Activision, EA especially and Codemasters, they've all sold their PC souls to the more profitable console devil..
The PC as a gaming platform is on its way out. The next two yrs will see things getting worse and worse, more buggy ports, sloppier frame rates, then the final nail in the coffin will be the next gen consoles. This will undoubtedly see the start of the end to the PC component market too.
After my last two PC gaming purchases, I think I'm done with it all, after what, 18 odd yrs of upgrading every 12months.
All my gaming purchases will now be console only.
Why?
1.\ Chances are it'll perform better and be less buggy and less overall headache
2.\ I can sell the game once I'm done.
Even though we will see the occasional title being sharper and smoother than its console counterpart, will it really be worth upgrading all that hardware for the very occasional treat? I'd rather put my money elsewhere thank you very much.
The PC as a gaming platform is on its way out. The next two yrs will see things getting worse and worse, more buggy ports, sloppier frame rates, then the final nail in the coffin will be the next gen consoles. This will undoubtedly see the start of the end to the PC component market too.
After my last two PC gaming purchases, I think I'm done with it all, after what, 18 odd yrs of upgrading every 12months.
All my gaming purchases will now be console only.
Why?
1.\ Chances are it'll perform better and be less buggy and less overall headache
2.\ I can sell the game once I'm done.
Even though we will see the occasional title being sharper and smoother than its console counterpart, will it really be worth upgrading all that hardware for the very occasional treat? I'd rather put my money elsewhere thank you very much.
I aint owned a console since i was 16 way back in 98 and that was a snes.
Im actually considering getting a console when the next gen comes out cos by then the only games on pc will be crap ports and nothing really pc exlusive or even any good on pc due to the crap way they have to make all the games compatible with lower end hardware.
The next gen of consoles will probably take over pc gaming and they defo will if they ship with keyboard and mouse which they are trying to ease in now with i think a lot of ppl getting 3rd party keyboard and mouses for consoles. When that happens all the fps players will probably move to console which will kill pc gaming except mmos.
Hate to say all this cos i love my pc and the past gaming i have done on it. But even now i try games and dont play em after the first try of em which im glad so im not wasting cash on em.
Im actually considering getting a console when the next gen comes out cos by then the only games on pc will be crap ports and nothing really pc exlusive or even any good on pc due to the crap way they have to make all the games compatible with lower end hardware.
The next gen of consoles will probably take over pc gaming and they defo will if they ship with keyboard and mouse which they are trying to ease in now with i think a lot of ppl getting 3rd party keyboard and mouses for consoles. When that happens all the fps players will probably move to console which will kill pc gaming except mmos.
Hate to say all this cos i love my pc and the past gaming i have done on it. But even now i try games and dont play em after the first try of em which im glad so im not wasting cash on em.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 31 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 1,156
- Location
- Somerset
The witcher 2 and battlefield 3 will start the ball rolling again for the pc platform imo
I think the image looks better on a modern HDTV as opposed to a modern Monitor because the Tv has all kinds of cone filters and upscalers built in to help the image quality look better. Thats why I'm saying my PC running at 1280x768 on my HDTV looks fine to me - its most likely because the Tv is upscaling it to 1080p like it does with the consoles, plus they also have their own upscalers already built in to the hardware as well.