are all ps3 games 720p

BrianStephan said:
Also true will start saving now for a better pc lol. Only advantage is you can play any ps3 game without having to have the problem with your hardware isnt good enough ;-P
Click to expand...

Therein lies possibly the BIGGEST attraction for many gamers!
 
Would much rather play games on my PC than my PS3. But i am restricted by console only games. If all PS3 / Xbox games came out on PC i would never even touch a console.
 
Actually there are still a good number of games running at 720p. At least 60% of them. Can't show you any proof though. It's my own personal estimation.

BUT it doesn't really matter that much if you look at the last 3 CoD games running at a mere 1024x600 and still looking a lot better than most of the 720p native games. And the 60fps is a huge bonus as well.
 
Last edited:
sn3rd said:
All prices taken from http://www.pcint.co.za

G31MXP - Foxconn G31 motherboard : R381
Pentium 2.6 Dual Core E5300(800FSB 1MB) LGA 775Pin : R552
2GB DDRII-800 : R443
Geforce GTS 220 512MB : R637
Total so far: R2013. That kicks the crap out of an XBox 360 Arcade in "raw performance".

Didn't include a chassis and power supply?
Midi Tower Case + 300W PSU Black 2x Front USB : R192
Total = R2205.

Too much over R2000? Ok, swap the Geforce GTS 220 512MB for a Geforce GTS 210 512MB.
Now the total INCLUDING chassis and power supply comes to R2022.
Click to expand...

Would love to see these 2 pitted against each other :) Would put my money on the xbox360 though :o
 
What about the PS3 then? The biggest question here is then is it better to go for a great computer rather than a PS3/Box when it comes picture quality?
 
The same argument applies. A PS3 costs R1700 more than an entry-level XBox, so that could be spent on a much better graphics card and/or better processor.

A PC will always give better performance and picture quality, as well as a better bang-for-buck ratio.

But a console allows you to play certain games that are ONLY available on a console. In addition, the ability to just buy a game (without thinking if your console has a good enough graphics card), put it in and play it is a HUGE attraction for many.

Personally, I find that certain games (racing games, sport-simulations) are better on a console, while others (FPS, RTS) are better on a PC.

Making the decision isn't as straightforward as answering the questions "which performs better" or "which gives better picture quality".
 
sn3rd said:
A PC will always give better performance and picture quality, as well as a better bang-for-buck ratio.
Click to expand...
thats debatable. my expensive pc cant play all the games at full detail. my graphics card alone costs as much as an xbox.

the bang-for-buck argument only holds true if you pirate.
 
That quoted PC above will never play a game at the equivalent resolution of an Xbox 360 or PS3, you've also forgotten the price of the OS in that too. So you looking at an entry level PC that will not play the latest games at a resolution above 1024x768, RAW computing power that PC still won't beat a PS3 or an Xbox 360.
 
Lupus said:
That quoted PC above will never play a game at the equivalent resolution of an Xbox 360 or PS3, you've also forgotten the price of the OS in that too. So you looking at an entry level PC that will not play the latest games at a resolution above 1024x768, RAW computing power that PC still won't beat a PS3 or an Xbox 360.
Click to expand...

Well since we're not comparing apples with apples...

Linux? Shown to be a capable gaming platform.

In terms of raw computing power, that PC will ANNIHILATE a PS3 or XBox... Do the math.
 
eye_suc said:
thats debatable. my expensive pc cant play all the games at full detail. my graphics card alone costs as much as an xbox.

the bang-for-buck argument only holds true if you pirate.
Click to expand...

But full detail on a PC is FAR above the visual quality on a console.

Remember to turn your resolution down to 1024 x 600, then let your monitor do the upscaling for you.
 
BrianStephan said:
Does it make any diffrence running it off a full hd lcd computer screen or full hd tv?
Click to expand...

Not really. Monitors tend to look better, though, due to their smaller size (higher pixel density).
 
I bought a 23 inch 70000:1 samsung monitor and got it connected full hd and for me it looks great
 
sn3rd said:
Well since we're not comparing apples with apples...

Linux? Shown to be a capable gaming platform.

In terms of raw computing power, that PC will ANNIHILATE a PS3 or XBox... Do the math.
Click to expand...

