Decent PC is 8 times more powerful than PS3

Paul_cz · 20 Apr 2011 at 08:53

Made a little experiment. Took Crysis 2 down to PS3 graphics (1024*768, high preset - PS3 runs at 1024*720 at high, with some features like Global Illumination off, so it is a bit below high actually) and took a screen of my framerate:

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/7549/crysis22011042009353712.jpg

PS3 version runs between 25 to 30 depending on scene.

I am playing the game on this setting though:
http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/3899/crysis22011042009364896.jpg

(very high, 1920*1200, with v-sync I get constant 60fps).

With extreme preset I get 50fps, which is not enough for me (I notice the difference, even if many people don't).

Anyway, damn consoles. They should announce new generation already dammit.

One More Solo · 20 Apr 2011 at 08:56

How much did you pay for the PC? And so on...

icehot · 20 Apr 2011 at 09:08

Saying a PC runs a game faster than a console is just stating the obvious.

As much as I love my PC, I also love my 360 and PS3. Bank for buck on consoles is hard to compete with.....

edscdk · 20 Apr 2011 at 09:12

also in the news, a recent study found a f1 racing car was able to get round a racing track quicker than my citroen diesel...

linktoinsanity · 20 Apr 2011 at 09:12

Nice idea for an experiment, but as "One More Solo" points out, how much did you pay for each bit of kit? Including the screens (for both the PS3 and computer, controllers etc) as lots of people seem to overlook the TV when comparing console price to PC price. To say you already have a TV minus the console is just like saying you already have a computer minus the graphics card to be honest.

We already know that PCs are more powerful than consoles. Consoles are 6 years out of date now so are nolonger going to give as good graphic experience as a PC.

I repeat though, interesting idea for an experiment. I'd like to see more comparisons.

EDIT: Fixed wording.

orderoftheflame · 20 Apr 2011 at 09:18

Shock horror.

5 year old console that costs less than a new PC is less powerful than a new PC.

arknor · 20 Apr 2011 at 09:22

close to 300quid for a decent ps3 bundle though you can probably build a pc capable of 720p gaming for about the same money

Cliste · 20 Apr 2011 at 09:32

arknor said:
close to 300quid for a decent ps3 bundle though you can probably build a pc capable of 720p gaming for about the same money

Thats true and monitors tend to cost a lot cheaper than tvs too. Well, from what I've seen anyways.

drunkenmaster · 20 Apr 2011 at 09:35

Same old boring argument, I don't know ANYONE without a PC, though this might change over the next 3-4 years as some people will buy tablets and live with them over a proper pc. Okay plenty of people have laptops but I tend to find most families I know have one proper PC aswell. In general stick a £100 graphics card in any pc bought in the past 4 years and you'll have significantly more gaming power than any console.

Sure if you go out just to buy a new pc for gaming it will cost more, but its a daft comparison, theres a million things you can do on a PC that you can't do on a console, which is incredibly limited in what it can do and how you can do it. Sure you can surf the net on a PS3, but its a horrific experience.

A console is FAR more expensive than a graphics card added to any normal PC.

Anyway, 2 things need to happen, Direct X needs to die, fast, and consoles most certainly need a new generation. Consoles do use direct x, kinda, but not in the same way as on pc's, its insanely strict/limiting on PC's while dev's can do far more on a console in the way they want it to be done.

Tefal · 20 Apr 2011 at 09:37

hang you made this 8 times faster ( a completely meaningless statement btw) figure up without actually using a ps3 purely by changing the settings on your pc :/

good god.

cHk4 · 20 Apr 2011 at 09:38

One More Solo said:
How much did you pay for the PC? And so on...

8x as much!

Paul_cz · 20 Apr 2011 at 09:45

I own PS3, have it hooked up to the same screen as my PC (NEC 24WMGX3, bought here at ocuk).

The game at the settings on the screenshot, on PC, looks very similar to PS3 version.

The PC specs I forgot to include, they are

Sandy Bridge 2500K at 4ghz
MSI GTX560 Twin Frozr2 OC
4gigs ram
Win7 64bit

PC like that isn't that expensive, for the difference in quality it brings. I only use PS3 for its rare exclusives (I finished RDR, Heavy Rain, Uncharted 1+2 on it so far, and this year only games I am interested in on it are LA Noire and Last Guardian) and even then I wish I could be plying them on PC instead with 60fps and better graphics.

