Permabanned
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 10,717
- Location
- InURmama
The PS3 has a special hybrid card that was based on the 7900's just when the 7800's were avail for the PC.
The PC graphics are so far ahead now so dont worry.
-
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.
compared to a ps3?
- Thread starter el_brato
- Start date
The PS3 has a special hybrid card that was based on the 7900's just when the 7800's were avail for the PC.
The PC graphics are so far ahead now so dont worry.
I think it does 1080i but not 1080p.
I thought it always has, just not over all conections.
1080i support was added in a dashboard update IIRC, 1080p support is not there (or no games support it.)
I could be wrong though.
Edit: Seems I am wrong and it's 1080p support that was added in an update.
Correct
The PC always passes out the latest consoles very quickly. The release of the 8800's in November '06 effectively ended the arguement for the time being. The PC is supreame once again.
What you have to remember is that PC games need to support a wider variety of harware configurations, and quality controls are a lot weaker. These days we often have to wait for both a graphics driver update and a patch to get a title to really work properly.
It's fairly normal for publishers to release a virtually broken game and then patch it a little later for performance and reliability. Some people even think it's an intentional method of anti piracy at the time of release.
PC gaming is generally an untidy and often frustrating affair. The upside is the vast amount of varitety, configurability, backwards compatibility and control over every detail.
What you have to remember is that PC games need to support a wider variety of harware configurations, and quality controls are a lot weaker. These days we often have to wait for both a graphics driver update and a patch to get a title to really work properly.
It's fairly normal for publishers to release a virtually broken game and then patch it a little later for performance and reliability. Some people even think it's an intentional method of anti piracy at the time of release.
PC gaming is generally an untidy and often frustrating affair. The upside is the vast amount of varitety, configurability, backwards compatibility and control over every detail.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
features? i think not...
The best feature on the xbox 360 is it can be flashed.I got one and v the ps3 blueray or not (btw i brought a hd addon) that makes it 50 times better in my books.And as said pc gaming will always be ahead of console's.And for the online experience gaming there is only one console in the running worse gpu or not.And tbh like already said the ps3 is only just living up to the hype Graphics wise. Another thing to think about at £40 a pop for console games pc games have and will always be cheaper.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
can be flashed to what?
Huh, is he says the 360 is better because you can flash it and download games? Shame that removes online play, is illegal, voids the warranty which will no doubt be needed because of the bad design?
Both consoles have their pros and cons, its down to what you want really.
PC is more powerful but hardware isnt directly comparable(right word?), perhaps it will change when vista gets a SP or 2, and becomes the solid platform for gaming it was supposed to be.
Both consoles have their pros and cons, its down to what you want really.
PC is more powerful but hardware isnt directly comparable(right word?), perhaps it will change when vista gets a SP or 2, and becomes the solid platform for gaming it was supposed to be.
not better in terms of features, its better in that its cheaper, easier to develop for and has better games.
Games are what make a console, not hardware specs.
smartest thing anyone has said in this topic so far.
Having said that, I think its safe to say the PS3 will never be as good or as popular as the 360. Sony have left it way too late.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
oh i agree that it is the quality of the experience and the affordability of it that do count.
but i just didnt understand where he was coming from with features, because spec for spec you would have to say the PS3 has more, regardless of whether it has the better games or not...
I'm not convinced the Cell is that much more powerful than the 360's CPU. If it were 3 general purpose cores with 7 SPUs each it would be beyond doubt but there's only one general purpose core. If I remember rightly PS3 CPU wins for Floating point calculations, 360 CPU wins for integer.
Is CPU floating point really that much more important for games? GPUs theoretically have massive floating point performance. What if the GPUs can be used partially for general purpose calculations in game development?
In my opinion the PS3 was released way too late in terms of gaming hardware. 360 was on par with PC graphics power at release, and slighly ahead in terms of architecture. PS3 was behind on both.
The reason why developers got so good at harnessing the power of the PS2 was market demand. It was far and away the most numerous gaming hardware platform at the time. If PS3 doesn't have the numbers there isn't the incentive for developers to allow it to reach its potential. At the moment the 360 is the lead platform for most developers and many are switching to the Wii. Add that to the fact that it's relatively easy to co-develop for 360 and PC and things really aren't looking too rosey for sony.
Is CPU floating point really that much more important for games? GPUs theoretically have massive floating point performance. What if the GPUs can be used partially for general purpose calculations in game development?
In my opinion the PS3 was released way too late in terms of gaming hardware. 360 was on par with PC graphics power at release, and slighly ahead in terms of architecture. PS3 was behind on both.
The reason why developers got so good at harnessing the power of the PS2 was market demand. It was far and away the most numerous gaming hardware platform at the time. If PS3 doesn't have the numbers there isn't the incentive for developers to allow it to reach its potential. At the moment the 360 is the lead platform for most developers and many are switching to the Wii. Add that to the fact that it's relatively easy to co-develop for 360 and PC and things really aren't looking too rosey for sony.
Newell says the Cell is nothing special. I would think that he knows far better than anyone else in this forum. From what I've seen first-hand, the Cell has done nothing to differentate itself from the rest apart from being a bit crap to design with and develop games for.
I love how even a year on, all the Sony gushers are still sprouting theory over practice.
Practice > Theory.
That theory also comes in large part from the Sony Hype ******** Machine, which I'm sure you are all familiar with from the PS2 days. Toy Story graphics, Emotion Engine and George Lucas being told by Sony that he will use Playstation 2s to render Star Wars special effects. It hasn't changed one iota to this day, but some of you are still lapping it up so much it's poop-eating cringingly embarrassing. Get a reality check.
I love how even a year on, all the Sony gushers are still sprouting theory over practice.
Practice > Theory.
That theory also comes in large part from the Sony Hype ******** Machine, which I'm sure you are all familiar with from the PS2 days. Toy Story graphics, Emotion Engine and George Lucas being told by Sony that he will use Playstation 2s to render Star Wars special effects. It hasn't changed one iota to this day, but some of you are still lapping it up so much it's poop-eating cringingly embarrassing. Get a reality check.
The PS3 was intended to have a 7800gtx, more or less, running in it.
But then it sat around for another year before it got released, so its somewhat safe to assume that they went back to nvidia and got something a little tastier. Given that the much cooler 7900 graphics cards were out and all months before the ps3 went into production.
As regards Cell vs Xenon, its all a little confusing.
At the end of the day, the cell has 1 of the Xenon's 3 cores, and some extra bits. Wheter these extra bits are any good depends on how much effort a programmer puts in, and what kind of game it is. But considering that most games are still hopelessly single-threaded, getting relatively minor performance boosts from a second core or a third core... its a little up to the particular game.
But then it sat around for another year before it got released, so its somewhat safe to assume that they went back to nvidia and got something a little tastier. Given that the much cooler 7900 graphics cards were out and all months before the ps3 went into production.
As regards Cell vs Xenon, its all a little confusing.
At the end of the day, the cell has 1 of the Xenon's 3 cores, and some extra bits. Wheter these extra bits are any good depends on how much effort a programmer puts in, and what kind of game it is. But considering that most games are still hopelessly single-threaded, getting relatively minor performance boosts from a second core or a third core... its a little up to the particular game.