• 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.

PC vs Console for gaming.

The most stressfull games on consoles are running 30fps max and in the case of my PS3 dips way below that in games like graw, PS3 has no AA or AF in most games and they look like a blurry mess compared to my games on the 8800GT.
 
The most stressfull games on consoles are running 30fps max and in the case of my PS3 dips way below that in games like graw, PS3 has no AA or AF in most games and they look like a blurry mess compared to my games on the 8800GT.

Is Dirt not better on the PS3? Apparently you had extra effects and stuff in it?
 
PC for me, as said upgrading is part of the fun and not just for the sake of playing latest games at highest details. Most games I want on consoles will eventually be ported to pc anyway if not already available for pc, so I see no need for consoles.

I had a PS2 a few years back and that was brilliant because I didn't have much money to build a decent pc.
 
I was really disappointed with the PS3's performance, it is noway a match for our PC's, dirt looks like crap on the consoles anyway, especially the PS3 version with no AF, PS3 drops frames in games like the Simpson's for crying out loud. Like its been said, they are 7800 GTX performance at most and with little or no AA/AF.
 
I was really disappointed with the PS3's performance, it is noway a match for our PC's, dirt looks like crap on the consoles anyway, especially the PS3 version with no AF, PS3 drops frames in games like the Simpson's for crying out loud. Like its been said, they are 7800 GTX performance at most and with little or no AA/AF.

Its GPU is something like a 7800GT I think. I remember when I was into console gaming reading up on the PS3 and it was going to be oh so big and powerfull and beat the xbox 360, did it hell as :o, I remember seeing this model thing of it and it apparently sucked the disks in, was well weird :p
 
The PS3's performance was definatley a dissapointment for pretty much everyone, delayed for almost 2 years and loads of cutbacks meant it quickly went from Sonys speech about how amazingly powerfull it was with 2TF of processing power. To being an overpriced pr disaster.
 
Its GPU is something like a 7800GT I think.

No the ps3's gpu is faster than a 7800gtx. Some nice games are also being released on it now. For the first time its also taken over sales of the wii in japan. Just taking developers a lot more time to unlock its power compared to the easier to code for xbox 360. Think 1 game that showed its true power was oblivion which was better looking than the xbox 360 version and as good as the pc's according to some reviews.
 
i am and have allways been a pc gamer (i do not own any consoles)
but if you think the pc will allways beat the console (power wise) you are a fool.
in five yrs a console dedicated to gaming will own any pc.

that is what i predict anyway.

that's just what i think.

Yes for a few months same as the Xbox, then 360 was until refresh of PC GPU's ;)

And again the PS3 had a GPU that was a Alpha/Hybrid type 7900 series, better than a 7800GTX at that time not sure on a 7900GTX which came later but far behind now.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, come next year, the supposed '1TF' graphics cards alone will have more theoretical pushing power than the entire PS3 unit.
 
Console graphics look fine until the number of jagged edges ruin every single game.

Anti-aliasing... I only miss it when it's not there. And consoles don't have it.
 
To be fair, come next year, the supposed '1TF' graphics cards alone will have more theoretical pushing power than the entire PS3 unit.

I think I should note, it is hard to draw direct comparison between consoles and PCs in terms of Tflops or other 'raw power' comparisons. In general, consoles make much better use of their resources as the code running on them can be better tailored to the specific system - no compensations have to be made.

Also, as we upgrade our PCs each year with better cards, the developers will each year learn how to better utilise the full potential of the hardware.

Just my thoughts. Personally, I have my PC for fancy games and a retro console collection. No next-gen stuff here :p

-dissy
 
Console graphics look fine until the number of jagged edges ruin every single game.

Anti-aliasing... I only miss it when it's not there. And consoles don't have it.

Wrong consoles do have aa but its upto the games designer to put it in. I played my xbox 360 on my 50 inch tv so even if the game does have 4x aa it still looks jaggy swapped it onto my monitor and the games don't look jaggy at all.
 
Ew. Ew. Ew.

Some of those jaggies are really quite bad.

Would've thought the devs would've taken advantage of some of that eDRAM tech, now wouldn't you? O-o

Bioshock on my X1650 Pro looks far better than that...
 
I think the visuals on the game look pretty nice but yea they should have added in more aa to finish of the look. Not sure they even put in any aa at all looking at those screenies.
 
When I played Halo3 on my m8's xbox360 I did not notice any jaggies, but it was a fairly small screen, 19 or 22" screen and about 2-3 meter away from it.
 
Tbh i play cod 4 and eve online both games that i would rather play on a pc but you can't beat a console when you got all yer mates at your house. Driving games, fighting games, sports games are all imo better played on a console.
 
Back
Top Bottom