Really then why do some companies prefer clustering PS3's running Linux then having one of your cheap desktop PC's? For raw computing power the PS3 will annihilate that PC, the Xbox 360 possibly too. You've forgotten to take into account MHZ doesn't necessarily mean pure computing power. Especially when you consider the GT210 and GT220 are low level entry GFX cards, their pretty much slightly above onboard GFX cards. Do not think throwing larger numbers around makes that PC automatically better. You've also got to look at how each system handles processes too, the PC would be better at certain tasks then the two consoles, but at pure numbers game the consoles will win.
 
Lupus said:
Really then why do some companies prefer clustering PS3's running Linux then having one of your cheap desktop PC's? For raw computing power the PS3 will annihilate that PC, the Xbox 360 possibly too. You've forgotten to take into account MHZ doesn't necessarily mean pure computing power. Especially when you consider the GT210 and GT220 are low level entry GFX cards, their pretty much slightly above onboard GFX cards. Do not think throwing larger numbers around makes that PC automatically better. You've also got to look at how each system handles processes too, the PC would be better at certain tasks then the two consoles, but at pure numbers game the consoles will win.
Click to expand...

Companies actually prefer clustering PCs :)

Who mentioned large numbers? And I'm well versed in the pitfalls of the Megahertz myth, thank you. You're not taking into account the differences in architecture.

Console: max 10 cores? (both CPU and GPU)
PC: WAY more.

A Geforce 210 already has 16 cores:
Code: 
Device 0: "GeForce 210"
  CUDA Driver Version:                           3.0
  CUDA Runtime Version:                          3.0
  CUDA Capability Major revision number:         1
  CUDA Capability Minor revision number:         2
  Total amount of global memory:                 536150016 bytes
  Number of multiprocessors:                     2
 [B] Number of cores:                               16[/B]
  Total amount of constant memory:               65536 bytes
  Total amount of shared memory per block:       16384 bytes
  Total number of registers available per block: 16384
  Warp size:                                     32
  Maximum number of threads per block:           512
  Maximum sizes of each dimension of a block:    512 x 512 x 64
  Maximum sizes of each dimension of a grid:     65535 x 65535 x 1
  Maximum memory pitch:                          2147483647 bytes
  Texture alignment:                             256 bytes
  Clock rate:                                    1.55 GHz

How well does that scale? Well...

Code: 
Device 0: "GeForce GTX 295"
  CUDA Driver Version:                           3.0
  CUDA Runtime Version:                          3.0
  CUDA Capability Major revision number:         1
  CUDA Capability Minor revision number:         3
  Total amount of global memory:                 939327488 bytes
  Number of multiprocessors:                     30
 [B] Number of cores:                               240[/B]
  Total amount of constant memory:               65536 bytes
  Total amount of shared memory per block:       16384 bytes
  Total number of registers available per block: 16384
  Warp size:                                     32
  Maximum number of threads per block:           512
  Maximum sizes of each dimension of a block:    512 x 512 x 64
  Maximum sizes of each dimension of a grid:     65535 x 65535 x 1
  Maximum memory pitch:                          2147483647 bytes
  Texture alignment:                             256 bytes
  Clock rate:                                    1.24 GHz
And in this case, there are 2 devices for a total of 480 cores. That's not including the CPU cores.

Why do scientists like using the PS3? Well because it gives them access to the Cell Broadband Engine. This includes 1 Power Processing Element (PPE), which delegates tasks to the subordinate 7 Synergistic Processing Elements (SPEs). This allows the PS3 to execute "many" instructions in parallel, and is a major reason why this is so popular.

But this is exactly what even entry-level GPUs are able to do.

International Conference onField Programmable Logic and Applications, 2009.
We demonstrate speedups of 3 - 182 times for a Xilinx Virtex5 LX 330T, 1.3 - 33 times for an IBM Cell, and 3 - 131 times for an NVIDIA 9600 GT GPU over a 3 GHz Intel Xeon 5160 implementation for a variety of single-precision device models.
Click to expand...
And that's only for a 9600GT!

2007 International Symposium on Field-Programmable Custom Computing Machines
Implementation Speedup over CPU
GPU 3.1
Cell 8.0
Click to expand...
(for nVidia 7900GTX vs Cell Broadband)
Great, the Cell is less than 3 times better than a GPU from 2006??

Computing in Science & Engineering, May/June 2008, Volume 10, Issue 3
The next incarnation promises
to include a fully pipelined doubleprecision
unit that will deliver the
speed of 12.8 Gflop/s from a single
SPE clocked at 3.2 GHz and 102.4
Gflop/s from an eight-SPE system...
Click to expand...

According to Wikipedia, the GT 220 alone can achieve a theoretical 192 GFLOPS.

I could go on all day if you like :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X