Tefal said:
hang you made this 8 times faster ( a completely meaningless statement btw) figure up without actually using a ps3 purely by changing the settings on your pc :/

good god.

wtf ? the settings are very close to PS3 ones. PS3 runs at slightly lower, with 27fps average.

Anyway, I was just curious about the comparison and thought others might be too. It is not like this is some great revelation of century or anything, obviously.

d_brennen · 20 Apr 2011 at 09:48

Old argument is old.

What a lot of people forget is that "gaming" PCs are like any other PC, but faster and nicer to use because of that. Who doesn't need a PC in this day and age? If I wasn't a PC gamer I'd still want a fast PC and big monitor to do all my other stuff... Which would be a gaming PC minus a graphics card. My 5850 was £200 when I bought it at launch (struggling to remember how many months ago that was) so it's hardly the expensive hobby some make it out to be

Sleepery · 20 Apr 2011 at 10:03

Your average joe doesn't want to how fast he can run something. He just wants to play CoD because he's seen it at his mate's and thinks it looks ace.

£150 and an XBox plugged into the telly he already has gets him that, with zero hassle.

Which is why there are so many of the damn things about, and we're all playing console ports. It's not piracy or any rubbish like that, it's because it's the simplest, cheapest way of gaming.

Tefal · 20 Apr 2011 at 10:10

Paul_cz said:
wtf ? the settings are very close to PS3 ones. PS3 runs at slightly lower, with 27fps average.

Anyway, I was just curious about the comparison and thought others might be too. It is not like this is some great revelation of century or anything, obviously.

there is no comparison you've just changed your pc settings and arbitrarily decided this equates in anyway to a consoles' performance.

You're not even running the same game as the console due to changes in the conversion (especially with the ps comapred to xbox), let alone the hardware differences.

Paul_cz · 20 Apr 2011 at 10:21

Tefal said:
there is no comparison you've just changed your pc settings and arbitrarily decided this equates in anyway to a consoles' performance.

You're not even running the same game as the console due to changes in the conversion (especially with the ps comapred to xbox), let alone the hardware differences.

Well no ****, Sherlock. It is not a 100% accurate, because guess what, it is impossible to compare it accurately unless you have access to source code or ini files of PS3 version to be able to edit PC settings exactly to match PS3 ones.

But the point stands. PS3 version at 1024*720, PC version at 1024*768.
PS3 version runs at details bit below "high" of PC version, but on PC I could only drop it to "high" since it is lowest. It is as accurate as you can get.

And again, I have PS3 as well, tested the game on it (borrowed from a friend, I would not buy 2 versions) and it looks very similar to the PC version as I tested it. The framerate difference is 190 versus 30 or less. You can't get much clearer than that.

Shamikebab · 20 Apr 2011 at 10:27

Paul_cz said:
Well no ****, Sherlock. It is not a 100% accurate, because guess what, it is impossible to compare it accurately

Then why are you bothering?

Seriously unless you're a massive PC elitist then what does it achieve? You just enjoy what you enjoy and let them enjoy what they enjoy.

Oh and fully star out your swearwords, it's in the rules.

Tefal · 20 Apr 2011 at 10:27

ok so you're saying the pc is 8 times faster by running at roughly console settings on your hardware then uping the settings on the same hardware?

how much ram your pc got 4-8gb?

Lets see how well your pc runs windows let alone crysis + windows on 256mb of ram.

if it can't then omg ps3 more powerful than a pc!!!!

2gb is the minimum ram from the system requirements list) so a pc needs 8 times the amount of ram to run the game at equal (or lower) settings!?

OMG consoles are 8 times more efficient than PC's

JTrickle · 20 Apr 2011 at 10:31

Cliste said:
Thats true and monitors tend to cost a lot cheaper than tvs too. Well, from what I've seen anyways.

Kind of accademic as you already tend to have a TV and you already have a pR0n viewer^H^H^H online shopping trolly chariot.

What is a bit different these days is the slightly better quality of power supplies in the granny PCs bought from fast food computer stores. Most £300 towers (that arent slimline etc) can actually handle a 110W 4850/9800. [or 5770/450 that are getting cheap 2nd hand now and so on]. 1080p 22-24" monitors are not too dear either.

Converting a shopping basket PC into a gaming one has never been cheaper.

Clarkson · 20 Apr 2011 at 11:27

PS3 cost me £250, gaming PC cost me £900.

When I look at Uncharted 2 on PS3, then metro or crysis on PC, I don't see 3.6x better graphics :cool:

Of course consoles don't have the bells and whistles, but as has already been said they are still good value.